Consider this post a call for rebellion against the church metrics movement.
First, you should know the worst part about being a preacher is that we tend to be critical of other preacher’s sermons. When I was in seminary, I heard a sermon on Mark 14 (CEB) where a woman breaks a jar of expensive perfume and pours it over Jesus’ head, and the . The preacher talked about Jesus’ love being extravagant, overflowing, without regard for other people. I remember thinking “Who cares that it’s extravagant? We get it. Jesus loved everyone. Grace loves everyone. Can we talk about the misogyny or the reversal of condemnation or something more relevant, please?”
It’s been in recent months that I’ve began to better realize the importance of emphasizing how extravagant grace really is.
A few weeks back, I learned a new word when I was in close proximity to Amy Laura Hall, a Duke Divinity professor and UM Elder. Her blog and twitter account are named “Profligate Grace” which was a new word for me, worth 4000 points in Scrabble (or if you are under 25, Words with Friends).
Profligate means:
recklessly prodigal or extravagant
And “profligate grace” means to Rev. Hall:
I resist the market-driven, cheesy business-model ways of the United Methodist Church these days in part because both parents taught me that there is no way to “count” people and the means or effects of grace. Each life is a gift, a joy, and incalculably treasured by God. So, I am against applying quantified, count-the-numbers methods in public school and church, in organizing and in parenting.
[Profligate Grace] is just a fancy way to say that grace may be hard-won, but it is also not measurable. Solidarity, growth, and human flourishing require thought and care and tending, but that work withers when the results are put to a quantified test.
These quotes really started me thinking about “what are we measuring in the church?”
In a sermon by my Bishop a month ago at a clergy meeting, my Bishop clued us into Jim Noble’s “The King’s Kitchen” which is a not-for-profit restaurant that donates all its profits to charity–$50k last year! Plus it offers on-the-job training and skillset enhancement for homeless or transitional people. Awesome sauce.
Here’s a quick blog post with a CNN video that has the following quote that the Bishop used in his sermon:
Sometimes in life you have to make a distinction between success and significance.
Jim Noble
It is exactly this distinction that makes me wary of the Call to Action and the Vital Congregations movement of church metrics. It’s easy to measure success with dashboards, metrics, comparisons of budget. If the numbers go up, you are successful. If the numbers for a program go down, it needs retooling or scrapping.
The problem is measuring significance. As Rev. Hall emphasizes and the woman with the perfume exhibits, grace is profligate.
- It is not measurable. It flows out without regard for the boundaries.
- It is slow and quiet, immeasurable, trusting in the slow work of God.
- It is extravagant like the woman pouring expensive perfume on Jesus’ head. The church leadership of Jesus’ day (oh *SNAP* yes I went there!) criticized the quantitative success of the perfume but couldn’t measure the significance of the action.
When the emphasis is on success not significance, we lose sight of what we are really called to do. And if we focus on success, we could miss out on being significant.
Last story:
I was talking with a clergy mentor and told her about a pastoral situation where I offered grace and help to a youth in the midst of a rural Bible Belt culture that offers neither grace nor help for the situation. I can’t be more specific than that in this public blog post. The mentor’s response?
“You can know what you said is more significant to that youth than anything you’ve done up until now in ministry.”
Boom.
Here it is:
The Hacking Christianity Call to Action.
Rebel.
Tell the stories of significance in your community, of how you changed lives. Forget the financial report for the missions committee, tell about who you helped and how it changed you. Get rid of the Year To Date report in the bulletin and include a story of how faithful giving changed someone’s life. Let the only money talked about is how the Pastor emptied her Discretionary account helping the poor. This isn’t an ostrich sticking your head in the sand, it is focusing on significance not success.
Rebel.
Talk about the social holiness work you’ve done, holiness which resists metrics. Tell stories of how you extravagantly wasted money on helping people, kicked out big givers who were poisonous to the body, ended successful programs because they were just rote actions, and stayed in ministry with people who could never pay it back.
Rebel.
Seek life in the face of death. You can watch that video of the declining UMC and listen to the heartbeat machine on the Vital Congregations website (ick!). Or you can preach relevant hope to the difficult situation. Yes, we should downsize and prioritize and we have to face reality. But even if we are close to closing our doors, we can still be significant to people in our community. If numerical success does not come, the church doors can be closed in celebration of significant ministry rather than lament of a fallen church.
Rebel.
Seek significance rather than success.
=================================
I write this in protest of the church metrics movement that I don’t believe gives a mission or hope to congregations who WILL most likely close. Stop beating them down and give them something to live for even in their twilight years.
I write this from a place of privilege, as I’m in a successful church and have had a great year in terms of giving, professions of faith, and new disciples in our youth group.
But know that when I’m filling out my end of year reports, my charge conference numbers…I will talk about the significance of our ministry rather than the success.
But the church metrics movement…when we get right down to its emphasis and what the websites report…will really only care about one.
Which one will you?
Discuss.
(Photo credit: “Overflow” by Brave Heart on Flickr, shared via Creative Commons)
Hi Jeremy,
I totally understand the sentiment you express here, but I’m not so sure it’s such a clear “either/or” issue when it comes to measurement. Probably the best voice I’ve listened to on this recently is Gil Rendle, particularly in his book “Journey in the Wilderness.” In it he addresses some of the underlying assumptions from which churches/denominations operate. These assumptions are so deep they guide our normative behavior – and when challenged, we rebel.
