M1 Mission · Lesson 4 of 4

Lesson 4 — Turning Mission into Strategic Direction

Translate mission into measurable priorities and a repeatable decision filter.

Not started

M1 Lesson 3 Back to M1 Mission M2 Lesson 1

Nine M curriculum version 1.0 · Nine M methodology, content, exercises and deliverables by Pastor Lee Jenkins.

Where this lesson sits

Curriculum version 1.0 · Pastor Lee Review

Module purpose: Define why the church exists, whom it is called to serve, what makes it distinctive, where it is going, and which priorities should govern decisions.

Official outcome: Mission and Strategic Identity Brief

This lesson produces: Three-year vision, twelve-month priorities and Mission Decision Filter

Anything you type is kept in this browser session only. This prototype does not save to a server.

Learn

Participant study reading — approximately 90 minutes of learning and shared work.

Learning objective: Translate mission into measurable priorities and a repeatable decision filter.

Recommended participants: Senior pastor, executive/associate pastors, board or elder team, ministry directors

Estimated teaching time: 90 minutes

Success indicators

• Leadership drafts and approves a three-year vision statement grounded in the mission, fingerprint and priority audience work of the prior three lessons.
• Leadership names three to five twelve-month priorities, each with an owner and a success measure.
• The group builds a Mission Decision Filter that can be applied consistently to future ministry proposals.
• Leadership identifies remaining gaps and drafts a 90-day action plan to close them.

Materials and evidence you will use

• Leadership Alignment Map from Lesson 1
• Church Fingerprint Statement from Lesson 2
• Alignment and Opportunity Analysis from Lesson 3
• Direct traceability notes linking each priority to Lesson 1, 2 or 3 findings
• Sign-off from board chair or equivalent governing body representative

What you should be able to produce

• Leadership drafts and approves a three-year vision statement grounded in the mission, fingerprint and priority audience work of the prior three lessons.
• Leadership names three to five twelve-month priorities, each with an owner and a success measure.
• The group builds a Mission Decision Filter that can be applied consistently to future ministry proposals.
• Leadership identifies remaining gaps and drafts a 90-day action plan to close them.

Foundational ministry principle

Nehemiah 2:17-18

17 Then said I unto them, Ye see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire: come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach. 18 Then I told them of the hand of my God which was good upon me; as also the king’s words that he had spoken unto me. And they said, Let us rise up and build. So they strengthened their hands for this good work.

King James Version (KJV) · Public domain

Nehemiah's move from surveying the broken wall to declaring 'let us rise up and build' is offered as a model for the shift this lesson asks leadership to make, from understanding to committed direction.

Note that Nehemiah did not stop at assessment; he translated what he had seen into a specific plan with named workers assigned to named sections of wall, which mirrors this lesson's twelve-month priorities with named owners.

Understand the concept

Your work in this lesson focuses on this outcome: Translate mission into measurable priorities and a repeatable decision filter.

Mission clarity only becomes useful once it is translated into a small number of owned priorities and a filter leadership will actually apply the next time a hard decision arrives.

Why it matters for your church

Without a decision filter, new ministry proposals are evaluated inconsistently, often based on who is asking rather than whether the proposal fits the mission.

A twelve-month priority list with too many items functions the same as having no priorities at all.

A gaps list that never becomes a dated action plan tends to be revisited, unresolved, in the same form a year later.

Examine the evidence

Use Leadership Alignment Map from Lesson 1, Church Fingerprint Statement from Lesson 2, and Alignment and Opportunity Analysis from Lesson 3 to compare your church's present practice with its stated intentions. Look for documented patterns, missing information, and differences between what people assume and what the evidence supports.

Your completed work should be supported by Direct traceability notes linking each priority to Lesson 1, 2 or 3 findings, and Sign-off from board chair or equivalent governing body representative. Record uncertainty honestly so your team knows what still needs to be verified.

Prepare for the shared exercise

To translate three lessons of mission, fingerprint and community analysis into a concrete three-year vision, a short list of owned annual priorities, a reusable decision filter, and a dated action plan. The Vision, Priorities, Decision Filter and 90-Day Plan produces the Three-year vision, twelve-month priorities and Mission Decision Filter, which contributes to the module's principal deliverable.

Before working with your team, consider this reflection: In the next 90 days, watch for the first real ministry proposal that arrives and note, honestly, whether leadership actually applied the new Mission Decision Filter to it or reverted to old habits.

Key terms

Three-year vision: A short, vivid description of the future state leadership is pursuing over the next three years, grounded in mission, fingerprint and priority audience.
Twelve-month priorities: Three to five specific, owned and measurable steps toward the three-year vision, chosen from among many possible good ideas.
Mission Decision Filter: A short, repeatable set of questions leadership applies to new ministry proposals to test alignment with mission, fingerprint and current priorities.
90-day action plan: A near-term schedule of specific actions, owners, due dates and review dates for closing the gaps identified across the module.

