Macrorepentance by the Numbers
I did it again—more accurately, I didn’t do it again.
Statistical report season in the CGGC 2009 has come and gone and I didn’t submit a report—again. This year, however, I achieved a higher level of noncompliance than I ever have in the past. This year, at Faith we didn’t even count some of the phenomena that are the basis of the report. This year I couldn’t report if I wanted to.
I absolutely do not know what the average attendance was in the congregation last year. No one does—except the Lord and I’m sure He doesn’t care. We are creating a new culture at Faith—one in which no one thinks of success in mission in terms of average Sunday morning attendance.
A theme of Reggie McNeal’s book, Missional Renaissance is that what gets counted gets done. If you count things that build the church, things that build the church get done. But, Jesus didn’t command us to build church. He said, “But seek first (God’s) kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”
I’m looking pretty hard at Luke 14 for my word of prophecy for next Sunday. In Luke 14 things were going well for Jesus in terms of the things we value. The crowd was large. Verse 25a:
“Large crowds were traveling with Jesus…”
What did He do? Tell the disciples, “Hey, get a count! We’re finally getting somewhere?”
No.
“…turning to them he said: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” (25b-27)
Jesus didn’t value a large number in the congregation. He held other values and embraced another paradigm.
The Kingdom of God is not about quantity. It’s about quality of commitment. For Jesus on that day, Kingdom was about the hearts of people committed enough to stay around after hearing a hard saying.
So, I am intentionally ignorant of our average Sunday morning attendance. I try very intentionally not to embrace a value system Jesus rejected.
I don’t want to have to deal with the temptation to think, “If I speak this harsh word from the Lord our number might go down.” I want to establish values that will empower me—and everyone in our ministry—to think that the quality of a person’s commitment is what matters, not the number of hineys in our seats our at 10:00 on Sunday morning.
I have no idea what our average Sunday morning attendance was in 09. However, I can give you, for instance, a headcount of the number of people in the congregation in 09 who spoke an interpreted word of tongues or a word of revelation or knowledge or prophecy or instruction (1 Cor. 14:6). I’ll guess that that the number here might have been higher than it was where you are.
What gets counted gets done.
Honestly, I’m not sure that we should count anything. The Book of Acts was putrid in its keeping of statistics. It counts the kind of thing we count twice that I know of and counts differently on those two occasions. Acts 2:41 counts of the total number of souls that were added to the number of disciples on Pentecost at about—about—three thousand. Acts 4:4 counts the number who believed at about—again about—five thousand men.
It seems to me that quantifying things is a Western culture, Newtonian, Enlightenment, modern value. And so, when I count, I keep it to myself. I can give you a headcount of how many people participated in 1 Corinthians 14 worship in 09. But, no one else can. I’m very careful about what I count. I allow what I count to motivate me. But, I don’t publish numbers.
What we have in the CGGC today is an institution formed—more accurately, malformed—by what we have been counting. We have been counting things that matter for the church. We have not even tried to figure out what counts for Kingdom. So, most of us know how many people put their rear ends down on a pew or a seat in a ‘worship service’ on a typical Sunday morning.
But, we don’t have any idea how much time our people spend in the word or in prayer. We don’t measure how many produce fruit of being called to apostleship or prophecy or evangelism or shepherding or teaching. We don’t have a clue how well we are doing at being poor in Spirit or hungering and thirsting for righteousness or being pure in heart—qualities Jesus values.
Perhaps the greatest sin of the recent past was our failed decision to define discipleship in terms of Sunday morning attendance. Remember “More and Better Disciples: 35,000 in Worship by 2000?” Are we able to see the folly of that unbiblical, attractional approach to, uh, discipleship?
I’ll repeat my theme of the first Macrorepentance thread: We have oodles of good people in the CGGC. They are present at every level of our body. What we don’t have is a macrostructure that empowers Kingdom-building. We have a macrostructure that ignores truth and embraces values that are entirely absent from the Word. In fact, many of our values oppose what’s taught in the Word.
