Measuremental Disorders

Blog-buddy John Meunier asked me a question on his blog on a topic that I was in the middle of writing about on my blog. So here is his question as well as my answer. His question, “I wonder if anyone who has studied church vitality and maybe even written a book about it has thoughts about this news. Dan?” related to the news that the denomination is launching another effort to revitalize The United Methodist Church. I am actually kind of honored by the new effort, though I am sure no one intended any nod to me, but the new “movement” is entitled “A Call to Action: Reordering the Life of the Church.” The title of my presentation from 2001-2002 based on the Vital Signs study that I shared with all the General Boards and Agencies over a decade ago was, “Reordering the Life of the Congregation.” Some seeds got planted somewhere.

Anyway, Call to Action has identified six factors of vitality, and John is wondering what I think of them. They are:

Average worship attendance as percentage of membership;
Total membership;
Number of children, youth and young adults attending as percentage of membership;
Number of professions of faith as percentage of attendance and membership;
Actual giving per attendee; and
Finance benevolence giving beyond the local church as a percentage of the church budget.

Let me say briefly that I believe five of the six are not indicators of vitality, but activity (which are not the same thing). Only the last fact — benevolence giving as a percentage of congregation or conference budget — is a true vitality factor. Taking them one by one I will lay out the problem I have with each and suggest an alternative (that probably no one will agree with…)

Average worship attendance as a percentage of membership — this will not tell you anything more than how many people attend worship. True measures of spiritual growth and development must measure how a person is progressing in their relationship with God and Jesus Christ. This requires a set of standards — of which, worship attendance should certainly be one. But this should also include some measurement of prayer, study of scripture, service to others, relationship to the covenant community, etc. “Membership,” as it stands in the current United Methodist Church must be evaluated in relationship to the clear promises we ask people to make. Until we are monitoring, assessing and evaluating how well people are growing in their commitments to “prayer, presence, gifts, service, and witness,” we have not measured anything truly valid or valuable. Survey after survey shows that people attend worship that they “like,” but very few evaluate the impact of worship on the gathered body. The much more compelling “percentage” measurement in vital churches is the percentage of active participants (members and regular “friends”) engaged in some form of ministry each week. The most vital churches I visit no longer count only Sunday morning worship attendance, but participation in Sunday school, Bible studies, church ministries, events, training, etc.

Total Membership — there is no question that vital churches are growing numerically, but numbers can produce “false positives” — indicators that things are good, when they are not. Just as the top grossing box-office movies are rarely great cinema, and #1 best-selling books are seldom great literature, our largest congregations are rarely great churches. They are popular churches, which is something different altogether. Not that popular is bad, per se, but it isn’t a true indicator of vitality. Size, raw numbers, rarely indicate anything helpful about health. The more important factor is a sustainable positive growth trajectory. A church that adds four families a year for a couple decades is doing something right. A church that booms from 400 to 2,000, then drops back to 750 when the pastor leaves and struggles to keep members on the rolls is not doing as well, even though they may be bigger. The most vital churches in The United Methodist Church don’t have the largest membership rolls. More important factors than how many people they have total are: how very few inactive members are on the rolls, how many members and active participants are engaged in ministry and service on a weekly basis, how many people are served and lives are touched outside the boundaries of the congregation, and how well the participants engage with one another in Christian community. We count because counting is easy, not because it tells us what we need to know. We love teaching toddlers to count because they can so easily grasp 1, 2, 3. But it takes a while longer to get them to be able to explain what the numbers actually mean.

Number of children, youth and young adults attending as percentage of membership — this is one of those measures that is helpful in context. A number of United Methodist Churches achieved vitality by recognizing that their gifts and resources were not appropriate for family ministries, and they focused in other areas, such as older adult ministries and community service. As a denomination — a connectional church — we need to keep the priority high on all age levels, and it is imperative that we be in ministry with children, youth, and young adults. Congregation by congregation, this is unrealistic and imposes a one-size-fits-all vision where it doesn’t necessarily fit. And, once again, warm bodies in the building says absolutely nothing about spiritual growth, formation, development and engagement that transforms the world. It is a much better use of our time to count the number of people we serve and the number of lives we touch due to the good news of Jesus Christ.

