Doing sermon prep… that’s right, I’m doing sermon prep… I ran across an old article I had planned on sending out for publication. The bottom line is I have too much to do to really take the effort to submit magazine articles and wait for rejection letters. And even though I don’t get paid for it (maybe that makes it better any way 
), TheOoze probably reaches a bigger audience than most magazines that would publish my work any way!
A short synopsis of the article:
The pareto principle states that 80% of the people in a local church will not contribute to the workings of the church and that 20% will do all the work. I propose that without a significant shift in church structure, this principle will always play out. The current established church structure dictates that a minority of the people will do all the work. In fact, the structure doesn’t even make sense if there’s not a crowd of persons who do little but show up to the worship services.
Technorati Tags:
ecclesiology, emergingchurch
Very interesting, Alan. Though I wonder if the 80/20 thing isn’t wired even more deeply than you talk about in the article. I’m not sure that any structure is going to be able to break through that.
Dwayne
December 28th, 2006
Unless your structure is not geared towards the “visitor” at all… meaning the structure is taken by the gift mix of the people who make up the local church. Everyone would be involved because the structure is based around them.
That’s a bit nebulous, and you would have to adapt as new persons join the community. I don’t think 80/20 20/80 is what we truly have to live with.
Alan
December 28th, 2006
I agree with you, Alan, and I tend to believe that while people in church leadership circles are conversant in pseudo-business-speak and church models, the majority of the 80% who attend church are gleefully ignorant.
We are not forced by the dominant culture to accept business models as gospel for how to “do” church. It’s as simple – and difficult – as taking bold steps toward church as a conversation, as a community, and not as a monologue by the elite.
How such a shift would translate into change for current church power structures remains to be seen. I imagine that as a church leader, I have to be willing to give control away and take on more of a consultant/elder/advisor role for the church: in the words of Paul, “to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the Body of Christ may be built up.”
John
December 28th, 2006
Alan,
This statistic is broken every day in thousands of churches across the land. These churches do not make the statistics often, because they are flying under the radar of observation.
“Natural Church Development,” by Christian A. Schwarz which was based on the largest statistical observation of the church ever attempted, did pick up on this group, and so did you in your article.
Hidden in the pages (page 32 if I remember correctly) observed that churches under 100 tended to break all the statistics, and this was one of those stats most significantly disproportionate.
There is a natural power in smallness which breaks all the attempts to be professional, adapt corporate patterns, or pose as more important than others. There is a need for leaders in small groups to invite interaction, ask or help because they realize that they cannot be specialists.
This connection to the basic power of the Gospel is often short-circuited by an attempt to act, and look like the big boys, but after pastoring small churches for 21 years, I have found that the 80/20 rule has never been in effect.
I’m not sure it’s a paradigm shift as much as establishing groups which force involvment simply by necessity. The weakness of small groups – that there are not enough people to help is also their strength – it creates an all hands on deck approach.
Phil Wyman
December 28th, 2006
Phil -
Thanks for your input. I am an advocate for smaller, more relational churches. And I am aware of many churches which are changing their structure and take an entirely different approach to ministry. This is exciting, and I hope Schwarz’s book (It’s been a few years since I read his findings) would point to those types of churches.
Statistics, however, can be twisted to make something look healthy which actually are not. For example, I discussed this article with my father prior to publishing it on theooze. The church he is a part of consists of less then forty adults. While he said they are probably more around 40/60 or 50/50, the basic premise is still the same. Their basic “positions” are filled, and if twenty people showed up next week and started coming to the worship services every week, they’d be right there with the Pareto Principle.
The statistics to me are a symptom. The next thing we should look at is what value to the Kingdom of God the work that is being done actually has…
That’s not meant to devalue what you contribute in the least. It’s encouraging to know there are local churches who are finding more involvement from the persons who make up their local church.
Alan
December 28th, 2006
Interestingly in his book, the stats on small churches were there, but almost hidden. He did not emphasize the dynamics of smallness as an inherant power.
Ultimately the power is not in smallness alone, but in simplicity combined wioth smallness. All the movements of Open Church, Simple Church, House Church, Small Church, and to some degree Emergent Community are aiming at a similar goal from different angles.
I understand what you mean about statistics being a symptom, but having started with the 80/20 stat, the discussion is a question of how to solve the problem with this statistic. Even to be considered is the validity of the statistic, and whether it is universal, or some kind of Christian urban myth applied generically to all churches.
The fact that people would standardly use this statistic I think says a number of things.
It says pastors live with a tension of feeling overworked in a volunteer organization.
It says that the organization has become just that – an organization, and something less organic – yet that in itself is a difficult point to prove in any situation. Do we make something happen because there is a need, or because it is the correct thing to do? Does the whole group feel that it is what they want, and do they birth the activity themselves? Something can be organic, and still need helpers. This is similar to a having an apple orchard. The trees may grow apples who knows how – but irrigation may still be required.
It says that we potentially labor under a competitive environment as Christians, and this is not healthy.
On one hand I am moving aggressively away from the corporate, and competitive models. On the other hand, I recognize that even in what I perceive as a fundamentallly unhealthy model, there are many people organically serving God, and are doing more than sticking their butts in the pews.
Phil Wyman
December 29th, 2006
Yeah, it wasn’t the house churches I had in mind when I was looking at the stats being a symptom, it was small churches with a traditional structure. If you plug 20 to 30 more persons into a church with a traditional structure that seems to have more people involved, and suddenly they realize all of their “positions” have been filled and they’re right back to having a crowd where the majority does nothing but “attend.”
In the article, I’m open to that being a legit model for entrance into the Church. I don’t think it’s a model I would want to pursue in my ministry, but I affirm the diversity of structures in the body of Christ as a good thing.
Alan
December 29th, 2006