Faithfully Forward:

Redesigning FCC’s Governance for Greater Impact

2025 Bylaws Proposal

Goals of Governance Change

Simplify the structure to the necessary elected governance roles, processes, and guidelines in order to reduce complexity, allow greater flexibility, and free up even more energy for mission and vision.

Clarify roles, responsibilities, and accountability for leaders and members of the church in order to eliminate confusion, reduce overlap, and increase efficiency.

Empower more people to serve on ministry teams, reducing barriers to service and reserving nominations, elections, and term limits only for governing roles.

Key Challenges of Current Governance

Alignment with Best Practices: our 2006 bylaws are rooted in a church governance model from the 1940s. Our existing structure does not align with our Covenant denomination's recommended model of governance, which is used by nearly all of our sister Covenant churches.

Sustainability: our current structure requires sixty-seven (67) elected positions, more than 20% of our current membership. Keeping these positions filled year after year is incredibly time-consuming and has become unsustainable.

Capacity: service on a ministry board often requires sacrificing participation in mission-focused activities.

Efficiency: seven ministry boards report to the Church Board. Overlapping responsibility and authority, as well as varying meeting schedules, slows down decision-making and action.

Women in Ministry: our current governance divides Deacon and Deaconess roles and responsibilities by gender rather than giftedness. Our current bylaws also use exclusively male pronouns in reference to the lead pastor, despite our denomination's egalitarian stance on female pastors.

Flexibility: our current structure limits our ability to adapt to meet the ever-changing needs of our congregation, community, and world.

Read the committee's full Rationale Statement.

Key Features of Proposed Structure

Simplified Annual Elections: from sixty-seven elected governing positions to fifteen. (Updated 11/6/2025)

All Church Board members are directly elected by congregation. (Graphic Updated 11/6/2025)

Continuity of Ministry, Discipleship, and Care through Ministry Teams.

Flexibility to add, change, or discontinue ministry teams according to the needs of the church.

Emphasis on ministry through service with fewer limitations or barriers to serving.

Stronger accountability for church staff and lay leaders.

Frequently Asked Questions

Updated 12/3/2025

What are the major benefits and drawbacks of the current structure?

Benefits

- The current structure includes detailed specifications for various important governing and ministry roles at FCC.
- The current structure is based on a deliberative and distributed decision-making model reducing workload for the Church Board.
- The current structure encourages much congregational involvement in governance and in some ministry areas.

Drawbacks

- Many of the roles included in the current structure are ministry-related, not needing to be specified in a governance document.
- The current Bylaws include limited discussion of staff, and there is overlap in responsibilities between activities led by Ministry Boards and those led by staff. This results in confusion regarding pathways for decision making. Examples include overlapping between the Christian Education Board and Deacon Boards on one hand and staff-led teams on the other and decisions regarding facility use for non-church functions.
- Gender-specific roles are not in alignment with the current Biblical understanding of our church and our denomination.
- Filling the required elected positions is often difficult, and we have not been successful in filling these roles for the past number of years. This puts us out of compliance with our current bylaws

What are the major changes in the new proposed structure?

The overarching goal of the proposed change would be to simplify a governance document to essential governance functions. This is not meant to imply more or less importance to any church functions.

Primary governance is assigned to a single Church Board with the support of Committees.

Service Ministry roles are separated from governance and have a more flexible structure.

What are the major benefits and drawbacks of the proposed structure?

Benefits

- Ministry structure is more flexible and separate from fixed Governance structure.
- Focuses the Bylaws on its core as a non-profit governance document for key governance roles.
- The entire Church Board is directly selected by the congregation which will encourage more transparency and accountability.
- Reduces the number of elected governance positions.

Drawbacks

- Fewer members of the congregation are in elected, governance-related roles for the church.

- Fewer ministry roles are elected by the congregation.

Why did the committee go with a whole new governance structure instead of trying to update pieces of the existing bylaws and structure?

There was feedback that we should pause our work and consider how we might be able to operate within our current framework rather than continue with the more significant change we are proposing. This might mean reducing the current number of active ministry boards or the number of required elected leaders to the boards. That could be a valid approach, but our committee felt we wanted to put forward the best proposal that would more fully address the challenges of our current structure such as mixing governance with ministry, and the overlapping decision-making responsibilities between boards.

