The following is another excerpt from the BAM Survey 2007 Report. The BAM Survey 2007 Report is an in-depth assessment of the state of the Business as Mission movement based on survey responses from 497 people in 38 countries. You can purchase an electronic copy of the BAM Survey 2007 Report for $14.99 here.

---

Business as Mission Companies Create Eternal Value Through Strategic Management

Whereas evangelism, profit, and (to a lesser extent) mission to the developing world were the historic points of contention for the Business as Mission movement, BAM leaders have built a foundation on these elements and are now working to clarify the principles under which Business as Mission companies operate. This focus on clarification has become necessary as Business as Mission is one of many strategies in existence that mixes general business activities with evangelism and ministry efforts aimed at unreached people groups. Though similar in nature to strategies like tent-making, micro-enterprise, micro-development, and workplace ministry, there are important distinctions between each in terms of intentions, methods, means, and outcomes. Irresponsible mixing of terms and tenets has leads to confusion and distraction and ultimately hinders the Business as Mission movement from gaining further momentum.

Currently the Business as Mission movement does not have a systematic, integrated approach for defining, organizing, and analyzing methodologies, and metrics that drive kingdom impact. Through our research, we are able to draw on the collective experience of Business as Mission leaders and lay the foundation for the development of an applicable framework for transforming strategy into action.

Clarification of Objectives

Not all Business as Mission undertakings will or should have the same objectives; nor should BAM practitioners rule out the possibility that their operations will be used for some type of transformation that they did not plan for. This is important because integrating specific BAM objectives (whatever they should be) along with the business’s financial, creative, and productive goals requires clarity in order to maintain productivity towards accomplishing all goals.

Our research shows that, according to respondents “Very Familiar” with Business as Mission, the most agreed upon objective of BAM is to Build the local economy and bless the nation^[1] (Table D). The second most agreed upon objective is Providing access to many locations^[2]. Survey data also indicates that making a profit, evangelizing and targeting the developing world are key objectives of the movement.

These objectives highlight the perceived advantages Business as Mission adds to the goals of traditional, donor-driven mission efforts – a self-funded vehicle that provides creative access to evangelize and minister to unreached people groups. However, they also highlight the need for further refinement of how strategic Business as Mission objectives are formulated and set. Behind each objective identified in the survey lies an assortment of motivations, interpretations, and expectations for fulfillment. These factors further magnify the complexity of Business as Mission and can make it difficult to know how day-to-day activities and operations contribute to the strategic BAM objectives.

In talking about Business as Mission goals we must resist the tendency to become myopic in our orientation. Ultimately, we are not in control of whether or not we accomplish these goals. Thus, Business as Mission goals and objectives must be understood as guidelines that describe the potential for kingdom impact that BAM companies have. Our discussion of factors that contribute toward these goals is aimed at furthering the Business as Mission movement’s understanding of what experience has shown to be effective.

---

The following is another excerpt from the BAM Survey 2007 Report. The BAM Survey 2007 Report is an in-depth assessment of the state of the Business as Mission movement based on survey responses from 497 people in 38 countries. You can purchase an electronic copy of the BAM Survey 2007 Report for $14.99 here.

---

Who are the Business as Mission leaders? (part 3)

Business as Ministry

It is clear from the survey results that the belief that missions/ministry work can be done in the business context is widely accepted (Exhibit 4). In fact, as many survey respondents believe that Business as Mission is beneficial to the kingdom as those who believe Missions work is beneficial to the kingdom (96 percent agree with each) (4.1 and 4.2). However, it is not as widely accepted that general business (operated ethically) is beneficial to the kingdom (only 60 percent agree and 21 percent disagree) (4.3). The fact that 83 percent of all respondents agree that Work in a business is a ministry (4.4) suggests that the Business as Mission movement distinguishes between the impact a business (organization) can have and the impact that individuals within a business have.

Business as Mission is more than just doing business ethically

It’s particularly interesting that respondents in the Business, Non-Profit, and Education fields all agree to the same extent that Work in a business is a ministry (82 percent, 82 percent, and 85 percent respectively). However, fewer Business respondents agree that Any ethical business is beneficial to the kingdom (59 percent) compared to Non-Profit and Education respondents (64 percent and 63 percent respectively).

