Building a Thriving Church Health Ecosystem Part 9: Focus Resources on the Middle Third of Churches
- Ian Duncum
- Jul 19
- 9 min read
THRIVING TOGETHER BLOG INTRO
For many years, I have shared both the pain and joys of those who work with churches. Like many of you, I have often wondered if there are better ways to thrive together and make a missional impact on our world. It’s not about trying harder; it’s about doing different things in new ways. This involves interrupting our routines and reflecting on our practices.
As a pastoral supervisor, trainer, lecturer, and consultant for churches and non-profits, I strive to provide valuable insights. I hope my posts serve as refreshing water for those planted in churches and leading denominations so we can thrive together.
Please let me know your thoughts in the comments. Or you can reach out to me through my website: www.ianduncum.com.au.
Building a Thriving Church Health Ecosystem Part 9: Focus Resources on the Middle Third of Churches
dr Ian Duncum
Focus Resources on the Middle Third of Churches
A healthy denomination should spend most of its discretionary consultancy, coaching, and leadership-development energy on the middle third of churches: those that are good and could become extraordinary with the right support. At the same time, the bottom third needs clear, compassionate, delegated processes for close-down, consolidation, merger, or transfer, rather than open-ended rescue efforts that drain people and money.[1][2][3]
Why this matters
In many systems, the loudest demands come from the strongest churches and the most urgent crises come from the weakest churches, but the greatest return on investment often sits in the middle. Churches in the middle third usually have enough health, trust, and capacity to respond well to focused coaching, whereas the bottom third often need simpler, more structured pathways that reduce ambiguity and emotional fatigue. Research and practitioner reflections on clergy support, supervision, and burnout also point to the value of targeted, rather than generic, resourcing.[4][5][6]
The logic is not harsh; it is stewardship. A denomination that tries to give equal intensity to every church may end up giving too little to those ready to grow and too much time to churches that need a different kind of intervention. Healthy ecosystems allocate effort according to readiness, not just need.[7][1]
Of course, I have written a blog post in this series here about the importance of activating churches in the top third to plant new churches and replant or partner with churches that have lost the capacity to revitalise.
The middle third
Middle-third churches are often strong enough to imagine a better future but not yet so strong that they can unlock it alone. They may have capable lay leadership, a stable worshipping community, and some missional momentum, but they also face leadership bottlenecks, volunteer fatigue, mediocre systems, or unclear strategic direction. That makes them ideal candidates for consultancy, coaching, and intentional development.[1][7]
This is where denominational leaders can move from problem-fixing to capacity-building. A good consultant can help a church clarify its identity, sharpen its priorities, strengthen its leadership team, improve governance, and design practical next steps. A coach can help the senior leader and key elders move from reactive survival to reflective, accountable, mission-shaped leadership.[8][9]
One such example of the impact good intervention can have is 'Church D' which grew 65% in a five year period after a church consultancy (Duncum, The Impact of Church Consultancy, 2019).
What to fund here
The middle third deserves the best tools the denomination has: experienced consultants, structured coaching, leadership diagnostics, team development, and follow-up accountability. These churches often benefit from short, focused engagements that identify growth levers and remove friction in systems, people, and culture. Investment here is usually multiplied because the church already has enough health to implement change.[10][1]
Useful resources include:
· Strategic consultancy for mission, governance, and culture.
· Coaching for clergy and key lay leaders.
· Team development around role clarity, communication, and trust.
· Leadership pipeline development for emerging leaders.
· Support for children’s, youth, and discipleship pathways.
The point is not to create dependency on denominational experts. The point is to help local leaders become more effective faster, so that the church becomes more self-sustaining, more confident, and more fruitful.[7][1]
What healthy consultancy looks like
Good consultancy in the middle third is not endless conversation. It starts with a clear diagnostic, then moves to a small number of strategic interventions, then ends with measurable change. The best consultants do not merely offer advice; they help a church name the real issue, test assumptions, and act with courage.[9][8]
A typical process might include:
1. A conversation with the senior leader and chair or oversight body.
2. A brief health assessment covering mission, leadership, culture, attendance, finances, and volunteer capacity.
3. Identification of the one or two constraints that are holding the church back.
4. A written action plan with responsibilities and timing.
This approach is especially powerful when the denomination maintains a small pool of trusted consultants who know the local polity and can work across varied contexts. The church receives not just expertise, but contextual wisdom.[13]
In 2027 I plan to again commence a third cohort of comprehensive year long training for church consultants. Let me know if you are interested in joining or creating such a small pool of consultants for your denomination!
The bottom third
Bottom-third churches often need something different from consultancy. They may be too fragile, too small, too depleted, or too conflicted to absorb extensive coaching. In that space, the goal is usually not turnaround by intensive investment; it is responsible transition, dignity, and clear decision-making.[2][3][14]That means the denomination should have clear processes for churches that are in late decline. Ambiguity is costly here. When a church is effectively unsustainable, delaying hard decisions often increases emotional pain, financial loss, and relational damage.[15][2]
Clear closure processes
A bottom-third process should not rely on heroic improvisation by exhausted local leaders. Instead, the denomination should provide a delegated team of volunteer consultants or regional support people who can guide the church through agreed steps. The process should be simple, humane, and consistent, with good documentation and pastoral sensitivity.[14][2]
Key elements include:
· A trigger point for review, such as persistent membership decline, leadership vacancy, unsustainable finances, or inability to staff essential ministries. I have a review tool I use which I will make available on request. In Part 7 of this series I write about closure thresholds, but it is much better to have a relational connection at an earlier point.
· A short discernment period with external support. If revitalisation is attempted, timed milestones keep a church accountable, and failure to meet these should revert to a previously agreed 'option B.'
