What metrics do you use to determine success in your church?

The definition of metrics as a means of understanding how we are doing in local church ministry is one that is gaining far more prominence. How do we know if we are doing well? How do we catch areas that are sliding? Of course that presupposes that we desire to honestly evaluate our ministries as a means of sharpening our focus and our success.

One of the keys to using metrics is to measure all that you can (the more information you have the more you will understand) and then to determine what the key non-negotiable areas of measurement should be. Our metrics, however should be driven by a New Testament definition of success rather than a cultural definition of success.

Think about these areas in your congregation, take a stab at answering them and ask whether these "indicators" or metrics would be worthwhile evaluating on an annual basis. All of these go to the health of one's church. They are not listed in any particular order.

• What is our numerical growth or decline annually?


• What is our conversion growth annually?


• Do we have an identifiable disciplemaking pathway to bring people to spiritual maturity?


• Do we have clear statements regarding our mission, our guiding principles, central ministry focus and culture?


• Do these clear statements actually impact how we do ministry?


• What is the giving per attendee per year?


• What portion of the budget is allocated for outreach or missions?


• Do we have a clear leadership coaching/training paradigm for future church leaders?


• What percentage of our adults are in small groups?


• What focus do we have as a church on Kingdom Ministries - ministries focused on our community or region?


• What focus do we have as a church on ministry "to the least of these?"


• How many individuals has our church sent into full time ministry?


• What is our annual attrition rate (people leaving the church)


• Do our governance systems hinder or facilitate the making of timely ministry decisions?


• Do board and staff have a clear definition of what role each plays?


• Do staff members operate with annual ministry plans?


• Are Elders/Leaders clear or unclear on their Biblical function and role? It that role written down?


• Is there an emphasis on spiritual transformation and a plan for how your congregation seeks to help people see personal transformation?

• Are we seeing genuine spiritual transformation taking place among our people and leaders?


• Is there an annual intentional ministry plan being driven by staff and leaders?


• What significant ministry innovation has taken place in the past 24 months?


• Is there an intentional plan to develop greater diversity within the congregation. How many ethnic groups are represented in a sizable way? What are they?


• How many of your pastors have a mentor and how many are mentoring other pastors?


• Is there a high, medium, low or non-existent level of alignment among ministries of the church?


• In what ministries is the church finding its greatest opportunity for spiritual growth, kingdom impact or evangelism?


• Does the church have an intentional process for choosing leaders based on needs and qualifications?


• Does the board operate with a board covenant outlining commitments to one another and acceptable board behavior?


• What percentage of the church participates in local, national or international short term ministries each year?


• What percentage of the congregation's ministries are focused on disciplemaking and what percentage on evangelism?


• What percentage of the congregation are using their gifts in meaningful ways inside or outside the church?


• Is the Gospel held up as the central most important element in the life of the church?


• Could the majority of your people articulate the great truths of the faith?

What questions would you add?

13 Leadership secrets from TJ

Clarity
The first job of leaders is to provide maximum clarity to those they lead about what their organization is about and how they will do what they do. The second job of leaders is to ensure that there is alignment around that clarity. The third job of leaders is to ensure that there are results based on that clarity. Leaders are the chief evangelists for the clarity they have defined for the organization.


Simplicity
Ministry is complex. Complexity is confusing. The job of leaders is to simplify complexity. Leaders simplify, simplify and simplify until all important issues can be explained on one sheet of paper.


Altitude
Leaders understand the altitude that they need to fly at in order to lead well and resist the temptation to dip down to fly at an altitude others are supposed to be flying at. Leaders do not disempower others in the organization by dipping down and doing what others are tasked with.


Empowerment
Leaders empower those who work for them within agreed upon boundaries. They neither delegate without accountability or micro manage and second guess. Leaders empower good people and hold them accountable for results.


Team
A group of missionally aligned and healthy individuals working strategically together under good leadership toward common objectives with accountability for results. Leaders build teams carefully and lead them intentionally.

Resolve

Leaders must have the resolve to follow through consistently with the clarity they have established. Clarity means nothing without the consistency of disciplined execution in a same direction. Leaders have staff who learn never to question their resolve.


Trust
Trust is a function of clarity + consistency + fairness + keeping one's word + authenticity + serving those on one's staff. Leaders always keep coinage in their trust account.


Failure
If one never fails one is living and leading too cautiously. Where there is not permission to fail there is no entrepreneurial thinking and where there is no entrepreneurial thinking there is no significant progress. When failure occurs, leaders practice autopsy without blame.


Evaluation
The mantra is plan, do, check, adjust. Leaders evaluate constantly.


Wisdom
Common wisdom is very common and rarely wisdom. Leaders think like contrarians, always asking why and why not? Leaders do not automatically go with the flow. Rather, they question the flow and look for new and better ways to do what they do. Leaders question conventional wisdom frequently.


Change
Tweaking is fear based change and one cannot tweak one's way to a new future. Leaders look for the game changers that change everything. A few truly significant decisions each year are more powerful than many insignificant decisions.


Results
Leaders never mistake activity for results. Everyone is busy but not everyone sees the same results. Leaders distinguish between activity and activity that yields intended results.


Intentionality
Leaders are deeply intentional in how they live and lead. They never settle for accidental living. Leaders know what they are about, what their priorities are and what they should say no to.

What characterizes great ministry organizations?

All of us desire to be part of a great organization. Who wants mediocre or average? A great organization can be a small local church, a large ministry or anything in between. But they are characterized by five key elements.

