♥negrisima♥
The absence of trust today is palpable. We don’t need to hear leaders, pundits and ordinary Joes talking about the breakdown of trust as the reality of the financial meltdown touches our lives—so many stories, of credit denied, of honest families victimized in financial scandals, of hardworking people losing their nest eggs in the stock market, of faithful employees laid off by companies they devoted themselves to for years… We can feel the distrust growing—in our banking system, government, corporations, even religious organizations.
How do we stop this? What treatment can heal these deep wounds? Wide sweeping federal policy? Complete reform of our banking system? State and local initiatives? Independent corporate reform through industry associations? Spiritual reformation?
There is also denial in the air. Last week in a board meeting of a nonprofit I am committed to the executive director stated that their umbrella association told them that even during downturns giving remains consistent. I silently shook my head but didn’t get a chance to remind them this isn’t just any downturn. When some of their wealthiest donors lose 50% of their wealth and 18% of overall American wealth disappears, it will affect their giving.
While contemplating on these larger scale issues, I narrowed my thinking to Christendom because I wanted to revisit a number that kept bothering me after reading Al Lunsford’s piece, Business is Our Mission. Al referred to research that indicated a global cost of $347,000 per baptism. What?? I had to do a double take. Of course you cannot put a price on a soul, and no one knows what the Spirit of God is doing or how long that work will take in a person’s life (or how long it has gone on already), but that’s not what this is about. When Nike states their customer acquisition costs are $100 per person against a lifetime customer value of x, are they placing a value on human life? Of course not. They are using financial tools to pursue efficiency and improve their understanding and intelligently utilize resources. And that, we have to assume, is what that $347,000 per baptism number is all about as well.
As I’ve been thinking about this, it was interesting to learn from a friend that a large parachurch organization ran a similar analysis and found their cost of conversion to be approximately $300,000. Whether cost per baptism or cost per conversion, these financial exercises bring important questions to the forefront.
“$347,000” bothered me so much that I contacted the International Bulletin of Missionary Research who put together the insightful study that produced this number. I haven’t heard back after my initial inquiry, so I decided to do my own back-of-the-envelope calculations.
The International Bulletin of Missionary Research estimated $410 billion/year in giving to “Christian” causes worldwide over the recent years. This was broken down to $160 billion to churches and $250 billion to parachurch organizations every year. Let’s assume that $347,000 per baptism is simply the total giving of $410 billion divided by the number of baptisms tracked. If this simple method was used, then the cost per baptism is tremendously overstated since we would have to assume a large portion is allocated to the operations of those churches and parachurch organizations.
I am assuming the primary mission of these organizations has something to do with making followers of Christ. The question is how much is being spent on the core mission of these organizations and how effective are they? A comparable question in the business world is asking how much do we spend on marketing and how effective is our program? For many companies, the benchmark is approximately ten percent of budget. Ten percent of $410 billion is $41 billion, which would make the figure $34,700 per baptism.
I would assume though that a church and parachurch organizations should be more focused to their mission than a companies, and, one could argue, their core mission should be their only focus. If a church were a business, would it really only devote 10% of the budget to getting out their message? Eyeballing, 30% or higher seems more appropriate. If this really is the case, I think $104,000 per baptism—or higher—is flabbergasting. And I suppose if one went with the argument that the only mission of a church or parachurch is making new Christians—a premise I don’t think stands up to biblical scrutiny—then the simple arithmetic of total expenditures ÷ number of new converts = cost/baptism, more or less. $347,000.
$347,000, $104,000, even $34,700…all seem ridiculously high. It screams waste to me. How much is being spent on non-core programs or questionable activities? There are easy targets like some mega-church pastors who have private jets and chauffeur-driven limousines. I wonder if some of them have Ferris wheels in their backyards, rent out Disneyland for their children, or bought gold plated driveway gates with God’s money…
Most systemic problems are hidden and not so overt as that, so I don’t believe the bling bling pastors should carry the whole burden of waste. Over the past decades I’ve heard or read about pastors of small and medium size churches retaining secret slush funds or making questionable purchases for their families. But does this add up to billions in waste? Probably not.
I’m guessing most of these non-core expenditures are for ethical but non-essential purposes, so how do you make a judgment call on such things and who is held accountable? There is pressure to grow, to buy bigger buildings, build bigger parking lots, or to have a summer retreat lodge. Nowadays churches have to provide social services as much as delivering God’s word. Golf groups, open gym, counseling and so on. Nothing is wrong with these services but what do they have to do with extending the kingdom of God—especially if they pull followers of Christ out of the world to the supposed safety of Christian ghettos?
