Developing a planning models requires an awareness of the various kinds of planning models available, and a choice between the models. A widely used model is what I call a "church and community" model. This model focuses primarily upon the church membership and the community in which the church building is located. A second model is the Planning-Budgeting- Evaluation model. Another group of models focuses on the desired end, resulting in a backward planning approach. Examples of this approach are church growth models, social action models, and evangelism models. No model is neutral. Each model has presuppositions, biases, and limits. Each model has both strengths and weaknesses. Every model has shortcomings and specific emphases. The most critical decision in any planning effort is not in gathering data, although data must be gathered correctly, but in the choice and development of the planning model.

Results from the various planning models mentioned above are generally predictable. For example, the church and community model generally finds (1) a church that is not serving many residents in the vicinity of the building, (2) a need for stronger outreach to keep the church from dying, (3) suggestions for remodeling or relocating the church building, and (4) an emphasis on weaknesses and liabilities. The Planning-Budgeting-Evaluation model generally concludes with recommendations concerning church finances. Church growth planning models most often find recommendations in the areas of evangelism and concerns about new member recruitment and improved assimilation and involvement. The social action models will generally recommend increased community involvement, more service ministries, and increased building use by neighborhood organizations. Models focused on fellowship generate recommendations for increased fellowship, e.g. small groups, smaller church cells, and increased activities. (cf. Schaller, Effective Church Planning) The obvious challenge is to develop a holistic church planning model that attempts to understand the church as an integrated system.

One useful measure of planning models is orientation. Does the model focus on problems or describe potential? Does the model review the past or envision the future? Does the model tend to focus on strengths or weaknesses? Does the model tend to ask what we have been or what we can become? Normal outcomes can be predicted by comparing problem-based and potential-based models. Problem-based models may generally be described as oriented in the past, pessimistic, remedial, liability-focused, weakness-focused, placing blame for the past, focusing on past and present members, yielding goals which are frustration-stimulated, and focusing on maintenance. On the other hand, potential based models may generally be described as oriented to the future, optimistic, creative and innovative, asset-focused, strength-focused, concerned with future plans, desirous of attracting new members, formulating goals which respond to unmet needs, and focusing on progress. (cf. Schaller, Effective Church Planning) This comparison demands a model based on potential rather than past failures.

The planning model chosen will also influence the self-esteem of the church. A model which reinforces feelings of inadequacy, overwhelms with the severity of the problems, or depresses when comparing today's perceived failures and decline with yesterday's successes and growth is usually counterproductive, yielding the opposite result from that intended. A focus on potential, the future, assets, strengths, abilities, and possibilities give building blocks for expansion and shows the future as open, not closed. Self-esteem is essential for church growth, and those with confidence are more willing to venture forth into an unknown world.

The attitude of the planning model toward resources is also important. Two opposite planning styles are allocative and innovative. The allocative style is based on the distribution of scarce resources; the innovative style is based on the assumption that planning should encourage new ideas, creativity, and new solutions. (Schaller, Church Planning, 105) The terms we use to describe our current situation can communicate a bias. Is the job bigger than the resources available (allocative) or can the job be done by some yet unthought of method which does not tap those resources or provides additional resources (innovative)? Effective planning tips toward the innovative and creative rather than the continued allocation and reallocation of present resources. Only an innovative planning model can respond to changing needs.

Characteristics of the allocative model include the following: materials-based (What do we have?), problem-based, cost-benefit planning, unified budgets, tendencies toward the planning- budgeting-evaluating model. Characteristics of the innovative model include things generally opposite: performance-based (What must we do?), potential-based, cost-effectiveness planning, department budgets, management by objective. One can list many other differences, but these illustrate the opposing planning approaches. While it is especially difficult in small and medium- sized churches to shift toward an innovative planning system, the need for creativity and freshness demand such an approach.

Finally, the planning model influences congregational values. While congregational values will influence the choice of the planning model, the influence is a two-way street. Evaluating and questioning the shared values of the church will influence church personality. It will also clarify values. If the planning model blurs or fails to reflect the value system, the result will be ineffectiveness. Peters and Waterman identified this dynamic as part of their study of business models (In Search of Excellence, 76).

Back to top | Next: Chapter 5