First, they have great clarity about what they are about and they focus on that clarity with a lazer like focus. Great organizations are not scattered but highly focused. That focus allows them to go after specific results and know when they have achieved their goals. Everyone in the organization is aligned around that focus and those goals. Great organizations are not distracted by all the things they could be doing but focused on the few things they must be doing.

Second, great organizations treat their staff well. They hire the best, compensate the best they can and empower staff to use their gifts and energies to achieve the goals without micromanaging. Staff morale is a significant marker of the health of any organization. 

No matter how strategic a ministry is, or how driven to meet their goals, if they do not treat staff well, develop them and have a high retention rate, one cannot claim to be a great organization. Staff culture and health is a major indicator of the true health of the organization. 

I recently stayed in a hotel in Kenya where I interacted with many staff. I asked all of them how they liked working for their organization and to a person they told me how happy they were with the General Manager and the empowered atmosphere he had created. At the end of two weeks I knew that this was a great organization just from watching and interacting with the staff. Staff culture reveals the true DNA of any organization.

Third, great organizations are team led and driven. The strongest organizations have strong leaders and strong teams. Teams provide far more synergy, energy and creativity than any one leader. Further, if that leader was to be hit by the proverbial "bus" there are others who can step in and continue on. Any organization that is dependent on one key leader is unlikely to be a great organization. The creation and deployment of teams is indicative of a collegial and empowered atmosphere.

Fourth, great organizations are always developing the next generation of leaders. I believe that the test of our leadership is not simply what happens when we are leading but what happens after we leave. Did we leave the organization stronger then when we came? Did we leave behind the next generation of leaders who could take the ministry to the next level? A culture of leadership development is a sign of a great organization. In making this a priority we are committing to the long term health of the organization rather than simply short term success.

Fifth, great organizations are led by humble, intentional leaders. This applies not only to the top leadership role but all the leadership roles within the ministry. Humble leaders create a culture of dependence on God and collegial work, knowing that life is not about them. Humble leaders create opportunities for others and develop others. Humble leaders are open and approachable. Humble leaders serve others rather than use others. Pride is incompatible with Christian leadership.

Three questions regarding your mission

Every good organization has a mission statement. In a really good organization everyone knows the mission statement. It's like a law of the Medes and Persians, you have to have one so we all do. I have helped many organizations develop theirs. So here are three questions regarding the mission statement of your ministry.


First, do you believe in your mission statement? I mean passionately believe that what your mission states is what your organization is called to do. 


Second, how would you honestly evaluate how your ministry is doing in fulfilling that mission? My observation is that there are often massive disconnects between many mission statements and real results. I realize that mission statements are by definition long view statements but nonetheless, what grade would you honestly give the organization you are a part of for results on that mission? Often, the organization is not even configured to actually fulfill the mission except in very general or tangential ways. 


Third, what would it take in organizational realignment to actually deliver well on your mission? Think of a mission as a big arrow pointing in a specific direction. Then think about every part of your organization or ministry and ask whether all the subsidiary arrows are pointed in the same direction as the mission or whether there are many arrows pointed in other directions - doing nice things but not directly contributing to the big arrow.


Now let me go back to question one. Many organizations that have a mission are not really passionate about that mission even when they say they are. How do I know? They are not willing to align all parts of the organization so that all the arrows go in the same direction as the mission. That is when you know the organization - and leadership is passionate. Multi directional arrows are not about mission alignment or fulfillment. 


Missions are meaningless unless the whole organization is truly aligned around that mission. 

Job One of a Leader

Many ministry leaders miss the single most important factor for success (apart of course from the Holy Spirit). That one factor is the key to charting the right course, staying on that course and seeing everyone go in the same direction. Very simply it is clarity of who you are, where you are going and how you will get there.


The lack of clarity is one of the key reasons that otherwise good ministries stall out, plateau, suffer from multiple silos and disconnected programs and eventually move into decline. It happens to churches and ministries frequently.


My conviction is that the first job of any leader is to provide maximum clarity to those they lead about who they are, where they are going and how they will get there. The second job is to ensure that there is alignment around that clarity and the third job is to ensure that there are results that reflect that clarity. Specifically, there must be clarity on mission (why do we exist?), guiding principles (what are our non-negotiables?), central ministry focus (what do we need to be doing all the time?), and culture (what do we want to leave behind?). 


That sounds easy but it is actually takes significant work to define these correctly. Define them right and you will get traction. Define them wrong and you may be chasing after the wrong things. Don't define them at all and you are just hoping that you get to where you want to go which you probably will since the destination is undefined! 


Think about this. Without clarity:
-People will go in whatever direction they think they should go.
-You cannot hold people accountable for specific and objective results.
-There is no ministry wide alignment or focus because there is no clear definition.
-People will fill in their own definition of their own clarity leading to multiple visions, directions and silos. You will never have people on the same page!
-There is no unifying vision or common mission.
-You will not attract or retain the best people because they will not be content to give their energies to an undefined goal.
-You never know whether or when you have achieved success.
-Followers become disillusioned because they sense the fogginess of purpose which eventually leads to conflict.
-Someone other than the leader will step into the gap with their clarity and eventually undermine the leadership of the leader (who is not leading).
-You end up with an accidental culture rather than an intentional ministry culture.


Put in that light, the clarity issue clearly becomes critical.


What keeps leaders from getting to clarity for their team, church or organization? For some it is conflict avoidance as defining clarity is inevitably going to create robust dialogue and conflict as to what the clarity should be. For some it is a matter of focus. They are too focused on other things that they miss the main thing. For some it may be a lack of understanding how to get to clarity. (For those in this camp, take a look at my book, Leading From the Sandbox, chapters two, three and four that are all about getting to clarity).


