Budgeting and Staffing the Simple Church

The Simple Church idea revolutionized how churches view their disciple-making process. First, the what becomes the how – a clear process flows from what disciples look like. Key programs are then placed along the process. Next, ministries are united around this process. Last, anything outside the process is eliminated.

Being a new pastor at an established church, I have begun learning all our ministries. Many of them are excellent. But my responsibility is now using these ministries to create a cohesive path for all disciples to grow. Obviously, I’m just starting to clarify the steps to make the what the how. In thinking through my vision for a discipleship process at First Baptist Murray, I’ve realized two areas that are often neglected within the simple church framework: budgeting and staffing.

Budgeting. Church leaders will get their congregation fired up about a new vision. The church will adopt a new process for making disciples. Everything becomes simple, and the majority of the church can now quote a memorable discipleship process statement. But a major problem is just below the surface: The budget line items do not match the new discipleship process. The resources remain locked up in the old paradigm. A new, clear discipleship process also requires a major overhaul of the church budget.  The simple church will never work unless the resource allocation matches the process.

Staffing. Church leaders will work for months gaining the momentum to simplify a church structure. The people will adopt a new vision statement. Ministries will begin to align. Everyone is clear on how to make a disciple. But this change will not be long-term unless the staff is aligned as well. When you radically change the discipleship process, you must also radically restructure the church staff to match the process. The simple church will never work unless ministerial responsibility and oversight matches the process.

Any thoughts from those that have successfully implemented a simple church structure? Did you also align the budget and staff?

A Simple Idea to Invigorate Corporate Prayer

You inherit a lot when you’re a new pastor at an established church. Being the new guy at FBC Murray, I did not realize until I got here how important prayer is to this church. I’ve been blessed to inherit such a healthy attitude about prayer among the people.

We pray collectively every Wednesday evening. The church recognizes the importance of both corporate and private prayer times. I love praying with my church family for many reasons, but it’s most exciting because they are so passionate.

There’s nothing specifically cutting-edge about our prayer time. We spend about a third of our time praying for missionaries we know. Another third praying for those who are sick. And another third praying for local and church-specific ministries.

Our Wednesday evenings are a wonderful time together, but what’s missing is the personal touch to those for whom we are praying. So we’ve started inviting leaders of local ministries and other community leaders to join us. We physically surround them, spiritually lifting them up in prayer. We do the same for those who are struggling personally with physical or spiritual issues. Next week, we’ll begin to Skype in missionaries from across the globe, having them join us electronically. We’ll pray for them as they listen and watch through Internet hinterland. I’m looking forward to praying with my cousin, David, and his family in Japan next week.

It’s not avant-garde, just a basic way to connect with those for whom we pray. But there’s power in a simple personal touch coupled with fervent prayer.

One of the Biggest Reasons Why Churches Decline

My wife and I are in San Diego this week at the National Outreach Convention. It’s been a great convention thus far. I had the opportunity to lead a discussion group this morning …at 7:15AM! I think most of the attendees were on central or eastern time . A person in our group asked a great question: How do you define and assess church health? We spent the next hour discussing this issue, but let me share with you one point of our discussion that is perhaps one of the most neglected church health metrics: attendance frequency.

Most churches track how many people attend, but few churches know how often people are coming. People do not simply quit church one week; they phase out. They begin by attending less frequently. This issue is one of the biggest reasons why churches decline. Understandably, a plethora of spiritual reasons exist why people attend less frequently, but many churches do not even realize that people are gradually leaving the church by attending less often.

Let me share with you a basic exercise:

Church A has 400 people that come 4 out of 4 weeks (yes, I know that’s a pipe dream, but hang with me for the sake of argument). This attendance frequency means that the church averages 400 in attendance.

Church B has 400 people that come 3 out of 4 weeks (not too bad). But this attendance frequency means that the church averages 300 in attendance.

Church C has 400 people that come on average 2 out of 4 weeks (probably more realistic). They average 200 in attendance.

I’m sure that you get the point by now. Each church has 400 people that are part of the flock, but the average attendance at Church C is much less than Church A. As attendance frequency drops, the churches have drastically smaller averages, without “losing” anyone.

I am not advocating legalism – a haughty attitude that every time the church doors are open everyone must be there. But the family that once attended almost every week and now attends ten times a year is gradually leaving the church.

Attendance frequency. It’s not the most important church health metric, but it’s one that is neglected. And it’s one of the biggest reasons that churches are declining.