What we have been counting has created who we are. We are an institution in decline. Ironically, we are declining in what we count. If you count the wrong things apparently even what you do count doesn’t get done.
We need to practice macrorepentance by the numbers. If we count at all, the people who decide what we count need to empower us to count what counts for the Kingdom.
posted by bill Sloat at 1:18 PM
33 Comments:
Bill,
I agree with the messed up "scorecard" (as RM would say) but I got some push back from a friend about this that I think is good. He is an unabashed counter because he says every single person is valuable in God's eyes and if he stops counting, people slip through the cracks. He wants to make it very clear to each individual that they matter and that they are valued.
Obviously motive is a huge issue here and there will be a lot of people who will claim an honorable motive while secretly feeding sinful pride. But my friend's push back caused us to reevaluate what we are doing. We don't just count heads, we count every individual. If someone doesn't show up for a few weeks we check on them to see how they are doing or if they need help. I suppose in a perfect community people would have such good relationships that anyone missing would be noticed but we're not perfect so it can happen all to easily.
Again, I totally agree with your point. I have a severe problem with numbers myself, to the point that I, at one time, had a floating standard deviation calculated for our attendance. (I'm not kidding. It was sick.) I had to quit most of what we did, as far as numbers go, for several years. We count now, but we are trying to keep the motive pure. We want to know if there are any sheep missing from the flock. (Okay, so that reference is out of context.)
I will give an "amen" to this post, and also the comment from Tom. This is our third year of not keeping attendance figures. It has been both good and bad.
For one thing, I feel bad about being 'disobedient' to the conference. I don't like making things difficult for others. So this year I gave them "estimated" figures - I just took a guess (I'm not sure if this counts as not counting or not though).
For another thing, I agree with Tom. I have had a harder time keeping 'track' of people when I don't count; and, yes, some people have fallen through the cracks. I feel bad about that too.
However, I do believe counting butts in the seats is missing the point to a large degree - for all the reasons Bill has stated.
I have to admit, I have had a hard time not counting though, because I was pretty wrapped up in the numbers. When they were down, I felt down; when they were up, I wanted them to be up higher. It almost became the way I gauged my Sundays, and therefore my effectiveness. And it really threw me off track. I think I really was just concerned (or 'most' concerned) about how many showed up for our Sunday worship gatherings. And I don't think that's right.
Anyway, I am still somewhat torn, but I tend to agree with Bill here. For now you can count me among the non-counters.
Someone will ask me, "Wow! How many did we have this Sunday? It looked like a crowd."
I will answer, "82."
"Really?! It looked like more."
"Nope. I just sat up fewer chairs. It made 82 look full."
"Oh... It looked like more."
Gang,
Please don't miss my point.
Don't think this is about counting. I've admitted that I count things. What I've intentionally done is to stop counting attendance.
I am in a constant struggle to measure the impact of my life on the building of the Kingdom. I'm convinced that counting attendance does not build Kingdom. I suspect that counting attendance builds church and interferes with Kingdom building.
Also, understand that this is about the way our structure negatively impacts the building of Kingdom. I promise you all that I'll be the first person to fill out the Statistical Report when filling out the Statistical Report is a Kingdom building activity.
I need all the help I can get in adding to the Kingdom. I'm intensely frustrated that the macrostructure actually impairs my efforts to be Kingdom focused because it wants me to be church focused.
Okay, I have hesitated commenting because I just ain't all that bright. I am also so ADD that I forget what... The issue is not counting or not counting, its about the totally subjective issue of influence. How do you measure the touch of the Holy Spirit? How can we quantify the transformational power of God? Is the institutional score card fundamentally wrong or are the motives of the recorders?
So in response, it is not the tool that is the issue, but it is our hearts. What makes anyone think that a new score card will not also become a misused tool? So, I'm even more convinced that macro repentence is not the target or the need because I cannot get past the need for micro repentence. Christ meets us one on one, not "en masse". Scripture after scripture, it is a personal repentence. It must begin micro. The macro situation is a reflection of the micro. The macro situation will NOT change without the investment in micro transformation.
