New Metrics for the Church?
I’ve really been getting organized for the new year, as well as working with our staff and other projects, so I’ve not had time to blog as much as I normally do. I’m at DFW right now waiting on another flight. My early one was canceled--lost a day of running for nothing!
I’ve received lots of comments and emails on my blog of November 15--the last comment by Leonard--you have to read. I tried to copy and post here, but I can’t seem to do it right. So go read it.
I’ve been speaking a lot on planting churches where you start with the society--not the church--where you focus on the disciple--not the preacher. I say this stuff, people say amen and things like, that makes sense and this is so right. But when there is Q & A, I often wonder if people realize how there is a new paradigm, but their questions are based on an old paradigm. I’m asked this a lot, OK this is cool - so this gets more converts and how do I draw people into this? They missed the whole point. Its not just come and hear from them, but go and serve and love from us!
If my primary goal is to get converts, then Bill Hybels was wrong in being honest and releasing Reveal. Fill up the fish tank with guppies! But, if my context is the whole of the kingdom, then evangelism is the first step--not the final. So, yes, I want people to accept Christ. No, THAT IS NOT MY PRIMARY METRIC! If it is, then everything is about getting a crowd, getting them to pray the prayer and it’ll all work out somehow. We’ve had at least 50 years of that. Regardless of traditional, Innovative, Postmodern, we can all draw crowds, but are they becoming disciples. Therefore, is society changing? If society is not changing, we have converts but not disciples. Core to this are two questions. Is the Gospel, when in and of itself, powerful enough to transform a person? Answer--of coarse. When the Gospel (of the Kingdom not just salvation) is planted in a community, in and of itself, is it powerful enough to transform that community? YES. History proves it. The Bible tells us about it and we long for it--which is from God. If I focus on the whole of the Kingdom in the whole of society, I get converts, but I get much more. My strategy looks deeper than a busy baptistery to a busy “body” of Christ.
Did you read Leonard’s comment? The issue is our metrics are not necessarily all wrong, but definitely insufficient and not properly prioritized so that we get more than converts but disciples.
What would the new metrics for a kingdom church be? Ready, set - comment . . .
Blog Categories
Search Glocalnet
Support
Partners
Comments
Nov 29, 2007 at 07:43 AM
Leonard's comment can be found here : http://www.glocal.net/2007/11/15/new-monasticism-business-as-mission-partner/#comment-1791
Though I don't think I'm qualified to be a business mentor, part of what I think God is leading me to is just what Leonard mentioned. I see it, I just don't have a clue how to get to it and in it.
-----
Nov 29, 2007 at 10:09 AM
Bob,
We've talked about this with Len Sweet in class, and among our cohort...I wish I knew. It is so important because as a small church pastor in a community that is foreign to the truth of the gospel, I get looked oddly by those outside of our context because we don't have a big church. I'm tired of size being the indicator.
Our people understand the necessity of seeing the kingdom grow even if that means we are getting smaller. We're trying to plant churches and we are releasing our people to go and help in the plants. And despite the church getting smaller, the story is going on, and the kingdom is growing.
I heard a statement by a church planter in Canada recently: The bigger a church gets, the smaller the God's kingdom gets because the big churches end up shutting down the smaller. I know that's not true of Northwood, but if this guy's statement is true, when size is all that matters, the kingdom will suffer. And I believe I've seen it happen.
Nov 29, 2007 at 01:18 PM
Good stuff, Bob (and Brandon and David!). It's all about transformation, isn't it? It's become my new mantra! (Are Xians allowed to have mantras?) I spent hours and hours studying Romans 12:1-2 for a seminary class last summer and came away amazed at all that Paul packed into these two verses...and that you can't fully grasp them without understanding what comes before (ch 11) or what follows (ch 12-15). I'm oversimplifying here, but one aspect of what Paul is saying seems to be that we have a choice - be conformed or be transformed; and if we don't consciously choose the latter, then we have effectively chosen the former.
How desperately our churches need to "be transformed by the renewing of [their] minds". But that will only happen as individuals in the church - from the top down and the inside out - are personally renewed and transformed. Without this Spirit-initiated, transforming renewal, "new metrics" will be nothing more than the latest in a string of evangelical methodologies that will be replaced in a few years by the next new thing. I know that's not what Bob's talking about here, and I pray that we all - especially me - will not get stuck in that trap. Transformation is hard and uncomfortable and often painful...but so incredibly necessary. May it start in my church with me.
Nov 29, 2007 at 01:58 PM
It seems like we've mistaken the commands of the Bible...somehow along the way we started thinking that it was up to us to convert people, to "get them saved". We thought, "if i can just be funny enough on stage, or communicate clearly enough, or make people feel at home enough, or pray over them the right way, etc. then they will "accept" Christ...(by praying a prayer) We've tried playing Holy Spirit long enough. We fell into the trap of thinking that we could change someones heart. I'm sitting in Las Vegas right now with my wife. We are looking for a house to move into when we get here in a month. We just took our realtor to lunch to say thanks for her help. She began asking about what we do/what we'll do when we get here. She was shocked when we told her that we are coming to Vegas to work with already established organizations to better the community. She knows that we are believers and love the Lord, but was surprised that we are so open, willing, and actually prefer to work with the city, government, and other secular organizations to serve in the community. She said, "so you're open to working with people who don't claim to believe what you believe?" "OF COURSE!", I replied. It's time for us, as Christians, to get our of our Christian sub-culture bubble, and move forward with the love of the Gospel. We must stop making conversions our goal; people read STRAIGHT through that. What would it look like if the lost, after serving alongside Christ-followers in a community, initiated conversations about who the Lord is because they see pure motives with no hidden agenda (gettin' em' saved!)? Too many thoughts in my head on this subject. Please comment back, or shoot an email...i'd love to discuss with some of you on this
Dec 1, 2007 at 12:33 PM
This is the whole missional v. attractional debate. While I certainly don't have it all figured out, I see the attractional thing EVERYWHERE is evangelical subculture. It's so subtle that no one notices it.