This may point to an increased awareness among Christian businesspeople of the importance of being intentional in using business as an opportunity to minister. Whether this is a result of experience or in response to increased scrutiny and criticism the business world receives as a result of the sacred/secular divide is unknown.

In Business as Mission, the company itself is a part in the ministry

One of the core distinctions between Business as Mission and other approaches to integrating business and mission/ministry (e.g. workplace ministry, tent-making, micro-development, etc) is that in BAM some or all aspects of the business (organization) contribute to the missional purpose. Business as Mission involves the manifestation of a missional purpose at both the individual level and the organizational level. What the missional purpose is and how it is manifested at both levels is influenced by many different factors.

Given that respondents universally accept the benefit of Business as Mission (4.1) but do not completely accept individual (4.4) and organizational (4.3) impact in business implies that some people do not understand how Business as Mission incorporates both. Only 53 percent of all respondents agree that Work in a business is a ministry and that Any ethical business is beneficial to the kingdom. Additionally, 22 percent of respondents who agree that Work in a business is a ministry did not agree Any ethical business is beneficial to the kingdom.

Thus, a majority of people understand the individual aspect of BAM transformation; but, a significant portion of the movement does not understand or agree with the organizational aspect. In order to address this disconnect, it is important how BAM leaders run their companies to create impact. In the next section we look at four aspects of Business as Mission strategic management: objectives, organization and coordination, metrics, and resource allocation.
********************************************************

Did you enjoy this? Click here to purchase the full survey report. Enjoy instant access to the full survey report, including more in-depth analysis, charts, graphs and figures. Only $14.99. Purchase your copy today!

This is the third installment sharing highlights from the BAM Survey 2007 Report. Today we take a closer look at the global leaders of the Business as Mission movement and the beliefs that drive their efforts in spreading the Gospel through global business entrepreneurship.

The BAM Survey 2007 Report is an in-depth assessment of the state of the Business as Mission movement based on survey responses from 497 people in 38 countries. You can purchase an electronic copy of the BAM Survey 2007 Report for $14.99 here.

---

Who are the Business as Mission leaders? (part 2)

Embracing the Priesthood of Believers

Our research shows that businesspeople around the world are enthusiastically responding to God’ s call for them in the workplace (72 percent of respondents believe they are called to business) and are forging ahead to use their business activities to create transformation (83 percent of respondents believe that Work in business is a ministry^[1]) (Exhibit 3).

Results highlight a greater prevalence of being called to business versus being called to missions.

• Nearly three-quarters of all respondents indicated that they believe they have been called to the business world (72 percent). A slightly lesser percentage of respondents believe they are called to Business as Mission specifically and to missions (69 percent and 67 percent respectively).
• 86 percent of respondents from the Business field feel called to business compared to 72 percent of Non-Profit respondents that feel called to missions.
• Of survey respondents that indicated they are “Very Familiar” with Business as Mission, 82 percent indicated that they feel called to business compared to 75 percent that feel called to missions.
• Of survey respondents that indicated they are either “Not Very Familiar” or “Not At All Familiar” with Business as Mission, 63 percent indicated that they feel called to business compared to 43 percent that feel called to missions.

Respondents from different age groups demonstrate different degrees of feeling called to business, missions, or Business as Mission.

• Of respondents in the 18 to 29 year old group:
  • 66 percent feel called to business.
  • 64 percent feel called to missions.
  • 58 percent feel called to Business as Mission.
• Of respondents in the 30 to 44 year old group:
  • 75 percent feel called to business.
  • 72 percent feel called to missions.
  • 79 percent feel called to Business as Mission.
• Of respondents in the 45 to 59 year old group:
  • 71 percent feel called to business.
  • 63 percent feel called to missions.
  • 67 percent feel called to Business as Mission.
• Of respondents in the 60+ year old group:
  • 71 percent feel called to business.
  • 74 percent feel called to missions.
  • 66 percent feel called to Business as Mission.

Feeling called Business as Mission is linked to feeling called to either business or missions.