In my role as an organizational leader I consider job one that of providing maximum clarity to those I lead and am the chief evangelist of that clarity. Why? Because I am convinced that the clarity we have around the four key questions of mission, non-negotiables, focus and culture are the very things that are going to get us to the greatest success. There are many things I could do but neglecting this one would cause the whole organization to suffer. On the other hand, the more focused we are on our clarity the greater our success will be. 


Clarity is challenging but it is job one of any leader. Miss that responsibility and everything suffers. Get it right and everything else is enhanced. 

Ministry Excellence: More ministry for less money

All indications seem to point to a fundamental economic shift taking place in our country, and indeed globally. This shift may well impact the amount of money that is available for ministry and the days of year over year automatic increases may be coming to an end. This is not necessarily a bad thing in that it forces ministries to think carefully about how they use the resources they have and to look at ways to leverage what may be fewer and more precious dollars.

The foundation of ministry has always been people first and money second, although we all acknowledge that funding is important and necessary. The question is whether there are ways of doing what we do without the kinds of increases we have been used to in the past. While this issue is on the horizon for the ministry world it has been the reality in the business world for some time.

Finding ways to do more with less is known as "lean manufacturing," or "lean management" in the for profit sector. For instance, I know of one firm that was able to drive a very significant amount of overhead from its annual costs, decrease the inventory in its warehouses, speed up delivery of its product and drastically decrease inventory damage all of which went to the bottom line. And this was a very well run company. Yet, by thinking differently and doing some things differently it decreased its staff, integrated its processes and saved very significant dollars which in an upside down economy not only allowed them to survive but to thrive.

I believe that the same kind of thinking would not only benefit ministries but may become a non-negotiable in the new economy that is emerging. In ReachGlobal, for instance, we have been working with a consultant from the lean management sector to help us in a host of ways from more efficient meetings, to better planning and evaluation tools, scalable processes, eliminating duplicate systems, time wasters and breaking down divisional silos that prevent efficient and effective operations and decisions. In fact, we will not hire new support staff until we have rigorously determined that there are not other efficiencies that can be found. We call this effort ministry excellence and it is paying significant dividends. It is all about being the best we can be and using the people and dollars we have to their best advantage.

I sometimes hear people say, "we should not run a ministry like a business." Yes, a ministry is different than a business in its mission and end result but I believe that God would desire us to honor Him in our stewardship of people and resources. Perhaps the right answer is that ministries should be run better than many businesses because unlike the quarterly dividends of many corporations, our stakes are eternal. We all work with limited resources but God is able to provide what we actually need as opposed to what we usually want. It may be that He would entrust more to us as we are prudent and careful with what He so generously provides.

It would seem that the marketplace with its lean manufacturing and management has some things to teach ministries. Ministry excellence is a way to see more ministry with less money through creative and disciplined management of our resources.

Don't get caught in the church numbers game

What spells success for a local church? For many pastors the answer is how many attend their church. I drove by a Unitarian church with a full parking lot on Sunday. By our common definition of success they had achieved it - or the Mormon temple two blocks from my house that draws a full crowd. Seen in that light we realize that numbers are not everything and sometimes are nothing when it comes to success.

In fact, numbers may be the worst definition of success for churches and pastors. Churches do not grow indefinitely. Many pastors are not equipped to lead a large church but are wonderfully equipped to lead a small or medium size church. All of us have a leadership ceiling and internal wiring that defines the size of an organization we can effectively lead. Since God gave us that wiring we have to assume He is pretty happy with it and so should we be. One of my ministry buddies is a great preacher and the quintessential shepherd pastor. He pastors a church of around 250 and is wonderfully fulfilled in that role. His lane is not a church of 500 or larger where he would be frankly miserable. He is fulfilling his God given calling in a smaller church.

Further, the focus on numbers can easily cause us to move away from a full presentation of the gospel to embrace an attractional model of church where the goal is to attract as many people as possible and in the process to water down the emphasis on disciple making which actually demands something from those who come. There are plenty of large churches full of untransformed people which is not a New Testament definition of success. And remember that most church growth in the United States is not about new conversions but simply about people transferring from one church to another. How does that spell success?

We should also remember that many people are not enamored by large churches. They prefer a family size church where it is easier to know others, plug in and where relationships are easier to build. There are far more avenues of direct involvement possible in smaller churches than in large churches.

What we ought to really be focused on is not numbers but helping our congregation experience true spiritual transformation: Hearts transformed by grace; thinking transformed by God's word; priorities transformed to align with His word and relationships transformed by His love. Pastors often say to me, "I don't know how to do the vision thing." My answer is that ninety percent of vision in the church is simply helping people live out the Gospel in their lives, their homes, their neighborhoods and their places of work. This is true in a large church or a small church. Size is not an indicator of success - transformed people are. 

Can small churches grow? Often they do so by church planting. They may not desire to grow significantly in numbers as a congregation but all churches can grow by multiplying themselves in church planting. And there will indeed be conversion growth for any body that is focused on spiritual transformation. Get the focus right and true spiritual fruit happens - John 15. 

There are always reasons for church size - a complex set of variables that we cannot address in full here. But I would say to any pastor, the measure of your success is not in your attendance numbers as much as it is in the transformation that is taking place among your people. Even in the New Testament there were huge churches and tiny house churches and all kinds in between. While God's people grew in numbers there were still all sizes of churches and there is no reference as to numbers being the sign of success for any of them. Transformation was a sign as well as ministry engagement - see Ephesians. People coming to Christ was a sign - see the book of Acts. But church size was not.