One of those assumptions he lifts up is the “assumption that ministry can’t be measured.” Now he doesn’t say this is easy. He writes: “Measuring effectiveness by how many changed lives or how deeply a life is changed is even more difficult since the ability to change a person is not actually under the control of the church or its leaders.” He goes on to talk about all of the other factors that feed this assumption, the negative experiences many people have with metrics and measurement. What he has to say is much deeper than I have the space to summarize here. I would simply encourage you to check out what he has to say.
We are struggling here in New England how to best use this latest tool the General Church is rolling out, so that it isn’t simply a meaningless stat gathering but a means by which meaningful conversation might be had, to go, as Reggie McNeal says, beyond the limits of “how much, how often, and how many” into a more important kind of measurement. In order to do this, in the word of Gil Rendle, “in order to move ahead, we will need to let go of our protectivism, our fear of counting and our assumptions that ministry cannot or should not be measured. This is new learning in the wilderness, and there is still much to do.”
As always, thanks for your willingness to step out and create conversation Jeremy.
Peace
Rick
Thanks for your comments, Rick. I have yet to see an offering from the Church Metrics people that measures subjective criteria like “how deep a heart has been transformed.” Even the VitalCongregations website doesn’t collect or include stories or videos or testimonies on their websites, or offer a way for a church to offer subjective expressions alongside objective criteria.
I really appreciate your quote by Gil Rendle. I think it evokes in me even more gratitude and thought towards small or rural churches that are increasingly protective in the face of metrics, and I hope they find inspiration to reach out and break through the barriers and even though their church may die the dream of the church would live on.
Count me in! I’m on-board, right there with you. I would expand this into a call to resist filling out end-of-year reports, regardless of what the DS/bishop says. Resist being sucked into the Vital Congregations machinery as well.
This is not the time to try to play both/and. People like Gil Rendle and Lovett Weems are trying to straddle a fence that is rapidly becoming irrelevant. If we let it, metrics will become the de facto way forward. I think a strong stand against church metrics needs to happen. And the only way to defeat it would be to stop playing by the rules.
Why haven’t I read you before, Wes? Your website and blog posts are excellent. Will read through them more thoroughly in coming days.
Do we seek success or significance? I would think we would seek both. And CtA/Vital Congregations isn’t antithetical to significance. Are we paralyzed into thinking that we can’t measure fruit?
Is it really rebelliousness, or individualism?
There’s a lot of either/or in your post, Jeremy. Is the Kingdom so black and white?
Sky+
We can measure fruit. But we cannot objectively measure significance. The Vital Congregations website solely measures objective criteria. I see nothing there that allows churches to post videos, reports, or firsthand accounts of what has been significant in their ministries. Even then that wouldn’t be enough as plenty of churches don’t have internet access or ability to post videos, so even then we are leaving the least of us out in the pasture. So fruit, to the Church Metrics, is solely objectively quantified, by their very own offerings.
When one side counts only white and gives lip service to black, then yes, the black needs to be represented most urgently by the other side.
Spoken like a good DS, Sky! 🙂
But there is space to write descriptions of those things, i.e., “What else needs to be said?” I think your “one side counts only white and gives lip service to black” is quite an assumption to make.
If we take our preconceived notions into CtA/Vital Congregations, of course we won’t get anything out of it from numbers crunching. And I guess if defeating church metrics is your goal, then you can surely reach it.
Does that help the Kingdom? Or just help our rebellious cause? And is that cause just? I think those are questions you need to have answers to. If you’re being rebellious because of a “top-down” approach, it’s perhaps important to be reminded that we are in an episcopal form of government, not congregational.
@Wes: what rules would you suggest we go by? Being congregational?
Let me turn the question back around to you, Sky. Why do we need metrics? Or, to put it another way, why must we measure fruit?
Wes – my simple answer would be that we’re to be stewards of all that we’ve been given and asked to do. Doesn’t that suggest that an accounting of that is in order?
Yes, an “accounting” is in order for the sake of accountability. But true accountability can only be done in a mutually trusting atmosphere. So each pastor needs to be accountable to a trusted spiritual adviser, and to the conference as a whole.
But numbers don’t prove much of anything in the way of accountability. Instead, things like personal integrity, spiritual disciplines, and discipleship are the most important things to be considered. We all know this, but we continue to trust that numbers can reflect these things. They can’t! They never have, never will.
So why, then, in an effort to improve our discipleship, have we (the UMC) fallen back (yet again) on numeric standards and metrics as standards of judgment?
It’s interesting to me that this blog post is accused of being black/white when you frame questioning church metrics in episcopal/congregational language. As an opponent of creeping congregationalism in the UMC, and I’ve written much of which I see in the Call To Action, I’m really surprised at wonderings if I’m congregationalist. Opposition to top-down metrics does not equal congregationalist!
Let me write more: I don’t think metrics help the kingdom directly, so questioning their usage is not working “against the kingdom.” They are tools to be used for good or for harm. I’m trying to get measuring subjective “significance” into the equations the metric people collect for that tool. I may be showing my hand, but by exposing that “significance” is not measurable, it critiques the whole metrics system as broken and incomplete.
