Church size - when to pay

[theatre4jc]

I see a big problem with what the OP is asking. Not that people should be paid. I'm a lighting designer for a large church, paid staff. I firmly believe in paying a professional for a quality product, even in a church. But that's not the part of the issue I want to discuss. What I see as the big problem is one that I've noticed at a lot of churches across the country...

It's taking advantage of the few faithful volunteers till they are bled dry and burned out. I've seen it time and time again and quite frankly it makes me mad. I was just challenged by one of my volunteers to look at how our volunteer crew is treated. Does the church even seem at all grateful for their service? Most of our volunteers are never paid for any of their work. If a paid show or service comes up it's offered to all volunteers, first come first paid. Do we show appreciation beyond this? At my church we try to have a church within a church. A family. We try to take care of our own when they are hurting and in need. Do we appreciate them, oh yeah! Do we do our best to show it, maybe not.

But here is what I see from the OP statements. Even if this isn't true, it feels like this is the impression that particular crew gets. The church is saying we will demand these things from you and you will be here this many hours and this many days a week, no choice about serving, no appreciation for their actions. It sounds like burn out is a major issue there. So my answer for when a church should start hiring a paid person...it's when you are killing your volunteers and working them to a point where they no longer want to serve. If you burn them out, then you are hurting their ability to serve the church. Paying a volunteer isn't the answer, but having a staff member who attends the rehearsals and does all the prep work so the volunteer comes in an hour before the service does help take the stress level down. I have weekly volunteers to actually run the lights at my service. I rarely touch the console on a Sunday morning. They come in to a fully functional system and usually have a stress free service, because as the paid person who oversees it, I'm free and not running the gear to take on the stress of equipment failing or a worship pastor that changes the song with 1:15 left on the countdown clock.

I think volunteers should be the backbone of all churches. They are what makes a church successful and are usually also the ones inviting others and sharing their faith. But how dare we as an actual paid staff member ever put our volunteers in a position where they feel burned out because we are demanding or requiring to much from them! When you start requiring the volunteer to be there, it steps away from being a volunteer and puts them as employees with no pay. A company requires an employee to be there and doesn't pay them, that's illegal. A church that requires a volunteer to be there, that's immoral to me. No if a volunteer offers to be there I fully expect them to be there and be on time...or early. But it sounds like for these demanding rehearsal times, these volunteers are not given an option to even serve but are all told you will be there. This to me is wrong.

I'll step of my soapbox now.

[tdangelo]

Mike,

Yes, I think Bill and Jack would agree with you that all those things represent a different currenxy which may be used to compensate employees and workers. To that extent I you are supporting their point that strictly on a financial basis the church cannot compete.

I believe RJSmith was asking about compensating all tech people as his question is in the plural twice when referring to the team and compensation. Maybe I missundeerstood. I don't believe financially compensating an entire team of volunteers is viable. By definition, they would no longer be volunteers. That is quite a different question however than at what point should a church move an individual from volunteer to staff or freelance status ( which I in general support subject to the needs of the church).

[Esoteric]

Oh I certainly agree 100% that a church will never compete strictly on finances. For example I used to make north of $60000 for a 6 month contract on the road. Heck, I made $25/hr working with IATSE local crews (twice or three times that as a rigger). As a moving light programmer I would pull in $1500-$2000 a day. Churches could never pay that. But they can pay an acceptable wage and give benefits that those jobs didn't.

But Churches are getting greedy. "Good Stewardship" is often code for being cheap while misyreating contractors, draining the life out of volunteers, and making staff old before their time and that saddened me.

All leaders and volunteers serve at the mercy of the church. It is an honor to serve. But churches have a responsibility to care for those that serve and to shepherd them as they do every other congregate.

Mike

[theatre4jc]

Well state Mike!

[JDaniels]

For the longest, I have held the opinion that if a church wants to do top notch A.V.L. productions, find the best people you can and pay them for their expertise.

However in the age of YouTube and Vimeo, If you want basic video work, there are tons of people with video cameras and basic editing skills producing low end videos that are being used in churches today. I know, I get asked constantly to download something that is highly compressed and choppy and has absolutely nothing do to with the topic they want.

If the latter is what you want, then Im not your guy. But if you want my experienced and high end production work to take your church to the highest levels, then it comes with a price. Its not free and its not sausage biscuits from the nearest dollar menu on SUnday mornings.

(in no way is the above meant to promote myself, since this is my first post here. Im just saying that I have dedicated my life and career to promoting ministries using video for the Kingdom of God, and He desires excellence in everything we do. Colossians 3:23)

[EmilBarnabas]

Originally Posted by RJSmith

A secondary question is how special services are generally handled in other churches. Our church typically does a "special" for most major holidays (including Christmas, Easter, Independence Day, etc.) which requires the entire media team to be at the church every week night and some time on the weekends for at least a week (usually 2-3 weeks or more at Christmas) in preparation of the presentation. I personally feel that this is asking a lot of unpaid volunteers, especially around the Christmas season, to forgo time with their families around every major holiday (there is no rotation for these as all media team members are needed for each presentation).

