Reading: Identifying Choices and Decisions

Reading: Identifying Choices and Decisions

Decision making is one of the most critical and complex responsibilities entrusted to deacons and church leaders. While the office of deacon is often associated with acts of mercy and practical service, its function extends into the arena of discernment, governance, and leadership. Deacons are not only called to embody compassion in action but also to help guide the church through decisions that directly affect its mission, witness, and sustainability. These decisions may involve financial stewardship, ministry priorities, personnel matters, or community engagement strategies.

The weight of such responsibility is evident in the New Testament. In Acts 6, the apostles faced a dispute regarding the distribution of food to widows. Their solution—to appoint Spirit-filled servants to oversee this ministry—was itself a decision-making process rooted in prayer, values, and communication. This decision not only solved an immediate problem but also preserved the unity of the church and allowed the gospel to advance: “The word of God increased and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly” (Acts 6:7, WEB). The example suggests that decision making in ministry is not merely administrative; it is deeply spiritual, with consequences for unity, credibility, and mission.

When decision making is done poorly, the effects can be devastating. Congregations may experience division, disillusionment, wasted resources, or even the loss of long-standing members. Surprises, inadequate communication, or the failure to align decisions with core values often erode trust. Conversely, wise decision making strengthens unity, builds trust, and advances the mission of the church. It models integrity, prudence, and prayerful dependence upon God’s guidance.

This article develops an eight-step framework for decision making in ministry contexts, drawn from practical experience and theological reflection. The framework emphasizes clarity, values, communication, and evaluation as essential disciplines for leaders entrusted with the care of Christ’s church. To demonstrate the framework’s utility, a case study of a bilingual service evaluation in a local congregation will be analyzed step by step. This case illustrates both the challenges of decision making under pressure and the opportunities for deacons to embody wisdom, humility, and courage in leadership.

By combining theological grounding, practical methodology, and lived example, this study aims to equip deacons with tools to make faithful decisions that preserve unity, steward resources, and strengthen the church’s witness in a complex and changing world.

The Eight-Step Framework

Effective decision making in deaconal ministry requires more than intuition or expediency. It must be shaped by prayer, wisdom, and disciplined process. The following eight-step framework offers a structured method that can help deacons lead with clarity, integrity, and faithfulness. Each step is both practical and theological, ensuring that decisions serve the church’s mission and witness.

1. Define the Decision or Problem

Every decision begins with clarity. Leaders must ask: What exactly are we trying to decide? Vague or poorly defined problems often lead to scattered discussions, wasted energy, and weak outcomes. A well-framed decision statement establishes boundaries and focuses attention.

For example, in Acts 6 the early church did not simply say, “We have conflict.” They defined the specific issue: Hellenistic widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food. Clear articulation led to a targeted solution. Likewise, a deacon board might define a problem as, “Should we continue, adapt, or end this ministry given current budget realities?” Defining the issue prevents drift into unrelated debates and prepares the ground for fruitful deliberation.

2. Identify the Choices

Once the problem is defined, leaders should resist the temptation to jump to one obvious answer. Good decision making involves laying out a range of possible alternatives, even those that may initially seem unlikely. By doing so, the group avoids premature narrowing and fosters creativity.

In practical terms, this might mean brainstorming several ministry options: to expand, contract, merge, relocate, or discontinue. Identifying multiple choices opens the possibility of compromise or hybrid solutions. It also ensures that the group has truly considered the breadth of possibilities before arriving at a conclusion.

3. Gather Information

Wise decision making requires robust information. Deacons must assess financial, logistical, demographic, and contextual factors associated with each option. This includes asking practical questions (What will it cost? Do we have the people to lead it? How does this align with our demographics?) and spiritual ones (Where do we discern God at work? What opportunities is the Spirit opening?).

Proverbs 18:13 warns, “He who answers before he hears, that is folly and shame to him” (WEB). Leaders who act without adequate information risk making hasty or harmful choices. Gathering data not only strengthens decisions but also demonstrates accountability to the congregation.

4. Project the Consequences

Information alone is not enough; leaders must discern the potential outcomes of each option. This involves asking: If we choose this path, what might happen? Who will be affected? What are the best- and worst-case scenarios?

Projection requires both prayer and wisdom. James 1:5 reminds believers: “But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach; and it will be given to him” (WEB). Leaders cannot foresee every consequence, but they can prayerfully anticipate likely outcomes. This stage often surfaces trade-offs, clarifies risks, and ensures the group is not blindsided by predictable challenges.

