“Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”  What a brilliant turn of phrase.  Not where the heart is, the treasure will be, but what we count and pursue and value indicates what matters most to us.  Genius.  So, based on this premise from scripture, what does The United Methodist Church care most about?  Well, what do we count and keep track of?  We certainly spend a lot of time talking about “members” — they must be important.  And attendance at worship.  And dollars given weekly, monthly, quarterly, annually, quadrennially.  We talk a lot about launching new churches.  So, if we look at what we treasure it is a straight line to what we value:  MORE.  We want more people, more money, and more property.  This is what we value… at least on the quantitative side.

But there is a whole lot more to the story than that.  Our mission, “to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world,” is impossible to evaluate based on members, attendance, dollars, or local congregations.  These things have no qualitative standards by which to judge effectiveness in fulfilling the mission.  There is one, and only one reason, we would continue counting what we do as a measure of discipleship, and that is we don’t know how to measure what really matters.

No, that’s not fair.  We DO know what to measure, but we really don’t want to — because counting what really matters won’t give us what we treasure most: MORE.  We need look no further than scripture to understand what will happen if we get serious about discipleship instead of institutional church — our numbers will go down.  At just about every crossroads in scripture where followers were challenged to step up to discipleship, many went away unhappy.  Church membership might be a hobby, but discipleship is not.  Discipleship is a life-shaping vocation.  It requires sacrifice and commitment that most Christians have no interest in giving.  For this reason, we keep the standards of church membership low so that no one is made uncomfortable enough to leave.  Attend worship once in a while, toss in a $10 bill, buy a ticket to a church supper you probably won’t attend, make a donation at the youth car wash and you’re golden for another year.  Count warm bodies in pews and pretend it is a measure of congregational health.  Increase the financial giving by ten percent and you might just get an article written about you.  Cool, easy, and a clear indication of our deepest values.

Except that a growing number of people — not just outside organized churches, but inside as well — are no longer satisfied with such worldly and crass standards.  They want something more.  They want the metrics of our success to change — to shift from the quantitative to the qualitative, measuring how well we’re doing instead of how big we are.  This group of Christians wants to challenge the notion that bigger is better — replacing it with the simpler “better is better.”

But what would this look like?  That’s the rub.  It is so easy to count heads in a sanctuary or dollars and cents in a collection plate.  Spiritual growth and faith formation are much trickier.  To measure and evaluate spiritual transformation means we actually have to talk to each other.  It means we have to have clear expectations.  It means we have to hold each other accountable. And we have to define clear goals and benchmarks for both personal and congregational improvement.  Whew!  No wonder we count — real measurement is hard!

The congregations in The United Methodist Church that are the healthiest (based on the research in my book Vital Signs) are very intentional in five areas:

  1. expectations and standards for participation
  2. a commitment to lifelong learning
  3. personal and group covenants
  4. fruits-based (outcomes-based) goal-setting
  5. accountable support

Expectations and Standards for Participation — before you can measure and evaluate anything, you need to know what it ought to be like.  In most of our churches, we offer very vague, hazy standards for membership or participation.  I believe we do this intentionally, as a way to hold onto members and not scare them away.  If we ask a person to “uphold the church by prayers, presence, gifts, service, and witness,” but do not define more clearly what we mean, then the person can perform in any way he or she wishes, and everything’s fine.  But if we say, “will you promise God and this congregation to pray daily for the ministries of the church and the well-being of the congregation, participate fully in the worship, study, fellowship, and service life this church each and every week, make both a monetary and a physical commitment to support the missional work of the congregation beyond mere maintenance, engage in service to someone outside the congregation every week, and share your faith in an intentional and open way with people you encounter through the week,” we’re asking for trouble.  Oh, sure, we have actually given people something concrete to agree with or to reject, but because what we ask actually means something, more people will probably say no.  These vows are vows of discipleship, not membership, and we all know that discipleship is no good way to grow a church!  But, healthy churches do these very things (and while they might not be huge, they are solid, strong, and growing.  Go figure…)

A Commitment to Lifelong Learning — there is no graduation from discipleship.  There is transformation from a follower to a leader, from a student to a teacher, from an apprentice to a master craftsman, and from disciple to steward — but the function of learning is for all time.  Learning, study, discussion, practice, and exploration are not options for disciples.  They are optional for members, obviously, but healthy churches have virtually no interest in members.  Leaders in healthy churches are focused on equipping Christians to be the body of Christ in the world.  They don’t waste time strategizing ways to keep pewsitters happy and content.  They strategize ways to motivate pewsitters to become priests, pastors, and prophets — and those most interested in active service receive the majority of  the leadership’s time and attention.  From every person from early childhood through extreme old age, healthy churches expect active participation in learning and formation experiences.  Spiritual formation is a higher priority than Sunday morning worship.  Healthy churches awakened to an important fact, worship doesn’t lead to discipleship nearly as well as authentic discipleship results in phenomenal worship.  Worshippers might want to become disciples; disciples absolutely must worship.