• Respondents that feel called to business (relative to those who expressed no opinion or do not feel called to business) are 2.6 times more likely to feel called to Business as Mission (84 percent compared to 32 percent respectively).
• Respondents that feel called to missions (relative to those who expressed no opinion or do not feel called to business) are 1.4 times more likely to feel called to Business as Mission (76 percent compared to 54 percent respectively).
• Of respondents that feel called to both business and missions (45 percent of all respondents):
  • 91 percent feel called to Business as Mission.
  • 2 percent do not feel called to Business as Mission.
  • 8 percent expressed no opinion.

---

We’re continuing with sharing excerpts from my BAM Survey 2007 Report, an in-depth assessment of the state of the Business as Mission movement based on survey responses from 497 people in 38 countries. You can purchase an electronic copy of the BAM Survey 2007 Report for $14.99 here.

Today we look at the demographics of the survey respondents in order to get an better idea of who makes up the global Business as Mission movement.

---

Who are the Business as Mission leaders? (part 1)

For the first time, the survey results enable us to describe the community of BAM leaders that has formed around the core elements that define Business as Mission (Exhibit 2). Of survey respondents that rated their understanding of Business as Mission as “Very Familiar”

Our data reveals that the 30 to 44 year old group has the ideal temperament for facing many of the challenges of the next stage of the Business as Mission movement — 75 percent feel called to business and 79 percent feel called to Business as Mission. What’s more, this group’s support networks (church, social communities, and companies) understand and pray for Business as Mission more than any other group’s.

However, it is clear from the data that the 45 to 59 year old group is driving the movement forward and paving the way for the next generations of Business as Mission leaders. The 45 to 59 year old group:

According to a 2005 Market Audit Survey by Claritas, the median net worth of 45 to 54 year olds is greater than twice that of 35 to 44 year olds (Table C). The median net worth for 55 to 64 year olds is nearly four times greater than that of 35 to 44 year olds. The improved financial position of the 45 to 59 year old group suggests two benefits: a greater ability to invest capital in BAM and a more stable financial base to endure challenges in operating a BAM company.

Due to their experience, positions and access to resources, the 45 to 59 year old group is the most prepared to create impact in the world through Business as Mission. This group is the key to executing Business as Mission and leading the movement as it faces new challenges.
********************************************************

Did you enjoy this? Click here to purchase the full survey report. Enjoy instant access to the full survey report, including more in-depth analysis, charts, graphs and figures. Only $14.99. Purchase your copy today!

Yesterday, I received an email from leader in the mission field with some feedback about the value of trying to define a standard of excellence for ministries’ online activities. What he described was a reluctance among mission (and probably all non-profit) organizations to embrace standards because doing so would mean committing to doing what it takes to live up to those standards. As he put it:

We have not had much traction in finding groups looking to set more standards that they would then have to adopt/invest effort to measure up to.  It is a particularly challenging time for mission organizations trying to do as much as they can, as well as they can with shrinking resources.

The current period of declined giving and constrained resources has taken a toll on the strategic outlook of ministry leaders. The current conditions seem to be overwhelming some organizations and as a result they are content just doing what it takes to get by. According to another leader in a missions organization:

Our organization is just trying to get something semi-useful up on the web.  We do not have the expertise, finance, or skills to do it in a highly professional fashion.

I by no means think that these or other missions leaders are giving up. I know that commitment and sacrifice that these men and women make in their lives. It is amazing the level of dedication that you will find in all levels of missions organizations and it is an honor to get to know and work with them.

To me the whole point of the Online Kingdom Excellence project is to address this very problem. One of my desires is to be able to say to these leaders, “Excellence does not mean a highly professional website. It means doing the most with what you have. It means elevating glorifying God and serving others to be our top goals and engaging your audience thorough an intentional web strategy.” I believe that such a standard relieves the frustrations of economically challenging times by pointing to a comprehensive web strategy that not only is suitable for the condition of the organization but will maximize both the Kingdom impact and organizational benefits in the process.

What do you think? Is excellence online somehow related to the amount of resources at your disposal? Or can an organization be excellent even in this period of budget cuts? And if so, how do we convince mission leaders who are just trying to get by that there is more? Please share your thoughts in the comments below.

And I invite you to join with us as we explore these issues in greater detail. Visit us at the State of Ministry Online website to learn more about the Online Kingdom Excellence project and to explore ways that you can be involved.

