How Churches Are All-Too-Often Run
Nov 27
Churches who have been around for awhile (say 30 or more years), tend to be run a certain way. The way I’ve often heard it said is, “Churches tend to be run like a business.” I hate the business model of church. Yet, in my experience, this isn’t really how these older churches are run. In my opinion, they’re run more like the government.
"Church of the Sacred Cow" --good luck getting any good "legislation" passed in this church
Most people complain about how the government is run. The stereotype is out there that whatever the government does, the private sector could do it much better, with greater efficiency, and with better results. I think this is a great example of how these older churches are run. They are full of plenty of bureaucracy. For example, if you want to paint the walls of the church, the color must be approved by the trustees, and then the money has to be approved by the finance committee, and then the date needs to be approved by the calendar committee, etc etc etc. Simple, unimportant things tend to take up way to much of the church’s time and become too important in people’s eyes.
So we moan about such a business-like mentality. To me, it seems more like a government mentality. You also find quite a bit of politicking going on in such churches. You need to know who to please, whose bad side you don’t want to get on, who the movers and shakers are, etc. You learn what the sacred cows are–and not to mess with them. If you want to get anything done, you have to “work the system.”
To retaliate against this system that largely mirrors how the government operates, I think many modern churches have embraced what I would call the “business” model. In this model, these churches pride themselves in being more efficient and more effective than the older churches. These churches don’t have church splits over what color the carpet will be in the sanctuary. That’s because they have a mission statement, and everything they do as a church revolves around that mission statement. Usually, that mission statement is something about making disciples of Christ, or something along those lines. As a result, they try to pour as much energy as possible in attracting unchurched people and making them churched. They have marks to determine whether they are being successful or not. Are we bringing in new visitors every week? Is our church growing numerically? Are people giving? Can we build a new building yet? Are our ministries becoming more top-notch? What are other churches in the area doing? Are we doing those things better than they are?
"Church of the Worship Team"--good luck getting to know any of them though...
These modern churches often have a competition mentality built-in. They want to be the best church out there. Whereas the older churches are repulsive, because they seem to mirror a broken, corrupt, or largely inefficient government–and seem largely ambivalent to self-improvement, these modern churches are just as repulsive to me. These modern churches think that making disciples can be quantified, or that it can be achieved by working harder or working smarter. That making disciples is a matter of creating some sort of system that can mass-produce Christians. That making disciples requires a great deal of revenue, because “ministry costs money.” These churches feel the need to constantly advertise (which does cost quite a bit of money) and they also feel the need to do everything they can to attract new business–I mean, new visitors (which also costs quite a bit of money).
To their credit, these modern churches can compare themselves to the older churches and say, “Wouldn’t you rather be part of our church–a church that is successful, where things are happening–than one of those older, bureaucratic mainline churches? And I would probably say yes.
But I am equally dissatisfied with both types of churches. I find it frustrating to work within the confines of the older churches. It seems that it takes a lot of energy, political weight, and conniving to try to get the simplest of things done, let alone the important things. There are always “hearings” and “votes” and “checks and balances” that just make things miserable for leaders who want to get things done. And then, when something is finally done, it seems that the final end-product isn’t all that great. It’s mediocre at best. Yet, in the modern church, where results are more appealing, there is the constant pressure to perform, get results, become the best, eliminate the competition, impress the masses. There is a mentality of finding “what works” and basing decisions on what would make the ministry an even greater success story. As a result, leaders of these churches are paid big bucks. And perhaps rightfully so, in regards to the amount of work they are doing, and the amount of pressure put on them. They’re like CEO’s running a Fortune 500 company.
But ironically, both of these churches still end up with the same result: weak disciples. Our pews (or stadium seats) are largely filled with people who aren’t abandoned to Christ. They are satisfied to show up to church, throw a few bucks in the plate, and continue to living just like the rest of the world–but with a more moral face.
I don’t think Jesus would appreciate either of these models. What about the Scriptural metaphor of church being a family? Or what about the metaphor of the church being a body? Or any of the other metaphors Scripture uses? What would such a church look like? Is it even possible for such a church to exist in today’s world? Would modern society squeeze it out, or would it be “competition” from the modern church world that chokes it? Or is God even bigger than these two forces?