While there are those who want to serve, it is a large commitment to automatically be expected for weeks at time around holidays and my primary concern right now is for some people who have committed to help on a rotation but are finding the holiday schedule to be overwhelming. I'd like to know how others handle this in order to come up with some solutions to share with our music pastor.

Your church "requires" them to volunteer? What if they don't? Do they get kicked off the team? What if nobody was available to work for a particular event? Would they cancel the event, or would they look to hire someone?

If your church's tech-needs are this involved, they need to hire someone to do all the hard work and oversee the "volunteers" who "volunteer" to work. The paid person needs to be able to explain why more paid people need to be hired for special events or what technical effects won't happen if they don't hire.

[SterlingAug]

Originally Posted by petereit

Here's an idea that I'm DESPERATELY trying to pitch to my pastor: give the volunteer staff a HUGE Christmas gift this year and hire a musical guest for the Christmas program. Jimmie Bratcher's Christmas tour is AWESOME!

Here is another highly recommended artist that my church has used twice before. It gives everyone a break to just watch, listen, and enjoy the show.

http://www.josholdaker.com/

[buswheel]

This is my slightly different look at this topic

Why do we pay anyone at church?

My response to this is so they can spend the time they would normally use to make a living (ie "tent-making") and support their family so they can use that time working for the church.
Therefore for a any position the question I ask is does the position/proposed position limit the ability for that person to make a living and support their family? The answer to this needs to consider both the financial and non-financial aspects of this question.
For a FOH tech serving once a month I would most likely answer no to this. For a technical director overseeing a large volunteer team and mainatining the tech system I would probably say yes.
In the end however it is a bit of a "it depends" situation, and therefore each case needs to be assessed individually.

[dmot]

Just want to add that we need to be careful about tech because we often spend way too much on it (people and equipment) and use the "it is the only way to reach people" as the justification. If you go that route I'll just say you won't like the research. If you ask people how they were introduced to Jesus you will hear a lot more of "I was going through a difficult time and a friend came along side me" than "I went to this church that had awesome technology and I met some awesome people who introduced me to an awesome God." Every church should feel a tension when it comes to spending money on technology and that is a good and important tension to wrestle with.

[Esoteric]

You are correct dmot. Most people are reached through one on one interactions with other Christians. Of course, there are exceptions.

I think the question here is, once you have decided to use technology. I would rather see a church use no technology at all than to attempt to use technology without the guidance of a professional.

[rjwalker]

A lot of interesting points.

A speculative observation: the impression I get is that the churches using a fair degree of tech seem to be growing the fastest and, in my area, at least, are bringing in the most "seekers" and "baby Christians."

I'm not suggesting that tech itself is the "cause;" but the association seems pretty strong.

I'm guessing that the same people who respond to a tech infused energetic service are the ones who, for some reason, are most likely to form what I'll call 'invitational relationships.'

I'd also guess (and this is close to pure speculation) that for many, as their Christian experience and knowledge deepens, they are inclined to move away from a high energy 'glitz' service to something more contemplative - and, dare I say it - "traditional" service

Bottom line - I suspect that each style of service and approach to worship serves a need and helps form a unique community - none is better or worse - each community should discern/decide on its goals and decide on a worship approach which promotes and strengthens that community's soul.

[dmot]

Originally Posted by rjwalker

A lot of interesting points.

A speculative observation: the impression I get is that the churches using a fair degree of tech seem to be growing the fastest and, in my area, at least, are bringing in the most "seekers" and "baby Christians."

I'm not suggesting that tech itself is the "cause;" but the association seems pretty strong.

I'm guessing that the same people who respond to a tech infused energetic service are the ones who, for some reason, are most likely to form what I'll call 'invitational relationships.'

I'd also guess (and this is close to pure speculation) that for many, as their Christian experience and knowledge deepens, they are inclined to move away from a high energy 'glitz' service to something more contemplative - and, dare I say it - "traditional" service

Bottom line - I suspect that each style of service and approach to worship serves a need and helps form a unique community - none is better or worse - each community should discern/decide on its goals and decide on a worship approach which promotes and strengthens that community's soul.

Just to be clear, my post did not mean to imply that technology was a bad thing. I am simply stating that stewardship is of utmost importance and when you look at the world wide Church the amount of money we spend should give us pause. If you are truly looking for bang for your buck you would probably send most of your money overseas. My point is only that we should always feel a tension when we spend money and that is a good thing that we need to embrace. A church that processes and wrestles with that tension and still spends money on technology is on the right track. I might also add this is also why a lot of churches should hire consultants and actually spend a little more money up front for technology.