Three years ago, I moved from my role in Year 13 to head up Youthworks Outdoors, the camping and conferencing arm of our Diocese.

Within a few months in the chair, I made the decision to make significant changes to the roles and responsibilities of the key leaders in the organisation.

Originally, each of our three main outdoor centres had its own centre director. This person had a wide range of responsibilities and duties.

On the one hand, they had to be an expert in Word ministry to children and youth, being skilled in recruiting and training outdoor ministers, and delivering cutting-edge, faithful Biblical ministry to the thousands of students who join us each year.

On the other hand, this leader had to be an expert in running a conference business, managing the catering, maintenance and hospitality of the centre, amongst many other things.

As we looked to expand it seemed clear to me that it was going to be a real challenge to recruit people expert in both outdoor ministry and conference centre management.

So, instead of having a director at each of the three centres, I now appointed a Director of Venues (to look after the running of all our conference centres), a Director of Programs (to look after the outdoor ministry we deliver to our school groups), a Director of Outdoor Ministry Training and Development (to lead the training of our MTS Outdoor Ministry Apprentices), as well as a Director of Outdoor Recreation Training and a Director of Sales, Marketing and Events.

On the whole, this has been a great step forward in having experts in these key roles, who can lead and develop their teams in their specialties (and supply the many things that are lacking in my own experience and skills).

However, what I did not expect to see was a growing trend in some of our larger Sydney Anglican churches to adopt a similar approach of specialist ministers.

In my home church in the 1990s, we had a staff team of around ten people. Some of those members were specialists, whether in children's or youth ministry, or in administration.

But on the whole, the fully-trained and ordained ministers each were given relative autonomy over one of the four congregations of the church.

It was as if we had four separate churches within the one (parish) church, and that leader was hands-on and accessible to all of the congregational members.

It had some distinct advantages. Each congregation could enjoy the benefits of being in a small church (congregation), whilst also drawing upon the resources of a larger church (parish), such as combined youth ministry and administration.

Plus, it meant that each minister was able to preach the word of God to his congregation most weeks, and be hands-on in most of the roles of the congregation.

It also meant that when it was time to plant a new church (congregation) we could simply add a new minister, grab some keen beans in the congregation, and start a whole new group, with its renewed enthusiasm for growth.

However, the alternative has some benefits. It means that each minister can specialise in a different area.

So, someone excellent in music and liturgy can craft the best gatherings possible. The best preacher can preach most weeks to most of the parishioners. Someone particularly gifted in small group ministries can recruit, train, organise and develop the teaching material for the Bible studies. And, the person who is sharpest at evangelism can have that as their number one focus.

It can mean that the quality of the gatherings and ministries improves, and the consistency of the ministry is stronger.

A classic example of this is Saddleback Church in California, where the website refers to Rick Warren as 'Our Pastor', even though he has a ministry team larger than the number of parishioners in a normal Sydney Anglican church.

But do the members of such a large church feel a connection with the pastor, even if he's never met them before? Or, are our present parishioners so demanding of quality and expertise that they welcome the specialisation provided by this organisational structure?

Is it harder or easier to plant new congregations under this specialist model? Is it better for evangelism? Does it require less full-time staff to 'service' the congregational size, or is it heavy in middle management?

What is your experience in being a part of a large church with alternative structures? Which suited you best? Which do you think is best to improve the quality and effectiveness of our Word ministry?

Jodie McNeill is the Executive Director of Youthworks Outdoors.