Rather than getting caught in the numbers game, we all ought to be focused on transformed lives which leads to new people coming to Christ. And, be who you are made to be as a church whether a small neighborhood church or a mega church. The numbers don't tell the story, Gospel engagement does.

Straight Talk about Results in Missions

Missionaries are under increasing pressure to prove that they are getting results in missions today. Impatient sending churches are sometimes quick to criticize and even pull support when their version of results are not realized. This is both a good thing and a bad thing...depending.

At the expense of irritating some local church leaders, I want to suggest that the pressure for quick results in missions is not only unbiblical but hypocritical. In the United States it takes on average 168 people one year to bring one person to Christ. A church that sees ten percent conversion growth in any given year is on the very high end of churches nationally (on average). So a church of 500 would see 50 conversions in the course of a year and that would be considered very healthy. Think about that. Five hundred people and 50 conversions. Now apply that same standard to missionaries (what a team of ten or so) working in hard soil (consider the Muslim context) and we complain that they are not seeing quick results! If we applied the standards to ourselves that we apply to missionaries we would often get a failing grade! Yes we have many large churches and the vast majority of those who make up the congregations have transferred in from other churches while the vast majority of mission conversions are first generation Christians.

The west loves fast results. Missions is rarely about fast results. It was not for Paul and it will not be for us. It took nearly 300 years for Paul's early efforts in missions to see Christianity flourish in the Roman empire - 300 years.

As the leader of a mission organization, ReachGlobal, one of our guiding principles is that "We measure results." We want to know whether or not we are being effective. In addition, we deploy in teams for maximum synergies and insist that all staff have annual ministry plans and Key Result Areas - including me. We are always looking for best practices and as another one of our guiding principles states, "We practice entrepreneurial thinking." In addition, our Central Ministry Focus is to develop, empower and release healthy national leaders. So we are all about multiplication over addition. All well and good - except - we cannot control when "harvest" comes. We can control our intentionality and best practices but we cannot control the harvest. In fact, there is no excuse for lack of intentionality in missions but the fact remains we do not control the harvest - only God does.

Here is what I know from Scripture: God intends to bring an amazing harvest in His time, in His way and through His power. We are asked to simply live in His power, see through His eyes and live in faith filled expectancy. Harvest will come but we do not control the timing.

But I know several other things from the New Testament and Paul's example in particular. First, the harvest is never easy. Read Paul's litany of tough experiences in 2 Corinthians 11. There were places where Paul saw significant harvest and there were places where he did not.

In the first 25 years of Robert Morrison's ministry as the first Protestant to China he baptized only ten people. Twenty five years and ten people baptized. Yet, Morrison is widely known as the reason that Christianity came to China in the 1800's leading to the largest church in the world today. What if Morrison had been told after ten years of almost no results to come home and find a place where the harvest was better? Read the history of missions in India and many other places and the lesson is the same.

This goes to Paul's reminder in 1 Corinthians 3:5-9 that some of us sow, some of us water and some of us reap. He asks, which is more important, the sower, the one who waters or the reaper? Remember: wherever there is a significant harvest, there was behind that harvest those who labored for years in obscurity, sowing and watering. Like Morrison, they may never see the harvest in this life and while those who get to harvest get the accolades in missions, it was those who did the harder work of sowing and watering and praying that deserve the bulk of the credit.

ReachGlobal works in over 75 countries. In some countries the spiritual results are easy to see and large but only because someone before us did the hard and tedious and tough work of sowing and watering. In other contexts we are doing the tough work of sowing and watering and perhaps others will see the harvest.

In all cases we need to ensure that the investment we make in missions is being used wisely and that we are ministering with great intentionality. And we need to be people of prayer (in the local church and in missions) that God would break through. But we do not control the timing of that breakthrough.  That is true domestically and internationally.

What do you think Paul would say if we told him that we only went to places where the harvest was significant? That would rule out most of the Muslim world (one billion) much of Europe and many yet to be reached people.

I lived in Hong Kong from 1960 to 1971 where my parents were medical missionaries. When we left there were five or six churches. It was slow going and hard. Today there are 55 Free Churches including the largest EFC in the world (10,000) to say nothing of the many other evangelical churches that saturate the territory. The church in Hong Kong stands on the shoulders of those missionaries who labored there, sowing and watering for many years, seeing only meager results.

We need a better theology of missions today. A theology rather than simple expediency.

God intends to bring an amazing harvest in His time, in His way and through His power. We are asked to simply live in His power, see through His eyes and live in faith filled expectancy. Harvest will come but we do not control the timing. The question is whether we will partner with God not only in harvest but in sowing and watering. Those who focus only on the harvest have settled for expediency. Those who focus on all three focus on a biblical view of global missions.

Bigger is often not better

As one who works with ministries and ministry leaders I often hear rather dramatic plans for income expansion along with a tendency to believe that more ministry requires more people. I would offer some suggestions to think about coming out of many years of ministry leadership.

One: Bigger is not necessarily better. Bigger does not necessarily translate into greater ministry impact but what it does do is add a tremendous burden financially, administratively and in management. Because budgets and staff are things we can count, we often use them to define success - at least in the west. 

Success, however, is ministry impact and some ministries would be far better served to contract down to a core purpose, do that core purpose well and refuse to get sucked into ancillary things that are good but not core to who they are. A lean, nimble, "right sized" organization is better positioned for ministry impact than a bureaucratic, slow, undexterous large one. There are ministry organizations who have become so large that it is nearly impossible to change their direction and DNA. Don't assume larger is better.