Personal and Group Covenants — “do you know Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?”  This was perhaps the most diabolical and unChristian question humankind ever devised.  It assumes and perpetuates a heinous myth — that religion is personal and private.  It may be, as long as you do not come from the Judeo-Christian traditions.  If you are Christian, you are part of a “people of God,” not a “person of God.”  The “WE” of Christianity always trumps the “ME” of any one individual.  It really doesn’t matter what individuals want or like or need or hope for or decide or expect.  This church of OURS belongs first to God, and it exists to knit us together as the body of Christ.  There is no “I” in “We” (unless you play Nintendo Wii, then there are two “i”s in Wii…).  In our healthiest churches, participants make explicit, clear, and concise promises to each other.  Participants are clear about the things they will do to build up and strengthen the community of faith, the things they will avoid and not tolerate that undermine good relationships in community, and they pledge to practice spiritual disciplines together as an act of solidarity and unity.  The good of the whole exceeds the wants of the individual.  This is very easy to measure: how well are we keeping the promises we make to God and each other?

Fruits-Based Goal Setting — how many of our churches go through the motions?  We meet for worship on Sunday (or Saturday or Wednesday) and we have a couple Bible studies through the week, and we hold a half-dozen meetings, and we have a luncheon or supper, and the world keeps spinning, unchanged and completely unaware of our existence.  And then we measure our success based on getting a few more people to attend worship or Bible study or a meeting or a luncheon.  Jesus wept.  One of the healthiest churches I visited has as its mission statement: “We will make it impossible for anyone in our community not to know who we are and what we do.”  Isn’t that cool?  Their whole vision and purpose is tied to their witness for Jesus Christ.  A church of around 200 people where at least 180 are actively engaged each and every week in ministry in the community.  Part of their Sunday morning worship experience is to “testify” to the places they have witnessed God’s love in the lives they touch.  This is a church that produces visible, tangible fruit that feeds souls and changes lives — and that is what they measure.  Another church stopped counting how many people enter their doors every week, and instead shifted to counting the number of people they serve outside the church each week.  Counting (quantitative, true) but with a completely different intention– success measured by how much we give instead of how much we get!

Accountable Support — want to know the simplest measure of health versus dysfunction?  Use the word “accountability” and see how people react.  If there is health, accountability is something that makes peoples eyes light up.  They understand what without some guidance and support, improvement is almost impossible.  Just like physical fitness, development and improvement is much easier and more effective with a personal trainer (accountability).  In less healthy and dysfunctional churches, the word accountability brings a negative reaction.  People hear accountability as punitive and controlling.  They don’t WANT to be held to their promises and responsibilities.  Unfortunately, the majority of United Methodists fall into the latter category, and so we are pretty poor at accountability in the UMC.  But, if our real treasure is spiritual growth toward authentic discipleship, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to attain it without accountability.  Accountability is a clear indicator of where our heart really is.  So, the people in our healthiest churches regularly talk to each other about their faith.  “And how is it with your soul?” “Where have you experienced the grace of God in your life this week?” “Where have you been able to extend the grace of God to others this week?”  “What is God’s will for our community of faith?”  “What is the witness we wish to be making to our community?”  “What difference are we making in the congregation, in our community, in the world?”  These are not occasional conversations — they are the ongoing and never-ending conversations in our healthiest churches.  And there are consequences.  If people fail to pray, to study, to share, to serve, and to give, they are called to account.  They are given whatever support and guidance they need to continue to grow and develop.  Every person’s growth is the responsibility of every other person — no one is on the journey of faith alone.

These few factors are signficantly different ways of measuring and evaluating our life together as the church.  Most UMs don’t want to get this serious about it, but a growing number do.  While the majority of UM leaders look at the numbers, a faithful remnant are more concerned with discipleship.  Shifting focus is hard.  Many of our pastors are trapped between wanting to measure qualitatively — evaluating the spiritual growth and development of their communities of faith — while being required by “the system” to measure quantitatively — being judged “failures” if they don’t “grow the church” and make sure apportionments are paid in full.  It takes real courage and conviction to actually take our mission of disciple-making seriously in a system that punishes those who do so.  But the system will never change until enough people say “enough!”  I believe we are at a critical juncture.  The number of leaders who are deeply committed to institutional preservation as their main “treasure” are on the wane.  Those who treasure discipleship and global transformation are on the rise — the challenge is to not lose heart.