Number of professions of faith as percentage of attendance and membership — this could be a good one… if the church has standards of evaluation and accountability for people when they join the church. Getting people to say yes to Jesus for the very first time is fantastic — it is one of the reasons why we’re here, but unfortunately The United Methodist Church doesn’t do any better with first timers than it does with those they plunder from other denominations and faith traditions. The percentage of inactive members who join by profession of faith is as high as those who come from another faith background. “More” simply is not what we need to measure. We need to define what it means to be a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ, then assist people in living toward this vision.

Actual giving per attendee — and this tells us what, exactly? Is our expectation that all of a person’s charitable giving should be through the church? Are we looking at percentage of income (net, gross?), actual dollar amounts, an artificial “target” like 10%. Are we talking “giving unit,” (household, individual?), including children, treating couples as individual givers? Per attendee — does this mean we only count when people show up? Vital churches find ways to monitor not just cash in the plate, but the value of people’s time, energy, effort, gifts, knowledge, experience, and the impact it makes on the congregation’s ability to do God’s work.

Giving is a spiritual discipline as much as an institutional imperative. There is no competition to be top giver, and there is no single standard that applies across the board. We have some “deep pocket” givers in our denomination that have given sizable gifts, with little or no sacrifice. We have people who are deeply generous and give sacrificially on a regular basis who might give an entire lifetime and never equal the amount given by the favored few. This is a slippery-slope measure — certainly important that we have money, but true stewardship can’t be counted in dollars and cents. An important measurement? Without a doubt. A measurement of vitality? Hardly.

Finance benevolence giving beyond the local church as a percentage of the church budget — In our vital churches, the majority of the money spent is spent outside the church — plain and simple. When we are spending most of our money on our pastors and staff, building and property, insurance and overhead, equipment, resources and supplies — we are making it clear to the world what our core values really are. Get mad and defensive all you want — when a church spends more money on windows, landscaping and statues than it does on mission work, the world notices. Once again, this isn’t a “pure” measure — but a trajectory over time speaks volumes. If the percentage of the budget dedicated to benevolences is on the rise, it is a very strong sign of vitality and vision.

As I said in the Vital Signs study, this isn’t really “either/or.” Quantitative metrics provide us with one type of data — a type that is helpful and valuable and that can “indicate” that things are going well or poorly. But quantitative measures alone are inadequate. Only when we include qualitative metrics can we fully understand how well we are doing what we do.

In the April 2010 Harvard Business Review, two quotes caught my eye that sum up what I found during my research into congregational vitality:

In a provocative post, (Roger) Martin, the dean of the Rotman School, challenged business’s reliance on quantitative analysis. “We have a deep-seated desire to quantify the world around us so that we can understand it and control it. But the world isn’t behaving,” he wrote. “We must…consider the possibility that if we can’t measure something, it might be the very most important aspect of the problem.”

In response, Charles H. Green, CEO Trusted Advisor Associates, wrote,

“The notion that “if you can’t measure it, it doesn’t count” is flatly false. You can manage through fear and intimidation, role-modeling, love, random eccentricities, or mantras. None of those require measurement. We’re so in love with quantitative ideology that we’ve quite forgotten what it was supposed to measure in the first place… Education, especially in business schools, has gotten itself tied up in metrics knots. We have lost sight of the language of emotion, motivation, and meaning.”

Vitality is all around us, but we are going to continue to miss it if we continue counting what we have been counting through the past four decades of decline. Doing more of what we have already been doing that hasn’t been working seems like poor stewardship to me. We know what we should be measuring, but we don’t do it because it is more difficult. But until we suck it up and do the difficult work, nothing much is going to change. We have got to start looking at ourselves in a new light. What actually is changing in the church due to our best efforts? How much more “open” are we after a decade of “open hearts, open minds, open doors?” How much church has been “rethought” to date and what difference did it make? On April 24 & 25 we’re going to “change the world.” How will we begin the hard work on April 26 of analyzing and evaluating just how well we did? These are the things we should be measuring, and not just in terms of how many churches participated and how many people visited our churches because of them, but in terms of how well people have been equipped to live their faith in the world, and how our world is being transformed.

