A church I know has a huge missions budget. They have, they say, a strong commitment to missions. But a closer look shows allocations for everything from Sunday school supplies to choir trips—anything the leaders think might be difficult to get approved—are labeled “missions.” Now they’re trapped. Any reasonable adjustment will look like they’ve cut funding to missions.
As you start next year’s budget process, avoid these snares when dividing up the money.
1. The line-item trap. Someone who places a high priority on evangelism notices the line item for outreach is only half that for music. He concludes, with some disappointment and anger, that the church thinks more of music than saving souls. The squabble that ensues sounds like kids arguing over which one got the bigger slice of pie.
A couple of families once met with me about the lack of funds for youth ministry. I quickly agreed with them.
After some research I discovered the line item showed only 40 percent of the funding. Many other expenses were scattered throughout the budget, under “administration” and “personnel,” for instance. The ministry to youth was more important than the line item showed.
Taken in isolation, line items don’t communicate a church’s true feelings about a ministry. You have to dig deeper to measure that.
2. The priority-demands-money trap. Leaders may give a ministry more money thinking they are giving it higher priority. Wrong. This works on the assumptions that (a) giving more money is the only way to raise a ministry’s status and (b) a church has only one budget.
But every congregation has at least three budgets, only one is financial. A second and equally important budget is the time budget—the church calendar. Priority may not mean more money but a better time slot.
Another is the pulpit-emphasis budget. Some ministries, with good time slots and adequate funding, go lacking because they aren’t emphasized by those who share the pulpit.
A minister to single adults told me recently about the turning point in her ministry. A church called her to build a strong program. They gave her funds and facilities, but the ministry did not really have the support of the church. Then the pastor wrote a column in the newsletter about the singles ministry and asked two single people to lead in prayer during worship. This young minister said the senior pastor’s public endorsement was more valuable than any budget increase.
3. The easy-compromise trap. Budget preparation is one of the most stressful times of the year. Conflicts can escalate into ego wars, with program leaders becoming battalion commanders and members the ground troops.
Say, for example, two ministries each want a 10 percent increase, but there is only enough money to give 10 percent to one. Solution? Give each 5 percent, right?
This quick compromise reduces tension, but it betrays the church’s vision. If the church has named a particular ministry for emphasis, then the church’s will has been truncated.
Certainly compromise is necessary, but if everything falls into place without healthy debate, it may mean that the priorities of the church have been put aside for the comfort of the leaders.
4. The meaningless-motto trap. Watch out for the words and phrases that bear no relation to reality. “Zero-based budgeting” is one example. Another is labeling every church expense a “ministry.”
Last year I received a copy of a church budget that had “Balanced Ministry” printed in large letters at the top. The budget was divided into four areas: evangelism, missions, ministry, and worship with line items under each. Each area received one-fourth. It was obvious, though, that someone had spent time tinkering with the figures so they would be equal.
The motto meant nothing. Like charging office supplies off to missions.
—Gary Fenton Pastor, Dawson Memorial Baptist Church Birmingham, Alabama
Copyright © 2000 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