I also noticed that my Dad posted on this exact same topic over at his blog. I guess I am my father’s son. It won’t be long before I’ll be singing cheesy 60s songs and telling corny jokes…

The Amiable Autocrat

I found myself last week in a friendly exchange with a ministry team leader about one line item in their budget. Then I realized I was micro-managing. Even though my intentions were good, and my tone pleasant, I was still acting like an autocrat.

Nice dictators exist, at least in the leadership sense. I refer to these types of leaders in the church as amiable autocrats. Friendly church dictators rule from their positional authority. They order everyone around because their title enables them to do so, and they do it with a smile.

Amiable autocrats are typically well-liked by the general congregation, but their teams are miserable. These church leaders genuinely like other people, but they do not want to help transform them. They enjoy bossing others, and they assume that their direct reports like it that way as well.

What does an amiable autocrat look like? Here are a few characteristics:

• They have a total lack of self-awareness. They lead from their friendliness, and they think that their relationships are enough to warrant their commands.
• They avoid conflict at all costs or anything else that may affect their friendly image.
• They project their weaknesses on others. Have you ever been reviewed by a superior only to think that he reviewed himself and gave you his score? Amiable autocrats frustrate direct reports by seeing their own faults in others.
• They are liked by outsiders, but they irritate insiders. People who report to friendly dictators typically do not despise their bosses. But these followers do feel trapped and irritated. For example, a congregation may have no clue about the leadership style of their pastor, and the direct reports cannot address the issue with the leader because he’s not self-aware enough to realize his problems.
• They’ve stolen credit from others for so long that it’s a natural process for them. They don’t even know they’re doing it anymore.
• They insist on relaying all the good news to the congregation; they also figure out ways to have others communicate bad news.
• They are optimistic about the wrong things. Friendly dictators are rarely negative, but they praise the wrong metrics. They pick the wrong team leaders. They promote the wrong people. They get the congregation fired up about the wrong vision.
• They micro-manage irrelevant details. Amiable autocrats waste hours of staff meetings discussing irrelevant topics and details. They’re more concerned with things like service order than with things like the discipleship process. They will dictate instructions on the minutia and neglect the bigger picture.

Reporting to an amiable autocrat is better than serving under a tyrant. But it is one of the most frustrating ministry positions. What other characteristics help describe an amiable autocrat? If you’ve served under someone like this, how did you handle it?

How Different Generations View the Bible

The Barna Group recently released research that reveals how attitudes about Bible usage are changing across generations. They interviewed over 1,000 people in five separate studies. They defined each generation in the study: the Mosaic generation (ages 18 to 25), the Busters (ages 26 to 44), Boomers (ages 45 to 63), and Elders (ages 64-plus).

You can read the full report here, but below are some of the differences they found between generations:

Less Sacred – While most Americans of all ages identify the Bible as sacred, the drop-off among the youngest adults is striking: 9 out of 10 Boomers and Elders described the Bible as sacred, which compares to 8 out of 10 Busters (81%) and just 2 out of 3 Mosaics (67%).

Less Accurate – Young adults are significantly less likely than older adults to strongly agree that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. Just 30% of Mosaics and 39% of Busters firmly embraced this view, compared with 46% of Boomers and 58% of Elders.

More Universalism – Among Mosaics, a majority (56%) believes the Bible teaches the same spiritual truths as other sacred texts, which compares with 4 out of 10 Busters and Boomers, and one-third of Elders.

Skepticism of Origins – Another generational difference is that young adults are more likely to express skepticism about the original manuscripts of the Bible than is true of older adults.

Less Engagement – While many young adults are active users of the Bible, the pattern shows a clear generational drop-off – the younger the person, the less likely they are to read the Bible. In particular, Busters and Mosaics are less likely than average to have spent time alone in the last week praying and reading the Bible for at least 15 minutes. Interestingly, none of the four generations were particularly likely to say they aspired to read the Bible more as a means of improving their spiritual lives.

Bible Appetite – Despite the generational decline in many Bible metrics, one departure from the typical pattern is the fact that younger adults, especially Mosaics (19%), express a slightly above-average interest in gaining additional Bible knowledge. This compares with 12% of Boomers and 9% of Elders.

So, younger generations have a greater hunger for Bible knowledge than older generations, yet they are more skeptical, read it less, and consider it less accurate. While this research is certainly discouraging on the surface, it reveals a deeper opportunity as well. If you feed the hunger for Bible knowledge through biblical depth in all areas of ministry, then perhaps you’ll see the fruit of less skepticism and a higher view of Scripture.