Two: More money does not necessarily allow you to accomplish more ministry. I have a very good ministry friend whose plans always cost an amazing amount of money. I jokingly tell him that the right number is to divide his number by ten. He is never able to raise his large sums anyway. Resources are necessary for ministry. However, the thinking that "if I had more I could do more is often not true."

What is more important than how much money we have is how much we leverage the money we have for ministry impact. The issue is not the amount of money but the amount of leverage that the dollars we have can make. Often, there are ways of doing ministry that are far less expensive than we assume - if we are willing to rethink how we do what we do.

The positive thing about limited resources is that it forces us to prioritize those resources. Not everything we do has equal weight, importance or value. It is not a bad thing to evaluate and reallocate resources toward those things that will give us greatest ministry impact. Don't assume more money is the answer to your ministry's future.

Third: More ministries do not necessarily help you get where you want to go. Ministries often tend to add ancillary ministries in good times because they can. Ancillary ministries are things that are good but not central and core to who you are, what you have been called to do or where your expertise lies. Ministries can be like magnets picking up good things to do which actually detract from the central thing they do.

Every ministry needs to define what their core mission is and focus on being the very best they can be at that core calling. In fact, economic times like the one we are in right now force that conversation because good things many of us have been doing are no longer viable as donation income falters. It is very easy to stray from one's core calling. But it is in that calling, not ancillary callings, that you will have your greatest impact. So don't assume that more ministry is better ministry.
 

Disappointment in Missions

We often hear spectacular stories of large numbers of people coming to faith around the world. Yet, many missionaries literally labor for a lifetime seeing only a few people come to Christ. How do we deal with our disappointment when we have given years, perhaps decades to the spread of the gospel and so few have responded in our context?

One response that I have observed is that we simply quit expecting God to do anything significant. We literally give up hope, downsize our expectations and in live with quiet sadness. In some cases I have seen workers become cynical of God who promised that we would see much fruit (John 15). It is easy to ask in these contexts whether it is worth the effort we have made.


I believe that Paul would give us another answer. He would tell us that God can do far beyond anything we could expect or imagine (Ephesians 3:20 ) but would then remind us that some water and others reap (1 Corinthians 3:5-9). I also think he would remind us that God's timetable is not always our timetable. When we are promised fruit we are not given a timetable for the fruit.

The early missionaries to China labored for decades without seeing much fruit. What they did not know was that even as missionaries were forced to leave China in 1949 that the church would explode. They watered and went to their graves without seeing much happen but in God's timetable their labor and the seeds they watered came to amazing fruition.

I remember the many times I visited the grave of Robert Morrison as a child in the cemetery in Macao (1782 - 1834). Morrison was the first protestant missionary in China and in his first 25 years he translated the Bible into Chinese and baptized only a handful of believers. Having lost a wife and a child, he worked in circumstances we cannot easily imagine today, and he never saw this side of glory the result. But in eternity he did. How many millions of Chinese will be in heaven whose true spiritual father is Robert Morrison because of his tenacity in cracking hard soil for the gospel?


"In June, 1834, he prepared his last sermon on the text, 'In my Father's house are many mansions.' It was to show how much of the joy of the eternal Home would 'consist in the society formed there ; the family of God, from all ages and out of all nations.'"(Wikipedia).
The same stories could be told about countless places where the gospel took long to gain a foothold but once it did, it flourished - long after those faithful workers had left the scene. 


Morrison took comfort and encouragement from Revelation 7:9 which talks about those from every nation, tribe, people and language who will inhabit heaven. That includes those places where the soil is hard today but where one day there will be a wonderful harvest. We don't control the timing but we can trust God's promise that there will be a harvest and often when it comes it is far greater than we could ever ask or imagine because we labored in the hard years.

Here is the lesson that can be learned from mission history: We will see a harvest, perhaps here, perhaps in heaven but the harvest will come. We are optimistic about what God will do, even if He does not do it on our watch. Those who harvest later stand on the shoulders of those who worked so hard in the lean times. They will have a great reward for persevering when the soil was hard, planting seeds that later sprouted in large numbers.

To those who labor today among the Islamic peoples, often deeply resistant to the gospel I would say, hang in there. Their harvest will come as well and we are seeing perhaps the first trickle of what God intends to do among a billion Muslims prior to His return.


Our disappointment can be mitigated by believing God's word that the gospel will prevail, that there are those who sow, and water and those who reap and that His power working through us is the same power that raised Christ from the dead! If we believe Him, the harvest will come whether in our day or in a future day. Our human disappointment is not divine disappointment because nothing can stop the spread of the Good News and the power of the Gospel.


Morrison was buried in the Old Protestant Cemetery in Macau. The inscription on his marker reads:

Sacred to the memory of Robert Morrison DD., The first protestant missionary to China,
Where after a service of twenty-seven years,
cheerfully spent in extending the kingdom of the blessed Redeemer
during which period he compiled and published
a dictionary of the Chinese language,
founded the Anglo Chinese College at Malacca
and for several years laboured alone on a Chinese version of The Holy Scriptures,
which he was spared to see complete and widely circulated
among those for whom it was destined,
he sweetly slept in Jesus.
He was born at Morpeth in Northumberland
January 5th 1782
Was sent to China by the London Missionary Society in 1807
Was for twenty five years Chinese translator in the employ of The East India Company
and died in Canton August 1st 1834.
Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth
Yea saith the Spirit
that they may rest from their labours,
and their works do follow them

God is still looking for the Robert Morrison's of this world who will go to hard places where the Gospel has not been shared and who will persevere knowing that the harvest will indeed come. 