5. Apply Organizational Values

Decisions are not made in a vacuum; they must align with the stated mission and values of the church. For example, a congregation that values strong community engagement may decide differently than one that prioritizes cautious financial management.

Values serve as a compass. They help leaders distinguish between what is merely possible and what is truly faithful. In Acts 15, when the Jerusalem Council faced the decision about Gentile inclusion, they applied the value of gospel freedom over cultural tradition. In the same way, deacons must continually ask, Does this decision align with who we are and what God has called us to be?

6. Communicate Clearly and Often

One of the greatest pitfalls in church decision making is poor communication. Leaders may deliberate carefully behind closed doors, only to “drop” a decision on the congregation without explanation. Such surprises erode trust and fuel resistance.

Effective communication means explaining not only the what but also the why and the how. It involves listening sessions, written updates, and opportunities for feedback. As Proverbs 15:22 affirms, “Where there is no counsel, plans fail; but in a multitude of counselors they are established” (WEB). Transparent communication fosters ownership, diffuses anxiety, and allows the congregation to participate meaningfully in the process.

7. Make the Decision

At some point, after prayer, study, and dialogue, leaders must act. Indecision is itself a decision, often with damaging consequences. Courage is essential, even when unanimity is elusive.

Making a decision should be grounded in prayer, informed by data, and shaped by values. Once chosen, leaders must present the decision with clarity and conviction, avoiding half-hearted announcements that sow doubt. As Joshua declared to Israel, “As for me and my house, we will serve Yahweh” (Joshua 24:15, WEB), so too must leaders be ready to take a stand for what they believe God is calling the church to do.

8. Track Consequences and Adjust

Decision making does not end once a choice is made. Leaders must evaluate results, ask whether the intended outcomes are being realized, and make adjustments as necessary. This step requires humility, acknowledging that no decision is perfect and that flexibility is often required.

For example, a church may decide to launch a new ministry. After six months, leaders should assess participation, financial sustainability, and spiritual fruit. If the outcomes are not aligned with expectations, they may refine the approach or redirect resources. Tracking consequences prevents stagnation and fosters ongoing discernment.

Conclusion

This eight-step framework provides deacons with a practical and theological roadmap for wise decision making. It balances clarity, creativity, analysis, values, communication, courage, and adaptability. When faithfully practiced, it helps churches avoid division, steward resources responsibly, and align decisions with the mission of Christ. In short, it equips deacons to serve not only with compassion but also with discernment, ensuring that the church’s witness remains strong in both word and deed.

Case Study: Evaluating a Bilingual Service

Defining the Problem

In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, many congregations in the United States experienced significant decline in both worship attendance and financial contributions, with estimates ranging from 40–60% loss in regular participation. The church in this case was no exception. Once stable, it now faced sharp budget constraints that necessitated a careful review of all existing ministries.

Among the ministries under evaluation was the 11 a.m. bilingual (English/Spanish) worship service, which had been launched a decade earlier in response to demographic realities. At that time, the surrounding community had seen a substantial increase in bilingual households—parents who spoke Spanish as their first language and children who primarily used English. The service sought to meet this need by providing a space where both languages could be used in worship simultaneously, fostering inclusion across generational lines.

Over its ten-year history, the bilingual service had drawn modest attendance, with peak participation around 45–60 people. In more recent years, however, regular attendance averaged only 20–25 congregants. Despite its small size, the service carried an annual cost of approximately $60,000, covering the part-time bilingual pastor, musicians, and ministry materials.

The problem was therefore framed as both financial and missional:

Financially, the church questioned whether the continued investment in such a small service was sustainable given broader budgetary pressures.

Missionally, leaders recognized that the bilingual service had yielded significant spiritual fruit. In fact, it had been the source of most of the church’s professions of faith and new conversions in recent years.

This tension captured the dilemma: Should the bilingual service continue in its current form, be adapted into a new model, or be brought to an end?

Defining the problem with this level of clarity prevented leaders from reducing the issue to a simplistic budget line-item. Instead, it highlighted the complexity of the decision: the need to balance stewardship of financial resources with faithfulness to the church’s historic commitment to serve a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual neighborhood.

In short, the problem was not merely one of cutting costs but one of aligning values, mission, and resources in a post-pandemic context. The question placed before the deacons and elders was not only, “What can we afford?” but also, “What has God called us to sustain, and in what form?”