The proposed structure is consistent with one of the three ECC governance templates, another of which is similar to the current FCC structure. Because of the concerns with the existing structure, it seemed wise to move towards another template structure that many ECC churches have successfully used.

What has changed between the initial draft shared in 2025 vs. the final proposal?

Thanks to all who made suggestions or had questions. We appreciate your commitment and effort to help the process, and we believe the resulting proposal is much improved as a result. Please see the provided red-lined document to see the exact changes we made.

Some of the biggest changes are:

- Changing the Church Board to a fixed 9 members instead of a range from 7 to 9. Our original intent had been that 9 was the ideal number but gave allowance for it to drop lower if the needs of FCC changed in the future. This created ambiguity and complications on how to discern when a reduction in size might be appropriate, so changing this back to a fixed 9 addressed those concerns.

- Rewording to provide additional clarification or precision in language and removing redundancies.

- Adding provisions based on recommendations from an independent legal review. This included basic items like naming our principal address as 4000 Redwood Road and spelling out the date of the fiscal year, to more significant changes like adding wording around Insurance and Indemnification, as well as Conflicts of Interest.

- Correcting typographical errors.

Can there be a red-line version showing the differences between our current Bylaws and the proposal?

The proposal represents a significant realignment in lay governance structure from our current Bylaws. In addition, many provisions have been added to improve accountability and protect the church. Given the extensive differences with our current structure, we don’t feel a document comparing each detail would be very useful for most. We welcome any questions regarding specific provisions or governance functions in the proposal and how they compare to our current governance.

How many elected positions are specified in the current structure and in the proposed structure. We don’t currently elect 67 leaders every year, do we?

The current structure requires 67 elected leaders. Most terms are for 3 years and are staggered, so we need to elect around 20 new members to open positions each year. It should be noted that in a given year the 40+ members continuing in their positions and any members just terming out of leadership are not part of the pool of members eligible for filling the open positions.

The proposed structure requires 15 elected leaders with similar staggered 3-year terms, so around 5 new members need to be elected to open leadership positions each year. One benefit to this smaller number is that we could get to know our candidates better before voting them in. Currently, the intent would not be to provide multiple candidates to run off against each other.

Isn’t the reduction in size of the Church Board a consolidation of power? How would accountability work?

At its core, yes - having fewer people on the Church Board does mean that there is a concentration of decision-making authority. That is why the congregation knowing better and trusting our elected leaders will be so important.

At the same time, we feel that accountability is significantly strengthened in our proposal by the following:

- First, the entire Church Board would be directly elected by the congregation instead of just half in our current structure.

- Second, we have added provisions for how the congregation can remove Church Board members. Our current bylaws do not contain these provisions.

- Lastly, we have also strengthened our bylaws by including an Article addressing Conflicts of Interest. Elected leaders, including Church Board members, will be required to submit written conflicts of interest statements annually to ensure they are not involved in decisions where those conflicts may exist.

How can we trust that the Nominating Committee is finding the right leaders to nominate for elected positions?

The Nominating Committee currently works to find candidates for our elections each year. Despite their best faith effort, there are often gaps in being able to fill all open positions. This actually puts us out of compliance with our bylaws. Even without a full ballot, the number of new leaders we as a congregation need to vote on makes it nearly impossible for all of our nominees to be well known by the congregation. While we trust the work of the Nominating Committee, it becomes an exercise in rubber stamping the ballot.

In the new structure, the reduced total number of elected leaders will mean a smaller number of open positions needing to be filled each year. This means two things:

- First, that we as the congregation, have an increased responsibility to elect the right leaders to serve FCC. We need to believe that these leaders will enable FCC to take our mission forward and trust them to do their work with integrity.

- Second, we hope the congregation will have the opportunity to get to know our candidates better before voting on them. This isn’t about a popularity contest or campaigning, but perhaps there would be a way for us to hear directly from our nominees or be able to read bios so that at the annual meeting, they aren’t simply names on a ballot.

In the new structure, where does spiritual direction come from amongst elected leaders?