Goal based budgeting

Ministry budgeting is often a simple exercise of doing what one did the year before with the requisite addition or subtraction depending on the economy. This makes sense for fixed costs.

However, when it comes to non fixed costs consider an alternative - goal based budgeting where the budget is based on the goals and plans of the ministry division or team and the results of its prior year's goals. This budgeting strategy sends the most resources to those ministry divisions that get the best results, deliver on their plans and have the greatest vision. It rewards those who deliver on their ministry plans and withholds resources from those who don't.

Goal based budgeting also calls the question on ministry teams or divisions that do not live up to their plans or who have deficient vision or execution. Honest evaluation of results is not a strength of many ministries. Goal based budgeting helps evaluate success since it is based both on future plans as well as on past performance. 

Goal based budgeting is a simple strategy to tie funding to vision and performance.  

An interesting and true comment on this post:
Matt Steen has left a new comment on your post "Goal based budgeting":

This can be a scary thing for many churches because it involves thinking through why they are doing what they are doing and then asking the question "how are we doing at it?"

This is also a very good thing for churches to start doing because it forces them to think from vision rather than tradition. This is also one of my favorite things to do with our clients.

Plan, Do, Check, Adjust

Both the ministry and non ministry world are great at planning but less so at doing. The reason is simple: Planning is easier than doing! And, given our aversion to "failing" that more planning we do the less likely it is that what we do will fail.

This ignores the fact that unless we actually do something, nothing of significance gets done. Planning is simply the antecedent to action and if we spend more time on planning than we do in actual execution (many do) we don't achieve our potential. I could spend all kinds of time planning this blog but until I put it on paper the ideas have absolutely no relevance to others.

There is a rhythm of work that is pretty standard in good companies that would help ministries execute with greater success. It is very simple: Plan, Do, Check, Adjust. 

The plan takes into account the opportunity, resources, and strategy to move a certain initiative forward. It also thinks through the potential unintended consequences, stakeholders, communication and process of rolling it out. It is the due diligence that helps us avoid dumb tax and give us the best chance of success.

Doing, is simply the hard work of working the plan. At some point, more planning will not help, you must start doing. It is harder to find people who execute well than it is to find those who love to plan. Doing is at the heart of good work and successful ministries. 

That doing, however, is subject to regular checking to ensure that what we want to accomplish is actually getting accomplished. It is one thing to plan a small group strategy, for instance, and then start working a plan but it is another to discover that one is not getting the participation that one hoped for. Checking is evaluation of how well the plan is working. It requires a culture where accountability for results actually matters - something often lacking in ministry cultures.

Having checked and evaluated, one adjusts the plan in order to take into account what one learned in the check phase and then one goes back to doing and the cycle repeats itself. 

It is a simple paradigm but one that keeps ministry on track by planning, doing, checking, and adjusting.

Ministry accelerators and anchors

Ministry accelerators are practices, commitments and culture that allow some ministries (churches, missions and otherwise) to flourish, expand and see results that are far above the norm. Alternatively these very accelerators when not present become the anchors that hold us back, create a drag on forward movement and often keep us from achieving the momentum we long for. As you look at these accelerators, think about the ministry you are a part of and ask if you have an accelerator or an anchor.

Spiritual Dependence

One of the most promising and scary verses in the New Testament is found in John 15:5. “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” One ministry I work with has a guiding principle of “Intimacy before Impact.” They know that without staying close to the father, without bathing their plans and purposes in prayer, without listening to what He might be saying in return that they will never accomplish much of eternal value.

Many ministries give lip service to dependence on God but there is not much in their rhythm or strategy to back that up. After all, we can do a lot with our money, people, strategies and programs. But, if we want to have the blessing of God, if we want to know where the best strategies lie, if we want to make an eternal difference the accelerator of spiritual dependence is what we desperately need. Without Him we can do nothing of eternal value. With Him we can do amazing things!

Clear Direction

There is a connection between spiritual dependence and clear direction because through His word and through the promptings of His Holy Spirit, we are given discernment as to where God is leading our ministries. Getting to clarity of direction (rather than a typical shot gun approach to ministry) takes concerted prayer, thinking and dialogue with other key leaders. Moses was clear about his direction, as was David and Nehemiah and Daniel, Paul and Barnabas. Why? They stayed close to God, were sensitive to His leading and were therefore able to articulate to others the direction they needed to go.

Here is something to think about. Every ministry is unique. Your direction is determined by the skills, personnel, mission and unique niche that God desires you to fill. Never simply copy the direction of another ministry. That is theirs, not yours. You may learn from them but you need to ask what God is calling you to and be able to articulate it with absolute clarity.

High alignment

In the days of the judges a common observation was that “everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” Nothing dissipates energy and missional effectiveness in ministry like staff all doing their own thing in their own way toward their own good purposes.  Ministries that see significant results are those where the board, senior leader, staff and ministry teams are all on the same page and moving in the same direction. It only takes one key staff or board member to sabotage that synergy and cause an anchor that holds you back.

There are many gifted individuals who do not believe that they need to be in alignment with their leaders. They are very happy to require alignment from the team they lead but they are not committed to the same level of alignment upward. In other words, they suffer from not following well. They love to lead but resist following. No matter how gifted, these individuals will become anchors to ministry progress because they subtly and regularly undermine the power of alignment.

