Friday, August 10, 2007

 

Metrics

Usually when I read something at the Out of Ur Blog and I mention it here it is to be critical, or at least argumentative. No so this post on measuring church "success" by Skye Jethani
At my church I am aware of a number of families and individuals who won’t be attending Sunday worship very frequently this summer, and I’m thrilled about it. These people won’t be in worship because they’ll be overseas helping missionaries, or taking inner city kids to a camp in rural Michigan, or they’ll be making meaningful connections as families on vacations- something valuable in a culture where families are struggling. Don’t misread me, I think gathering regularly as a community for corporate worship, confession, and learning is both good and important. I just don’t think it’s so important that it should be the singular measure of missional impact, or even the primary one.


It has become very popular to talk about “life transformation” as the purpose of the church, and numerous studies have shown that worship attendance alone does not seem to impact people’s behavior or values. (Ron Sider’s book The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience comes to mind .) However, people who connect in meaningful and transparent relationships, the kind possible in small groups or with a mentor, do show more evidence of life change. Wouldn’t this be a much better and more helpful number for church leaders to measure? Do you know how many people in your church connected relationally with another brother or sister in Christ last week? Probably not, but I bet you know how many sang songs and passively listened to a sermon.

Granted, Sunday worship attendance is easier to measure than small group attendance or relational connections but I don’t think that’s why we do it. Dallas Willard has said that most churches are designed to grow their ABCs (attendance, buildings, and cash) not disciples. The ABCs form an unholy trinity; a cycle that cannot be escaped easily. Sunday attendance is vital and meticulously measured because that is what funds the church—people give money on Sunday. The money is necessary to pay for institutional needs such as buildings, staff, and programs. And, of course, these tangibles are needed to attract more religious consumers to pay for more buildings, staff, and programs.
I have talked about the issues related to church metrics and the necessity of same for institutional maintenance numerous times on this blog. This is, I believe, the point where culture and church clash the most. I also am not sure we can ever have a winner in the clash, at least not until Christ returns and remakes the world as He originally intended.

Being in, but not of, the world will require that we sometimes do things the world mandates provided they are not anti-thetical to God's purposes, even if they are not within God's perfect plan. Church metrics is probabaly one of those things. the question is, how do we live in the tension?

The answer is straightforward in concept, if not in execution. we need to insure that the ledership of the church, those people that must gather, reduce, read, react and act upon the metrics are persons of maturity and proper Christian perspective - people who will not idolize the numbers.

The numbers are not the problem directly, rather it is how we use them that is the problem. It is that we capitalize on them to create that as the goal of the church for the wider congregation.

Why not, for example talk about the budget and leave for the congregation to conclude that more money means more people, etc, then fill in the gap with aim at evangelism, not church growth (there is a difference you know - at least as things are set up here)

That is just one inadequate suggestion for this most persistent of problems in the church.

One thing I know will work for sure - prayer!

Related Tags: , , , ,

|

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Feed

Blogotional

eXTReMe Tracker

Blogarama - The Blog Directory