Identifying Choices

Once the problem was clearly defined, the leadership team moved to the second step of the decision-making framework: identifying possible choices. The goal at this stage was not to make a decision but to place on the table a wide range of alternatives for honest discussion. Leaders recognized that premature narrowing would limit creativity and could result in missing a Spirit-led possibility. After prayer, brainstorming, and consultation with stakeholders, five main options emerged:

1. Maintain the Service As-Is.
   The simplest path was to continue the bilingual service in its current form, preserving continuity for the small but committed congregation that attended. This option prioritized stability and respected the emotional and spiritual investment of those who had come to see the service as their spiritual home. However, it also carried the risk of perpetuating unsustainable financial pressure and leaving deeper questions about long-term viability unaddressed.
2. Transition It to All Spanish.
   Another possibility was to shift the bilingual format to a fully Spanish-language service. Advocates for this option noted that while many children in bilingual households preferred English, parents often worshiped more naturally in Spanish. A Spanish-only service might attract new families from the surrounding community, better aligning with demographic realities. Yet this choice risked alienating children and young adults who had grown accustomed to a bilingual format and could fracture the generational unity the service was designed to foster.
3. Spin It Off as a Church Plant.
   Some leaders proposed releasing the bilingual service as a new church plant with its own leadership, governance, and finances. This would honor the missional value of contextual worship while reducing the financial burden on the mother church. A church plant could potentially grow more freely, rooted in the bilingual community it served. However, this option would require strong leadership, significant transition planning, and a willingness to relinquish control—steps that can be both invigorating and destabilizing for a parent congregation.
4. Merge Services into One Bilingual Gathering.
   Another option was to merge the bilingual group with the English-speaking service, creating a unified bilingual worship gathering. This could reduce costs, build stronger bonds across the congregation, and model intercultural unity. Yet it also raised challenges: worship styles might clash, translation could slow the pace of the service, and those committed to bilingual identity might feel overlooked. This option was attractive for its vision of oneness but risky in terms of congregational dynamics.
5. End the Service.
   Finally, the most drastic choice was to discontinue the bilingual service altogether. Ending the service would relieve financial strain immediately and allow resources to be redirected to other ministries. But it would also send a painful message to bilingual families, possibly undercutting decades of commitment to serving a multi-ethnic neighborhood. Leaders recognized that this choice, while financially prudent on the surface, risked damaging trust and contradicting the church’s historic values.

By laying out these options, the church created space for honest dialogue and prayerful discernment. Importantly, this stage did not treat the decision as merely a financial calculation but as a complex interplay of stewardship, mission, and community identity. Leaders understood that each option carried trade-offs, and that their task was not simply to choose what was easiest but to seek what was most faithful to their calling as a congregation.

Gathering Information

After identifying the possible choices, the leadership team turned to the third step in the framework: gathering as much information as possible. Proverbs 18:13 warns, “He who answers before he hears, that is folly and shame to him”(WEB). Good decision-making requires not only prayer and discernment but also data that can ground conversations in reality rather than assumption.

The leaders collected several types of information to help evaluate the future of the bilingual service:

1. Attendance History.
   Records revealed that when the bilingual service was launched a decade earlier, attendance peaked at 45–60 people, often drawing new families curious about the bilingual model. Over time, however, the number had declined, and in recent years weekly attendance averaged only 20–25 individuals. This trend raised questions of sustainability but also highlighted the service’s persistence despite demographic and financial shifts.
2. Financial Costs.
   The service required approximately $60,000 annually. This included the part-time salary of a bilingual pastor, stipends for musicians, and associated ministry costs. In a season of budget constraints, this figure carried significant weight, representing resources that could have supported multiple other ministries. Leaders recognized the financial challenge but also resisted reducing the conversation to dollars alone, knowing that mission often requires sacrificial investment.
3. Community Demographics.
   Demographic research revealed that about 7% of households within one mile of the church were bilingual (Spanish/English). Though not a majority, this percentage represented a significant missional opportunity, particularly in a neighborhood where other congregations had either relocated to the suburbs or had not offered contextual ministries for bilingual families. This reinforced the church’s long-standing commitment to remain in its diverse setting rather than abandoning it during periods of cultural transition.
4. Spiritual Outcomes.
   Perhaps the most surprising finding was that the bilingual service, despite its small size, had produced the highest number of professions of faith and conversions in the entire congregation. Many who had come through its doors encountered Christ for the first time, and testimonies from the service were regularly cited as highlights in congregational life. This metric reminded leaders that fruitfulness cannot always be measured by attendance alone. Jesus’ parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31–32, WEB) provided a theological frame: small beginnings can yield disproportionate kingdom impact.
5. Qualitative Insights.
   Beyond statistics, leaders also considered stories, relationships, and emotional attachments. For many participants, the bilingual service was not merely a program but a spiritual family that affirmed their cultural and linguistic identity. Ending or altering the service would not simply shift numbers but disrupt deeply personal connections to worship, belonging, and identity.

