This post has been especially encouraging to me today. I’ve helped an organization with their website for three years as a volunteer only to find out recently they’re looking at hiring an outside company to do it, now. Obviously, that stings, not because of money, but because the person that does it for a living AND has helped with it at no cost isn’t even considered.

I’ve seen it happen with various members in churches where they are expected to do it for free or they’ll just hire outsiders to do it. It certainly doesn’t encourage people to get involved on other levels or in other areas.

I agree that if a person wants to donate, they should, but churches also shouldn’t expect members to do everything for free. Essentially, what their actions say are, “We don’t care about your talents, gifts and expertise unless you are willing to donate it.”

What would happen if all churches in America stripped out all media… all graphics… all projectors, websites, bulletins, posters, images, even the full bands and sound systems?? What if it was all reduced to teaching the Word and relating the good news to people? I would think some churches would die quickly. Others may grow. I do think its an interesting question.

As a guy who makes his living doing creative media – in part – for churches, I recognize that we creative types are here to SUPPORT the real work — the Great Commission.

Showing my portfolio or the body of my work to a lost soul will not save them. The Good News of Jesus found in God’s Word will.

Thanks again Jim for the good word.

Brock doesn’t understand the church. The church is not just huge megachurches, nor is it just sophisticated people. The church is also a group of 10 or 15 people meeting under a tree in Africa. It’s a group of 100 people meeting in a tiny town in west Texas. It’s a group of elderly people meeting in a nursing home dining room. Does each of those need a paid creative staff? Of course not. The untrained amateur who plans a song or a banner for such a group can certainly maintain creative excellence that is worthy of the Gospel, because what the Lord wants is what we can give from the heart.

If a church is huge, it makes sense to have some paid creative-communication staff, just as it makes sense to have paid accounting staff and paid janitorial staff. Through too many of the comments here is pride, the idea that “I’m offended if people don’t recognize my worth by paying me.” I’m totally against churches using manipulative guilt techniques to get people to work for free, but there are special blessings that come to those Christians who serve freely from the heart out of love.

The Mars Hill info cited above is the nail in the coffin. You show me a killer church website, I will show you a creative talent behind it that was paid for the work.

I think the difference is VISION. Someone on the staff (not always the pastor) has to have a vision for what the site, or project, can be. Often that vision cannot be fulfilled on the cheap.

What I love about Mars Hill Church is that they set the bar quite high. That vision REQUIRES professionals at the top of their game. I am not saying that a work for free is sub-par, but I am saying that a church with a consistently high bar on all their media REQUIRE paid professionals.

I think the discussion here is too broadly framed. If we narrow the context to “Can a church maintain creative excellence that is worthy of the Gospel Message using only volunteers?”

I say: Absolutely not.

The problem I see is scope. Creative excellence across audio, web, print, and, at times, motion graphics and beyond is extremely time consuming. These disciplines cover a fair amount of ground and almost no one excels at all of them. These are fields dominated by specialists. How do you do well at all of them? A team. And I submit a team needs to be led by one vision. This sounds like a paid staff to me.

In my church, I am paid part time. We also pay a designer to do most of the printed media. That frees us to volunteer for even more work. Our volunteers are precious and talented, but sustaining a high level of excellence across all areas is not realistic.

While I do believe you get what you pay for… In the church, if you pay for some key pieces, you often get more than you pay for.

I do agree with what you said about the abourer is worthy of his hire.
BUT…… i also think that if you can do it for free… why not?!
If you think about it…. you are going to get a BETTER pay if you do it for free.
How? well….. easy answer; GOD.

He will give you so much more; he will take care of all of your needs; because you are working for His kingdom, not for the world.

I do disagree with some people that said that you can’t get professional work if you ask someone to do it for free; YOU CAN!! and you know what…. YOU WILL GET A BETTER ONE!!!

I can tell you that because i’m living it!!!
I recently started volunteer at a local church doing videos (motion graphics, editing, etc…) and you have no idea how much blessings they have been for me.

Guys…. all i can say now is that if you do something without asking for any remuneration, and if you are doing it for His kingdom and because you love using the gifts that He gave you for Him…; God will give you whatever you need.

God Bless You Guys and any comment you wish to tell me:

Write to: motion2him@gmail.com

See you!!!

Even paying a nominal amount formalises the relationship:

* It makes the recipient really think more about what they’re asking the service provider to do.
* It sharpens both sides’ focus on what’s required, rather than just floating along on goodwill (but not negating that goodwill).
* It makes it easier to articulate scope, boundaries, expectations and so on.
* And when (not if!) the relationship is tested, there’s a shared agreed set of expectations as reference.

Setting up mutual respect – even if a bit of cash is the catalyst – will strengthen the relationship for continued collaboration for the gospel, I think.