There has been some concern expressed that the proposal does not mention Deacons or Elders, and there could be a void in the spiritual care and direction of the church. We understand this is also confusing because the terms Deacon and Elder have specific, and different, meanings to many people based on the Scriptures and previous contexts.

There is ambiguity in our current Bylaws which assign both the Church Board and the Deacon Board responsibility over the spiritual welfare of the church. In our proposal, the Church Board would serve as our Elders. It is envisioned that those selected for nomination to the Church Board would be reviewed with regard to spiritual qualifications.

The Church Board, along with Lead Pastor, have oversight over the spiritual health, vision, and ministries of the church. The Lead Pastor and hired ministry staff have the function (and training) to provide spiritual direction to congregants broadly, including elected leaders.

How will the work of existing Ministry Boards that are not recognized as Standing Committees be done (e.g. facilities, missions, deacons)?

In no way do we envision the work of these important boards being left undone under the new structure. We expect the Church Board, staff, and congregation will work together to define various Ministry Teams or Committees as appropriate to continue the important functions of these boards, just as critical children’s, youth, senior, and worship ministries (among others) continue now without formal board oversight. While this will most likely create additional oversight functions for the Church Board members, it will provide desired flexibility to the staffing of these Ministry Teams and Committees that can be “right sized” in proportion to current, respective needs for the church.

Facilities

It was recommended that the title and purpose of the Finance Committee be re-named to the Trustee Committee, which would encompass both the financial and facility aspects representative of the 1965 Bylaws framework of a Trustee model. Management of the facilities is a year-around mission of the church to properly steward the tangible property of the church, requiring a team that is prepared to identify areas of concern as well as opportunities to leverage the campus for greater effectiveness for God’s Kingdom.

- Our campus is one of our greatest physical assets and we need to care for it. It is so important that without a doubt, we will still need people passionate about our facilities to be serving in this area. We envision that the currently elected Facilities Board would be asked to stay on as we setup a facilities team or teams.

- We suggest that two related ministry teams be established - one that is focused on planning around capital projects and improvements to our campus, and a second that consists of people who want to roll their sleeves up and do some of the project work - such as campus beautification, maintenance projects, etc.

- One of the lynch pins that holds this work together would be the forthcoming Director of Operations staff position, experienced in facilities and financial management, working closely with the facilities teams.

- From a governance perspective, the facilities teams would be a recommending body to the Church Board, and facilities team members may be called in an advisory capacity to present findings or recommendations to the Board.

Missions

Input was solicited from recent chairs and members of the Missions Board. They all expressed that the work of the Missions Board -- and especially the chair of that board -- is “enormous.” The Missions Board has a holistic function in serving a number of missionaries, both local and global, along with mission partners and outreaches. Two suggestions made were to include a standing Missions Committee in the current proposal and to create a part-time staff position to coordinate and lead our efforts with the support of Ministry Team(s).

- We agree that missions is a vital ministry, fundamental to our vision as a church. As we mentioned in our informational meetings, our governance structure specified in the bylaws (current and proposed) is in no way representative of the relative importance of various church ministries but focuses primarily on the administrative church functions.

- We recommend under the new structure that multiple local and global missions teams be established. It is also a possibility for the Church Board to establish an Ad Hoc Committee focused on missions.

Deacon Boards

There is some confusion as to the nature of the boards due to the current name. Our current Bylaws mostly focus on congregational care functions of the deacons, while in many church denominations and traditions and in the Scriptures, “deacons” hold a relatively elevated, spiritual position. Many churches equate deacons and elders. Our current and proposed bylaws structures have the Church Board as the overarching elected governing board, with the congregation having authority above the Church Board. In that sense, neither the current nor proposed bylaws have elders or deacons similar to these other models.

We recognize that some current boards manage funds, such as the deacon benevolence fund and missions support, and that there may be concern about non-elected positions overseeing these funds. There are multiple ways that such work could continue with adequate financial oversight and sensitivity, but we do not see the bylaws governance document as a necessary place to define how the work will continue. The Church Board and congregation would have the flexibility to pilot different forms of fulfilling these functions, which is a key feature of the proposed structural change.

Since the Church Board won’t have direct representation from the Ministry Teams, how will the Board know what Ministry Teams are doing? How will the congregation know what is happening with Ministry Teams?