61 responses to “The Measure of a Church’s Soul”

  1. John Meunier Avatar
    John Meunier

    Fascinating conversation between Dan and Taylor.

    What I hear Taylor saying is that as a matter of reality we should accept that many or most of our congregations are the Anglican church of Wesley’s day and most of our Christians are outward or nominal, but we need to create systems or structures to connect those who wish to “flee from the wrath to come” to emulate the early Methodists.

    I hear Dan saying we should be trying to move more congregations up the discipleship curve rather than creating or exploiting already existing extra-congregational structures.

    How do we test these two different visions? What assumptions within them can be examined empirically?

  2. Gary Bebop Avatar
    Gary Bebop

    …and we’re going to launch this at a special-called General Conference.

  3. Taylor Burton-Edwards Avatar

    That’s interesting, Peter. Based on your concern about Matthew 28 (or a truncated interpretation of that) being “preferred”, I might think you would see things a bit differently.

    What do disciples of Jesus DO but live as witnesses to the reign of God in all the ways we can– preaching, yes, but especially teaching, healing, serving, all of that. The trouble is when most people in congregations equate whatever their congregation does with discipleship, actually most people don’t get the depth level of formation they need to do any of the things disciples are called to do well. That is, except in those very rare cases Dan holds up as “the healthiest congregations.”

    What I’m describing is a way, based exactly on the Wesleys’ Methodism, that far more people who happen to be part of far more congregations that WON’T make that level of commitment at a congregational level could (and in fact, already do, though if often goes un-noticed and non-reported, if not actually rejected as “doing things outside the church”) get that depth level of formation, and I would suggest, even more than what that rare congregation that is BOTH a public institution and has a commitment to deep spiritual formation is likely to achieve.

    What I’m describing as facts on the ground is NOT what I or any of us should prefer. It’s just what is.

    What I’m describing as an real, vital, possible future would do everything the rare exceptions now do– but on a far more massive scale.

  4. Peter Davidson Avatar
    Peter Davidson

    As I follow the thread between you and Taylor Burton-Edwards it seems the real issue is how seriously do we take the gospels and our call to discipleship. Once we preferenced Matthew 28 as the guiding passage for the church, we tied our hands. The larger “preach, teach, heal” mission got subsumed. If we are serious about discipleship, I have to agree with Dan. If we’re more about having our own little communities, then I have to agree with Taylor. If the church is fundamentally an alternative to culture, Taylor wins. If the church is fundamentally a change agent within culture, I go with Dan. Dan’s vision of church is much more appealing to me than Taylor’s, but I have to admit that Taylor’s vision is the predominant one.

  5. Taylor Burton-Edwards Avatar

    Then I think you may not yet be clear on what I mean– or maybe I haven’t been clear.

    I agree that congregations that tie their identity to radical spiritual formation may be healthy, even healthiest. They’re just really, really rare and will most likely stay that way.

    So if we’re talking about the WHOLE denomination, with the assets it has, achieving the mission we’ve set out there isn’t going to happen by trying to change all the congregations we have into those really rare ones.

    But it COULD happen, far more efficiently, not by accepting status quo, but by building on it to expand the idea of “local church” beyond the congregation, for congregation to be a hub-node in a local network of congregation (not doing discipleship all that well) and other groups (doing discipleship really well, but not duplicating what congregations do).

    Help me understand how that kind of approach, which isn’t factionalizing but rather recognizes different kinds of gifts in different kinds of organizations, is either “accepting the status quo” per se or a failure for the local church (always including but not limited to a congregation in a particular place) to make significant progress toward achieving our stated mission?

    1. doroteos2 Avatar
      doroteos2

      Let me just say, any time you have to do what you do in spite of the system you’re in, the system is dysfunction. And you have finally come around to the point I have been making in this blog for months — most United Methodists do not want to be disciples and most congregations are incapable of creating healthy processes for radical spiritual formation. So what is the system we want, and why do we pretend that tinkering with what we have is a pathway to transformation? This article is just one in a long string that is calling the question on the identity and purpose of The UMC — denominationally, jurisdictionally, conference-by-conference, and congregation-by-congregation (not to mention all the sects, sub-groups, small groups, factions, and fragments contained therein).

