The discussion about church structure versus mission is like an in-church version of the spiritual--or--religious "question" in wider society. It might be trendy to say, "I'm spiritual but not religious" or "I'm into mission but not organised church" but if we think about such statements more carefully, they don't make a lot of sense. Whenever two "spiritual" people begin talking about spirituality and perhaps working together or holding each other accountable to what they say they believe, they are doing religion and to step away from that diminishes their spirituality. Similarly, to argue against or resist every form of church organisation diminishes mission.

The challenge is not choosing one over the other--structure without mission is pointless, mission without structure is chaotic and frustrating--it is getting them in the right balance. Jesus did suggest that His life and death would establish a church (see Matthew 16:18) but much more than joining an organisation, His focus was on calling people to participate in the kingdom of God that was now near (see Matthew 10:7). In Jesus' vision, this kingdom was a shorthand way of describing the mission of God to lift up the last, the least and the lost (see Luke 4:18, 19).

Even for Jesus, mission came first and church was what happened when a group of His followers got together to grow and share that mission. As such, church structure must serve this mission and will often arise from the mission and its progress.

This pattern continued in the early Christian church described in Acts. As the group of believers grew and new needs arose, church leaders created new roles and appointed people to minister to meet these needs.

For example, the first deacons were appointed after a meeting called by the Twelve to discuss the distribution of food to widows. "Now look around among yourselves, brothers," they said, "and select seven men who are well respected and are full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom. We will put them in charge of this business. Then we can spend our time in prayer and preaching and teaching the word" (Acts 6:3, 4). In turn, this contributed to the emerging church's mission and "God's message was preached in ever-widening circles" (Acts 6:7).

Everywhere Peter, Paul, Barnabas and the other early missionaries travelled, people responded to their message, were baptised as followers of Jesus and these new believers were organised into church groups. These church groups were the recipients of the letters from apostles such as Peter, Paul and John that are collected through much of the remainder of the New Testament. Not surprisingly, a recurring theme in these letters is how these church groups should operate as "the body of Christ" (see, for example, Romans 12:5).

Later in the story of these first Christians, the success of their mission brought different cultures and ways of believing into conflict. This led to the first international council of church leaders (see Acts 15) to answer some of the difficult questions raised by cross-cultural mission. The outcome was an "official" church statement and delegation--"So it seemed good to us, having unanimously agreed on our decision, to send you these official representatives" (Acts 15:25)--to share the conclusions of the council.

Paul, who was much involved with these early "structures," explained the complementary roles different individuals might serve within the church community as God-ordained: "He is the one who gave these gifts to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers. Their responsibility is to equip God's people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:11, 12, see also 1 Corinthians 12:27, 28). Clearly, the division of roles and labour along such lines of giftedness dictates some kind of organisation or structure for the specific purpose of mission-equipping God's people, doing God's work and building up the church.

As the church grew rapidly, components of what we would now recognise as an ordered and structured church grew to meet the needs of members, allow for the greater progress of the church's mission and address issues and questions that arose in the church's life together. These structures grew in response to mission and its success and were adapted to the dynamic nature of the mission and members it served.

In his history of structure and organisation in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, George Knight traces a similar progression in the interplay between mission and organisation in its different stages. He suggests the Adventist church is in the third cycle of organisation, facing a new set of questions raised by the successes of the church's mission and identity. The past major organisation and restructuring of the church, beginning in 1860 and 1901 respectively, have been focused on mission.

According to Knight, the key question is "whether the denomination is still flexible enough to change, or whether the onset of structural rigor mortis will win out. In many ways the issue underlying that question is one of identity. That is, will Adventism in the twenty-first century gain its identity from its structures (and institutions) or from its mission?" (Organizing for Mission and Growth).

The call of Jesus is to mission, not structure, but church organisation--at its best--can and should serve this mission. And we need to be prepared and able to change these structures at times to better assist this mission. In doing this, we must measure church structures by their contribution to serving the world, our communities and our nations; by how they assist in lifting up the downtrodden and sharing hope; by how God's people are equipped to do His work.