Currently, the Church Board keeps informed of issues that need their attention through the Lead Pastor, other staff, and lay ministry leaders. Some of these lay ministry leaders are on the Church Board as chairs of their respective Ministry Boards, and others are not a part of the formal church governance. While the contribution of Ministry Board chairs to the knowledge and decision-making of the Church Board is not insignificant, there are multiple other avenues for information and topics to come to the Board.

There are many important ministry teams in operation today, such as prayer, children’s, and youth ministries. Communication to the congregation on the efforts of these teams occurs informally through regular worship service and email updates to interested parties, and formally at least once a year through the annual report. In addition, the Church Board and Lead Pastor, as well as the congregation, would retain authority over any ministries at the church and could request updates as needed.

Other possible improvements in communication with the congregation might be:

- The Church Board or Ministry Teams themselves providing some more regular communications to the congregation highlighting ongoing ministry work.

- An annual ministry fair. This would be an opportunity for people to be informed as well as find new opportunities to jump into ministry work.

How are Ministry Teams set up? Can only members serve as leaders? How do we vet non-members serving? Will there be some ministries comprised only of members?

Ministry Teams would be initiated by the Pastoral Staff or the Church Board. One benefit of the new bylaws is not being overly prescriptive regarding areas that are not essential to church governance, such as the composition of Ministry Teams or Church Board committees. The proposed structure would provide flexibility to the Church Board and church staff to set Ministry Team policy and team membership as warranted by the demographics being served. Yes, it’s likely that some Ministry Teams would include only FCC members. For instance, it is possible that a membership review committee would warrant composition of only church members, but a men’s ministry committee may not. That being said, the requirement that Team Leaders be members of the church or staff members ensures some accountability to the Church Board and congregation.

How often should the bylaws be updated?

It is our thought that this should be a regular check-in. As big a lift as putting together this proposal has been, and regardless of whether this proposal passes, we suggest that best practice would be to make updates to the bylaws a regular occurrence. The Church Board should be looking every year or two at what may need to be updated, and we certainly shouldn’t go another 20 years without any updates.

This regular practice and presentation of smaller changes will allow this to become a much more streamlined process. As we’ve mentioned before, we expect the current proposal may need fine tuning over time if passed, and a regular look at our bylaws will allow us to make those changes.

What is church governance?

Church governance can be described as the structural and procedural guidelines for the membership, leadership, business, and fiduciary affairs of the church.

Most Christian churches use one of three types of church governance: Episcopalian, with a priest or bishop as the highest governing authority; Presbyterian, with a group of elders as the highest governing authority; and Congregational, with the members of the congregation holding the highest governing authority.

FCC is a congregational church and would remain a congregational church under the proposed changes.

What are the Church Constitution and Church Bylaws and why do we need these documents?

Each non-profit 501(c)3 organization is required to maintain governing documents, which define who the organization is and how it will govern itself.

FCC’s Constitution spells out the church’s name, purpose, statement of faith, affiliations, membership, board, annual meetings, claim to assets, and processes for amending the constitution. The Bylaws Committee is not recommending any amendments to FCC’s constitution at this time.

FCC’s Bylaws are a set of articles that further define how the church is to govern itself, structure its leadership and conduct its business. These include further instructions for membership, the church board, the lead pastor, church staff, committees, nominations, elections, meetings, and bylaw amendments.

How can the church change its Bylaws?

FCC's current bylaws outline the process for amending our bylaws. The congregation may amend its bylaws at a congregational meeting by a two-thirds supermajority vote of members present and voting. Bylaw amendments must not conflict with the Church Constitution and must be submitted in writing at a congregational business meeting a minimum of sixty days prior to the vote.

If approved, when would these changes take effect?

If approved in January 2026, the Bylaws Committee envisions the following timeline for implementation. A Transition Team appointed by the Church Board will begin developing the policies and procedures outlined in the amended bylaws shortly after the January meeting. The current Nominating Committee will begin the process of recruiting candidates for new elected roles through February and March. Elections to fill the roles established by the new structure would take place at the Annual Meeting in May. Finally, our elected leaders would officially take office in September to align with our fiscal year.