Healthy Boards, Personnel and teams

This goes to the issue of health. Unhealthy board members, staff and teams cannot produce healthy ministry results. Indeed, lack of health in any of these areas can be one of the heaviest anchors to pull along. Healthy individuals on the other hand get amazing things done because they are team focused, mission driven, other centered and are not building their kingdom or needing to deal with a lot of their stuff.

In the Christian world, in the name of grace, we often do not deal with unhealthy personnel. First by being honest with them and trying to help them. But if that fails by moving them out of our organization, knowing that their dishealth is hurting those around them and compromising the call of the organization. Healthy people are huge accelerators to ministry while unhealthy members are huge anchors – and it only takes one big anchor to cause a whole lot of frustration and drag.

Mission focused

All of the above are necessary for us to be mission focused – committed to reaching the mission of the organization in real, tangible ways with all hands on deck keeping the ship moving in the right direction. We have a clear mission, we are all aligned around that mission and everything we do is designed to help us achieve that mission.

Results Driven

Jesus says in John 15:5 that “If a man remains in me and I in him he will bear much fruit.” The book of Acts, was a book of spiritual fruit. The fact that the church is Christ’s bride and that not even the gates of hell will prevail against it clarifies that Jesus intends for His people to see real, tangible fruit from their ministries. We cannot control the fruit of our work but we can do those things that are likely to result in fruit as God blesses. And we ought to expect it, pray for it, work toward it and measure it.

A culture of empowerment and releasing

A key ministry accelerator is that of empowering good people in ministry and releasing them to do that ministry in line with their gifts and abilities. The more we try to control the less momentum we have. The more we truly release, the greater the momentum. As an example, in ReachGlobal, we could try to control how our churches work with our national partners. Instead we see them not as our partners but God’s partners and we willingly give away relationships between these partners and churches so that they can accomplish far more than we as a mission could. We increase our influence by giving away ministry opportunity whenever possible.

This is true in the local church as well. One of the things to consider is whether we are program centric (which depends on the church to control the program) or ministry centric (which releases the whole body to do ministry in their circles of influence). The first is often the focus because programs are tangible. The second is far more powerful because it is viral and releases the whole body to ripple on folks who will never be touched by a program.

Cooperation rather than competition

If you want to accelerate your spiritual influence, don’t go it alone! One local church may reach its community but ten local churches working toward the spread of the gospel can reach a whole county. The question here is whether we are committed to spreading our brand or His brand. I know that most churches will not choose to cooperate with churches that are not of their brand (if then) but when they do it is one of the most powerful ministry accelerators of all.

In ReachGlobal, an international mission, we decided to move from replicating our brand (EFC churches) to His Brand, (Evangelical churches whatever the name). This opened up partnerships with an amazing number of partners and movements and vastly increased the spiritual influence of ReachGlobal. It was all about cooperating with other like minded believers rather than living in our silo and competing with them.

Each of these accelerators will increase your spiritual influence. Each of them not lived out, will create an anchor and drag. Some of us need to pull up some anchors so that the wind God wants to give our sails can fill them and propel us into a fruitful season of ministry.

Predicting the Decline of the Attractional Church

I am sure that this blog will elicit comments for I am not a fan of the attractional church model and believe it is already in severe trouble with the young, old and some in between.

The attractional church model thinking goes like this: If I have a great performance on stage, relevant preaching and lots of programming that I will attract a lot of people, build a large church and therefore experience ministry success. The American church continues down this path blind to the fact that it is often not producing real disciples but that there are a growing number of folks who are rejecting it outright. This blog is not about church size but church philosophy!

Take the young generation. What they see in the attractional model is that people come to get and not give. They desire to be part of communities who are actively living out the gospel rather than simply hearing about the Gospel. There is a fundamental difference between those two. Furthermore they do not relate to a performance up front but would rather be a part of the worship experience. Finally, our preoccupation with service "excellence" is often seen by them as lacking authenticity. They can live with simple if they believe it to be authentic.

Oh, and the preaching? By dumbing down the gospel to make it relevant, by not addressing the radical implications of the gospel - that would make it too uncomfortable. By paying more attention to culture (the relevance thing pastors talk about) they feel cheated on the truth thing (what Jesus has to say about life). All of these reasons contribute to the dearth of the under thirty crowd in many churches.

On the other end of the spectrum are the fifty plus crowd who are increasingly but quietly leaving attractional church models looking for something different. They feel cheated in the worship (not just worship style) but in the often shallow worship theology and show up front. They especially feel cheated by the lack of emphasis on the word of God in today's "relevant" preaching. And they are more interested in doing ministry that makes a difference in the world rather than attending another program in the church. They have not rejected the church but they have rejected the attractional model of the church.

When I look at the American church at large today I ask the question, where are the gospel centered churches where truth is proclaimed carefully with real application. I ask, where are the gospel centered churches where the emphasis is more on reaching those outside God's Kingdom than programming ourselves to death to justify our buildings and facilities. One can see with our current model why it takes 168 people one year to bring one person to Christ in the course of a year.

I also ask how we have so mangled our definitions of success so that almost all that is talked about are numbers on weekends. We claim that spiritual transformation is our goal but the real marker in many Churches has nothing to do with that and all to do with numbers to justify the success of the pastor.

In a mentoring conversation recently with a young pastor I asked him how he would feel if there was not growth to his church in the next three years. His church has deeply problematic health issues and they may be what he needs to focus on. It took him a moment to say he would be all right with that....because for most of us success is in the numbers.