Last week, at the end of a long day, I wrote about my experiences in lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001. Writing it was a surreal experience for me, no real goal in mind, it just started coming out me and onto the screen. I didn’t edit it. I didn’t polish it up. I did try and add something prolific at the end, some commentary that would show how profound the feelings I was expressing were.

And though what I wrote was true, I really don’t think September 11th is about me. That’s one of the reasons why I have a hard time thinking about and talking about it. Sure, I feared for my life that day in a way I never had before and never have since, but for me, one of the hard things about September 11th is how I feel distanced from it.

Part of it, I think, is self-preservation, my inner-psyche is minimizing/compartmentalizing/transferring my experiences so that I don’t have to reconcile the tragedy and impact of being that close to such violence. I recognize that that is definitely the case.

But I also think there’s something else and the best way I can describe it is something like “survivor guilt” (though not as extreme). I find I’m having more and more difficulty thinking about what I experienced on September 11th as (for lack of a better term) noteworthy. Which doesn’t mean I diminish the experience or the affect it’s had on me. I just feel like I walked away from that day really no worse for the wear, especially when compared to tragic impact that day has had on thousands upon thousands of victims and their families.

I lived.

I was not hurt.

I was not in the direct path of danger.

No one I know was killed or injured.

The violence of that day did not touch my life anywhere near the way it has for the 2974 victims and their friends and families. I got off easy.

And so over this past week (especially on the eighth anniversary of the attacks) I find myself reacting negatively to most of the commentary or personal recounting of the day. This feeling particularly came to the surface tonight when I saw two things (via social media).

The first was someone posted on Flickr a photo set of images from September 11, all of which showed the damage and chaos of that day and the following days. The second was an article pondering what September 11 would have been like if today’s social media tools had been as available and popular back then. I’m not including links to either of these because the point in writing this is not to call them out or admonish them.

***Before I get to the point, let me say: It is self-righteous of me to judge anyone’s intentions or methods for acknowledging, memorializing, or even expressing interest in September 11th. I confess this as sin and am grateful that Christ’s love washes me clean.

The point I want to make is this, both of the things I saw tonight focused on aspects of September 11th which, though interesting, detract from the tragedy of that day. Neither site so much as mention the loss of thousands of lives that occurred that day.

In this era of increasing social media usage, the goal of generating and linking to unique and engaging content may cause people to lose sight of what is truly significant about the things they commenting on. And since the power of social media is its ability to spread content to great extents, the chances of our content being seen by someone who has been profoundly touched by something like September 11th. We must not become desensitized to events by the media we use to share those events. By doing so we might touch a wound or cause some pain with our carelessness.

I’m not advocating censorship or saying that social media is bad. All I am saying is that as servants of the Kingdom, it is important that we watch what we say.

Matthew 12:36-37 (English Standard Version)
I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Image: http://flickr.com/photos/adrianjmoss/504318642/

You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life. –Winston Churchill

In an article in The New York Times Magazine from August, 2007 William Safire discusses how title “Strategist” is replacing “Adviser”  in American politics and the nuance behind the shift. What says it reveals a desire to differentiate oneself from the overused “campaign manager” and “political adviser” and while implying high status within the ranks of a staff.

I personally have been frustrated by how most business labels which describe my profession, skill set, or the value I offer are either so commonly used that they’ve become sterile and weak or carry some negative connotation (think: consultant). I have often struggled with how to succinctly and accurately describe myself (while trying to remain humble) and have routinely settled on “strategist” after much soul-searching and field testing (What word comes to mind when you hear the word: AWESOMESTAR?)

The difference between Strategist and Adviser? Safire quotes Joe Pickett, editor of the American Heritage Dictionary: “A strategist is someone who has a plan of battle and the situation is always one of contention.” (emphasis mine).

Kevin Ring is a Kingdom Strategist.

An early version of my personal mission statement reads:

I serve individuals and organizations that are set about a purpose greater than themselves to anticipate, neutralize, overcome, and rise above the threats that they face.

This version captures a key aspect of my calling: to serve an ideal greater than myself. For me (and I hope for you as well), that ideal is the Kingdom of God. My purpose is to serve God’s purpose.