Although the new business model of church is a very appealing response to the government model of church too often seen in older churches, I think both models come up short in the end. Both tend to cause unnecessary burnout and frustration in church leadership. Both tend to produce weak disciples. Both tend to be more concerned with expanding their own agendas. And worst of all, I think both are distasteful to unbelievers. They both often seem self-seeking and not very spiritual.
Show me a church where the vast majority of people who attend are people overflowing with faith, hope, and love. Where the people have laid down their lives for the Gospel. Where the people don’t care about their own lives anymore. Where the people are happy to sacrifice the kind of building they meet in, so that they can better love and minister to others. Where the people treat each other like family. Where the people treat each other like they are their own body. Where the leaders aren’t there to get paid. Where the leaders aren’t there to grow an organization. Where the leaders are there to lay down their lives for Jesus too. Where the church is less concerned about its own welfare, and more concerned about the welfare of others.
Where instead of trying to run a church, we are more concerned about running the race (Hebrews 11-12).
Amazing! Seriously wish you would write a book!
Thanks, Lisa!!!
Write a book–are you kidding me??
Having to take time to do a bunch of research–uggh. And the whole time issue of writing a book in general. And then getting someone to publish it. And then getting someone to read it. 🙂
Blogging seems to be a good compromise: I don’t always have to cite things, but can merely speak from personal experience. It doesn’t take nearly as much time. It’s published with the click of a button. And it’s ok if no one reads it! (But I sure appreciate it when people do!)
I think you’re mostly right. I think that both types of churches can do good and do do good, though.
In my opinion, the bureaucratic church is the greater of both evils because my impression is that they more actively set up barriers to keep people from actually finding God and they more closely parallel what Jesus condemned about the teachers of the law and the Pharisees in Matt 23:15 when he said, “You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.”
I don’t have a problem with people running the church like it is a business if they do it right. Most of the problems with people running a church like a business is that they go too short-term like a poorly-run business. Businesses that focus on quarterly numbers more than their long-term purpose and goals usually fail or at least lag the market. Likewise, churches that focus on how many people showed up for last week’s service and how big the offering was more than their long-term purpose of bringing people closer to God will ultimately die or become shells of what they should have been.
A good business-like approach for a church involves defining its true purpose and properly focusing all resources toward that purpose. That, in and of itself, is actually the right way to run a church, at least from a high-level perspective.
Hey Drew, great perspective!! With the way you’ve described a “business-model” church, I probably wouldn’t have a problem with one who is truly focused on those long-term goals.
One thing I would add: I think that for those churches you mention who largely focus on the short-term (last week’s service or how big the offering was), I don’t think they will necessarily “ultimately die or become shells…”. I think most of them may flourish very well regardless. That’s because, as you indicated, the long-term goals of a church’s “business” really are determined in eternity. When we ask if a church will “make it,” I think we should be thinking in terms of how Paul describes it in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.
I considered that the short-term thinking churches might do well because they focus strongly on the numbers, and you may be right that they can flourish in numbers, but over the long run I don’t think they will. My thinking is that if you care more about numbers now than the strength of the relationship to Christ now within a generation’s time you’re not going to have enough people in the church who have any sort of commitment to the church to keep it operating.
I think with the current trend of how we “do ministry,” lay involvement is becoming less and less necessary. What is necessary is to continue having people show up and give their money to the church, so they can hire more people to do the ministry. With the business model approach, ministry needs to be done by professionals. Otherwise, they will not be able to compete with the other churches in the area who can afford to pay the pros. As long as people keep coming and giving money, I think most business-oriented churches will be alright for plenty of time to come.
That’s the point. If you’re not committed (and weak Christians would by definition lack commitment), why would you continue to contribute to the ministry? Even bypassing that, if a weak Christian does contribute to a ministry the likelihood is that his or her kids won’t, so the church will gradually lose financial backing. Note that I am only discussing church finances in this way in response to the previous comment and not because I think that is the most important aspect of how a church is run or the most important measurement regarding how healthy the church is.
“A good business-like approach for a church involves defining its true purpose and properly focusing all resources toward that purpose.”
The thing that bothers me with this approach is that I don’t see it mirroring Jesus. Jesus never talks about using “all resources” in a corporate context but instead says to be wise and shrewd with money, which I believe is more of an individual admonition. I see Jesus as far more concerned with the follower’s faith/trust in God and overall abandonment than worrying about allocating resources. Didn’t Christianity spread under extreme persecution and lack of resources?