For example, my church runs a mission store and sells jeans for $1, socks for 25 cents, and use that money to buy food for those in need. We spent $65,000 to run this last year. Where do I put that in our Church Metrics on the VC website? It’s our own ministry, it’s not an outside benevolence, it’s not an apportionment. So our mission moneys given (the fifth section on the VitalSigns section) is HALF as it should be. It doesn’t fit into the box, it isn’t counted, thus to the church metrics, it isn’t fruit. Tell me how that is honest.
In reality, that example is a bad one: it still plays into the objective criteria paradox the church metrics have created. It fails to recognize significance. Our mission store would be included as a “note” I guess…how insulting.
Rev. McCracken, as a D.S. you clearly have a subjective experience of the churches in your district, and that’s GOOD. If it were up to people who take all into account, that’s GOOD. But as you said, we are in an episcopal connectional system, and thus it isn’t up to you, and the CTA’s centralizing of authority into fewer and fewer people means less and less people with subjective experience or exposure, and that’s BAD.
Thanks for engaging this conversation.
Scott – I don’t know if I am a good D.S. or not. I don’t think God would have us sit and do nothing, nor give lip service to obedience. I need to know the churches in my district well enough to know how to interpret metrics and the subjective input as well (of which there IS provision for, regardless of what you might have heard). Thinking churches are going to get “the ax” if their numbers aren’t good is ridiculous, since as a denomination ALL of the numbers are bad. I don’t know any other entity on earth that doesn’t measure how it is doing – nor do I find anywhere where Jesus said NOT to measure success. Implied in both Old and New Testament is to do better than survive or get by – but to thrive.
If I take my three nephews backpacking, and after a two-day trip I only come back with two of them, I doubt that my brother and sister-in-law will go along with my reasoning, “Hey, it’s not about numbers – it’s about quality. You can’t measure that.”
Sky is right that there are SOME ways within the existing systems to report out additional stories.
But Jeremy, you’re right that these are very limited.
So, if we’re going for a both-and approach here (success AND significance, metrics AND stories) it will be important to make sure we do actually report both– by whatever means we can.
Just because the dashboard system may not make reporting the “significance narratives” all that convenient, doesn’t mean you can’t report them. Find some other way to do that. Email them to your DS. Publish them on your congregation’s website or blog. Push them out every way you can.
Yes, that is more work. But so is the kind of watching over one another in love that actually generates growth in holiness of heart and life– and it’s pretty apparent to me, at least, that this is an area where a lot more of our congregations truly need to do a lot more work if they will be truly vital. Telling these stories, by any and all means, might just spur a few more of us on to such love and good works.
Here’s an idea Jeremy. As a subtle protest for the inclusion of significance in how we view church, I would love to see clergy across the connection use their charge conference report to talk about the “significant” things that their ministry is accomplishing. Maybe if we use this language and concept enough, people will take notice.
With all due respect, Roger, now is not the time for “subtle.” The general church has adopted the language and core values of corporations and businesses and is trying to force the Gospel into its framework. Hinting around that “significance” is important, too, not just “success,” is hardly going to be noticed in the fray. Because the die has already been cast — by the Call to Action team, the Connectional Table, and the Bishops. That’s why Jeremy’s advice is “Rebel.”
Love this post!!! Thanks for introducing me to Amy Laura Hall’s blog….It is great! I hope all is well with you!
Sky,
I serve a congregation with average worship attendance of 45 that operates a food pantry that is currently serving 468 families per month. Yes, it is an ecumenical effort that is housed in a 1500 sq ft. warehouse on church property. We have struggled to pay our apportionments (until our conference moved to a tithe based system this year) and in the 4 years that I have served this congregation, we have had a grand total of 3 professions of faith. Yet, when we distribute our food on the first and third Friday we have a 1/2 hour worship service that concludes with communion and we encourage people to get into church in what ever fellowship that they feel comfortable. Yet, when I look at the punitive (yes punitive) crap that is coming out of Willimon’s North Alabama conference with that depicable dashboard that he touts so highly, I see that this little congregation would probably be deemed a dismal failure. Perhaps in the eyes of a numbers at all costs mindset, but I would dare say that if our doors were to be closed, the community would definitely take notice.
Exactly Wayne. Metrics measure the cookies from cookie-cutter churches, not those who don’t fit the mold. But more than that, the whole system isn’t holistic enough to be trusted as a lens.
Wayne, Thanks for sharing your story of a significant church in ministry. Keep up the great work, no matter what the numbers say. God notices your fruit, and so do we.
“Despicable dashboard” Ouch!
Willimon has strong words for unfaithful churches, but if your church has had 3 join recently by affirmation of faith that would put you in the top half (easily) of UM congregations in North Alabama. I doubt he’d deem you a “dismal failure.”
Just wanted to point out that I do not serve in the North Alabama annual conference… nor do I want to serve there. I have had too many conversations with pastor friends who do serve there and who are really unhappy with the bottom line mentality that comes from the dashboard.
Wow. Thank you.