      If what we have is a bell curve — a small fringe at either end, one totally non-functioning, the other doing fantastic — then we should be planning around the leading edge instead of settling for the mediocre mean. If what we needed to change were outside our control, I would be more amenable to concede that it is tolerable to give up on the majority of UMs. However, there is a serious discontent among many near the mean who are hungering for something more, and they are describing as desirable what is normal at the leading edge. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we were equipping our congregations for transformation instead of just splinter groups. It could be claimed that we are merely living Matthew 13, scattering seed in hopes of some hitting fertile soil, but we could actually improve our efforts with a little soil preparation. Will some seed be wasted? Always. But could it be much less than it is? I believe it could.

      1. Taylor Burton-Edwards Avatar

        Dan,

        You wrote:

        “So what is the system we want, and why do we pretend that tinkering with what we have is a pathway to transformation?”

        What I’d describing isn’t tinkering with what we have. It calls for substantial transformation in how we behave and how we think, and in how we see the role of varying forms of Christian community.

        When you later wrote:
        “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we were equipping our congregations for transformation instead of just splinter groups”

        this sounds to me a lot of how Anglicans were referring to “those enthusiastic Methodists.” Methodists were NOT splinter groups. (Sure there were pressures within and without to tryo to make that happen– and the Methodists later succumbed to those– but not until John and Charles had published “Reasons against a Separation” as much or more than any other tract they produced! Methodists under the Wesleys leadership (until 1784 at least) were accountable discipleship groups where many Anglicans, along with some Baptists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics and even a few Quakers found others who would watch over them in love as they grew in faithfulness and gained competence in living the General Rules– which were all about living out the baptismal vows of the Church of England!

        If “we” now look at Emmaus, Covenant Discipleship Groups, Campus Ministries, and other non-congregational formats of Christian community that are pretty good at forming and deploying disciples as “splinter groups” and not as potential full partners in our mission as church (even as local church), well, how are we different from those 18th century Anglican leaders that discouraged, criticized and even persecuted Methodists?

        We can certainly try to equip congregations for transformation better than we do.

        But truth be told, as you and I both know, few congregations will ever transform in that direction.

        That doesn’t mean we don’t try.

        It does mean we don’t put ALL of our eggs in THAT basket, especially when the pathway of forming local networks (which is what early Methodism did then and the emerging missional movement does more and more now) between congregations that won’t do discipleship well themselves and groups that will could be generated with more light, good will and synergy than heat, resistance and wasted energy.

        That is provided we take the step of transforming our thinking away from “the only one right way to do this is through congregations, period.”

      2. doroteos2 Avatar
        doroteos2

        Taylor, this is so frustrating. We have talked before. You know that we’re not saying things that are so different. You’re picking on a few things I say out of the larger context. No one has been pointing to the healthy splinters more than I, but I do not equate all the fringe groups as equal to the early Methodist movement. Some have found Emaus life changing — and it has also been a terribly destructive experience in many churches. Enclaves of passive (passive-aggressive) “bonding” groups are not healthy, and they are splinters (in every sense of the word). What keeps disturbing me more and more is the attitude at the top that says “well, most of our churches will never be more than mediocre at best, but that’s okay as long as they pay their apportionments.” Settling for a mediocre church and abdicating any accountability for churches with low standards seems really short-sighted and irresponsible. Just because leaders in congregations don’t want to take discipleship seriously shouldn’t matter in a system that exists to “make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” I don’t disagree with you that most don’t want this. I just disagree with you that this is acceptable.

  6. Taylor Burton-Edwards Avatar

    You might have posted before my last post– hard to tell on this blog.

    But here’s a sort of line by line reply to your latest post (at least according to the email notifications).

    You wrote:
    The congregation (by my definition) is an “it” that should function as more than a gathering of individuals. I agree with Taylor that the vast majority don’t function that way and can’t be expected to.

    Yes, we do agree on this. I’d even say, though, that most congregations actually do function in a variety of ways as more than a collection of individuals. There’s a kind of “esprit de corps” about the group and some sense of caring for each other as part of that congregation. They do some things (like worship and Sunday School) as a mostly whole group, at least if you add up all the things they may do as subgroups of that larger collective over the weekend. They make financial decisions together. They inhabit and maintain a building. They expect their institutional existence (however that is organized or manifested) to be part of making a difference in the local community in some way. There’s usually SOME kind of sense of a common core of beliefs, even if exactly what those are may be a bit fuzzy. And as a group, they’d probably mostly agree that they’re doing something to try to point people to Jesus or at least to God (if they’re not so sure about Jesus) or at the very least to Love or Mercy or Justice (if they’re not really so sure about God).

    You further wrote:
    “I believe we made this very expectation explicit at a denominational level and it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference whether we like it or not. If we cannot live up to out stated mission, then we should change the mission.”