If churches were to model themselves after a business organization, I would say an ideal example is the advertising firm. Think Crispin Porter + Bogusky—a lean and mean organization with a team obsessed on their client’s ad campaign. Their creatives are up day and night sweating to develop the best methods of reaching into their client’s customer base. As in any great firm, they are conscience of their client’s dollar and how best to spend it.
Reality is different. Most churches wouldn’t be compared to an advertising firm. Maybe an auto manufacturer? Steel company? I’m thinking country club. High operational costs, high touch, and high service. Also they might be characterized as insular, having rigid semantic biases, and of course a snotty attitude towards non-members.
Maybe today’s financial crisis is a blessing for “Christian” organizations across the globe, but especially in the most developed nations. The larger scale issues point to systemic deficiencies across a our society that is crying for change. What are some of these changes?
Openness!
There needs to be a willingness to open up and reassess where these organizations stand. Leaders needs to ask hard questions and then to create change. This process takes wisdom, courage and humility. I was encouraged when I saw Bill Hybels’ 2008 leadership presentation on “the wake-up call of his life” when he and the Willow Creek Community Church staff discovered their programs were not effective in creating sustainable growth for believers. He asked the hard question: “Do you ever wonder if we’re using God’s money and God’s resources in ways that are really achieving the mission of our church?” Every church and parachurch organization should ask this question every month.
Transparency!
There should be transparency of organizational budgets. Technology allows for this, so why not put up detailed budgets on Google docs or a wiki for everyone to see? This transparency creates accountability beyond the pastor or executive director and maybe a board made up of long-time friends.
Focus!
It’s time to rethink the assumption that, if we build it—church campuses, religious non-profits, alternative communities within communities—they will come. Does God dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands? Do we really expect religious professionals, who are outsiders in the places we work, to communicate the good news of the kingdom of God to our colleagues, while we—the insiders—stand passively by, wishing we could contribute more?
Action!
It’s easy to criticize organizations in their inefficiencies, but I believe at least half of the problem rests in the people who fill up pews and fellowship meetings. Believers have become old country club members who love to lounge on the greens and talk shop with their buddies. Maybe some of us have had too many manicures and hate to dirty our fingers. Believers need to step out of the comfort zone and engage the world —not be afraid, not separate from the world, not arrogantly defying, but engaging the world as it is, not as it is supposed to be.
The tail is wagging the dog. Proclaiming the year of the Lord’s favor does not require a 501(C)(3) corporation. The kingdom of God is not infrastructure dependent. New converts shouldn’t cost a nickel as they have already been paid for. At $347,000 per baptism, maybe it’s time to rethink Church.
Twitter
Facebook
FriendFeed
Delicious
YouTube
Comments
"but I believe at least half of the problem rests in the people who fill up pews and fellowship meetings. Believers have become old country club members who love to lounge on the greens and talk shop with their buddies. Maybe some of us have had too many manicures and hate to dirty our fingers. Believers need to step out of the comfort zone and engage the world —not be afraid, not separate from the world, not arrogantly defying, but engaging the world as it is, not as it is supposed to be." Amen. Did you happen to catch Andrew Breitbart on Maher the other night?
Your raising questions of how these monies should be spent.
In the law of Moses, the tithe was used for the "salaries" of the priests and levies, and for the fatherless and the widow. (Deu 26:12) At least in some passages. In others we see it being used to throw some serious parties, to include "fermented drink". (Deu 14:25-27)
If churches are going to be dogmatic about people tithing, I think they should be dogmatic about how they spend it. More on people(and beer), less on "programs". In that sense I agree with you.
However if I understand you correctly, I believe I disagree with your overall premise and the way you crunched the numbers. (Though props for taking a stab at it.) You are assuming that every dollar given should be measured in relationship to conversion, when in fact, many Christian organizations clearly focus on something else.
So then the question is should they?
I think the answer is yes, churches and other organizations seeking to reflect the Kingdom of God should be seeking to reflect God’s glory in a wide variety of ways. What was the dollar/cost/conversion ratio of the temple? Clearly they were some other considerations in mind. (though that is a bad contemporary example as I am really not a fan of modern day temples. Though the point still stands.) I believe your theological frame work skews your analysis toward the "great commission" with out keeping the "great commandment" sufficiently in mind.
If I raised one million for disaster relief spend 85% on direct services, 15% on salaries, and saw ten conversions as well, I would be very happy. Sure you could say that those conversions cost 100K/per, but that is not taking into consideration the intent of the money, how it was actually used, and how that direct alleviating of suffering brought glory to God if done with the right intent.