I believe we need micro repentence and HOW we use or don't use the scorecard condemns us or sets us free. Isn't the real issue working on my own mess with God? Isn't the real challenge for us capturing the full revelation of God's personal purpose for us, so we can be one with the Father? When I can come to grips with that, I don't need any scorecards. God will let me know. But I am also convinced that someone, somewhere will try to measure it someway. I am at the limit, look something shiny...
I guess I forgot that one thing we do to try to keep people from falling through the cracks is we have someone who does take attendance at our Sunday worship gatherings each week, then they send a bulletin to those who are gone. I have asked them to let me know when someone misses several weeks in a row, but that doesn't always happen. We still don't count though. Because it's not just that I don't want to know - I don't really want anyone thinking about how many have shown up.
Tom-
I think it is good to not let people slip through the cracks. I think you method though, will ultimately limit your ability to grow. I have for a fairly large church (aprox. 4,000) and was offered a job at SouthEast Christian, when Bob Russel was there (nearly 20,000). It used to be when you were offered a job there, you hung out and tried the job before you took it. Honestly, I couldn't handle it.
I am not a proponent of the Mega-Church by any means. There comes a time when you continue to count specific individuals, that psychologically that people stop wanting to invite people to your group. Because the importance is tracking the individual by name, there becomes a point where there are to many names to track and people will not want to invite people.
It actually happens quite frequently. I forget who wrote the book "How to break the 150 barrier," but he says quit tracking names in worship. He said count something that matters, for instance involvement in the church life outside the worship service.
And I would agree. We can't measure spiritual health by worship attendance, we must find ways to get people involved in their life so that some one can hold them accountable about their spiritual life.
At SE they praised God for the fact that 80% of their worship attendance was in a small group or a Sunday School class.
Why not keep track of individuals in small groups or Sunday School class. That may also teach your people that you put a high emphasis on discipleship. Do you really want people around who don't want to be strong disciples anyways.
Tom, I don't know your context, so I could be completely off the mark, but that has been my experience.
I am one who didn't turn in my stats either. Not because I though about changing the scorecard, but because we used to measure different things.
We measured how many people we fed each Sunday (not everyone we fed came to worship service), we measured how many people in our church were housing other people, we measured how many showed up to our Clean the park day, ect. Each week in our staff meeting we measured what we had done as individuals and as a church that fit into Matt. 25.
To me the question is how do we change the scorecard for the CGGC HQ? That is the only way we can get mass repentance from these issues.
Justin,
If I could offer a little push-back. And it’s not that I necessarily disagree with what you are saying overall, but you said, “Do you really want people around who don’t want to be strong disciples anyways.” I think this may be an underlying thread to a lot of what we are talking about, and how we answer that can make a huge difference in how we approach things.
As for me, YES, I do want people around who don’t want to be strong disciples (at the time). In fact, I want people around who don’t even know what disciples are. I want doubters, and questioners, and agnostics, and even atheists… if they’re willing to be around. I also want strong disciples too, but I want them to see church as a place where anyone is welcome regardless of where they are in their faith journey. Because I actually think God does work in people’s lives even before they’re aware of it. I know of people, and am one, who, when asked why they were there, they had no idea. They just felt like it was something they should do. And God went on to do amazing things through them.
I think it’s important that people know they are important to us whether they believe like we do or not, whether they are in our small groups or not, whether they have a contribution to make or not. I think all people matter. So in some ways I wonder if it may almost be better to count the individuals than to count the total.
I’m not saying that you’re wrong. I think it’s good that there are those churches who really excel and can get masses of people to grow and be transformed. But I also think it’s important there are those who are interested in the ones who ‘fall through the cracks,’ and take a little more different approach. Maybe it’s an “and/and” thing.
Dan-
I think that you misunderstand me. I agree I want those people you want around to. But honestly to you connect with those people primarily in your worship service? Research would say you are very unique. The break up goes as follows. If you are a congregation of 50 or less your service is effective at meeting that demographic if at least 15 of your people belong to that category. If you are a congregation of 100 your worship service is effective at meeting that demographic if at least 25 fall into that category.