As a servant of God’s Kingdom, I choose to stand up against the ways of this world so that others might see Christ glorified in me. As Christ said “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34).

I know that the work is and will continue to be difficult. I know that I will make enemies. I know that there will be suffering. Make no mistake, I struggle with this. I want to be liked. I want to be comfortable. I fear confrontation. This is (like most things) is easy for me to say but harder for me to actually live out.

But I do what I do in Christ’s name, assured by His promise and strengthened by His grace. And so I will count it all as blessing, because I know what I stand for.

Do you?

Facebook is popular.

Seems rather inane to state it like that, but a lot of people don’t know what to make of Facebook. Some don’t even know what Facebook is. Facebook’s incredible growth over the past year has far reaching implications not only for how people spend time online, but also how people interact in their daily lives. And this, in turn, affects the way we as the church operate. So the question is: how does a church make heads or tails of this bellwether of social media?

Since this article is long (1860 words, at last count), let me tell you where I’m going to go with this.

• First, we’ll try to understand the magnitude of growth that Facebook is experiencing.
• Then we’ll look at the factors that have contributed to this growth.
• I’ll present an interpretation of why Facebook is popular that should change the way churches approach it.
• We’ll conclude with a discussion of major implications for churches and their social media strategy.

So, just how popular is Facebook?

The facts:

• According to comScore data, Facebook reached 200 million unique visitors in November of 2008, reflecting a staggering 116 percent growth over the previous year.  Now 20 percent of everyone on the internet uses Facebook. That’s one out of every five people. (Table source: VentureBeat)

• Facebook is a world wide phenomenon. Here are some facts about Facebook’s global reach:
  • Number of active users : 175 million
  • Percent of Non-English users : 40%
  • Percent of Non-US population : 70%
  • Available number of languages : 43

• Facebook is no longer just for college students. Here’s a look at it’s growth across age groups (Source: Neilsen):

• Though 55 percent of Facebook’s users are under the age of 25, it is seeing the largest growth among people ages 18 to 49.

CNN Money puts Facebook’s size into perspective this way:

If Facebook were a country, it would have a population nearly as large as Brazil’s. It even edges out the U.S. television audience for Super Bowl XLIII, which drew a record-setting 152 million eyeballs.

In this era of online churches, is it too much of a leap to start sending missionaries to serve online?

But what is even more significant to churches is the increase in time people are spending on Facebook.

According to Compete , US residents spent more time last year on Facebook than any other website. According to Neilsen between December 2007 and December 2008, the total amount of time spent:

• online (globally) increased by 18 percent;
• on ‘Member Community’ sites increased by 63 percent;
• on Facebook increased by 566 percent (!!!!!).

More than 3 billion minutes are spent on Facebook each day. It also has the highest average time per person (three hours 10 minutes) amongst the most popular online brands. Not only is Facebook reaching more people but it is consuming more and more of their attention.

So what?

Well, there are two ways to respond to the Facebook phenomenon.

1. Me-Too-ism -or- The Relevance Trap

You may be thinking to yourself, “I don’t understand Facebook, but it’s clear that it isn’t going away so it’s something that our church has to do.”

Given that approximately 61 percent of Protestant Senior Pastors are from the Baby Boomer generation (source: Barna research), the increased popularity of Facebook among their age group may make venturing on to the site less daunting. And so someone from the church staff or  congregation volunteers to set up a “fan” page for the church. Local members begin to sign up, proudly displaying their affiliation. Maybe someone posts some pictures or starts a discussion about a sermon. And VIOLA!! your church has a Facebook strategy!

But what’s the benefit?

Increased awareness of your ministry? Yes. A reputation for being tech-savvy? Sure. Enhanced spiritual growth or gospel-centered community living among the body? It is possible. Enhanced teaching/missions/service/pastoral care/worship/evangelism? What about looking after orphans and widows in their distress? And how helping your members keep themselves from being polluted by the world? How do you do that when you’re giving them a tacit endorsement of Facebook and by extenstion MySpace (gasp!) by having an official church page?

