Millstone of Ministry

I attended a budget hearing on Saturday. The combination of being surrounded by numbers and the chai that I was drinking set my mind spinning down numeric roads. Now, granted that these were all rough estimates, but based on the current, and actually statistically very good, giving levels of the congregation, we would need to grow to double our current size in order to sustain our current budget. Now, there are a coupe of giant stones that are placed on our budgetary backs. One of these is my salary ... not that I make a lot, but even at half time it is a significant part of the budget. The other large expense howevecr is the loan payments on our mortgage and the assessments owed to the city for recent improvements. The church has been caught between a rock and a hard place. Without a building the church was struggling for identity and a space to call home. But now that they have a building they are facing the intense pressure of paying for it. While its numbers might be slightly more oppressing than some churches, because of the assessments on top of the mortgage, from what I can tell the story is the same in many other churches that are starting out.
So what is a congregation to do? Should it struggle with rent payments and shared space until it is large enough to sustain itself? Does this mean that in today's economy of churches, small congregations are simply not viable in the long term? More and more churches in rural Minnesota are faced with the possiblity of closure because the combined weight of maintaining pastor and building is to great to bear. These are not new questions or challenges, but the need is growing for increased brainstorming of creative new solutions to these problems. The more time I spend struggling with these issues the more I feel that small churches need to look at new and different ways of living out our Great Commission.

Worship Size

I was meeting with a parishoner today and was struck by something that he said. As we were talking about our church and our hopes for it, he mentioned that while it was tempting to want the church to grow to have hundreds of members and a huge sanctuary, there was also something appealing about simply having several smaller services and focusing offerings not on the cost of the building and expanding it, but instead on mission, "which is what being Christian is really about." (Not perhpas an exact quote but close to what was said.)
I find the idea of several smaller services to be highly appealing to me. I have a lead worships of many different sizes, never more than a 250 or so, but I know that while there can certainly be more energy at a larger service, there is also something powerful about even just a service of 10-20 people. There are challenges to creating a church that has lots of smaller services. Building connections between individuals at the services is important. There is also more work required of a the pastor to lead so many services. People also prefer larger services at times, it lets people drift into the background more.
All of these are excellent concerns, but I also like the point that having more services allows a church to better use a smaller space. Rather than needing huge sprawling campus, churches can make do with a much smaller area. Instead of pouring all its money into building campaigns, people can be spending more money on mission instead. Most churches have building funds, which often have amounts in the tens of thousands of dollars, if not more. How many churches have similar funds for missions, or even given an equivelant amount to missions?
I also like the idea of the smaller, more intimate worship experience as a way to emphasize that worship is a community experience and a participtory one. Worship is not meant to be observed, but taken part in. Smaller services help to create a stronger connection within the church. I think an emphasis on smaller size helps to increase what can be done in worship, since smaller size tends to allow for more flexibility with space.
As I reflect on all of this I realize that part of what is at stake is how worship seeks to live out the mission of the church. Different styles and such are certainly useful, but we should not be concerned with models and styles so much as whether the worship service is moving the church forward in its mission.

"In God There Is Enough"

I was attending a conference this week and in the process heard the quote "in God there is enough." The quote really resonnated with me and my experiences recently. Anyone who has ever been involved in church, or for that matter any non-profit, finances knows how precarious things really can be. Despite all the planning that is done, a church is ultimately dependent on the often irregular giving of its members, it truly becomes a test of faith. The churches I work at currently are both looking at "projected" deficts for the end of the year, which means if everyone gives what they pledged and everything costs what we expect then we will have a shortfall at the end of the year. This can obviously be a source of great stress, but I think it is better to see it as a source of strength. I know for me personally as a pastor I love to not have to worry about money. In my own life I like the comfort of know that my upcoming bills will be covered by my upcoming paychecks, or better yet, by the money already in my account. I certainly have the same desire for my churches. I think the problem is that too often we want to be in control of everything. A church that has all its problems already covered has no need of God. The quote I heard is a good reminder that churches would be better to trust a little in God's grace and blessings rather than simply in financial calculations. I am not saying that churhes should not track their finances, but that rather than stressing about having a perfectly balanced budget, remember that God provides. How different would our churches, organizations, and stress levels be if we remembered that "in God there is enough."