Why is being customer-oriented a good Christian behavior?
I’m not sure why do you went with Jesus rather than Paul, John, James or Peter. Jesus was at no time operating a church nor instructing those who were, so it is very difficult to apply anything he said to church operations without stretching well beyond the context of the statement. Nearly everything Jesus said was to individuals rather to organizations.
I didn’t use the term “customer-oriented” here (though I have elsewhere in the past) because it can be read many ways. There is at least one way that would be bad in this context and at least one that would be good. If customer-oriented meant giving people what they want rather than what they need, that would be bad. If it meant understanding and responding to their individual needs as they relate to their relationship with God that is actually exactly what the church should be doing. One fact of marketing is that customers rarely understand what it is they really want or need, so marketers have to find creative ways of getting information that even the customers do not know. In a similar way, a lot of congregants do not know what it is that they need to know or what they need to do to grow closer to God. One of a minister’s jobs is to provide a means for people in the church to grow closer to God even if those people do not know what their specific need is.
When I reference “all resources” what I am talking about is properly focusing on what the church’s purpose is. It isn’t only about money, though that is part of the equation. When you are running a good business each person in that business should understand the company’s purpose and how their job either directly or indirectly meets that purpose. Any role or activities that do not in some way act toward or support that purpose should be dropped and the freed resources should be changed to meet the stated purpose. Likewise, the leadership in a church needs to understand its purpose and seriously question activities that do not act toward that purpose. For example, if the church is going through a building project, can that be realistically tied back to the church’s purpose in drawing people closer to God? Sometimes it can and sometimes it can’t. If it can’t then the resources (human, marketing, and monetary) that are devoted to that project should be assigned elsewhere.
All of that said, the line should be drawn somewhere. If everything is decided based on what the financial implications are rather than what God is calling the church to do, then this is obviously against Scripture. All I’m saying is that running a church with an understanding of sound business principles is not a bad thing.
Here’s the thing… a business-oriented church can create great things without God.
I brought in ‘customer-oriented’ because it is impossible to separate business from customers. I regard all customer-thinking in the church as bad because it distracts us from God.
Why can’t we seek God and allow Him to direct our path and purpose?
Customer-minded churches would argue that God is leading them to be more customer-minded.
But that’s not the way a business-oriented church works. It works around trying to figure out the best way to achieve its purpose. That’s not exactly the message of the Bible, which is more about “return to God, seek God, let God guide, trust God” than “capture attention, set up a good environment, stay positive, encourage the people, stay strong.”
They would argue that the good environment, positive message, encouragement, church’s success is all about helping people return to God, seek God, let God guide, trust God.
That’s why I revert back to my post which argues that people in both models of church (government and business) still tend to largely produce weak disciples. I would argue that the business model is not working as much as the glit-n-glam would indicate.
Of course you could also argue that no matter how you “do church” this will always be the case. Only a few will ever go “all the way” for God.
What I’m saying is that just because there may be examples of churches that apply business principles improperly, it is unwise to make blanket statements about churches that apply business principles (or that value traditions, actually).
Joel, what I’m getting from what you’re saying is that a church should be mismanaged to be used of God because otherwise it would fail.
I do agree that part of a minister’s responsibility is to help people understand what they need, even when they don’t understand it’s what they need. But too often, church marketing is really about trying to build up one’s church more than to really invest in people. When Walmart tells me that I’m their #1 priority, do I REALLY believe them? They seem to go out of their way for me, but it’s really to get my business. I think most unbelievers perceive that churches follow similar suit, and they may be right.
I was pointing out that the concept can be very useful and the baby shouldn’t get thrown out with the bathwater. This gets back to my argument that the problems with running a church like a business is usually due to misusing or misunderstanding business principles rather than due to the fact that the church is run like a business.
Investing in people in the church is a form of marketing. Promotion is only the last element of marketing and if it is the only element that a church implements, then of course it is going to be received poorly. In the business world good marketing is only good marketing if it comes from an understanding of what consumers need. In a church, the leadership has to understand what the congregation needs. That’s an important principle of marketing that is applicable to churches and has nothing to do with how ministries or messages are promoted.
Jesus did tell the rich, young ruler how to allocate his resources. But I don’t think any successful church would be willing to do what Jesus asked the ruler to do.
Indeed.
As a missionary I found your post encouraging. This will be posted on facebook at Making Disciples via link posted.