    Yes, we did make the mission of the Church clear at a denominational level. And I’d agree, if the Church can’t deliver on this, or won’t, we really need to fess up to that fact and change it. At least if we’re being honest with ourselves.

    But with you I refuse to believe that the Church should give up on its stated mission.

    But I do think we should seriously ReThink the next sentence:
    “Local churches provide the most significant arena through which disciple-making occurs.” (Para 120, second sentence).

    Here’s the problem. Most of us at every level are identifying, equating actually, “local church” with “local congregation.” And as we’ve both identified, claiming that local congregations, themselves, DO discipleship is a huge stretch for the vast majority of our local congregations.

    We could actually keep the same language– “Local churches provide the most significant arena through which disciple-making occurs”– and not have to change the language at all, if what we meant by that language recognized that “local churches” are the network between congregations (that do the kinds of institutional things congregations do, and do them well) and other forms of Christian community that have a very specific focus on forming and deploying disciples of Jesus Christ into God’s mission in the world.

    So I mean it when I say we need to ReThink.

    But it’s not Church or the mission of the UMC that we need to ReThink.

    It’s “local church.”

    Oh, and could we just plain ditch paragraph 121 while we’re at it? If that’s not indecipherable goobledegook and religio-babble, I guess I don’t know what is.

  7. Taylor Burton-Edwards Avatar

    Dan,

    You wrote:
    For any organization where the local “franchise” is the place where the transactional “business takes place, you have to hold the “franchise” accountable… as well as all the teams, sub-groups, shifts, and individuals within. A local UMC is the franchise outlet of the denomination. If it is failing in its mission (primary task), it is failing.

    Right– but you have to hold those franchises accountable for what THEY can reasonably be expected to deliver.

    Let’s say the franchise is part of a company of “Independent Insurance Agents.” Each branch office is responsible for sales of insurance products and service to its customers. It is not, and actually should not, be held responsible for what the insurance companies themselves (those who actually provide financial backing for the claims made) do or don’t do. But the franchise can be held responsible for how well it works with its customers to and advocates with the actual insurance companies to see that the claims get settled in an appropriate way.

    Congregations as a format of Christian community since Theodosius– unless they are located at the margins of culture where there’s a greater likelihood of a far greater level of solidarity that means nearly everyone there is addressing discipleship in a more hands on way– have essentially been like those franchises, branch offices if you will, of an Independent Insurance Sales and Service Company. They deliver religious goods and services. They help people get better services where they can. They’re an indispensible point of entry, an institutional hub, a guide for seekers of better service. But they’re not actually set up to BE an insurance company themselves. That is, they don’t actually pay the claims. That’s what the insurance companies they connect with do.

    I’m not arguing that in an ideal world congregations SHOULD be like I’m describing. What I’m arguing is that in the actual world we’ve got most of them ARE this way. Yet we live with this sort of illusion/dream that congregations are actually the fullest local expression of church and discipleship and mission, as if, perhaps, all of us did live on the fringes, or as if, perhaps, the date were closer to 210 then 2010.

    In systems theory, I’m suggesting that we “re-differentiate” the systems within the system called church we have (congregations and accountable missional groups, to name two), recognize the unique gifts and capacities of each, and that indeed we work to strengthen both “nodes” of that network so that the whole system (Church in a local setting) IS optimized.

    Right now, facts on the ground, what we have are suboptimized congregations (teaching theology, as you’ve often pointed out, is especially weak) and external systems we either are afraid to connect to (we call them parachurch to sort of shoo people away from them) or don’t connect to well, or perhaps don’t exist, or that are also suboptimized for their tasks.

    We can strengthen both and experience the fullness of Church at the local level as “connexion” between them.

    But, to use “family systems’ slang,” we’ve got to “deglom” our thinking and action about these related but different systems (or formats of Christian community) to get there. Or to use Freudian terms, we’ve got to overcome our “obsessive fixation” on congregations as if they could and should do it all, as well as the equally obsessive fixation of those who work in some of these paracongregational systems that “THEY” are the only ones REALLY being church out there, while the congregations are just “fiddling around” with surface stuff.

    Does that help?

    1. doroteos2 Avatar
      doroteos2

      I’m perfectly clear on what you mean. I just disagree. The system we have is designed for EXACTLY what it is producing. Accepting it as it is is certainly one option. We’ll see how that works out. We can also continue to splinter what has already suffered from excessive factionalization (which doesn’t really count as differentiation), but I don’t think this moves us in the right direction. The entity we currently refer to as the “congregation” serves multiple functions — and I still contend that those “congregations” that tie their identity to radical spiritual formation are our healthiest.

Leave a comment