I think a better metric, (though a fairly unfeasible one, would be dollar/glory to God. The Bible says if you love me you will obey my commandments, (Jn 14:15) and the book of James, chapter two it says if you see your brother in need and don’t do anything about it, your worse than an unbeliever. Combine that with the first passage I referenced, and you can see where my agenda lies.
So like I said, while I appreciate your intent, I think your looking through the wrong end of a telescope, focusing too narrowly.
David, thanks for your comment. I believe you are creating a limiting framework for discussion. The issue is more fluid and complicated, so it’s not about "right and wrong" or an "all or none" discussion.
The purpose of my op-ed is to stimulate conversations and thinking, so the statements are strong for effect. I do believe there is a purpose for mega-churches, home churches and everything in between. My intent wasn’t to say every dollar should be focused on conversion. It was on wise stewardship and calling for more openness, accountability and action.
So instead of seeing dollars spent on expanding a multi-million dollar church campus, wouldn’t it be better spent on helping out urban churches that are in great need? Or instead of having a private jet for your pastor, how about providing food for the poor in NYC or your hometown? Or equipping home church leaders in China that are begging for training and knowledge?
"Glory to God" is a fuzzy metric. Would you agree that spending $3 million on pastor’s home isn’t bringing glory to God? At least it’s poor stewardship? As I clearly stated in my piece, I’m really concerned about the waste that goes on and a need to wisely allocate resources within church and parachurch organizations.
How would you have crunched those numbers?
Following from my last comment, I just want to clarify that I completely agree with the title, and much of what your saying. We absolutely have to rethink church, for a variety of reasons, including some that you mention. I’m simply concerned that your technical methodology leaves you open to criticism from people not as sympathetic as I.
That said I don’t have an in depth education in all things business, which I know is where your coming from. Maybe I’m missing something.
Bernard,
Your right, glory to God is a fuzzy metric. Way too much money is definatly being wasted. And yes, your were just writing an op-ed, keep stimulating that discussion.
I still think there is something to be said along the lines of analyzing how much suffering is being eased, or justice sought, per dollar, as apposed to just baptisms. But that’s just me.
Keep up the great work!
Just wanting to better understand what your saying. I guess what I’m hung up on is this part"
And I suppose if one went with the argument that the only mission of a church or parachurch is making new Christians—a premise I don’t think stands up to biblical scrutiny(I agree)—then the simple arithmetic of total expenditures (you just said this is not "biblical", I must be missing something) ÷ number of new converts = cost/baptism, more or less. $347,000.
Do you see what I’m getting at. If the mission is about more than making new Christians, (that’s kind of been my point all along) why are we dividing new converts by total expenditures, when much of these expenditures go to something besides conversion efforts? Wouldn’t it make more sense to capture the amount being spent on advertising/evangelism/whatever you want to call it, and then come up with a number? Which I would probably agree with you is still to high.Am I nit-picking? I guess my concern is that if were going to put a headline out there $347,000/baptism, people are going to want to know where that came from.
David,
Justice sought or suffering ease is also fuzzy. Very difficult to capture. Remember that I didn’t have complete information on how this $347,000 per baptism was derived. Also this is just an exercise and tool to see a larger problem. Just one viewpoint on a greater issue.
Regarding another take on that figure, I did take it down to comparable advertising/marketing budget scenario and came up with $34,700 per baptism in the article. Whether $347,000 or $34,700, it screams waste to me.
The title of your post is quotable. It truly speaks to the direction that we are heading…or the location we are presently residing.
I agree with Bernard about the need to reduce waste, to increase transparency, and to rethink church. The overall point and purpose of his post is excellent and important. However, a pure business approach might not work as perfectly when it comes to investments in people. Even if we narrow the metric down to the number of conversions or baptisms (they are not the same thing), the results can be "fuzzy." Psychologists even have a hard time defining "success" with clients. People are "fuzzy."
At the end of John 4, in vs. 36-38, Jesus said that one guy does the hard work (invests) and another guy reaps (sees the results). To some of his friends he said: "I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor."
What this means is that it might take huge upfront investment with no immediate return. If our metric requires immediate returns we miss what happens long-term. "The kingdom is like a mustard seed . . ." Even if it comes down to $347,000 per baptism, the long-term results/impact over the generations could change the picture considerably.
Again, none of what I’m saying is meant to disagree with Bernard’s call to reduce waste and increase efficiency. But I wonder what metric should be applied when we try to measure "success" with people. I’ll probably spend a million or more bucks to raise my kids and get them through college, but because they have free-will, I can’t guarantee the outcome.