For instance, our local church (1500 peeps on a weekend) is struggling with why we aren't making disciples (attendance and giving has been slowly dropping for 4 years now). It seems that no one wants to admit that attractional doesn't "work" in and of itself (not saying it's all bad all the time). So we try to ramp up the creativity, our make the system more efficient as though that's the answer. But if I hear what you are saying, it's the paradigm that's the problem. In attractional, the metric is butts, budgets and buildings. In missional it's people we serve, financial impact on a community, and building sustainable community and vision. Am I on the right track? We're really trying to figure this one out.
What's so scary is that giving up attractional means we don't know where the money is coming from, if the people will "buy into" the vision (I think people have an innate sense that the church should be doing good--which is why they won't give to a "keep the machine running" vision) and stick around and if we can be important and influential without buildings.
Thoughts?
Dec 1, 2007 at 01:53 PM
You'll have more money - why? Because people are giving more to the light bill now. BUT, you may have less people. BUT, non-believers will love the fact you're serving so much and they will want to come see what's going on. ALL things are attractional to some degree - be it a house with our buds, or a coffee shop with our suds, or a building in our duds. Quit worrying about being attractional or missional - be active and obedient to what Jesus slams in your face.
Dec 3, 2007 at 06:37 AM
Bob,
"Quit worrying about being attractional or missional - be active and obedient to what Jesus slams in your face."
Good. Really good. I'm reading 2 Corinthians. 2 Cor. 3:6, HCSB says it like this: "He has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant,...". Is it too far a stretch to see implicit in "competent" the idea that if I am faithful to minister the new covenant (i.e., the message of the kingdom of God), then He will, in your words, slam some stuff in my face along with his enablement??
This certainly doesn't diminish good preparation, biblical and cultural exegesis, etc., but it seems it does keep one from chasing shadows.
Thanks for your good work. Blessings.
Dec 3, 2007 at 11:40 AM
I agree with all those above comments that are helping frame for me these new metrics (or really old ones depending on how you look at it)... that need to replace or at least augment current metrics.
As I see it the use of some new metrics would ask some of these questions...
1. Are there any seasons or efforts in my community for which general culture is expecting us to set the trend?
2. Is my church raising up leaders who are impacting more than church? Where are the business leaders, social leader, sports leaders, political leaders that have been brought through my church leadership structures? How are we continuing to fuel, inspire and equip these leaders for their unique tasks?
3. Can we track converts in our church culture through the paces of true transformation? Are there folks in our church on all different steps of that process? Are we seeing people through the various stages of transformation and discipleship?
--certainly there must be more metrics, but aren't these the type questions we need to be asking at senior levels of congregational leadership??
Dec 3, 2007 at 03:11 PM
Scott Marshall,
Just a thought for you...as a member of Bob's congregation here at Northwood, perhaps one way to have your church accomplish the "missional" vs. "attractional" would be to participate in the Home Makeover weekend we hope to have explode in 2008. It's easy to do, and so so powerful for your members. Start with the 'Local mission stuff" and see where it goes. You can contact Chris Shabay on our staff for more information on the Home Makeover.
Dec 8, 2007 at 04:12 PM
In re-reading these comments, it seems I've come late to the party. Communication refresher to help locate my comments for all you regular readers: The message never gets sent without being decoded (i.e., read/heard through the receivers lens).
Sooo, I completely don't understand the "what Jesus slams in your face" comment. Can someone help me out with that? I am assuming (!) that the "attractional v. missional" thing raises some ire from the folks who frequent this site?? I was attempting to frame what Bob said (how it came through my "filter") with what a discussion I am familiar with (att. v miss.). I was attempting to agree with Bob's comment that the metric of evangelism is a starting point, not an ending point and see if I'm on the right track.
Simply seeking clarification.
Dec 9, 2007 at 06:03 AM
Scott - keep in mind this site isn't read just by pastors and religious leaders - many of them are church members some government leaders around the world so having a "attractional vs. missional" focus is insider language they are responding to sometimes that they may not know what is being talked about. Many are good people I'm friends with, but not necessarily Christians - different religions - some no religion. Also, how a church member views all of this, and how a pastor or church leader views it is also an insider conversation for pastors. Now back to the "missional language" - I read your comments and think you're on the track. I think you don't need to worry as much about how to position your church missionally as much as responding to situations around you of poverty, injustice, hurting, suffering people - if you start addressing those - it's the good seed that will take over the other seed. Everything is attractional to some degree - even a book cover a good song - even people wanting to identify with helping the poor. Whatever you do, do it with excellence - but with sincerety - it ain't no show.
Dec 9, 2007 at 09:01 PM
Bob - Thanks for the clarification. That helps. My question is how to get a church off dead center with regards to "being" missional. The heart of Jesus message is to serve the poor, work for injustice, etc--it's all what the kingdom is about. And I agree that even doing that is attractional, but to put a fine point to it, how do I do this when I'm not the direction setter for the whole church? I'll take your advice to heart and do what's right in front of us to do (and in my scope of influence to create) and let that be the 'yeast working through the whole batch of dough' as Jesus taught.
Peace.
Dec 14, 2007 at 08:56 AM
If the "direction setter" is not going there - I don't know you can - but nothing has to stop you from personally engaging others and society.
Leave a Reply