Gauging Church Efficiency



In an era where people are cutting budgets and becoming energy efficient, the church must do the same. I’m not talking about the electric bill and “going green.” One area of waste, fraud, and abuse within the church is the money and time that people give to church programs. Are we truly getting a significant return on our vast expenditures in these areas?

Studies show that on average, a church has three conversions per year for every 100 people who attend. These are actual conversions, not just people transferring from one church to another. Based on this statistic, let’s look at how much money and time churches spend on average to gain these three conversions.

Money
It is estimated that the cost of running a church is about $1700 each year for each regular attendee. This number is within ballpark range for small churches and mega churches. A church of 50, with a building and one pastor, costs about $85,000 per year to operate. A mega-church, like Rick Warren’s Saddleback Community Church, costs $34 million for 20,000 in weekend attendance. Do the math to see if these numbers hold basically true for your church. You will probably be “within the ballpark.”

So if the average church gets three conversions for every 100 people, and the average church expense for 100 people is about $170,000, then the average expense per conversion is over $50,000.

Yes, yes, I know. A lot more is going on in church than just evangelism, and a lot of the money is spent on discipling those who believe. But still, one of the goals of discipleship should be evangelism. If people are being adequately trained, then the money spent on their training should result in a greater number of conversions. But it is not.

So the question becomes: Would you support a non-profit organization which had the stated goal of “evangelizing the lost” but spent over $50,000 for each convert? I don’t know about you, but I would have difficulty supporting such a ministry, especially if they had been doing this for 2000 years and their effectiveness became worse and worse over time.

Speaking of time, let’s look at an asset of the church even more valuable than money.

Time
Aside from the money spent on church, consider the cost in time. Though many spend only an hour or so in church activates per week, others spend much more. Some, such as the staff, devote 60 hours or more each week on church activities. Of course, this is their job. On average, a church member spends about three hours per week on church activities. This does not count the time they spend getting ready for church, driving to church, and going out for lunch after church. Nor does it include personal Bible study or prayer time during the week. This is time they actually spend in the church building or in a designated church program.

Three hours per week isn’t a whole lot when you realize that the average person watches that much television every single night of the week. But still, it appears that even these few hours spent on “church” accomplishes very little.

Three hours per person per week results in about 150 hours per year. So 100 people spend about 15,000 hours per year on “church activities.” Taking the average conversion rate of three conversions per 100 people, about 5000 hours go into each conversion. When you realize that a full-time job (40-hours per week) fills 2000 hours per year, each conversion takes two-and-a-half years of work-hours.

So again I ask, if you were supporting a missionary who had one conversion every two-and-a-half years, would you continue to support that missionary?

Yes, again, I know that some missionaries labor for 40 years without seeing a single missionary. But these stories are often followed up with the fact that when a new missionary arrived on the scene, they see hundreds or thousands of conversions in the first few years of work, not because they figured something out that their predecessor did not, but because the faithful missionary of 40 years had prepared the soil, planted the seed, and watered the ground. The new missionaries on the scene just happen to be there for the harvest. So statistically, we do expect the average conversion rate for missionaries to be much less than one conversion every two-and-a-half years.

Is this a good use of time and money?
Is all of this time and money really a good investment? Possibly. No price is too high for the single soul, and a lot more goes on in the typical church than just seeking conversions. For that $1700 and 150 hours per person, the people who attend also get friends, fellowship, encouragement, support, guidance, and spiritual education. So maybe it is all worth it.

But what if there were a more efficient way of providing all of this, while at the same time, seeing more people become followers of Jesus? In the coming weeks, I will propose a few.

The newsletter includes a weekly blog digest
and the monthly newsletter with exclusive news and offers. This month's offer is a
free copy of my eBook
The Skeleton Church.


  • FedExMOP

    Jeremy,

    I am not sure we can really measure efficiency in these terms. I can think of several missionaries who gave their lives without ever seeing a convert. I do however agree that the way we do church is more like a business providing a service than a ministry, and as such maybe it is apropriate to measure them like we would a business. Not sure that most churches would survive if they had to operate under the same guidelines as normal businesses.

    I see this in my ministry with the homeless all the time. We have several different churches, some even from the same denomination, each working independantly of one another. The result of this has been that on some days, there are 2-3 evening meals served, many times to the same people, and on other days, there are no meals provided. We have worked to bring some of these churches together to combine resources and cover more days or to make the meals more accessable. We have seen some success, but there are some who still hold to doing their own thing and the result is that food often is wasted.

    This is the very reason that we choose not to do our own thing at all, but rather to come alongside existing ministries and to work to build relationships with them. Our primary ministry has been to simply reach out in relationship to those on the streets and with those serving them. This has enables us to make at least some progress in streamlining services while remaining relatively neutral. I am not sure how the churches move beyond this need to leave their individual fingerprint on a ministry opportunity and begin looking for the most effective and cost concious way to reach those in need.

    FedEx,
    President,
    Men of Praise Motorcycle Ministry

    • http://www.tillhecomes.org Jeremy Myers

      This is the very reason that we choose not to do our own thing at all, but rather to come alongside existing ministries and to work to build relationships with them. Our primary ministry has been to simply reach out in relationship to those on the streets and with those serving them. This has enables us to make at least some progress in streamlining services while remaining relatively neutral.

      Awesome! That is what I’m talking about.

      I agree that ministry is not all about seeing conversions. I was a little reluctant to make this post for that very reason.

      So in future follow-up posts, I will suggest some different ways of measuring success, different goals churches can have, and maybe different ways of achieving those goals than the standard “come to church for songs and a sermon” strategy that has been followed for so many centuries.

  • Pingback: Cut All Church Programs

Want to write a Guest Post while I move across the country? Get Published on this Blog