When I read the story of the early church I do see numbers being added to their ranks regularly. But the emphasis was not on the numbers. It was on radically living out the implications of the gospel - meeting together to share the elements and receive teaching, sharing their possessions with one another and being the people of God in their circles of influence which is why for instance the gospel penetrated whole communities with radical conversions, powerful miracles and a high emphasis on the word - read the story in Acts 19.

We have a deeply American model of church which has many differences from the Biblical model of church. A congregation I attend from time to time is a simple Anglican church. No flashy music, simple Biblical teaching, great Biblical liturgy and prayers and participation in the service of ordinary congregants who take their ministry seriously. Half of those that are there are former members of my own denomination who have left "attractional churches" for the simplicity of the gospel.

I predict that the American church of the future will look very different than it does today - in Evangelical circles. I pray that it is more word centered, authentic in its worship and committed to living out the "good works" God designed for us in our communities and circles of influence rather than through its programming keeping folks in the church. The program of God for the church is that they impact their communities, workplaces and circles of influence through living out and sharing the implications of the gospel.

I celebrate every gospel centered church I find, and the number is growing. They hold the key to the future of the American church. And they will attract people who are hurting, needy and looking for an authentic Jesus who can bring authentic change to their lives. Is it possible that the church of the future will attract people because it is centered on the person of Jesus Christ above all else? And in living out the implications of the gospel?

The Long View and Short View in Ministry

How often have I read the words of Paul to Timothy, "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear" (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

Reading through my evangelical lens I just assumed that the modern day application would be liberals who don't take the Bible or its truth seriously. Now I am not so sure! I wonder if we evangelicals are guilty of the same thing - teaching what we know our folks want to hear rather than the whole counsel of God - some of which even we don't like to hear because it forces us to examine our lives in light of pure truth.

All of us know the pressures that public businesses feel to "meet the quarterly results" so that wall street is happy. Often the long view of serving customers or even building a strong company that will last is lost to the short view of corporate returns.

What does this have to do with ministry you ask? I wonder if there is a correlation between watering down the gospel to be "relevant" - often more pop psychology to make our people feel good than the gospel which connects them with the Lord of the universe and our desire for results in the church - the big N: Numbers - by which we measure our results.

It is not often that I find a reason to quote The New York Times in this blog but in an editorial regarding clergy burn out, guest writer Jeffrey MacDonald says this: Churchgoers increasingly want pastors to soothe and entertain them. It’s apparent in the theater-style seating and giant projection screens in churches and in mission trips that involve more sightseeing than listening to the local people.



As a result, pastors are constantly forced to choose, as they work through congregants’ daily wish lists in their e-mail and voice mail, between paths of personal integrity and those that portend greater job security. As religion becomes a consumer experience, the clergy become more unhappy and unhealthy.

And not only clergy become more unhappy and unhealthy - those they serve do as well. Short term results in the church - the hunt for success in weekend attendence is not compatible with long term spiritual results which the Lord of the Church is looking for - spiritual transformation where I live daily in grace, start to think like Jesus, bring my life priorities into line with His, and relate to others as He relates to us. It is transformation of our hearts, minds, priorities and relationships. And that takes time, an understanding of the whole counsel of God, deep relationships among believers and the desire to allow all of God's truth to soak into all of who we are.

Jeffrey MacDonald points out that The trend toward consumer-driven religion has been gaining momentum for half a century. Consider that in 1955 only 15 percent of Americans said they no longer adhered to the faith of their childhood, according to a Gallup poll. By 2008, 44 percent had switched their religious affiliation at least once, or dropped it altogether, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found. Americans now sample, dabble and move on when a religious leader fails to satisfy for any reason.



In this transformation, clergy have seen their job descriptions rewritten. They’re no longer expected to offer moral counsel in pastoral care sessions or to deliver sermons that make the comfortable uneasy. Church leaders who continue such ministerial traditions pay dearly. A few years ago, thousands of parishioners quit Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minn., and Community Church of Joy in Glendale, Ariz., when their respective preachers refused to bless the congregations’ preferred political agendas and consumerist lifestyles.

Fighting this trend is not about being hard or harsh in our preaching. It is about honestly teaching the whole counsel of God and starting from His truth that is applied to our lives rather than starting from our lives and using the Bible like a self help manual. The Bible was meant to introduces us to the Lord of our lives whose transformation of our lives brings us into closer alignment with Him and that process is often not fun or easy. But the end result is true freedom and joy.

Rather than taking the short view of consumerism in our ministries we are reminded by Paul that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Further he says, "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct rebuke and encourage with great patience and careful instruction" (2 Timothy 4:2-3).

This is the long view of ministry. It is the Biblical view of ministry and it is the way to legitimate spiritual transformation.

MacDonald has it right when he says, Ministry is a profession in which the greatest rewards include meaningfulness and integrity. When those fade under pressure from churchgoers who don’t want to be challenged or edified, pastors become candidates for stress and depression.



Clergy need parishioners who understand that the church exists, as it always has, to save souls by elevating people’s values and desires. They need churchgoers to ask for personal challenges, in areas like daily devotions and outreach ministries.


When such an ethic takes root, as it has in generations past, then pastors will cease to feel like the spiritual equivalents of concierges. They’ll again know joy in ministering among people who share their sense of purpose.

I think we need to ask some serious questions as to whether we take the long or short view in our ministries. Whether we have been subtly sucked into Wall Streets view of success (all in the numbers) or are driven by the values and ethics of Scripture which is about long term life change from the inside out. What Paul said about tickling of ears is not just for the liberals. It is for all of us who proclaim the word on a regular basis - he was writing, after all to Timothy and warning him not to fall into the trap.