My experience, the experience of others and the research states that we are better at reaching people that fit those categories by doing things outside the church. More in a small to medium group atmosphere that allows for discussion and dialog.
My comments were pointed more at the saints we are interacting with on Sunday morning. How many of those are involved just in Sunday morning. I feel it is a waste of time to spend a ton of time of tracking them and charting them if they aren't involved in any other part of life with in the body.
That was more of what I was pointing at. I think it is fine to track visitors and those wo have decided to be disciples, but those who have decided to follow Jesus, I say leave them to their small, cell, or discipleship group.
As I read the back and forth on this, I am fascinated, but something keeps nagging at me. When we are looking at numbers in any form, we may be looking at the wrong thing. Be it numbers on Sunday, numbers in small groups, numbers feeding the poor, numbers in the bank book (which I know was not mentioned, but it gets mentioned in a lot of church orgs). These all strike me as measurements of volume which is a measurement of success.
Significance in a ministry is what we need to be striving for and that cannot be measured.
You can have a church with thousands of people and the Holy Spirit is nowhere to be found and you can have a house church with 5 people that get it and the Spirit is in the center of the room and guiding real transformation and discipleship. Conversely, the house church may suck and the mega may rock. IOW, there is something non measurable that matters far more that cannot be confined to a spreadsheet or a powerpoint slide. We all know this, but we still seek a better spreadsheet or slide, including me.
Justin,
I understand what you are saying but I didn't mean to imply that one person or even an assigned group needs to track every individual in worship. I just believe that there needs to be some way that people are accounted for whether that be through small groups, SS, or a zillion other methods.
What you are talking about seems to me to be a technical/system issue and while using the wrong one can definitely limit growth that wasn't the issue I was trying to address. I meant to comment on the strategic importance of accounting for lives. You may well still disagree with me but I hope you can see how I am differentiating between the two.
Cap'n,
When we are looking at numbers in any form, we may be looking at the wrong thing.
Okay.
So you can say in one sentence what I fail to say in 1,000 words.
From the Sermon on the Mount on Jesus didn't preach a truth that can be quantified. When we try to count we miss the point. We are walking on the path He sent us on.
This is revolutionary.
It is paradigmatic.
It calls us to a way of being followers of Jesus that has long since been forgotten.
Tom-
I dig. I just mistook what you said. Right on. We must care for those who need caring for.
Patrick and Bill-
I will wrestle with this. My struggle with this is the position I'm in with the CGGC. If I want to get a planter money, #'s have to be a measuring tool for benchmarks and the such.
Now I did repent to the Lord and Bill at looking so close at money in trying to start a planting movement, what I have to balance with is money for planters.
If I could give you $30,000 Patrick you would take it, word? Of course you would. But that money isn't mine to give. I get it from the CGGC and they care about numbers. They view it as being stewards of God's money.
Now maybe this will change as we raise money for the Green House Network, but Patrick and Bill are you willing to let me give money to any project that comes up or will there be some "process" or "Benchmarks" we create also?
I could use your spiritual insight on this. I would love to live in a culture where people just wanted permission to plant and not money. In the culture we are in though, they are few and far between. Just some thoughts I am wrestling with.
@Bill-Thanks. I suppose even this blind squirrel can get a nut once in awhile.
@Justin-I struggle with my answer. I keep writing and deleting this and I keep trying to make it sound good and reasonable. But here is my heart that I am about to let spill out.
If the CGGC intends to use numbers as the benchmark, then the movement is doomed to fail before it starts and you may as well take that RV to the wilderness and start baptizing people for that will make a larger impact for the kingdom than Einsteins definition of insanity (doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results). End of the day you are trying to get new ideas to fit into an old paradigm.
Somewhere along the way we need to restore what made the movement great and renew it with even more new ways that fit this new land we live in. When we embrace numbers we are living by the paradigm of the Fronteir Revivalists which leads us into the same danger that they fell into in...anything for more numbers, conversions, and alter calls. Even if that anything causes us to abandon the Gospel.