Jeremy,
In part I think I agree with you. Numbers alone don’t tell the story, and lives changes don’t show up on a metrics sheet. However, I think we have to stop ignoring them. I believe we are failing to live up to the Great Commission if our numbers continue to decline. I also believe that many of our unhealthy churches need to start facing reality. Some of them will die, in my experience most of them will die by choice, because they refuse to minister to their wider community. However some churches may change, and grow, and live into their ministry. Given the number of un-churched people in the US, in very few communities (at least in my state) are places where more people could not be reached. I know numbers don’t tell the story of ministry, but I am tired of hearing clergy in my conference make excuses about how they can’t help their appointments grow. I think we can grow as a denomination in the US, and I think its high time we star. It’s not just about butts in the seats, but people aren’t having their lives changed and aren’t being offered Christ if they aren’t worshiping or participating in another way. I love your blog and love so much of what you offer, but I have to as a brother in Christ disagree, or at least disagree in part.
Jeremiah Thompson
Many people have raised the points that you did passionately and Bibilically here. The concern that ministry has impact that cannot be counted statistically is valid and I think the excitement over mentioning is that it seems so basic a fact that we shouldn’t have to mention it. We need to address that.We need to know HOW those metrics will be used – that is the threatening part. If its proportional, a small church that grows by one profession of faith can ‘out-perform’ a large church that receives 20. We need to be discussing very clearly HOW metrics are going to be used and get past “if” or “why.” That is the trust piece that is missing. What exactly are going to be the results of the metrics about our results?
What I appreciate most about your post about the Call to Action is that while I do not object to metrics as one part of accountability and faithfulness, they do not inspire me. Your post does.
The Call to Action is meant to wake us up and sober us up. It many ways, it is fulfilling that function because people are paying attention. I believe it is meant to be a call to repentance and reflection. But it does not go further than that and we need it to cast a vision. It does not inspire us to ministry, it skips that part and goes to measuring the fruit. We need the vision part that points to ministry, to changed lives, to the in-breaking of God’s grace in everyday life in order to connect the call to repentance to harvesting fruit. We have ALREADY been self-centered, protective, timid, lukewarm and distracted. We desire to be fruitful and in ministry and have a harvest to count of hours spent extravagantly, money given selflessly, and people touched in Christ’s name. Where is the connection in all that? We cannot talk about the problem and the different results we want and skip or gloss over talking about the actions and motivation/purpose that connects them and us – Christ and the missio dei.
I think the bigger concern is that we have forgotten why we are connected, Who connects, and for what purpose. That extravagant grace is bigger than one church, one place, one pastor. It is displayed in a church that works together to pour that love continuously around the world, sharing resources, sharing pastors’ gifts and laity’s gifts, reaching further together than we could ever do alone because we spread it around so widely. None it is just for us.
We’ve lost that in many ways. The understanding that ministry is not mine, it is ours. Since we aren’t focused on ministry, we focus on our system and ourselves. We’ve lost the trust, the connection, the desire to accountable to one another and help one another, the joy in celebrating and sharing victories. The connection needs re-formed and re-newed not to cost less or for an institution to survive but because it is no longer connecting us in and to ministry in that way that we need in this time and place.
No voice in the connection right now seems able to cast that wide vision in an inspiring way. Listing vital characteristics does not do that. Appealing to reason or fear does not do that. Our system is not set up to do that effectively in the way we need it to right now. Our system is set up to maintain ministries and churches that had already been inspired by a movement of the Holy Spirit.
Metrics are not bad; they are a tool that can be used for the kin_dom or against. They could be terrible or wonderful for us. Your most excellent and vital point is that we should be talking together more about God and ministry than about metrics. The connections between ministry and metrics are the Holy Spirit and the cross of Christ. Truthfully, the more we focus on how we witness to Christ and embrace the Holy Spirit’s bidding to do the kind of significant ministry that can’t be counted, the more we will need to count.
Metrics aren’t bad. The way they are being presented, We need a remember that we are the same team.
I’m mostly in agreement about preferring significance over success, so I haven’t much to say about that. But this gave me pause:
“kicked out big givers who were poisonous to the body,”
God between me and the day I cite kicking people out of church as an achievement — for this or any other reason.
Yeah, Brett, I accept your censure on this one. I think I got into the heat of the moment.
What was going through my mind was kicking them off committees that they were holding back, not kicking out of the church. At least, I hope against hope this was what I was thinking.
“Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to heat. And heat leads to the Dark Side.”
I may be remembering that wrong.
Sorry for the lack of editing!
Metrics are not bad but they will not be what has the lasting impact. Numbers can be inflated and some won’t turn in numbers because they are busy ministering. If we ‘fire’ or ‘close’ those fruitful people for not reporting, we fail. If all we have are false numbers without true knowledge and we reward people for shoddy work, we fail. If we spend all of our time investigating who turned in good numbers and who didn’t turn in numbers instead of in ministry, we fail. Perhaps your suggestion is meant to illustrate that.
Let’s not let metrics define our ministry or take over our conversations. I think the most Christ-like rebellion that we should embrace IS displayed in your post – re-focus the conversation on ministry and vision.
Let’s talk about what faithful and transforming ministry looks like today. How is it done, whether inside or outside of churches? Then ask how can the connection and our way of being church support that.
My concern is that we are not re-thinking deeply enough and we will be too quick to seek models and solutions, not the Spirit. I wonder if the lack of vision talk is that we are afraid to say – we don’t know what to do. We don’t know how we should use the metrics. We don’t know how to establish models or deal with ministries that are significant but not self-sustaining. We don’t know how to nurture a connection as opposed to legislate a system.