Rate this:

20 responses to “Measuremental Disorders”

Mike Spies

April 13, 2010

Another measure of effective churches that nobody wants to talk about is how many devoted followers of Jesus are there in a congregation are suffering because the have decided Jesus. What Paul boasted about, the only thing he boasted about, was how much abuse he took because he followed Jesus. I don’t know how one would measure such responses but it sure is fun to ask the question!

Reply
Taylor Burton-Edwards

April 13, 2010

Dan,

Another brilliant post. Thank you.

As I see it, the metrics that “emerged” from the first survey out of the call to action project reflect two things:

1) The way questions were framed, and, actually, “primed”. These results nearly match the “examples” of vitality that appear as part of the writing prompts. And the “primings” only related to one form of Christian missional community that our denomination actually has– the local congregation– thereby in effect relegating the mid-level judicatories (districts and conferences) and the bishops/general agencies to secondary consideration (if that) regarding what vitality looks like and how the interaction of all three levels either does or can better support or generate vitality.

2) How our congregations actually see themselves– primarily as quasi-independent franchisees of the brand “United Methodist” whose “bottom line” really is a quantitative thing– people in attendance, membership and money contributed. Giving beyond the local congregation is also enough of a core part of “franchise identity” that it counts toward whether that particular franchisee is considered (or considers itself) a valued branch office.

We can bemoan these results or we can realize what they may mean– this is a compelling picture of the status quo. What would be mistaken would be to consider that these are any sort of indicators of either better “possible futures” or any sort of call to action to keep trying to drive these currently desired metrics toward an upward curve in the US and Western Europe (decline is only happening in these two areas– the UMC grows rapidly and without doubt with great vitality in Eastern Europe and the Global South).

What this also reveals, then, is the very serious limitation congregations have, at least at this point, toward delivering very much at all toward the stated mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. The metrics they strongly believe indicate vitality are simply not up to that task. Unless you or someone, somewhere has some way to “reprogram” the operating systems of the vast majority of our congregations, they will not deliver THAT result well.

.

As long as congregations are essentially public franchisees at their core– and most of our congregations are, unless they have either devolved into family chapels or live at the fringes of the culture in some way– and as long as the other “levels” (conference/district and bishops/general agencies) continue to be fixated almost solely on supporting congregations who are essentially like this, my sense is that no amount of cajoling or “leading” or “visioning” from the top– whether one calls “the top” the pastor, the DS, the bishop or the General Conference– is likely to change that reality much.

Not the top– but maybe the middle.

But I think that conferences COULD be critical change agents. They are the ones who ultimately set and disseminate metrics, regardless of what GCFA says or tries to do. If conference leaders, such as yourself, Dan, were to radically alter the metrics toward those that ARE indicators of discipleship, and then could get follow-through from the Cabinet to support those congregations and pastors who are taking the necessary steps to start delivering on those metrics (and part of that would have to include keeping pastors in place long enough to effect turnaround– like a decade or two– and ending the practice of yanking folks at any sign of trouble), I could be very hopeful that real change could be effected. Not for everyone, to be sure– but for those who are serious about the mission, yes.

I’m glad you’re where you are, Dan. You could be a linchpin for turnaround in Wisconsin. Esther is in this week’s RCL daily readings– so I have to say, “Perhaps God has led you to Wisconsin for such a time as this.” Go for it!

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  April 14, 2010
  
  Thanks, Taylor,
  
  The original survey was very leading, and I have spoken with at least two people who filled it out who thought it was very transparent — designed to “reveal” what some already believe is true.
  
