The Consensus Camel

Perhaps you’ve heard a version of the saying “a camel is a horse designed by church committee.” The statement is a bit unfair, but also quite humorous. It’s humorous because there’s an element of truth to it. But it’s unfair because any group of people—not just committees—can lose sight of the original goal.

What creates a camel out of a horse? There’s a lurking danger in every team brainstorming session and every committee meeting. It’s consensus. Most probably think of consensus positively—the majority of opinion wins. The problem with consensus is not that the majority rules. Consensus is not always bad. The problem with consensus is how a group of people can get to the point of majority.

How can the process of consensus turn ugly? It’s when no one gets everything they wanted, when everyone gets something they wanted, and when most can live with the outcome. When a group comes to a decision through this process, I call it a “consensus camel.”

What are some ways to avoid consensus camels in the church?

Avoid diversity. In most situations, diversity is the ideal. In all cases, it is good to have ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic diversity. But some groups don’t need to be diverse from the perspective of technical experience. For example, the AV team/committee needs people who understand technology and have eyes and ears for excellence in worship. The discipleship team/committee needs people who understand education resources. The finance team/committee needs people who actually like numbers. I’m sure you get the point. The problems is that it’s entirely too easy to fill an empty spot with someone who is willing to serve. This person, at best, simply occupies the empty seat quietly, and at worst they distract the vision with irrelevant opinions. [The one exception to this rule would be to train someone who is interested in a particular aspect of ministry but has little experience.]

Guide the group. On the front end! As a church leader, don’t be afraid to tell teams and committees exactly what you believe needs to happen. But give them a crystallized vision. Don’t muddy the waters with vague and general concepts—be specific and show the group examples. Most people greatly appreciate clear vision from leaders.

Don’t fear the reset button…on the back end. Stop the group if you see a camel forming. When teams or committees start assembling a camel, it looks like progress. After all, camels and horses can do many of the same things. The problem is that while everyone may be able to live with the camel, it’s not what is truly needed. Consensus can be a dangerous compromise—start over if you need to.

Any additional tips on how to thwart the consensus camel? Any funny stories out there about some misshapen horses?

Figuring Out What Ideas Fit

One of the blessings of leading a church is equipping the saints and watching God work through them. One of the challenges of leading a church is knowing when to redirect a passionate church member’s ideas. Some ideas are easy to recognize as flops—like the time I heard from someone who wanted to buy a multi-million dollar golf course for sports ministry. It just wasn’t for us.

Most of the time, however, discernment is more difficult when passionate church members have bold and grand plans for a new ministry. No church can do everything—and the best do a few things well—which means leaders must say “no” a lot. After re-reading Jim Collin’s seminal work, Good to Great (for the third time), I’m even more sold on his Hedgehog Concept. It’s one of the best filters to help leaders figure out what ideas fit.

Collins based his Hedgehog Concept on Isaiah Berlin’s essay “The Hedgehog and the Fox.” The basic thrust of the work is that the world is divided into two broad categories: hedgehogs and foxes. Foxes pursue many complex things at the same time, while hedgehogs do one big, simple thing.

How do you determine what your one big, simple thing is? Collins offers a three-part filter: what are you passionate about? What can you be the best in the world at? What drives your economic engine? When all three intersect, that’s when you’ve got a Hedgehog Concept.

Collins’ book was about corporations. My father shaped the same concept for churches in his book, Breakout Churches. He called it the VIP—Vision Intersection Profile. His three-part filter included these questions: What are the passion and gifts of the congregation? What’s the driving vision of the leaders of the church? And what are the community needs?

I recently shaped the concept again for my staff (all good ideas are borrowed from somewhere, right?). I challenged them to use the below filter for placing people in ministry positions or moving forward with a ministry plan.



It’s a simple idea. It’s not perfect, nor is it novel. But it’s something I often forget because I can easily get swept into passionate ideas. And passion is critically important, but it’s only one component of figuring out what ideas fit.

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…