Can we fix it from within our current system? Is dramatic change possible while trying to obey the body of law that has maintained the system?
I think it is but only with strong (possibly rebellious) leadership working toward a common vision.
Let’s talk about our vision and inspire one another to ministry! Thanks for your post.
I serve four small churches in North Central Iowa. When I arrived last year on July 1, I quickly learned that two of them “knew” they were dying. They were convinced of that fact. We have worked on overcoming that fear of death by recognizing that all living things die. We focused on what the mission and ministry of that particular congregation should and could be. If these churches do die at some point, we will be able to celebrate overcoming the fear of death AND the mission we accomplished because we simply were no longer afraid. Sunday Schools are being restarted, I lead three Bible studies every week with excellent participation, we participate in an “Interfaith Council” that is lead and run by lay folk. this council does a ministry to a local Group Home for Mentally challenged adults, a CROP Walk, a Food Pantry. Lenten and Good Friday observances, etc., etc. It is different to say, I think, that we ignore the numbers and focus on “significance” than to say that we believe them to be bad. We have a long way to go to being effective churches, but we may have a start. For the first time this year in forever, we actually had meaningful discussion when we talked about the goals at the most recent S/PPRC meeting!
I could sympathize more with the call for “rebellion” if Jeremy, Wes and the other “rebels” were also saying that they weren’t concerned with their paychecks. But, as long as clergy insist on being paid in actual US currency, then we need to be concerned about numbers.
We have too many churches that receive direct or indirect support from the connection, but aren’t bringing new people to the altar or paying their apportionments or even paying their bills. Those churches that are paying their apportionments and billings in full are subsidizing those that aren’t. If we are providing equitable or supplemental compensation, we should be able to show that those churches are contributing to the body of Christ rather than just maintaining a pulpit.
Obviously, we can focus too much on numbers. But, if you don’t have positive results on objective criteria like membership, attendance or apportionments AND you don’t have a positive story about what you are doing to bring Jesus outside your four walls, then there needs to be a serious discussion about paragraph 213. Unlike the poor folks at First Tampa who were one of only nine churches out of 23 in Tampa that paid their full apportionments but were closed anyway. THAT is an issue to rebel about.
For accountability, we should be holding the Western Jurisdiction accountable for the fact that their payments to the Episcopal Fund barely cover their bishops but make no contribution toward the central conferences or the retirees.
In my blog, I have called for pastors to become bivocational. I do believe that paid clergy is part of the problem. I would welcome an honest and vigorous discussion about this very thing.
BINGO Wes! Money a key issue. In the UMC pastor’s salaries are inequitable despite the efforts of our Commission on Equitable Compensation. I believe that renewing the church will begin as we implement some kingdom values in our community life. The resources of our church are unfairly distributed. Some clergy serve for little or even NO compensation, whereas others are compensated like CEO’s of Fortune 500 corporations. I have trouble understanding how a follower of the One who had no place to lay his head can take that kind of paycheck. If all clergy were simply paid ENOUGH, or perhaps a little more than ENOUGH http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&feature=player_embedded we all would be much more creative ahd healthy. I am also deeply disturbed by the disparity of salaries between churches in the US and churches in the Central Conferences http://floridaconferenceconnection.info/blogs/detail/216 I am planning to submit a petition REQUIRING the Equitable Compensation Commission to suggest a MAXIMUM salary level for pastors as well as a minimum salary. I would honestly like to see us move toward the British Methodist salary system where all pastors receive the SAME salary. That would transform the church in some very positive ways, I believe.
Long-time reader, first time commenter. The question that isn’t addressed is “how did we get to be in the state we are in?” While many contributing factors exist, I suggest that it may partially be because the UMC historically hasn’t had a plan to examine and respond appropriately to metrics — including measures of transformation/significance. At this point, It seems to me that the dashboards proposed are probably too little, too late.
Also, don’t all institutions at some point begin to exist to perpetuate their own existence rather than for their stated mission. I believe such is the case with the denomination. This may sound a bit defeatist, why would we expect them to do otherwise?
Bill Hybels states the local church is the hope of the world. I agree with that. I believe it is the role of the local church (in my experience that’s where significant transformation takes place) and leaders of local churches (clergy and otherwise) to create and foster environments and experiences where disciples of Jesus are being formed for the transformation of the world. In spite of some of the silliness in which denominations seek to create. Thus, we are responsible for discerning and joining the movement of God in our own contexts and sharing the stories of what God is doing and where God is moving.
Just because the denomination asks for metrics doesn’t mean we can’t give stories of how God is at work in the lives of those in our communities.
Lastly, I believe we in the church exist in the tension between two paradoxical ideas: “life begets life” and “in order for something to grow something else must die”. Our struggle is to discern when which idea applies. I believe having both narrative and numbers (along with much prayer and discernment) helps us to choose wisely to the glory of God.
p.s. @Wes: I agree about bi-vocational clergy. One of the worst things to happen in the church was the “professionalization” of ministry in the 1950s. (I would suggest this is another contributing factor to the state we in the UMC are in…)
p.s. Jeremy, I meant to say thanks for your thought-provoking posts. I enjoy reading and thinking about the ideas you raise. Thank you for writing!
Meant to reply sooner, but really glad to have a first comment from you, Christopher!
Thanks for your comments and challenging critique.