This information-gathering stage slowed down the decision-making process, ensuring that choices were not based on instinct, budgetary panic, or majority preference alone. By combining quantitative data (attendance, finances, demographics) with qualitative insights (spiritual fruit, cultural meaning), the leaders laid the groundwork for wise, prayerful discernment in the next stage: projecting the consequences of each choice.

Projecting Consequences

The team evaluated the likely outcomes of each option:

• Ending the service might save funds but risk alienating a community the church had historically committed to serve.
• Transitioning to all-Spanish could improve alignment but might exclude English-speaking children of immigrant families.
• Planting a new church might increase missional reach but would stretch leadership and finances.

Applying Values

The fifth step in the decision-making framework required the leadership team to examine the problem through the lens of the church’s core values. Data could clarify finances and demographics, but values would ultimately determine what kind of congregation they sought to be. Decisions shaped by values reflect not only what is practical but also what is faithful.

In this case, the church reaffirmed a historic value: remaining rooted in its multi-ethnic neighborhood. During the 1960s and 1970s, many congregations in the city relocated to suburban communities during the era of “white flight.” New Hope’s leaders, however, had deliberately chosen to stay. They believed their calling was to be a visible and faithful witness to the gospel in a changing neighborhood, serving a community that was increasingly diverse linguistically, culturally, and ethnically. This legacy was not simply a pragmatic decision; it was a theological one. They embraced the vision of Revelation 7:9, where a “great multitude, which no man could count, out of every nation and of all tribes, peoples, and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb” (WEB) worship together.

Applying this value placed significant weight on maintaining some form of bilingual ministry, even at a financial cost. Leaders recognized that to eliminate the service entirely would not only save money but also betray a central aspect of their identity. To retreat from bilingual worship would signal to the neighborhood that financial pragmatism outweighed their long-standing commitment to diversity and inclusion.

At the same time, the value of stewardship was also in play. The church understood that responsible use of resources was itself a biblical principle (Luke 16:10–12). The challenge, therefore, was to hold both values in tension: honoring their call to multi-ethnic ministry while practicing wise stewardship of limited finances.

By applying their values, the church reframed the conversation. The question was no longer simply “Can we afford this?”but also “What has God called us to prioritize, even when it stretches us?” Leaders concluded that their values required them to pursue an option that maintained a meaningful bilingual witness, though they remained open to adjusting the form and structure of the service to enhance sustainability.

In this way, the values of presence, diversity, mission, and stewardship acted as guardrails for decision making, ensuring that the choice would align with the congregation’s identity and calling. Values provided clarity not only for the immediate decision but also for future ones, anchoring the church in principles that transcended financial pressures or cultural convenience.

Communication

The sixth step in the framework—communicating clearly and often—proved essential in this decision. Even with well-gathered data and carefully applied values, the process could have unraveled without transparency and open dialogue. Church history shows that many congregational divisions are not caused by the decision itself but by how the decision is communicated. Surprises breed suspicion, and silence creates space for rumor. Proverbs 15:22 reminds us, “Where there is no counsel, plans fail; but in a multitude of counselors they are established” (WEB).

To prevent division, the leadership team made communication a deliberate priority. They organized three congregational meetings dedicated to the bilingual service discussion. Recognizing that language itself could be a barrier to participation, the leaders ensured live translation so that both English- and Spanish-speaking members could fully engage. This practical step not only enabled understanding but also communicated respect, signaling that both linguistic communities were equally valued in the discernment process.

These meetings served several purposes:

Hearing Perspectives. Members of the bilingual service shared powerful testimonies about what the ministry meant to them. Some spoke of finding Christ in that context; others described the dignity of worshiping in their heart language. This input reminded leaders that the service was not an abstract line item but a spiritual family.

Clarifying Misunderstandings. Rumors had begun circulating that the church intended to shut down the service immediately and without input. By openly explaining that evaluation was happening as part of a larger budget review, leaders corrected misinformation and assured participants that their voices mattered.