· A decision tree that distinguishes between revitalisation, consolidation, adoption merger, relocation, and closure. Where possible, closure should come with an option for the church to leave a lasting Kingdom legacy, such as donating their building to house a new plant, or cash to fund church planting.
· Legal, property, and records guidance.
· A carefully planned service of closure that gives space for processing celebration of God's faithfulness over many years, and the loss of connection and continuity.
This is where denominational policy matters a great deal. Clear thresholds reduce confusion and protect local people from being held in limbo for too long. They also preserve goodwill by ensuring the church is treated with respect, even when its future as a local congregation ends.[2][14]
Delegated volunteer teams
Not every support task needs a paid consultant. For the bottom third, denominational leaders can train delegated volunteer consultants to provide first-line support, practical advice, and pastoral presence. These people do not replace expert oversight, but they can make the process far less intimidating and far more relational.[16][2]
A delegated team may include:
· A chair with authority to coordinate the process.
· A pastoral person who can attend to grief, prayer, and communication.
· A property or finance advisor.
· A governance or legal advisor.
This model reduces cost, speeds up response time, and spreads the burden across the denomination rather than leaving it to one exhausted regional leader. It also communicates that difficult transitions are normal parts of church life and should be handled with care, not shame.[3][10]
Avoiding drain on the system
One of the biggest threats to denominational health is allowing the bottom third to consume disproportionate energy. When leaders repeatedly attempt to rescue churches that are beyond viable turnaround, they may unintentionally neglect the middle third churches that could have become strong regional witnesses. In ecosystem terms, the whole network becomes less fruitful.[1][7]
Thom Rainer estimates that only 2% of organic (ie with the same people) revitalisations succeed. I tend to think it is a little higher. But think of what that means: if 70% of staff time out of a total annual budget of $2.5M (includes building/rent and other costs) is spent on revitalisations, and only 2% are successful, then that is a wasted cost to the denomination of $1.715M. In contrast, 90% of replants or adoption mergers are successful.
This is why triage is not the enemy of compassion. It is how compassion becomes sustainable. A denomination that names its priorities can still care deeply for declining churches while refusing to let rescue mode dominate its leadership culture.[3][1]
A better allocation
A practical rule of thumb is to allocate the highest-quality denominational consultancy and coaching to the middle third, while assigning the bottom third a separate pathway for transition support. That does not mean the weakest churches are ignored; it means they are served appropriately. The middle third gets tailored development, and the bottom third gets clarity, structure, and pastoral transition care.[2][1]
This also creates an honest culture. Churches learn that health is not measured merely by survival, but by fruitfulness, readiness, and capacity for mission. Leaders learn that asking for help is not failure, and that ending one season faithfully can create space for new mission elsewhere.[13][3]
The leadership mindset
The real shift is philosophical. Denominations need to think less like a rescue organisation and more like an ecosystem steward. That means investing where growth is most likely, building leadership capacity where momentum already exists, and creating dignified pathways where closure is the wisest outcome.[7][1]
In practice, this requires courage from bishops, superintendents, executives, and regional teams. It also requires clarity about what denominational support is for: not preserving every structure at all costs, but strengthening the mission of the whole church. When that vision is clear, both growth and decline can be handled with greater faithfulness.[13][3]
An implementation path
A denomination could begin by mapping every church into three broad categories: thriving, developing, and declining. Then it could identify the middle third and assign them priority access to coaching, consultancy, and leadership development over the next 12 to 24 months. At the same time, it could create a standardised closure and transition pathway for bottom-third churches, supported by trained volunteers and clear governance processes.[10][14][2]
To make it work, the denomination should:
· Define objective indicators for each category.
· Train a consultant pool for middle-third churches.
· Train a delegated transition team for bottom-third churches.
· Publish simple processes and timelines.
That approach is both humane and strategic. It honours the dignity of every congregation while refusing to waste the denomination’s best energy on processes that are unlikely to bear fruit.[10][3]
Conclusion
The healthiest denominational systems do not spread their best people evenly across every need. They invest their strongest consultancy and coaching resources in the middle third, where churches are ready to become extraordinary, and they build clear, compassionate, delegated processes for the bottom third, where transition is often the wisest path.[1][2][3]
That is not failure; it is faithful stewardship. When denominations resource according to readiness and reality, the whole church becomes more truthful, more effective, and better able to serve its mission.[7][13]
sources
6. https://www.ianduncum.com.au/post/50-years-of-burnout-studies-what-has-changed-in-clergy-wellbeing
12. https://churchesofchrist.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/CCVT-Coaching-Manual-October-2020.pdf
17. https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2024/08/13/tsunami-church-closings-poses-crisis-and-opportunity
26. https://lawandreligionaustralia.blog/2020/12/05/nsw-covid-19-rules-for-churches-from-7-dec-2020/
27. https://www.andyjudd.com/blog/the-five-models-of-church-governance-and-how-they-cope-under-pressure
© 2026 Ian Duncum. All rights reserved. No reproduction without written permission.
The content provided on Ian Duncum Consulting is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice for your own situation. Please consult with a relevant professional in your country and state before making any decisions based on this information. Reliance on any information provided by us is solely at your own risk.
I sometimes use AI tools to support my ideas and writing.
Rev Dr Ian Duncum is a trained and accredited church consultant with over 20 years of experience with non-profit enterprises and churches across several denominations. This includes denominational leadership in church health, church planting, consultancy training, and adjunct lecturing & research in the tertiary education sector. An accredited minister with a track record of growing churches, Ian trains church consultants, facilitates training for ministers and leaders, and supervises pastors and other leaders. Ian can be contacted at ian@ianduncum.com.au.
Comments