Barna Group research indicates that the average church has taken less of a financial hit than the typical for-profit organization over the course of the past two years. However, an emerging trend among corporations may challenge the ability of many churches to maintain their existing ministry over the coming two-plus years.
Numerous companies cut back on staff as the economy tanked. But the new pattern is that many companies are finding their cost-cutting measures, driven by staff reductions, have been so effective – i.e., profitable – that they are now planning further rounds of personnel reductions. Still other organizations, convinced they can cut back no further, now believe a lean work force is a productive work force and thus do not plan to rehire laid off employees or fill vacant positions. These scenarios spell financial hardship for a large number of unemployed or underemployed workers.
How will churches handle this? Hopefully, by doing what they can to support their people who are struggling financially and by expanding their lay ministry efforts. As churches experience a continuation of diminished revenue during a period of increased congregational needs, the pressure to replace departed staff with volunteer labor will grow.
Without meaning to be insensitive to the difficulties experienced by those who are casualties of the reduction in fulltime and part-time ministry jobs, the diminished number of and reliance upon professional clergy is in the long-term best interests of the body of Christ. In the midst of this transition it is important for the body of believers to honor and assist those who have lost paid ministry positions. But for the overall health of the Church, recognizing laypeople’s gifts and the value of using those abilities in service to others can only strengthen the Church. The transition to a more streamlined, lay-led church body is a painful shift but one that will bear long-term fruit for the Church if properly understood, orchestrated, and supported.
July 30, 2010
Do you mean to say that a local church that is more streamlined and lay-led will bear more long-term fruit for the Church if properly understood, orchestrated, and supported? Upon what do you base this assertion?
Does this mean a church should not support full-time missionaries in another country?
September 2, 2010
Mark,
In answer to your first question, yes.
It is based on the NT model of Pauls model of ekklesis in Acts, and further expanded on in the letters to the saints in Jesus in the various churchs he started.
In answer to your second question. No. But define “missionaries?”
We are to support itinerants coming into the local church to equip. We are to support itinerants we send out under the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit to others for equiping, or for church planting purposes. We don’t support a local guy called pastor.
July 31, 2010
I am a Moody graduate living in Taiwan and attending a steadily-growing church of about 500. They have 80% high-level volunteer involvement from their body of “young Christians” (many new converts, not much ’sheep stealing’ in Taiwan because there aren’t many ’sheep’ to steal.)
I don’t take George’s blog to mean he isn’t in favor of full-time clergy. However, the silver-lining to both the situation in the economy and what he is forecasting in Church is that better “product” from those businesses will mean more opportunity for other business to start, which will eventually employ those currently unemployed. Similar things will apply to the Church, in my estimation.
I do think that sending missionaries to places that already have the gospel needs to be done with care. But, honestly, having seen so many ministry models in America, and having an appreciation for many of them, the most significant thing I have learned about “ministry methodology” was from watching this church here in Taiwan operate. It’s actually a Japanese denomination built on some form or Jewish system. “Few pastors, many preachers,” as one 15 year old put it, to describe “circuit preachers” who revolved between different gatherings. I’m thinking, if anyone needs missionaries, it is our own country that needs advice from Asia. The Hong Kong Church is a whole other story.
Mark, I appreciate your support for full-time pastors. Let’s make sure we keep thinking deeper about what George is advocating and about sending out missionaries to fields that might offer us some good advice.
September 2, 2010
Jesse,
I take from Georges writings and findings that the Holy Spirit is replacing the “full time clergy” with layman functioning in their giftings. People are wholesale leaving the modern western model of doing christianity for simpler more organic manifestations that look like what Paul and the boys were doing first century.
I don’t mean to speak for George but thats what I am taking from the data.
August 12, 2010
Interesting findings there, George. There’s actually evidence that non-profit ministries are quite accustomed to replacing staff with volunteers and volunteers with staff. Apparently there is a lot of work out there being completed by a volunteer that, at one time, was thought to be the domain of professionals.
This is good news as you well know, not least because other studies have shown that those who volunteer give more than twice as much as those who don’t (i.e. staff members).
So here’s my suggestion for a new title for this blog: “Volunteers: Doing More Ministry With More Money” – how ‘bout it?!?!
By the way, if you’re interested in seeing my blog post where I references these studies, feel free to check out this blog post: http://ericfoley.com/2010/06/04/volunteers-donate-50-more-than-non-volunteers-but-ten-years-after-that-discovery-nonprofits-dont-seem-to-care/
September 2, 2010
I had overlooked this topic until now. In Georges opening piece a question is asked in regard to diminshed employment and therefore lost income: “How will churches handle this?”
Then a statement: “Hopefully, by doing what they can to support their people who are struggling financially and by expanding their lay ministry efforts.”
George, please define “their people” for me? Are you talking about layed off professional clergy? Or are you talking about layed off lay people in their church?
IMO this is wishul thinking, this hopeful support hasn’t happened (helping lay people) in the best economic climate historically in my experience since 1973 since I have been in christianity.
About “expanding lay ministry?”
Define ‘lay ministry?”
IMO this is wishful thinking also, unless your talking about mowing the grass, cleaning the john’s, picking up trash, vacuming the carpets, washing the windows, painting, carpentry, (at the clergy’s house, volunteer of course). In my experience this is about all the “professional clergy” will allow the lay-class to do, you know the menial stuff that is below the clergy-class.
One must go to seminary and be ordained to do the real stuff.
So, George who gets support? What specifically do you mean by “lay ministry?”
Further, you make another statement that I really should have chuckled at, if it hasn’t been such a tremendous source of grief, disappointment, and abuse, in my long history and experience with “church’s”!
“But for the overall health of the Church, recognizing lay-peoples gifts and values (hahahahaha) of using those abilities in service to others can only strengthen the Church. The transition to a more streamlined, lay-led church body is a painful (murderous, bloody) shift but one that will bear long-term fruit for the Church if properly understood, orchestrated, and supported.” That last statement is the battle ground! Do you actually think the entrenched, professional, seminaried, ordained, anointed by man, special, elevated, clergy class, will allow it without all out war?
I am with you 1000% George, don’t get me wrong. I actually think it would be easier to convert the Al Queda and the Taliban to full blown evangelists for Jesus!
I for one have been brutalised in myriad ways by the clergy-class when trying to excercise or use or practice my giftings in their privaleged little world since 1973. I have been kicked out of every kind of church you can think of and not for insurrection nor rebellion nor anything else but trying to serve in my capacity that doesn’t line up with the clergy agenda. You are looked on as a threat when God uses you and not them. I don’t want their sheep, I’m not a Pastor, there is no such thing in the first place.
So, George, please answer my above questions so that we could start a real dialogue. That is if the clergy-class wants to get real and get Scriptural?