  One point you make that I want to affirm is that this IS a good indicator of our current reality, and we cannot hope to make radical, systemic change if we don’t have an honest, accurate picture of where we truly are. The fact that the denomination is so fixated on measuring SOMETHING means people are paying attention. You cannot change what is not within your sphere if control, you cannot define your sphere of control if you cannot measure and evaluate. It has to start somewhere. I just wish there was greater evidence that more people were seeking different metrics. You know the hassles I had at GBOD trying to get anyone to think qualitatively about our “strategic direction.” It was so frustrating to be told “you can’t measure quality” over and over again. The other problem we have is that honest evaluation of quality is not made by the producer/provider, but by the end-user. We seem really afraid to talk to them. I remember the storm I created by going out and talking to students, non-Christians, and those not attending church about the Rethink Church stuff and simply sharing what people said! You would have thought I committed a terrible breech of etiquette asking the target audience what they thought. It became very clear that we really don’t care what those who receive our messages think; only what those who produce the messages intend.
  
  Change is fun.
  
  Reply
  1. Taylor Burton-Edwards
    
    April 14, 2010
    
    Dan,
    
    I wish more people in our congregations and more of our leaders were seeking different metrics, too. But they’re not.
    
    And since they’re not, they may not be likely to do so going forward.
    
    As we’ve both witnessed, when consultants are hired, the pattern is for them to give you what you want to hear, and for your organization to do what they want you to do as a result. Consultants who reveal things very counter to original expectations tend to get fired and their reports buried. Organizations who don’t follow through on the advice of the consultants they’ve hired (unless they fire them for being too “out of line”) are viewed as having wasted time and resources on the process in the first place.
    
    So consultancy is a good gig if you can get it and feel good about playing that game.
    
    But consultancy can thus only rarely lead to meaningful change– both because the consultants rarely understand the depth dynamics of the organizations they work with, and so can’t actually help them leverage their best gifts to their best ends, and because “the game” itself means that ultimately the most that can be actually achieved will be incremental change– not paradigmatic change– no matter how many people are fired and how many new organizations or mergers of existing organizations are created as a result of following the advice of the consultants.
    
    Given that the leadership of the UMC has now committed itself and our future to two consultancy firms, status quo plus one or two steps forward in some way may be the best results we might expect from this entire process.
    
    If that’s the case– and I do hope it is not– but assuming for the moment that it is– then an adaptive response now might be to start looking for ways in which the metrics revealed in this first “study” of vitality might actually be helpful in some way– beyond just indicating the status quo.
    
    I’ve attempted a thought experiment in that direction on a blog I help to host. And I’d be interested in any feedback you or your readers may have on what I’ve proposed there.
    
    You can see this blogpost at:
    http://emergingumc.blogspot.com/2010/04/call-to-action-part-first-charitable.html
    
    Peace,
    
    Taylor Burton-Edwards
eric pone

April 13, 2010

I have been less than kind recently in my criticism of the leadership of my District. Personally, I think our DS is trying to kill congregations to move assets to pet congregations. But I digress,,,,,,

It always frosts me how we in lieu of measuring progress towards our mission we focus on operational effectiveness. It would be interesting to take a district and merge all the small congregations into multi-site congregations of 1-2 thousand centering around a common mission(like family housing or refugees or a food shelf) and focus on qualitative measures such as conversations with the community and quantitative measure. (families housed, small groups equipping for service and assets towards the mission.) I think a balanced scorecard(sorry I live in Fortune 500 land) is a way to move things further.

Reply
Dave Whitman

April 12, 2010

Dan, thanks for the feedback. You’ve given me some good insights to chew on, particularly in my current ministry context–I serve two rural, small churches with limited resources. It sounds like we may want to consider Gallup’s resource as a stepping stone before trying to implement NCD. I sort of thought along these lines as well– NCD may be overwhelming for the folks that I serve…particularly in light of the fact that they haven’t been exposed to any sort of positive, critical tool to help them evaluate vitality.

Reply
Jeff Uhler

April 12, 2010

I agree that these methods of measurement will not measure church vitality and spiritual growth. Causes me to wonder what we’ll use to determine clergy effectiveness in the coming years. We have too few District Superintendents for the job in our conference (imho), and it’s difficult for them to get to really know congregations, other than those causing problems. This isn’t to suggest that our D.S.s are not doing the best they can. But when you place the amount of territory and churches on one person that we place on our’s, something ends up short.