The problem is that developing a social media strategy this way is reactionary and is not start with a true understanding of Facebook and why people are attracted to it. Nor does it incorporate ministry goals or define web-relational models and strategies that are appropriate for Facebook. You are so busy getting on Facebook that you’ve never stopped to ask whether or not doing so advances the mission of the church.

This does not mean you can’t have success without a strategy. Like Woody Allen says, “Eighty percent of success is showing up.” Churches can not address the Facebook phenomenon without being on Facebook. And good things are happening as a result. There a many stories of life transformation, online conversions, deepening of relationships with Christ, and increased proclamation of the Gospel that are occurring online through tools like Facebook. The value of these can not be diminished. But the truth is that these are the exception, not the rule.

For your consideration: the percentage of the 50 million active Facebook users in the US that express personal interest or affiliation to the follow is disappointingly small (Source: Unconventional Method):

• The Bible – 2.81%
• Christian – 0.77%
• God – 0.69%
• Church – 0.57%
• Love – 0.45%
• Jesus – 0.19%
• Worship – 0.16%
• Theology – 0.10%
• Missions – 0.07%
• Social Justice – 0.05%
• Praying – 0.04%

Compare that to these other popular interests:

• Barack Obama – 6.38%
• Harry Potter – 3.39%
• Football – 2.20%
• Sleeping – 2.13%
• Gym – 2.08%
• Beer – 1.50%
• Food – 1.49%
• Breathing – 0.21%
• Sex – 0.14%

There are more people in the US who are willing to publicly promote on Facebook their affinity for “breathing” than those who would for “Jesus”. Despite our best efforts, the majority of the Body of Christ is not living out their life for Christ on Facebook. (Disclaimer: I too am guilty of this. My personal Facebook profile only mentions that I am a Christian. Though I am a “fan” of Tim Keller, so that’s got to count for something.)

I believe that we, as the church, can and should do more. I believe that the global Body of Christ has the responsibility to engage Facebook (and other realms of social media) as ambassadors of Christ. I believe  it is the responsibility of churches not only to participate in Facebook (and/or) other social media, but to understand what need individuals are having filled at such sites and be able to minister to those very needs with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Which brings me to the second approach to Facebook.

2. Understand and Employ

Why is Facebook so popular? From a functionality perspective, Neilsen identifies the following factors that have contributed to Facebook’s rapid growth:

• Design – it has an organized, simple and easy-to-use interface which appeals to a broader audience;
• Broad appeal – Facebook isn’t targeted towards a specific demographic;
• Activity Focus –  it is focused on connecting as opposed to entertaining;
• Architecture – it combines inventive features and open architecture;
• Privacy – it offers high levels of control over who sees content;

Facebook’s creator, Mark Zuckerberg’s vision for Facebook is for it to become the main place people live their digital lives. The strategy for achieving this has three components:

• Facebook as the main tool people use to communicate.
• Facebook as the central place for coordination and digital interaction (event organizing, media storage, entertainment and games, job postings and other classifieds, etc.).
• Facebook as the primary mode of personal identification across the web (Facebook Connect).

Neilsen has measured which aspects of Facebook people mention when writing about the network.

As you can see “Friends” and “Profile” received the most mentions while other features d0 not receive as much attention. At it’s very core, Facebook is designed to facilitate interpersonal connections (friends) and online expression of self (profile). And it does so in a way that is accomodating to the preferences of the greatest number of people (simple design, customizable control, variety of features).

When you look at it like that, Facebook isn’t that different from the church. Fundamentally, the church exists to facilitate connections (with God and with others) and to facilitate expression of self (living life centered in Christ).

The difference is that with Facebook, there is very little accountability other than the self-policing that occurs within any group. There are no standards or requirements for participation. There is no commitment involved. There is nothing to promote progress or personal movement. There is no greater theme connecting it all together. It’s just people existing and interacting with others, just at a magnitude far greater than what is possible in real life. But unlike the church, Facebook itself has no meaning.

I was speaking with Tony Ferraro the other day and he believes there is a deeper, more spiritual reason Facebook is so popular. He said that because we are built in God’s image and He exists in relationship, we are compelled to live in relationship. Facebook has simply (and unknowingly) tapped into man’s need to be deeply known.

