JP

The key I think is look at what the core mission is, and then anything beyond that has to go, irrespective of emotional attachment, or wishful thinking. Its very easy to play the “wait for things to improve game”, when a stance of what is our core, what do we need to do to survive in the short term is more appropriate.

Focusing on the lack is not such a bad thing, if it leads to a renewed focus on the core mission, and what is the absolute minimum needed to provide for the core. Ie, pastors salary #1, unless one wants to significantly downsize and morph to the tentmaker model. (which I dont think is appropriate, except for the absolutely smallest of churches). A pastor needs to focus on ministry to the church, and to the community at large, not dividing attention to focus half time or more on their own personal survival.

From there look at the minimal amount of infrastructure needed to get by. It could well mean that a lot of infrastructure has to go, albeit one should be prudent, and this is the challenge. Ie, changing a music minister from a paid position to a volunteer one, likely means the loss of a well liked and gifted music minister, who would be replaced by someone who may or may not handle the position as well. Certainly from a time commitment pov, it would likely be a huge reduction in availability.

Its the same with physicical assets. Selling off a $$$$$ av system at a loss, and going back to a very simplistic solution of an overhead projector, and a Radio Shack mixer/pa of ebay would be a hard sell, but it may be necessary to survive. Granted, some assets at this time are going to have an extremely low valuation, and it may well be prudent to keep them rather than to sell them off. Ie, selling a big pipe organ takes tons of time, and the market for such is about nill. It might well be that one would only get 5 cents on the doller, and in such cases, putting it into storage mode, and deferring any and all maintenance until things turn around would be much more prudent.

Then there is the issue of what services to cut or reduce. Some issues like youth group trips and the like may still be possible, provided that they are not funded by the church. It may mean instead of a yearly thing, its once every few years, but with planning and lots of effort, can likely still be accomplished. Other things like weekly meetings at the church which require the building to be heated perhaps could be consolidated into a single day. Ie, heat the church for a Wednesday, where upon all activities occur, even if they end up running into the wee hours, or better yet, reschedule things such that the latent heat of a previous function can be used. One could also move such into peoples homes, or even go to zoned heating if a larger facility is needed. Ie, it makes little sense to heat the whole church when one warm room might do.

These are just a few things which could be done to reduce operating expenses, and likely there are hundreds of others. The key is to focus on the core mission, and then cover expenses to facilitate that, and be willing to let go of anything not supporting the core. Its easier said then done of course, but better the church board and minister be willing to take it on, than being forced to by creditors, or such a vast reduction in incoming revenue, that the church has to fold. Holding onto things emotionally, and hoping for the future just isnt going to cut it. There is a reason businesses let go of people before they are in extreme dire need, as by then, it may well be that the situation is non-recoverable. Better to recover from a 80% loss of staff, and survice with volunteers for a while, then to have the doors closed, and no staff at all.