Thank you for bringing up these great issues. When you get a chance, please come by the Koffi House and take a look around. Thanks!
Glenn,
It’s confusing if you say there is waste, but $347,000 per baptism or whatever number is okay if we take a long-term view. However you slice that number while looking into how churches, such as Willow Creek, were/are spending their resources, then it leads to more questions and hopefully change. There is waste that shouldn’t be ignored.
I’m all for laying groundwork and a foundation for God to move into a sector of society or nation. I’m currently supporting my friend’s efforts in Japan where similar amounts of money and resources have been devoted to that nation versus China and Korea, but with drastically different results over the past decades. The underground church movement in China is organic and spreading like wildfire, Korea sends out the most amount of missionaries after the U.S. and “Christians” still have not penetrated above 1% in Japan. It’s a sinkhole but I believe it’s been necessary to learn and improve upon God’s work there.
I’m not sure there is a pure business approach to anything. Many processes, systems, and frameworks are used across businesses, government and nonprofit sectors to improve organizational structures, efficiencies and culture. The origins of such tools vary from all these sectors.
There are metrics of success and various methodologies that are out there that churches and parachurch organizations should be willing to explore. Again these are not the end all. One example was Willow Creek’s reassessment last year that I mentioned in this piece. Greg Hawkins surveyed their body and also found that the most dissatisfied group within their church were also the most mature group of believers. I found that fascinating because it also correlated with a study I read earlier that discovered a large portion of unchurched believers were former pastors, elders and deacons. It was encouraging that Greg took the tools and learning he acquired from the corporate world and applied it to church.
So my point is that these are all just tools to consider to improve our effectiveness as a body. The labels and metrics may seem like we are placing a hard value on God’s work or an individual soul, but I’m not and hopefully people that continue to do so won’t.
Bernard,
I think we are in perfect agreement. Parachurch and church organizations should be open to using the metrics that are available, including from the corporate world. There should be ongoing efforts to reduce waste and abuse of funding.
The point of my comment was to just make sure that the metrics don’t disregard all that the Bible says about investing in people. You stated this well: "The labels and metrics may seem like we are placing a hard value on God’s work or an individual soul, but I’m not and hopefully people that continue to do so won’t."
“The tail is wagging the dog. Proclaiming the year of the Lord’s favor does not require a 501(C)(3) corporation. The kingdom of God is not infrastructure dependent. New converts shouldn’t cost a nickel as they have already been paid for.”
InsideWork exists because we’re convinced the kingdom of heaven is not a 501(C)(3). There are, by the lights of the survey you quote, close to 12MM “Christian workers” around the world. The rough number of self described Christians is something over 2BN, the vast majority of whom don’t have to “go” anywhere other than the workplace to make significant, daily connections with people who are eager for transcendent good news. Need, solution, proximity… How hard can this be?
Jim,
I agree. We preach this at our church all the time. KISS baby.
But on the other hand, many things bound up with living the year of the Lord’s favor require organization and money.
Bed nets to prevent malaria.
Blankets for refuges huddled in unsanitary camps. (A good nights sleep and a decent body temperature do wonders for fighting off disease.)
Access to potable drinking water.
The mortgage and utilities at a safe house for battered women, or former sex slaves.
All these things cost money, and need staff to make them happen. The great thing is that many are contributing to these goals and others in a for-profit environment, which I think is great.
For instance: The foundry worker who made the pipe, that delivered the potable drinking water, and the manager who made it happen, are as responsible for that drinking water, which prevented the diseases and raised the infant mortality rate, which put that child in a position to one day know Christ personally, as the city employee who took a week off his job at the sewer dep. and installed the pipe.
Taxes and donations don’t grow on trees, and all of us need to be reflecting Christ right where were at. So largely I agree with you. However the world as we know it does not yet reflect the Kingdom of God. Moving toward that end may require a few more 501(c)(3)’s.
At our church we try to minimize the number of new programs or ministries we do, and instead try to join others who are already doing great things. Thereby reducing the administrative overhead, and making sure more of our time and treasure is going directly to those in need. Truth is though, as the original piece called for, we could probably do an even better job at this.
One thing that I find challenging is that in scripture we do not see one way God prioritizes money. He is concerned for the poor and the needy and tells us to care for them. Yet we see him taking so much wealth and man power that could have been used different ways and building a temple that I feel many could judge as wasteful in today’s world. We cannot pretend to be able to determine God’s priorities but we are to such the full depth of scripture to seek his values and the things we see bringing him Joy. There is not one thing but many things from taking care of the widow and yet sacrificing thousands of cattle that could have fed the hungry.