Hmmmm. Tell stories and reject numbers. Sounds fine in the blogosphere, but in reality the numbers are telling a story. We just don’t like the story that numbers might be telling. Or perhaps we resist any accountability to anything that might be revealed in metrics. Next time you go get a physical exam, tell the physician to ignore the numbers because you want to be significant rather than successful. Is it really all that helpful to throw around pejorative terms such as “cookie cutter churches” and “cheesy market driven ways” to describe churches that might have positive numbers? It just sounds like sour grapes. Numbers aren’t the only thing, perhaps not even the main thing. But those numbers do represent real people, people who matter to God and to us. If we care about people, it seems to me we should care about numbers to at least some extent. Success and significance are not mutually exclusive. Creating a false dichotomy between success and significance, demonizing the numbers and criticizing people who pay attention to the numbers doesn’t really seem like a productive way forward.
Thank you, Jeremy, for once again being the catalyst for such great, important conversation…
I don’t think the problem here is numbers per se, I think it’s that the specific numbers the Call to Action report defines as markers of success aren’t of primary significance in fulfilling our stated mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Professions of faith, percent of laity in leadership, number of members & attendees, financial pledges – all that seems about maintaining the institution of the UMC, not about furthering the mission of Christ.
Yes, all those things *can be* signs of discipleship, but SO OFTEN they’re simply signs of people who join and then sustain a voluntary civic organization. I love the UMC & don’t want to see it die out in the US, but I think we’re doomed if we’re driven by a desire to save the institution.
I’m deeply disappointed that the Call to Action report, and all the metrics I’ve seen or heard of since, don’t bother to get any feedback from the people & communities who are being served by our ministries. Why aren’t we asking non-church members about their experiences with our shelters, food pantries, schools… I think we, as members of the UMC, are way off base if we’re only asking ourselves how we’re doing. Wouldn’t asking the rest of the world if & how they’ve been transformed by our disciples be a MUCH better indicator of our success and significance?
I just found this article that makes some very positive things we can do to reform the church. It is a bit long, but well worth reading. Some very practical suggestions at the end. http://www.gbod.org/atf/cf/%7B3482e846-598f-460a-b9a7-386734470eda%7D/GOOD%20NEWS%20FOR%20THE%20POOR.PDF
I wade into this mess warily like a soup left on the stove to long it is getting thick rapidly. I have railed against the counting in our denomination for decades, before I was transmuted into a clergy person. And I still have misgivings many of which have been explored or exploded into craters in which one might get disoriented.
We as United Methodist have counted forever. Year end reports have been around forever and charge conference is a relief measure for what was quarterly conference. As one who hates both his yearly physical and charge conference I have mixed feelings about this compromise position of moving away from quarterly conference (happened before I was born mind you). But I digress I no longer dread the counting. And it is not because my numbers now are a source of pride for me they are not. The ones that correspond to me are great, but the reality are they are not my own. I play a part in the numbers but they reflect the corporate work of the church and our influence on each other.
I served a church, my first (as pastor in charge) where the numbers were dismal, a church that was dying and who expected me to save it. I did not, at least not numerically it continues to struggle despite my five years there now eight removed. The numbers did not improve significantly while I was there. But ministry did expand and the church reengaged a community that it had abandoned as the membership moved to the suburbs, returning for worship, but not welcoming those who bought the homes they sold. We worked and invited and offered assistance and had some moments of success in reaching those who were the other and who I and eventually they wanted to become one of us.
Three stories highlight this:
First there were discussions relocating the congregation to the suburbs. I called a meeting with the DS and we talked about what needed to happen, by the way like the referee that Sky McCracken noted in an earlier response he listened more than he spoke and came to the Council meeting to observe not to dictate. (1) I offered three options stay and change nothing and die! (2) Relocate but to where there are UM churches everywhere (that may be an issue also). (3) Reach out to those in our community be spent on them and possibly live or possibly die, but if we die we die well. They choose option (3), thank God!
Following up on #3 we started a Hispanic mission at the church and when the Administrative Council was having it out over the idea of having them in the church. Fear pervaded that the district/conference might prefer them at some point and then they would have taken over “our” church like they are taking over the country, plus they had no money to offer. This is when RJ (changed to protect the innocent or not) stood and said “I don’t care if there ain’t no body left, but Hispanics in 10 years as long as they love Jesus it don’t matter.” Bless him that ended the discussion and moved us forward.
Third, one night there were 30 of us for the semi-monthly fellowship meal gathering around 6pm at the appropriate time I went and locked the door, because of violence and theft it was a necessary evil because the entrance door was on another level. As I was walking to the stairs I heard a knock and a woman, who was obviously a prostitute, no one were a sequined dress that low cut or that high on the thigh in that neighborhood at least on a Wednesday if they aren’t dressed for work. As we spoke at the now cautiously opened door, she asked for food. I told her that we gave all our assistance money for food to the mission two block down (truth) and that we did not have anything to give her tonight. The face fell and she started to turn, and I took the risk and wither you in your office or living room think so it was big in that moment and place and said: “But you can come and join us for a meal that we are serving. I was just about to offer the blessing and you would be welcome at the table?” I was not sure I was telling the truth or not, but I said it anyway. And in she came. As we moved down the stairs side by side, that is when I realized that the she prostitute that I had welcomed in was a he and I almost passed out.