What this means for a church

• Without a decision filter, new ministry proposals are evaluated inconsistently, often based on who is asking rather than whether the proposal fits the mission.
• A twelve-month priority list with too many items functions the same as having no priorities at all.
• A gaps list that never becomes a dated action plan tends to be revisited, unresolved, in the same form a year later.

Common failure patterns

• Writing a three-year vision as a list of programs rather than a description of a future state for the people the church serves.
• Approving more than five twelve-month priorities because leadership could not bring itself to say no to good ideas.
• Building a decision filter so vague that any proposal could pass it, defeating its purpose.

Ministry case

Cedar Valley Chapel Turns Analysis Into Direction

Cedar Valley Chapel (illustrative example — not actual church data), continuing from the previous session's opportunity analysis, used this final lesson to translate its senior transportation and visitation finding into an actual twelve-month priority. Leadership named a specific owner, the associate pastor of care ministries, and a measurable target: a working transportation ministry serving at least twenty seniors monthly by the end of the year, launched with the deacons who had already shown relational gifts for this kind of work.

When a well-meaning member later proposed launching an entirely new coffee-shop outreach concept requiring significant capital investment, leadership applied its new Mission Decision Filter and recognized the proposal, while appealing, did not draw on the church's documented fingerprint and would compete directly for the same limited volunteer hours needed for the senior transportation launch. The proposal was tabled respectfully, with a specific explanation tied to the filter rather than a vague deferral.

Lesson takeaway

Mission clarity only becomes useful once it is translated into a small number of owned priorities and a filter leadership will actually apply the next time a hard decision arrives.

Discuss

Guided discussion for the leadership table.

With a completed vision, a short list of owned priorities, a working decision filter and a dated 90-day plan, the Mission and Strategic Identity Brief is ready to move to formal leadership review and approval.

Does our three-year vision describe a future state for people we serve, or does it still read like a list of programs?
Which of our twelve-month priorities was hardest to agree on, and why?
Walk through a recent ministry decision: would our new Mission Decision Filter have changed the outcome?
Which item on our 90-day plan are you personally most concerned will slip if no one is watching it closely?

Discussion notes

Practice

Applied exercise — produces the Three-year vision, twelve-month priorities and Mission Decision Filter.

Vision, Priorities, Decision Filter and 90-Day Plan

Estimated time: 60 minutes

Participants: Full leadership group

Artifact produced: Three-year vision, twelve-month priorities and Mission Decision Filter

Required inputs

• Leadership Alignment Map
• Church Fingerprint Statement
• Alignment and Opportunity Analysis

Instructions

As a group, draft a three-year vision statement describing a future state, not a list of programs.
Test the vision against the fingerprint and priority audience work from Lessons 2 and 3, and revise as needed.
Select three to five twelve-month priorities directly from the opportunity gaps and alignment gaps already documented.
Assign a specific owner and a measurable success indicator to each twelve-month priority.
Draft four to six Mission Decision Filter questions in plain, usable language.
Test the filter against one hypothetical ministry proposal and revise if it fails to produce a clear answer.
List remaining gaps and complete a 90-day action plan with an action, owner, due date, resources, success measure, status and review date for each.

Complete it online

90-Day Action Plan

Church name: ______________________
Date: ______________________
Three-year vision statement: ______________________
Mission Decision Filter questions: ______________________

Action	Owner	Due date	Resources required	Success measure	Status	Review date

Your response — Three-year vision, twelve-month priorities and Mission Decision Filter

Worked example

A fully completed sample using a fictional church. This is illustrative teaching material, not any church's actual data.

Cedar Valley Chapel (illustrative example — not actual church data)

Cedar Valley's leadership team built on the prior three lessons' artifacts to complete its 90-day action plan during the final planning session.

Action	Owner	Due date	Resources required	Success measure	Status	Review date
Recruit and train five volunteer drivers for senior transportation ministry	Associate pastor of care ministries	Week 6	Background check process, vehicle insurance review, training materials	Five trained and approved drivers by week 6	Not started	Week 4 check-in
Launch pilot transportation route serving 10 seniors	Associate pastor of care ministries	Week 10	Volunteer schedule, driver roster, rider sign-up sheet	10 seniors receiving regular rides by week 10	Not started	Week 8 check-in
Finalize and distribute Mission Decision Filter to all ministry leaders	Senior pastor	Week 3	Printed filter cards, staff meeting time	All ministry leaders confirm receipt and understanding	Not started	Week 3 check-in
Resolve remaining disagreement on priority audience language from Lesson 1 alignment map	Board chair	Week 4	Follow-up elder meeting time	Final agreed mission sentence documented	Not started	Week 4 check-in
Verify fingerprint claim on youth pastor's counseling background with updated credential documentation	Executive pastor	Week 2	Credential file review	Documentation confirmed and filed	Not started	Week 2 check-in
Explore feasibility of digital literacy ministry tabled in Lesson 3	Outreach director	Week 12	Volunteer skills survey, initial senior interest survey	Feasibility recommendation delivered to board	Not started	Week 12 check-in
Present completed Mission and Strategic Identity Brief to full board for formal approval	Senior pastor	Week 13	Compiled Brief document, board meeting slot	Formal board vote recorded	Not started	Week 13 check-in

How this leadership team reasoned

• Leadership sequenced the plan so that unresolved alignment and fingerprint questions were addressed early, before the transportation ministry launch depended on settled language.
• The team deliberately included the board approval step itself as an action item, ensuring the Brief does not remain an internal working document indefinitely.