Planters will live in a carrot stick world and if what the Spirit is calling them to do flies in the face of the spreadsheet and the slide, they may get conflicted and try to force-like the CGGC is-a new idea into an old paradigm.
This will also set up a standard and a mold that will restrict the ability for faith communities to take on unique expressions. I can already s3ee the conflict in you if you see a planter of some sort with a vision that you know is hearing the spirit but will never hit the numbers. Caught between the two worlds of the spreadsheet and the spirit you will get an ulcer and your heart will break.
All this to get to the point of your question. "but Patrick and Bill are you willing to let me give money to any project that comes up or will there be some "process" or "Benchmarks" we create also?"
If we are truly to have a movement, then they need to lay hands on you and your team and send you out. You need to have the freedom to say,"We don't need to circumcise them and they can eat shrimp." The early church had to break free of the Jewish paradigm of expression of faith without ignoring the fulfillment of Jewish law. We now have the task of breaking a new movement free of the Greco-Roman-Western-expression of Christian faith and embrace Jesus. Now, note that I have put some of the heart before the money for the question of money is the cart before the horse (perhaps even the manure that comes from the horse before the horse?). To the money aspect. If you and your team have the freedom to work in the Holy Spirit and chase the right things, then I have to trust that you would listen to the planter, the Spirit, and people you trust and give the ministry cells in this movement what they need just as Paul gave the church in Ephesus and Corinth different council, wisdom, and so forth. And if I say,"Dude! How come you gave xyz $xxxx and me only $xx, then it is I who need to repent.
Final note. If you gave me 30k next week, you would be a fool and I would keep a few grand and put the rest to better use than what I can do with it.
In my year and a half I got something. When we started we rose to dozens overnight and were at almost 50 a week within a few months. We had about $150-$200 in tithes a week which in our context was swimming in cash. We started YASO from those resources. The least of these from YASO started coming to sunday gatherings. When the people from the soup kitchen comes to church, the pretty people get uncomfortable with the tripp pants, the piecing, and the tattoos and the brokenness. So they left and now we have 14-24 weekly and maybe $100 a month in giving, the rest is sustained from my bank account and the needs of YASO grow. In my world I have less success and more significance. Could I use money? Yeah. But I need partners, prayer, love, and support in non material things even more. I need people willing to sit side by side with the broken and sometimes smelly and love them. I cannot buy that, market that, or benchmark that.
Oh heck, in for a penny, in a for a pound. May as well say what I was holding back on.
First a disclaimer. Justin, the reason you would be a fool to give me that 30k is because I am a fool and still need to learn more before I get the check.
Okay, now for the tough bit. If we are advancing Christianity, the numbers matter and the CGGC is spot on. If we are advancing Christ, then we are missing the mark and on the wrong path.
Justin,
I could use your spiritual insight on this. I would love to live in a culture where people just wanted permission to plant and not money. In the culture we are in though, they are few and far between. Just some thoughts I am wrestling with.
I'm not sure what spiritual insight I have but I would say that the standard Jesus employ is what fruit a person's life bears. It is by that standard that we will know a true prophet versus a false prophet, for instance.
Deciding what you're going to count and counting it is an easy way out.
Sorry. That's all I've got.
So I will say thank you. I agree Patrick deciding who we help and how should be a more prayerful thing.
And Bill I find myself leaning towards a time of testing (testing of the spirit) in your insight.
Thank you both of you.
What Bill said this round was far superior than what I said. ;)
This comment has been removed by the author.
How did I miss that last paragraph??? I did not realize you had written that until now, Justin.
"I could use your spiritual insight on this. I would love to live in a culture where people just wanted permission to plant and not money. In the culture we are in though, they are few and far between. Just some thoughts I am wrestling with."
Before I continue, here is my disclaimer. I am in no way suggesting paid ministry is a bad thing. I am in no way saying that a "conventional" church plant that needs funding is a bad thing. These are both A way, but not THE way. Further, I also acknowledge and recognize the need for money as a resource.