Surfacing Emotional Connections. Beyond statistics and strategy, communication revealed the deep emotional and cultural bonds attached to the service. For many, it symbolized the church’s long-standing commitment to diversity. Recognizing these attachments helped leaders approach the decision with greater pastoral sensitivity.

Building Trust. Transparent communication fostered trust even among those who disagreed on the best path forward. By creating space for dialogue rather than delivering top-down directives, the leadership signaled that this was a shared process of discernment.

Importantly, communication was not limited to large-group meetings. Leaders also made announcements during services, provided written updates, and invited informal conversations. This multi-layered approach ensured that the congregation heard consistent messages in multiple formats, reducing the likelihood of surprises or alienation.

In the end, this stage of communication helped transform what could have been a divisive decision into a collaborative process. The very act of listening and explaining deepened unity, even before the decision was finalized. By prioritizing communication, the church modeled the apostolic pattern of Acts 15, where leaders gathered to listen, debate, and issue a decision with the affirmation, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28, WEB).

Making the Decision

After months of prayer, data gathering, value clarification, and congregational dialogue, the leadership reached the point where action was required. The seventh step in the framework—making the decision—is often the most challenging. Leaders may feel the weight of competing values, the fear of conflict, or the paralysis of analysis. Yet failing to decide, or delaying indefinitely, is itself a decision—usually one that perpetuates drift and deepens frustration.

Grounded in the information gathered and the values reaffirmed, the church decided to retain the bilingual service with minor adjustments. These adjustments included modest service time changes to reduce scheduling conflicts, intentional steps to increase integration with other ministries, and greater encouragement for cross-congregational participation in shared outreach programs.

This decision was not the cheapest financially, nor the easiest administratively. However, leaders judged it to be the most faithful to the church’s mission. By retaining the service, the congregation demonstrated its commitment to multi-ethnic ministry and its historic calling to remain in its diverse neighborhood. By making small but strategic adjustments, the church also signaled its commitment to stewardship, ensuring that the service would be more sustainable and better connected to the larger life of the congregation.

The process of making the decision was marked by three important characteristics:

Courage. Leaders recognized that no option would please everyone. Some wanted the service to be ended for financial reasons, while others wanted it expanded regardless of cost. Retaining the service with adjustments required courage to stand between these poles, trusting that this path honored God’s mission for the church.

Clarity. The decision was communicated directly and unambiguously. Leaders outlined not only what was decided but why—linking the choice to the values of diversity, evangelism, and stewardship. This clarity helped prevent misinterpretation and reinforced trust.

Conviction. The decision was presented with conviction, not as a half-hearted compromise but as a prayerfully discerned direction. Leaders emphasized that the decision was made not simply to preserve the past but to invest in the future, positioning the bilingual service as a bridge for deeper integration and mission in the years ahead.

In theological terms, the church embodied the wisdom of James 1:5: “But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach; and it will be given to him” (WEB). The decision reflected both divine guidance sought in prayer and practical wisdom rooted in data and dialogue.

Ultimately, the act of making the decision transformed uncertainty into direction. While not every congregant agreed with the outcome, the transparent process and courageous leadership generated broad support. The decision balanced the missional imperative of reaching a bilingual community with the practical necessity of financial stewardship,exemplifying the kind of faithful discernment to which deacons and church leaders are called.

Tracking Consequences

The eighth and final step in the framework—tracking consequences and making adjustments—proved to be just as important as the initial decision itself. Wise leaders recognize that decisions are not one-time events but living processesthat require ongoing evaluation. By returning to assess the results of their choice, the church demonstrated humility, accountability, and openness to God’s continuing guidance.

In the case of the bilingual service, attendance initially rose following the decision to retain and adjust the ministry. Excitement about the renewed commitment to bilingual worship, coupled with fresh communication and cross-congregational integration, attracted additional participants. However, after several months, attendance gradually settled back into the mid-20s, reflecting the ongoing challenges of sustaining momentum in a post-pandemic context.

Rather than viewing this as a failure, leaders treated it as a learning opportunity. The decision-making framework gave them a structured way to reflect:

What outcomes did we expect?
Increased participation, greater integration, and sustainable financial stewardship.

What outcomes did we actually see?
A temporary attendance boost, sustained conversions, and modest improvements in integration—but continued financial strain.

What adjustments might be necessary?
Leaders considered further outreach into bilingual households, enhancing children’s programming, and strengthening lay leadership within the bilingual service.