If we are going to measure congregational effectiveness, should we not also measure conference effectiveness? And what will be the measures we use then? We’ve said that we want to start 50 new congregations in the next ten years at least three years ago. Are we doing anything that will promote that effectively? Are we seeking those who may be “faith community planters”? Are we training those who really have the passion, the drive, and the behaviors that will lead to this?

If we are, I haven’t heard about it. What I hear about is the continued push for “paying apportionments” and celebrating those congregations that do. What I hear about is the question of how we’re doing on our 4-year plans. (Of course, some of those plans merely keep the status quo rather than becoming a catalyst for vital spirituality). I recently learned that at least one D.S. feels similar, but is anything being said or done to encourage something different?

I’m posing these questions because, for all of us, old habits really are hard to break. AA groups have the saying, “New playmates, new playgounds” to lift their value of real change. But we seem to keep playing with the same friends and in the same playgrounds. No real deep change occurs.

I echo your concluding paragraphs. I guess I share many of your frustrations. That could be very good…

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  April 12, 2010
  
  The issue of conference effectiveness metrics is vitally important. We struggle to understand the implications of a denomination-wide mission of disciple-making/global transformation at a local church level, but then what is the role and responsibility of the AC? Our direct work is not making disciples, but in supporting systems for equipping disciples and changing the world. What should that look like and how will we evaluate effectiveness? We are working on these questions — slowly. And when we keep getting distracted by counting numbers, it just makes the job that much harder!
  
  Reply
  1. Jeff Uhler
    
    April 12, 2010
    
    Amen.
Dave Whitman

April 12, 2010

I agree with you. I have invested in the Natural Church Development model in response to the concern that I share with you along these lines. I figure that this probably isn’t the best model out there, but it has a built in support system, many credible witnesses who are using it (Dr. Jack Stephenson is a good example), a credible witness who developed it with hard work based on years of research (Christian Schwartz) and plenty of resources. And it takes some good concepts and encourages laity and clergy to work together toward a more vital church.

Natural Church Development defines “vitality” via empowering leadership, gift-based ministry, passionate spirituality, effective structures, inspiring worship, holistic small groups, need-oriented evangelism, and loving relationships. The characteristics are based on years of research into churches all over the world. Moreover, Natural Church Development doesn’t use a “cookie cutter” approach to church growth. It takes results from the local church surveys and coaches the local church to grow on the terms of its identity.

I was hoping you might have a moment to comment on Natural Church Development. What do you think of the above quality characteristics? Do you have any experience and/or research insight into Natural Church Development? Do you think a model like this has potential in the UMC?

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  April 12, 2010
  
  I have extensive experience with NCD (Natural Church Development) and I believe it is a great resource in the right settings — but not good for the whole denomination. For mid-size congregations and larger, with adequate resources and little-to-no internal conflict, NCD is ideal. The one place that I still disagree with NCD is that it says it builds on strengths rather than compensating for weaknesses. Any time you use a “short-stave in the bucket” metaphor, you are following classic critical chain thinking (the chain is only as strong as its weakest link). There is nothing wrong with compensating weaknesses with the intention of turning them to strengths. Where you can accomplish this, great things occur. However, 75% of our United Methodist congregations are “small membership” churches, and 69% struggle with adequate resources. In these settings, any resources focused on weaknesses (or “short-staves/minimum factors”) are taken away from strengths, so the opposite of the intended consequences occur: the strength doesn’t bolster the minimum factor, but the minimum factor weakens the larger structure. I have seen this hundreds of times with NCD. When it is applied in the proper context, it yields incredible results. When it is poorly or misapplied, it actually makes things worse. In my own experience, Gallup’s Living Your Strengths is a much better resource and process for smaller, less functional churches. The real brilliance of NCD — that we have not fully grasped and applied yet — is the idea that we need to follow principles rather than models. When we learn that, we will all be much healthier.
  
  So, NCD has a great potential to help some of our United Methodist Churches, but I am afraid it can help best those churches that need help least. What we most desperately need are resources to help churches become healthy and stable enough to truly benefit from NCD!
  
  Reply
Barbara

April 12, 2010

Amen and amen!! Keep preachin’

Reply