Maybe the answer lay in your question Justin. Maybe you should seek people who are looking for partners more than cash. Maybe you focus on those individuals not looking for spreadsheets, business plans, measurable benchmarks, and power point slides. Maybe the money becomes not a topic up for discussion, but something that you organically incorporate into your leadership. Along the way if YOU feel there is a need that can be met by a check, then you meet it on an individual basis. Just a thought. Somehow, I suspect that if you remove money from the factor of benchmarks and discipleship, you will find yourself free to chase the right things and the answer to how much to whom may just fall into place after the essentials are addressed.
CT,
You have described exactly how Justin is operating.
I'm not sure how this discussion morphed from the original numbers conversation into a discussion of planting benchmarks, etc. But... a couple of thoughts.
As far as numbers, it seems to me we're overcomplicating it. Numbers are not success-- we all agree. Focus on the things that are significant (What the Spirit is doing, how lives are being changed, loving people)-- we all agree. Beyond that, count what you want to count, with right motives, and we don't have to do it all the same. In our church we don't take attendance, but we have a list of who is currently part of the community, which we update often, and we look through that and ask who we haven't seen lately. Then we try to go find them. Our conversations on the blog here often seem to assume there is a way everybody should do these things-- I'm not convinced of that.
On planting... planting is not about numbers and money. It's about birthing a community indwelt by Jesus Christ, through which people encounter him and re-learn how to live, and which becomes the hands and feet of Jesus in the world, living out the love of God.
Some of what we might expect from a planter should really be determined by what he himself says he believes God is leading him to create. He may be out to create a house church, or a simple church, or a 75-200 church, or something bigger. And any of those is okay, but with regard to funding you have to decide why you fund what you do. In the case of the CGGC, I think the mindset is to help churches get to the place of being self-supporting. What "self-supporting" means is dependent on what you are trying to create.
We've had pastors who hoped their new church could pay them within a year or two, so we funded them, and then two years later the church was a house church with 15 people. And in retrospect they didn't need funding to get where they got.
What I'm trying to say is this: in most cases when the CGGC asks for benchmarks in terms of numbers, it is based on what the planter themselves has said they are out to create, and the desire they have expressed for help to bridge the time until they can be self-supporting. And truth be told, number benchmarks are a new thing for the CGGC. In times past, we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on plants in a few year period (not exaggerating), and then none of those churches would continue on beyond a year or two. So if you are in planting leadership in the CGGC, you have to ask if that was a good kingdom investment.
I just thought this stuff was worth sharing, as one who has recently been involved in some of this.
Thanks Fran, I think that was a good explanation on both parts.
I think it was Winston Churchill who was told by an admirer that when he spoke he could draw a crowd. He responded "I could get a bigger crowd to come and see me hung".
While I agree counting numbers does indicate something I am not sure what. I have heard of pastors doing wheelies up the aisles to draw a crowd and it worked. But I also have a concern about the protestant numbers racket especially given the mood here in the east.
I have heard more than once "If a church is looking for a pastor the committee should look at the statistical report and if there are three years of decline don't call that pastor". Given that proviso I am not going anywhere--but on the other hand I don't want to go anywhere because I believe God has called me here.
Yet with that hanging over the ERC like a question mark over my ministry there is certainly a temptation to do something to draw a crowd. A public hanging is too final. Does anybody have any other suggestions--besides just being faithful (is that enough?)
Lew,
What can we do to draw a crowd?
First of all, let me say I haven't drawn a crowd.
That being said, what we're trying to do (and I'm trying to lead us into it) is to care about our community.
What are the needs of the community? How can the church be a help? How can I disciple our followers to see what Jesus has done for them and how that should guide their own sacrifice.
In Matthew 16, Peter identifies Jesus. And in response, Jesus says to Peter (and to us), "You are right about who I am. Now let me tell you who you are."