We said the blessing, our guest went first, I went last and took my plate and turned to go and sit with she/him, but I could not, there was no space at that table, the lay folk had surrounded this person, this foreigner in our midst, this black (I only include this because the congregation was all white at the time), transvestite, prostitute was surrounded by all these southern, white, church people and they were talking amicably from what I could tell. We finished the meal and she/he left prior to the program, but not before all the left overs that he/she could carry had been boxed and loaded into bags to make it easier to carry. Later as we were cleaning up one of the men asked: “Was that woman a prostitute?” I looked at him dumbly and said: “Friend that woman was no woman!” to which he responded: “O, well I hope he comes back, he needs what we have to offer and we need him, too.” Wow.
Now, nothing of those three examples shows up on any report numerically or otherwise. But they became part of the story of the church which was my duty to share as I have here and as I did with my DS’s while I was there and with other clergy at appropriate times. Those were they “bragging rights” if you want to use that term of what the Holy Spirit was doing with Glenwood UMC in Greensboro and they would not be ashamed to be called by name. What I found was that as these and other stories were told they became the measuring stick that the DS and others used not the numbers. They compared rather nicely to the numbers of others.
My appointments have not suffered because it is the job of Good DS’s to know what lies behind the numbers and to take all that in to consideration as they seek health for the larger church and I think for the most part they do and they do fairly well.
One last story: in this same location there was a church in site of my parsonage, one day within a month or so of arriving there I took my two very young sons by bicycle to play on their very nice playground. A church meeting of some nature it seemed let out and the people came forth. We were looked at and rejected. No one came and spoke we only got nasty looks that said: “We did not build that playground for you!” One family actually came and joined us on the playground well on the other side of the playground, but never spoke or made eye contact.
The next day I called the soon to retire pastor and said in the brashness of youth: “you have an issue, and related my story, and told him that it would not be long until the church closed its doors.” He did not respond in anger and the attitude of the people, I don’t blame on him, we still consider each other friends. But, the property was sold a few years ago to another denomination, because the church had faltered so. And their dash board indicators would have showed the same diagnosis that I gave if we had been looking at them or calling them that in that age.
Numbers do have a story to tell and it is not always inaccurate in both churches they were accurate, but in both places there were narratives to tell also. I don’t think that anyone at the DS level or above think that Dash Boards or Vital Sign Statistics are the “Be all, end all” but they tell them where to pay attention and where to dig deeper. They challenge clergy to be proactive and to reach out and to tell the stories to the DS and to make them a part of the story.
OK one more this one from childhood. When I was ten the four churches on my charge: “Greene’s Chapel”, “Pleasant Hill”, “Glemp”, and “Luckett” were all dying a slow death. We were on comfort measures, in the form of a retired supply pastor. When my mother as spokesperson for the charge told the presiding elder (not the DS) of the charge conference that she was offering a motion to stop meeting at three of the churches and all four meet together at one location for three months at which time they requested a called charge conference to discuss making it permanent. O and if the DS could come that would be helpful. Within two years all four properties had been sold and a new facility constructed on what could be described as middle ground. “Faith UMC” outside of the one stop sign community of Cherry was born. And is still “Vital” today. But not without risk or pain (some left in the process). But if we are not self-evaluative and honest about the numbers and the narrative and then make a decision to try and advance the kingdom of God in the name of Jesus Christ, we are doomed to repeat our failings which I think falls within the definition of insanity.
I will never post again without proof reading.
I will never post again without proof reading.
I will never post again without proof reading.
A somewhat improved version of the above post. I wrote the first in a rush as I was procrastinating Saturday. I needed to finish a Sermon that was delayed by a funeral and so I rushed and that is never good.
I have railed against the counting in our denomination for decades, before I was transmuted into a clergy person.
We as United Methodist have counted forever. Year-end reports have been around since the early days of Methodism in America in one form or another and charge conference is a relief measure for what was quarterly conference. As one who hates both his yearly physical and charge conference I have mixed feelings about this compromise position of moving away from quarterly conference (happened before I was born mind you). But, I no longer dread the counting. It is not because my numbers now are a source of pride for me they are not. The ones that correspond to my last two congregations are great, but the reality are they are not my own. I play a part in the numbers, but they reflect the corporate work of the church and our influence on each other.
I served a church, my first (as pastor in charge) where the numbers were dismal. This was a church that was dying and who expected me to save it. I did not, at least not numerically, it continues to struggle despite my five years there now eight removed. The numbers did not improve significantly while I was there. But ministry did expand and the church reengaged a community that it had abandoned as the membership moved to the suburbs, returning for worship, but not welcoming those who bought the homes they sold. We worked, invited, offered assistance and had some moments of success in reaching those who were the outside the church.
Three stories highlight this:
First when there were discussions about relocating the congregation to the suburbs. I called a meeting with the DS and we talked about what needed to happen, he listened more than he spoke and came to the Council meeting to observe not to dictate.
I offered three options to the church council:
(1) Stay and change nothing and die!
(2) Relocate, but to where there are UM churches everywhere (that may be an issue also).
(3) Reach out to those in our community be spent on them and possibly live or possibly die, but if we die we die well.
They choose option (3), thank God!