Importantly, the leaders also realized that the real “success” of the process was not only the outcome of the bilingual service but the framework itself. They now had a repeatable model for approaching other complex ministry decisions. This shifted the culture of leadership from reactive problem-solving to proactive, principled discernment.

They soon applied the same process to the church’s food program. Initially, the program functioned as a relief ministry, distributing groceries to food-insecure families. However, through the lens of the decision-making framework, leaders began asking deeper questions: Was the program fostering long-term dependency? How could it be reshaped to empower participants rather than merely serve them?

By gathering information, applying values, and engaging participants in dialogue, the church decided to transition leadership of the food ministry to community members themselves. This move reflected principles of Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD), which emphasizes building on the strengths, skills, and resources already present in the community. Instead of the church doing ministry for people, it began doing ministry with them. The transition not only lightened the burden on church staff but also elevated local leaders, created a sense of ownership, and multiplied the ministry’s impact.

This stage of tracking consequences highlighted two critical lessons for the church:

Decisions must be monitored. Even faithful, well-communicated choices may not achieve all their intended outcomes, and leaders must be willing to revisit and refine them.

Frameworks build resilience. The greatest long-term fruit may not be the immediate solution to a problem but the cultivation of a repeatable process that strengthens the church’s capacity for faithful discernment.

In this way, the bilingual service decision became more than a single episode; it became a template for ongoing leadership. As Proverbs 19:20 reminds us, “Listen to counsel and receive instruction, that you may be wise in your latter end” (WEB). By listening, evaluating, and adjusting, the church ensured that its ministries could continue to serve faithfully in a changing context.

Lessons for Ministry

The case study illustrates several lessons for deaconal decision making:

• Values must guide choices. Decisions rooted only in finances or convenience can compromise long-term mission.
• Communication is essential. Surprises erode trust; transparent processes build unity.
• Decisions are iterative. Tracking outcomes allows leaders to adjust without fear of failure.
• Frameworks create resilience. By adopting a structured process, churches avoid reactive or divisive decision making and foster shared ownership.

Conclusion

Deacons and church leaders inevitably face difficult decisions about ministries, budgets, and programs. The eight-step framework—defining problems, identifying options, gathering information, projecting consequences, applying values, communicating clearly, making decisions, and tracking results—offers a biblically informed, practical process for wise leadership.

As the case of the bilingual service demonstrates, faithful decision making requires balancing financial realities with historic commitments, listening to diverse voices, and aligning every choice with the mission of Christ. In this way, deacons fulfill their calling to serve not only with compassion but also with discernment, leading the church in ways that honor God and build up the body of Christ.

Discussion Questions

Step 1: Defining the Problem

Why is it important to clearly define the decision or problem before moving forward?

In your church, have you seen examples where a poorly defined problem led to poor decisions?

Step 2: Identifying Choices

How can brainstorming multiple choices prevent “either/or” thinking in ministry decisions?

Which of the five options considered for the bilingual service (retain, shift to Spanish-only, plant, merge, end) do you think you would have initially favored, and why?

Step 3: Gathering Information

How do both data (attendance, finances, demographics) and stories (testimonies, cultural meaning) contribute to good decision-making?

Which type of information tends to be overlooked in your church context—hard data or personal stories? Why?

Step 4: Projecting Consequences

What potential consequences (positive or negative) might flow from ending a long-standing ministry?

How can prayer and discernment help when projecting consequences feels uncertain?

Step 5: Applying Values

What are the core values of your church? Are they clearly written and communicated, or mostly assumed?

How did New Hope Church’s commitment to staying in a multi-ethnic neighborhood shape their decision about the bilingual service?

Step 6: Communicating Clearly and Often

Why does lack of communication often cause more damage than the decision itself?

What strategies could your deacon board use to ensure communication is transparent and accessible (e.g., translation, small group discussions, Q&A sessions)?

Step 7: Making the Decision

Why is courage necessary in ministry decisions, even when no option will satisfy everyone?

How can leaders present decisions with both clarity and humility?

Step 8: Tracking Consequences and Adjusting

What can be learned when a decision does not yield the expected outcomes?

How does the practice of Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD)—empowering local people to lead—illustrate good adjustment after evaluating consequences?

Broader Reflection

Which step in the eight-step framework do you think is the hardest for your church? Why?

How could this framework be applied to other common decisions deacons face, such as starting a new ministry, managing a food pantry, or revising the budget?

What role should prayer and Scripture play at each step of the framework, not just at the beginning or end?

How might this framework help prevent division in the congregation and instead build trust and unity?