It isn't flashy, but it is substantial. And we'll need partners... in other churches and even non-believers. On May 23, we are partnering with some atheist to raiser money for our work in Haiti. Who knows what will come of it? If we draw a crowd, it will be a rowdy crowd.
Brian, just this morning I wrote to three community leaders with two questions: what does our community need? and How can we help?
With you, I think that is what the church should be doing.
However, when I have my exit interview I anticipate it is going to be numbers in the building that will come up.
Fortunately my entrance interview will contain the words "Well done, good and faithful servant."'
Lew,
I like what you are doing in reaching out with your community people. We do this thing once a month in our small gathering where 10 or 12 of us meet someone of significance in the community for dinner (our treat) and we listen to what they have to say and get to know their needs, frustrations, and hopes. Yeah, it has led to neat little things like getting to go to the state capitol to do the invocation, but more importantly, we have made friends and partners in changing the community.
I love Brian's phrase: "It isn't flashy, but it is substantial". There isn't anything wrong with people being drawn by good things. Jesus drew crowds (though he usually thinned them out shortly thereafter). Just as growth by being flashy isn't anything to be proud of, neither is failing to draw anyone. I admit that I want to see people drawn, I want to see the church grow (mine and yours and everyone's). But Brian hit the nail on the head-- I want them drawn to the true, deep, strong, beautiful, freeing things of substance that are in Jesus Christ and his Way.
And I think we are most tempted to try flashy approaches when we ourselves are no longer enamored with the revolutionary things of substance that are "in him". When those revolutionary things are captivating us, at work in us, and at work through us, some people will see God and new life shining through. I can't say how many, but it's likely to lead to growth overall, more than shrinkage (though this may come and go in seasons as God shapes the church-- which has certainly been the case in our community).
http://deepchurch.org.uk/2010/05/04/redefining-a-successful-local-church-planting-churches-that-plant-churches/#more-2222
Ohhh yeah. I would say #$@% yeah, but that ain't allowed here.
My favorite bit...
"The real problem, is that we hold these churches up as models to replicate in our own location, when they are incapable of replicating themselves! We are blinded by the sheen of consumerism and the glow of individualism to the reality of God’s vision for the church.
We must begin to hold up different models. We must stop buying books from large church pastors, we must stop reading their blogs, we must stop placing them in places of denominational leadership, we must stop inviting them to teach at conferences. We must stop counting Sunday attendance, we must stop talking about these numbers. We must stop using these as measurements of success. We must start spotlighting individuals and communities who are planting churches! We must read their books and blogs. Invite them to speak at our conferences and lead our denominations. We must start counting the number of church plants sent out, and the number of church plants that have planted others."
Rock!
I don't remember exactly where this fits on the blog anymore, but in regard to 'counting', Reggie McNeal had a couple thoughts that seemed to fit last week:
1) I think he said - or I thought - "Rather than counting people, how can we help people see that they count?" (this was more what I was talking about earlier).
2) He also talked about changing the scorecard from tracking mere 'participation,' to keeping track of 'maturation.' Are people growing in their faith, are marriages getting better, people becoming more generous, etc., etc. He said the way to find this out is to simply ask them - do they think they are maturing in these ways.
Dan, I like your comment on tracking maturity. Do you have a sample set of questions? As I think to some of my recent converts, they are going to say they are not maturing because they are under much spiritual attack by the evil one and losing the battles but hopefully not the war.
Bill, even though I track attendance for the CGGC on Sunday, my main motive is evangelism (when prompted by the HS) and discipling. I am more concerned then with baptisms and ordinance participation because this can show growth. The numbers can be, but not always, the sign of fruit bearing. I realize that to bear fruit it takes periods of planting seeds also. Certainly, we strive for fruit bearing through the fundamental heart things of ministry (i.e. our spiritual gifts of teaching, truth telling, and etc.)Bill, I like your not publicizing the numbers, they are secondary to the kingdom work.
Sorry guys, getting in on this late.
Dan,
Tracking ordinance participation is, indeed, a standard that is a better indicator than putting a fanny in a pew.
Post a Comment
<< Home