It seems to be the question is on motives and ethics which for any one man is difficult to judge the heart of another. I caution that. There are things I deem wasteful yet a few churches over could look at what I do and deem what I do wasteful. We are called to different things in our culture and world and must be careful and we measure what God would deem worthy of his money.
I agree, Dave. While God is not limited by infrastructure, He is not limited to certain structures nor should we be. Through the church and nonprofits, good works and impact has been made.
Another example to think about is a person working at a nonreligious nonprofit, such as the Clinton Global Initiative. This person can be a strong witness through his/her work there. God can work through them as they travel through various global circles. Same with another person in government or a major corporation.
For the record, the March 19th 9:54am "David", is different than the rest of the "David" comments which are mine, ("David Best") The other David is actually a friend of mine. Good to see you David.
Good Point. Let’s not box in anything which even more brings the idea of putting a price tag on any of this kind of distasteful to me. The man working at the other non profits that was grown in his faith through a local church but then impact many for Christ and yet who he impacts never fits into the numbers crunching. I just find the whole idea of creating a number per person our of taste. The discussion of waste and reasons for what we spend is a good discussion to have and more accountability form peers in this area is a needed piece in our Christian culture.
My last comment was to Dave Best. To the other David, why is it distasteful when it’s just a tool to help reveal waste? It seems you are too focused on the number and not the process. As stated before, is it not distasteful when some pastors fly around in private jets at their choice when those resources can be allocated elsewhere? When talk of church growth centers around bigger parking lots rather than people’s biblical faith?
More accountability from peers? What about just opening it up to the whole body?
There is a difference between being non-judgmental and being complacent to evil or sin. Between respectful inaction and respectful action…
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
It IS time to rethink the church, something I’ve spent 36 years doing, ever since God called me to the task. The results? Check out our website and this chart, called Truth Bombs: http://truthbombs.3circles.net
Also I have created a Wisdom Blog called Transform Yourself that challenges many preconceived notions among Christians: http://3circles.org/transform
It’s time we stop playing church and learn how to BE THE CHURCH!
Leroy Grey
Interesting article. The Catholic Church has been ‘baptizing’ Christians for the last 2000 years for far less than $347,000/person. Our church in Santa Clara baptizes ~300+ per year with annual tithes of ~$192k – or ~$640/person. And I’m pretty sure Father Junipero Serra did it for far less money (though he gave his life) when he established San Diego, Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Carmel and San Francisco and the millions he brought into the Kingdom as a result.
I think you can’t make a blanket statement like that, as all churches aren’t alike. Apples and oranges. There are churches that pay their senior pastor more than my church’s entire budget is.
It would be an interesting exercise, though, to break these numbers down by demographic. To be fair, let’s not go by attendance, but by annual budget. Put them in catagories: Less than $100k, 100k-250k, 250k-500k, 500k-1M, 1M+. How about a bug church like Northpoint (and I’m not picking on them, it’s just an example, and their financials are on their website) with a 35M budget. (that boggles the mind, BTW)
I’ll bet you’ll find that economies of scale work in reverse. If a 100k church baptizes just one person a month, then Northpoint would have to baptize 350 per month to be "as efficient." Now, it would be cool if they baptize 4200 people a year! I don’t know if they do or not.
I would imagine smaller churches are more fiscally efficient because they have to be. They have to "make do" with a sub-par sound system, no stage lights, a free website, volunteer staff and locking up the copy paper. They have to really look at what they can do, and look at what gives them the most "bang for the buck" so to speak.
Does that make them better stewards? Whose to say? But a smaller church also spends a larger percentage of its budget on non-ministry items as well, probably. Equipment, utilities, insurance, etc…
It’s easy to just throw a number out there.
Michael,
I think you’re missing the point of the article and the comments that followed. This was an average calculated by the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, so it’s a tool that allows anyone to analyze and think about what this means.
Also I don’t understand how you are referring to attendance. It’s a per baptism figure. Thanks for your comment.
Trackbacks
[...] published a rather inciteful article concerning the average cost of bringing believers into the Church. Now granted Bernard Moon’s [...]
[...] published a rather inciteful article concerning the average cost of bringing believers into the Church. Now granted Bernard [...]
[...] $347k Per Baptism Mean? 2009 May 14 by Tyler I recently read an article that talked about the cost of each baptism (or Christian conversion) to be $347,000. I can’t make this stuff up. Basically it says that for all the money Christian organizations [...]