Ministry Starting, Movement Building, Resources
comments 4

Ministry Funnel Video-Bridging the Gap Between the Present and Future

A huge thanks to those of you who have provided feedback on the ministry funnel. It’s changed dramatically in the last few days as I have processed the feedback.

The goal is simple:

Create a resource to help ministry leaders diagnose their current reality and implement future-oriented, value-driven strategy and tactics.

Since the funnel has many elements I wanted to share a short video that outlined the basics of the funnel.

What do you like? What would you change?

Can’t see the video? Click here to watch it.

4 Comments

  1. Paul Nunez says

    Yeah, I like the changes you made a lot. It’s more intuitive with the arrows and the friction points you named make sense.

    Here are a couple thoughts I had

    1. intuitively the category “laborers” doesn’t seem like a big distinction with “emerging leader” who serve. I remember in your previous version you had “attenders”. So the move from masses who explore to “attenders” who need to learn to become an “emerging leader” seems a better flow.

    2. I’m wondering if there can be a more descriptive term than “friction points”. I get what your saying and it’s totally true but maybe think of word that more intuitively captures the issue. The best I could come up with is “points of resistance”- you have to help people overcome the natural “resistance” to move to the next category.

    Otherwise, great job with this. I think it’s not only informative, but intuitive in form unlike some of our other “models”. Love it!

    • thanks for the encouragement paul!

      tim casteel has been providing a lot of helpful and similar feedback.

      esp in relation to the friction points:
      –i think these have the most potential, but are the most under-developed. anyone else reading in that has a take? i want the word to capture the positive and negative reality of this–meaning the friction/resistance is redemptive bc it causes growth but it’s also challenging and often times if done well students “won’t make it.”

      –there’s natural resistance in this but my big thing is that we as leaders can manipulate the friction at each level to counteract the natural pull of our ministry.

      for example if you’re at a school w a bunch of kids that have grown up christian you want the friction point btw the emerging leader and leader to be extremely high–to weed out the kids who are vying for pride or routine, or whatever unhealthy motivation is going on.

      in regard to laborers and emerging leaders:
      –agreed that this is a hard one to differentiate. every year when we talk about who’s going to take over we have a very hard time determining who is a laborer and who is emerging leader.
      –i will stick to my guns and say the best way to know is to ask the question “does this person need to learn or serve most in order to grow?”–emerging leaders also have a distinguishably higher level of commitment than laborers.

      at chico we had a lot of qualified potential leaders but when the rubber met the road we selected the ones who were most committed and aligned, not most capable of leading.

      could the friction points be clearer in relation to laborers and emerging leaders? would that help distinguish them more?

      really appreciate the feedback!

  2. Paul Nunez says

    Hey Brian, thanks for responding to my points and I can see a little more clearly the nuance you are going for with friction points.

    So here’s how i’m understanding the friction points: While there are natural resistant points inherent to moving into the next category, we really want to create/manipulate these resistant/friction points so our next category of leaders are moving in the right direction according to our mission vision values etc

    So for example, we don’t want the friction point from leader to core to be more theology because that doesn’t quite hit on center with our mission. Multiply is a better friction point for what we are trying to accomplish. Becoming more trained in theology and being more committed to multiply are both “resistant” points by nature. Both are good things. But as movement leaders we have a choice on which we are going to emphasize and train in and see who makes it through the “friction” we create.

    I think that’s a good distinction for us leaders to be aware of so “friction” might serve better than “resistant”. I’ll keep thinking about it.

    • paul thanks for describing the friction points better than me!

      “while there are natural resistant points inherent to moving into the next category, we really want to create/manipulate these resistant/friction points so our next category of leaders are moving in the right direction according to our mission vision values etc”

      –really like how you described the difference btw natural friction and intentional/strategic friction–probably one the biggest leasons/movement building skills i learned at chico.

      especially when trying to change or set a culture intentional friction is a powerful tool. otherwise leading change can get too personal–if the friction isn’t tied to the mission, vision, and values then people assume and feel picked on, and it usually causes strife and more division than is necessary.

      also just like a garden some things grow naturally better than others–if we don’t provide friction then these naturally good things can actually become burdens–i’m thinking of a large tomato plant that takes over the surrounding area of smaller plants.

      going to use your comments in the next blog on friction points if that’s okay–i think they are right on w where i would love to see more ministry leaders grow.

Leave a Reply