Over the last few years, in both church and secular settings, I’ve dug into what makes a great system “tick.”

Have I got it all figured out? Not really.

I mean, there are some things that I know work well, but mostly, I’ve learned what DOESN’T work—ha!

And I think knowing what doesn’t work is key to iterating, applying, re-iterating, re-applying, etc. in order to cultivate a system with features that best serves a given scenario or environment.

After a lot of trial and error, here are my takeaways for envisioning a strong music ministry infrastructure that clearly marks goals and methods to attain them along the way.

Today’s Sponsor: 1440 Media

Remember when the news was about what happened, not how to feel about it? 1440's Daily Digest is bringing that back. Every morning, they sift through 100+ sources to deliver a concise, unbiased briefing — no pundits, no paywalls, no politics. Just the facts, all in five minutes. For free.

Read the newsletter trusted by 4.5 million fact-seekers.

One of the easiest mistakes to make when building a worship ministry system is prioritizing the features before establishing the foundation.

We see something new, innovative, streamlined, or impressive, and immediately begin asking, “How can we make this work in our church?”

But that's often the wrong question.

The better question is:

What are we actually trying to accomplish, and what kind of system will reliably accomplish it?

Your features should fit within the framework of your foundation—not the other way around.

This is especially important when you're dealing with limited budgets, limited volunteers, and limited time. The temptation is to find ways to make the system look better, sound better, or do more without considering what those additions do to the overall structure.

And sometimes, the thing that looks like an upgrade is actually a downgrade in reliability.

One of the first principles I try to establish when building a system is simple:

Don't sacrifice function for aesthetics.

A clean-looking system is great. A streamlined workflow is great. New technology is great.

But none of those things matter if the system becomes harder to operate, harder to maintain, or more likely to fail.

Sometimes eliminating a feature doesn't actually eliminate work. It simply moves that work somewhere else. You might remove one piece of equipment, for example, only to discover that you've added another step somewhere else in the workflow to compensate for what you removed.

This is why true simplification is harder than it looks.

It's relatively easy to eliminate something. It's much harder to eliminate something without sacrificing the outcome.

And that's where the cost of simplification comes into play.

It's relatively rare to completely collapse two or three functions into one without giving something up. If you genuinely want the same level of output while dramatically reducing the number of steps involved, you're probably going to pay more for the equipment, infrastructure, or technology that makes that possible.

Now, I understand that may be completely worthwhile. But if you're working with a small church and a limited budget, you need to determine what you're actually willing to sacrifice.

To put it simply: You can't optimize everything.

So prioritize.

Another trap is assuming that the newest solution is automatically the most reliable solution.

News flash: It isn't.

Sometimes, we chase technology because it appears to streamline our workflow. At face value:

And then six months later, we're spending more time maintaining it than we ever spent operating the old system.

The problem isn't necessarily that the new product is bad. The underlying issue is that we've introduced more dependencies into the system:

And eventually, the novelty wears off.

The trend you were chasing may disappear, while you're left maintaining the infrastructure you built around it.

New and improved doesn't always mean reliable.

And in a worship service, reliability is often more valuable than novelty.

There's another side to this that I see frequently: churches trying to build a system that does everything.

They buy a little bit of everything:

Eventually, they've checked a lot of boxes—but none of those boxes are particularly strong.

I'd rather see a church identify two or three outcomes that really matter and spend the majority of its resources making those things excellent.

When you distribute your money across a wide swath of mediocre products, you don't just get mediocre results. You also get:

So, do the hard work up front. Determine what matters most. Then, build around those priorities.

Of course, the opposite extreme is just as dangerous.

You can absolutely spend a tremendous amount of money on the wrong product.

This is counterintuitive to what you might see in the advertising algorithms filling your social media feed, but expensive gear does not guarantee a positive outcome. You can buy the most expensive version of something and still have a system that is poorly designed.

It’s not about, “What's the best product?”

The better question to ask is:

“What product best serves the outcome I'm trying to achieve?”

When I’m building or upgrading a system, I'm looking for products that play a critical role within it, can serve multiple purposes, and are relatively easy to manage.

If a piece of equipment can accomplish several important functions while remaining simple to configure, maintain, and operate, that's a much better investment than something that does one impressive thing but introduces another layer of complexity.

A better way to put it is I’m not looking for one-trick ponies, but rather, looking for products that allow me to meet the most needs through different applications.

A great example would be drumset cymbals. For a modern worship ensemble, you gotta have good cymbals for your kit. One cymbal in particular—the ride—is a crucial component to getting that “worship sound.” And in today’s world, the trend is to chase super dark, wash-y ride tones that fill out the spaces within a mix.

This works great, but the downside is that I often find the definition and clarity of the cymbal to be lacking, especially when it comes to playing the bell of the cymbal.

I tried out a really expensive ride cymbal the other day, one that is very popular among worship ensembles. When striking the bow and edge, I was pleased with the shimmery, yet dark and wash-y tones, but when I tried to “ping” the bell, it was honestly a bit lackluster. And for some of our players, high clarity on the ride bell is crucial component to our style.

The jury is still out, but I think I’m going to opt for a less wash-y ride the has greater bell clarity while still getting a decent dark tone, and the price range is significantly less than the expensive, popular cymbal. (But it’s not a cheap cymbal by itself, either.)

So in the end, the goal isn't to own the best gear—it’s to build the best system you can with the resources you've been given.

This brings us back to one of the most important questions you can ask when evaluating a system:

What can I delete?

Think about it:

So find where you can simplify, delete what isn't necessary, collapse processes where you can, and streamline the workflow.

That gives you greater efficiency in deploying your resources, but it also gives you something that's just as valuable: peace of mind.

But there's a warning here: You can definitely oversimplify.

If you've deleted so much that you can no longer accomplish the outcome you actually care about, then you've gone too far.

So, the answer isn't to keep simplifying forever—it's to recalibrate.

Sometimes, you need to reintroduce a feature, a person, a piece of equipment, or a step into the process because it serves a necessary function.

The goal isn't the fewest possible components; it’s about having the fewest necessary components.

The difference might seem subtle when said, but in reality, they’re very different things.

So how do we actually build a strong worship production system?

I recommend starting with three simple goals:

That's it.

We’re not going for:

Those things can be valuable, but they're not the goal.

The goal is that people can hear what's happening, see what's happening, and move naturally from one element of the service to the next.

Once those three priorities are established, we can work backward.

These questions bring us back to the foundation.

Because a worship service doesn't become better simply because we add more.

Sometimes, it becomes better because we remove what was getting in the way.

Good systems aren't defined by how many features they have.

They're defined by how reliably they accomplish what matters:

Then, choose the features that serve those outcomes.

The best system isn't necessarily the biggest, newest, or most impressive system.

It's the system that reliably accomplishes the things that matter most.

Be blessed 👊✌️