Following up on #3 we started a Hispanic mission at the church and when the Administrative Council was having it out over the idea of having them in the church. Fear pervaded that the district/conference might prefer them at some point and then they would have taken over “our” church like they are taking over the country, plus they had no money to offer. This is when RJ (changed to protect the innocent or not) stood and said “I don’t care if there ain’t no body left, but Hispanics in 10 years as long as they love Jesus it don’t matter.” Bless him that ended the discussion and moved us forward.
Third, one night there were 30 of us for the semi-monthly fellowship meal gathering around 6pm. At the appropriate time I went and locked the door, due to the level of violence and theft in the area it was a necessary evil because the entrance door was on another level. As I was walking to the stairs I heard a knock and a woman, who was obviously a prostitute, no one wears a sequined dress that low cut or that high on the thigh at least on a Wednesday if they aren’t dressed for work. As we spoke at the now cautiously opened door, she asked for food. I told her that we gave all our assistance money for food to the mission two block down (truth) and that we did not have anything to give her tonight. Her face fell and she started to turn. I took the risk and it was big in that moment and place as I said to her: “But you can come and join us for a meal we are just about to sit down to eat in the fellowship hall, come on and join us. I was just about to offer the blessing and you would be welcome at the table?” I was not sure I was telling the truth or not, but I said it anyway. In the door she came and as we moved down the stairs side by side I realized that the “she” prostitute that I had welcomed in was a he and I almost passed out.
We said the blessing, our guest went first, I went last and took my plate and turned to go and sit with she/him, but I could not, there was no space at that table, the lay folk had surrounded this person, this foreigner in our midst, this black (I only include this because the congregation was all white at the time), transvestite prostitute was surrounded by all these southern, white, church people and they were talking amicably from what I could tell. We finished the meal and she/he left prior to the program, but not before all the left overs that he/she could carry had been boxed and loaded into bags to make it easier to carry. Later as we were cleaning up one of the men asked: “Was that woman a prostitute?” I looked at him dumbly and said: “Friend, that woman was no woman!” to which he responded: “Oh, well I hope he comes back, he needs what we have to offer and we need him, too.” Wow!
Now, nothing of those three examples shows up on any report, numerically or otherwise. But they became part of the story of the church. It is my duty as pastor to share as I have here and as I did with my DS’s while I was there. We as pastor’s are responsible for among other things the narrative of the church. And we are also responsible to be the link between the Conference and the Church in many ways this is a prophetic duty. We are the messenger or communicator in both directions, Conference to Church, but maybe more importantly Church to Conference. Those were they “bragging rights” if you will of what the Holy Spirit was doing with Glenwood UMC in Greensboro and they would not be ashamed to be called by name. What I found was that as these and other stories were told they became the measuring stick that the DS and others used not the numbers. And they compared rather nicely to the numbers of others.
My appointments did not suffer because of Glenwood’s numbers because it is the job of Good DS’s to know what lies behind the numbers and to take all that in to consideration as they seek health for the larger church. For one I think for the most part they do and by and large they do fairly well.
One last story: in this same location there was another UMC church in sight of my parsonage, one day within a month or so of being appointed I took my two very young sons, by bicycle to play on their very nice playground. A church meeting of some nature let out and the people came forth. We were looked at and rejected. No one came and spoke we only got nasty looks that said: “We did not build that playground for you!” One family actually came and joined us on the playground, well on the other side of the playground, but never spoke or made eye contact.
The next day, I called the soon to retire pastor and said in the brashness of youth: “You have an issue”, and related my story. I told him that it would not be long until his church closed its doors. He did not respond in anger. I don’t blame on him for the attitude of the people there, I found it was not his attitude and we still consider each other friends. That property was sold a few years ago to another denomination, because the church had faltered so. Their dash board indicators would have showed the same diagnosis that I rendered if we had been looking at the numbers as we are now.
Numbers do have a story to tell and in both churches they were accurate, but each of these churches’ had different narratives to tell. I don’t think that anyone thinks that Dash Board indicators or Vital Sign Statistics are the “Be all, end all” but they tell us where to pay attention and where to dig deeper. They challenge clergy to be proactive with their congregations and to reach out and to tell the stories of their shared ministry to the DS and to involve them in the story.
When I was ten years old the four churches on the charge I grew up in: “Greene’s Chapel”, “Pleasant Hill”, “Glemp”, and “Luckett” were all dying a slow death. We were on comfort measures, in the form of a retired supply pastor. My mother as spokesperson for the charge told the presiding elder (not the DS) of the charge conference that she was offering a motion to stop meeting at three of the church buildings and that all four congregations meet together at one location for three months. At the end of three months’ time they requested a called charge conference to discuss making this arrangement permanent. They asked the DS to preside at that meeting because they thought it would be helpful. Within two years all four properties had been sold and a new facility constructed on what could be described as middle ground. “Faith UMC” outside of the one stop sign community of Cherry, TN was born. And is still “Vital” today. But not without risk and pain (some left in the process). Yet, if we are not self-evaluative and honesty about the numbers, if not for an evaluation of the narrative and a willingness to try something radical to advance the kingdom of God in the name of Jesus Christ, Faith UMC would never have been birthed. And if we are not willing to scrutinize our numbers, if we are not willing to be honest about the narratives of our congregations and if we are not willing to risk making some radical changes then we are doomed to repeat the failings of our past.