I think there is great wisdom in that. Sure, you can make the argument that the benefit of social media is how it facilitates interaction, engagement and participation among an audience. But deep down, at the root of the issue is our human need to be known. And in the absence of Jesus Christ, nothing (even Facebook) will meet that need.

So the question the church must ask itself is: are you engaging Facebook for your own good or for the good of others?

Don’t get me wrong, a social media strategy is a great way to address many of the growth, marketing, and financial challenges facing churches today. According to social media marketers, the top benefits of a social media strategy are (Source: Social Media Marketing Industry Report):

• generating exposure for the organization (81%)
• increasing traffic and growing lists (61%)
• forming new business partnerships (56%)
• increasing search rankings (52%)
• generating qualified leads (48%)
• reducing marketing expenses (45%)
• closing business (35%)

So how do we add “introducing people to Jesus Christ” to the top of that list?

Despite the plethora of research out there about the Facebook phenomenon, ministry groups are only in the early stages of adapting their traditional evangelistic and ministry models to work within this context.

How can we promote activities on Facebook that we believe are central to being Christian and being the church? How do we lead others to use their self-expression and connection with others on Facebook to glorify God and serve His Kingdom?

Unconventional Method is embarking on a project that seeks to answer these questions. We seek forward-thinking churches who would like to participate in a study that examines the effectiveness of social media. We would love to work with your church (leadership, members, and community) in our efforts. In the next few months, we will be distributing an online survey that explores these issues in depth and seeking participants.

If you would like to participate, please email us at research@unconventionalmethod.com. Also, I’d love to hear your comments on how your church is approaching Facebook and what you believe is effective.

Thank you for reading.

I am very excited to see this story from the Dallas News.

Barrington is an amazing Kingdom company based out of Dallas with a manufacturing facility in China. I was blessed to get to know them last year and help a little bit as the worked through some organizational development challenges. Here’s how the Dallas News describes Barrington:

The plant is a Chinese anomaly. Barrington pays above-market wages with health insurance and maternity leave. Workers receive financial planning, continuing education and summertime camps for their kids. In a society that shuns the disabled, Barrington hires the physically challenged and invests in orphanages that minister to children with special needs.

“Gil and I run the company based on Christian values where everybody is intrinsically valuable, whether they’re here or in China, able or disabled,” Gowdey says.

It’s such a blessing to see how something so seemingly inconsequential as a piece of luggage can serve not only to carry the Lord’s name before kings (and presidents). But it also serves to multiply the blessings of people on the other side of the world, through employment, increased standard of living, and most importantly through the love of Christ shared with them and demonstrated to them by the efforts of David, Gil, and Ben. To me, this is validation that marketing strategy and business strategy can both be powerful components of our Kingdom strategy.

“The Parable of the Minas” (Luke 19:12-27) teaches a number of principles that should shape how profit is considered in the Business as Mission context.

1. Profit is good.

During the settling of accounts, the master responds positively to the servants who had earned profit by:

• Saying “Well done!” – the master views their efforts as good.
• Calling the servants “good” and “trustworthy” – the master expected his servants to pursue profit.

2. Profit is not the motivation.

The servants’ reward for their efforts in earning a profit is their master’s praise and increased responsibilities. It can be assumed that increased responsibilities carries with it monetary gain. However, this should be viewed as an additional benefit. It is clear in the parable that the power to give and take away financial resources belongs solely to the master (as evident in the command to take the one mina away from the wicked servant and give it to the servant who earned ten).

3. Ability to earn profit is not universal.

As Christians, we cannot assume we all are equally capable of achieving the same results.

• The two good servants do not earn the same amount: one earns ten times what he was entrusted with; the other earns five times what he was entrusted with.
• The wicked servant is chided for not transferring his mina to bankers; allowing them to use the financial resources while earning interest for the master.

4. We have an obligation to earn a profit.

At the beginning of the parable the master says, “Put this money to work.” Wicked servants disobey this command out of rebellious fear. Good servants seek to multiply what they have been given thereby multiplying the work that can be done.

————————————————–

Money is a resource provided by the Lord to facilitate Christian work in the world. We are obliged to use it wisely and morally, seeking its increase in order to extend our effectiveness in fulfilling our calling.