Decisions recorded

• Leadership approved the senior transportation and visitation ministry as its top twelve-month priority, with the associate pastor of care ministries as owner.
• Leadership set a formal board vote on the completed Mission and Strategic Identity Brief for week 13, giving a firm deadline to the entire module's work.

Completed artifact extract — Three-year vision, twelve-month priorities and Mission Decision Filter

Three-Year Vision, Cedar Valley Chapel: within three years, Cedar Valley will be recognized in its immediate neighborhood as the church that no isolated older adult has to face alone, sustained by a fully trained volunteer transportation and visitation network and a renewed, right-sized youth ministry serving its smaller but steady population of families. Twelve-Month Priorities: 1) launch senior transportation and visitation ministry serving twenty seniors monthly; 2) finalize and distribute the Mission Decision Filter to all ministry leaders; 3) resolve remaining leadership disagreement on priority audience language; 4) verify and document fingerprint claims flagged in Lesson 2; 5) evaluate feasibility of a digital literacy ministry for seniors. Mission Decision Filter: does this proposal serve our named priority audience; does it draw on a gift or asset already in our fingerprint; does it advance one of this year's five priorities; what would have to be true for us to say no to this.

Illustrative exercise score: 18 of 20. The vision, priorities, filter and 90-day plan are specific, owned and dated, and each element traces directly back to evidence gathered in the three prior lessons.

Score

Transparent 20-point exercise rubric: four criteria rated 0 to 5 with observable anchors.

Criterion	0 — not evident	3 — acceptable	5 — exemplary	Sample
Completeness (0–5)	The three-year vision, priorities, decision filter or 90-day plan are missing entirely or left blank.	All four elements are drafted, but the 90-day plan is missing owners or dates for several actions.	All four elements are fully drafted, and every 90-day action has a named owner, due date and review date.	5
Use of evidence (0–5)	The vision and priorities show no connection to the alignment map, fingerprint or opportunity analysis from prior lessons.	Some priorities reference prior lesson findings, but the connection is loosely stated.	Every priority and gap traces directly and explicitly back to specific findings from Lessons 1 through 3.	5
Alignment to the module purpose (0–5)	The vision and priorities are disconnected from the mission and priority audience work of the module.	The vision references the mission generally but priorities do not clearly connect to the named priority audience.	The vision, priorities and decision filter are all clearly and explicitly tied to the mission and named priority audience.	4
Actionability and ownership (0–5)	No owners, dates or success measures were assigned to any action.	Most actions have an owner, but success measures or due dates are inconsistent.	Every action has a specific owner, due date, success measure and review date.	4
Worked sample total				18 / 20

Completeness: All seven 90-day actions include a named owner, due date, resources, success measure and review date.
Use of evidence: Each of the five twelve-month priorities explicitly traces back to a named finding from the alignment map, fingerprint or opportunity analysis.
Alignment to the module purpose: The vision and top priority are tightly tied to the named senior priority audience, though one priority (digital literacy feasibility) remains only loosely connected.
Actionability and ownership: All seven actions carry a clear owner and due date, though two success measures could be more precisely quantified.

Lesson-exercise scores (20 points each) demonstrate learning and artifact quality. They do not automatically overwrite the official Nine M module assessment, which remains a separate 100-point rating of five module dimensions.

Submit evidence

What must be submitted for this lesson to count as complete.

Submit

• Completed three-year vision statement, twelve-month priorities list, Mission Decision Filter, and 90-day action plan worksheet

Attach this evidence

Direct traceability notes linking each priority to Lesson 1, 2 or 3 findings
Sign-off from board chair or equivalent governing body representative

File upload is not implemented in this prototype. Ticking a box records that the church can produce the document; it does not store a file.

Contribute to official outcome

How this lesson builds the Mission and Strategic Identity Brief.

Artifact produced: Three-year vision, twelve-month priorities and Mission Decision Filter

Completes the strategic direction section of the Mission and Strategic Identity Brief and provides the gaps and 90-day action plan required for module completion.

Open the module deliverable assembly

Participant reflection and notes

In the next 90 days, watch for the first real ministry proposal that arrives and note, honestly, whether leadership actually applied the new Mission Decision Filter to it or reverted to old habits.

M1 Lesson 3 Back to M1 Mission M2 Lesson 1