"Success" for Churches that are Wesleyan?

[Charles W Christian]

I'm working on writing some curriculum for NNU Online (their new MDiv program; I'll be teaching the course, too), and I'd love to have some naznet input on this particular question, which will come up at some point in the course:

How does one measure "success" in church life in light of Wesleyan theology? And (as a follow-up), how does being a "Wesleyan minister/church" influence our measures of "success" as a church?

Anyway, I have some thoughts, but no "pre-packaged" ideas per se, so a wide range of input is welcome from pastors and non-pastors alike!

Thanks,
Charles

[Hans Deventer]

How does one measure "success" in church life in light of Wesleyan theology? And (as a follow-up), how does being a "Wesleyan minister/church" influence our measures of "success" as a church?

I would say that success is seeing people being transformed by the grace of God.
Being a Wesleyan church would influence the goal because it would included people being entirely sanctified.

[Dennis M. Scott]

It might depend on who the "we" is - theologians, educators, district superintendents, laymen, or pastors of other churches, etc..

[Charles W Christian]

It might depend on who the "we" is - theologians, educators, district superintendents, laymen, or pastors of other churches, etc..

Dennis,
I hope that what happens to the few who take the course is that they develop the theological "courage" to define success outside of simple politics. I think that what DS's sometimes "reward" is not always success in the biblical sense (sadly, it is far too rare that they reward what Wesley would call "success" -- or Jesus....).

Anyway, it seems to me best to define success as best we can biblically/theoogically and then let that "flow" into what it looks like every day. Too often we as Nazarenes do it the other way around: we impose a defintion of success (lots of people and/or money, etc.), and then we try to find biblical/historical/theological rationale for it! This seems backwards to me.... DS's and pastors do this, but non-pastors do this, too.

Of course, those who start trying to re-define succes will get accused of not wanting/having "growing churches." This is sometimes true. We do sometimes say that we are being faithful, when maybe we're being lazy. Having said that, I think far too often GS's and DS's and others simply want the denomination to be measured by money, power, and "butts in the seats," and neglect the distinctives of what the Church of Jesus Christ is all about! I hope this changes....

Blessings,
Charles

[Roland Hearn]

I think Hans is spot on. Any definition of success has to include elements of both grace and transformation.

Obviously with the numerical determination of success the problem is it really does not say anything about transformation. A transformed people, however, will be noticed by their impact. It is the "enjoying the favor of all the people," factor from Acts 2. That verse was an eye opener to me for how the church should relate to the community.

[Ian Gentles]

I would hope we are a church that experiences the Holy Spirit not just talk about Him! To be a church of Holy Spirit power. All else without this us futile.

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Bob Evans]

Is it a measurable concept?

[Ian Gentles]

Yes, in growth of holiness in people. I beleive it can be observed when God moves in power.

[Dennis M. Scott]

First, my reason for living is to please the Lord. I want Him to be happy with me and what He enables me to do. Bringing that about won't make me any more worthy, but I want to do that because I love Him. Scripture has quite a few helps for me to know what will bring about that "Well done . . . " I want to hear. Generally, those apply whether I am a pastor or not. As we learn to live in the scripture, it seems to make sense to discover and acquire the heart feelings of Jesus. While I understand those who say that the most important thing Jesus said was the last thing He said, it might be that there were some additional priorities he taught along the way, and that perhaps important things were taught by example and not only verbal text. Making disciples was one of those things. In fact, most of what He exampled contributed to making disciples. Anything Bible writers recorded contributed to who and what they became. For whatever reason, they thought it important and important enough to record it.

Jesus had times of Sunday School rallies - the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He also experienced "church splits" and betrayal. He poured Himself into what might be referenced as a leadership team, and trusted the Holy Spirit in them to follow and carry on after He had gone on to another assignment. The "success" evaluation takes place long after the story of the four gospels.

I want to be like Jesus. Some of the churches I've pastored have experienced surprising growth, and others have died under my leadership. From the ashes of some of those churches now not meeting have emerged a beautiful force of laborers in the Kingdom as well as a couple more generations of churches. Some people I've pastored have blossomed into amazing leaders, and there are some with whom I have had clear and emotional differences. What I tend to feel most successful about are those who have gone on - away from me - to become effective people leaders and followers of Jesus. Many of them are able to discover things in the life of Jesus I would never have seen had they not illustrated them for me.

Last Friday one of those in whom I have had the pleasure of investing went before the district credentials board for recommendation for ordination. Over the weekend three different members of that board approached me to speak very favorably about that interview. The DS said, "That interview was like sitting back and listening to a symphony." In my entire life, I have never had any kind of interview that anyone would have remotely described that way.

Sunday morning I had the opportunity to speak at the church of another of those I've been privileged to mentor. That church's membership and attendance in last year's journal is a few hundred. Last year hey acquired a building, and within two months my friend suffered a stroke that has left him partially paralyzed. It was necessary for him to take a couple months off. During that time, other leadership stepped in and when he returned more than half his congregation left to start another church - not a good thing. My pastor friend, however, has a far more Christlike spirit than I think I would have in that situation, and the Lord is rebuilding that church. Half his church is gone, his left leg and arm are paralyzed, and he has only praise for God and His people. I am thrilled for how God is working in Him. Although he was on staff for four years with me, he obviously has learned and experienced a relationship with Jesus that is beyond anything I demonstrated.

I will not receive a plaque at district assembly for those two examples. I've received plaques before, but they don't begin to address the issue of success. Success for me will be just a knowing glance from Jesus. I already know He knows.

[Scott Sherwood]

I think far too often GS's and DS's and others simply want money, power, and "butts in the seats," and neglect the distinctives of what the Church of Jesus Christ is all about!

We only have six G.S's. Which one(s) are guilty of this? Name them. Quote them. Which D.S's? What are their specific actions and words that lead you to this damning conclusion?

[Marsha Lynn]

I wonder if there is some type of mathematical formula:

Degree of success = degree of transformation X number of people transformed.

Some ministers/churches have a profound effect on a few people; others may attract more people but have no more total impact (as documented by the ain't-it-awful statistics about Christians making the same lifestyle choices as the general population). Jesus seems to have effectively combined the "profound effect on a few people" route with many interactions of short duration.

I've often encountered the mentor's mantra of "spending more time with fewer people," one way to express this formula. However, unless a mentor deploys others to be mentors, focusing in on a few people limits his or her impact on the larger community. I have also often stood on the outside of the crowd gathered around the charismatic person who has his chosen few close by and been aware that I was not among the chosen. I feel like my personal calling is to "see" those out on the edges. I hope I can make a small difference in their lives. I think I could end life feeling like I was successful if I could serve as one small spot of hope in the lives of many people, whether or not they ever join a group that would "count" as being under my ministry.

I don't suppose either the "small impact on many people" or "large impact on a few people" approach to ministry necessarily results in a crowd gathering other than possibly at one's funeral. Perhaps that is as true for a church as for an individual.

I think the difficulty with this formula is the difficulty in measuring one's contribution (as an individual or faith community) to the spiritual growth of another person. How is transformation tabulated? How is it traced back to a single source? And how is enduring change differentiated from temporary? How can a series of tiny but enduring steps toward God be given the same weight as more dramatic stories of transformation that will be followed by setbacks that almost or even more than wipe out the advance gained in that one glorious event?

Marsha

[Dennis M. Scott]

We only have six G.S's. Which one(s) are guilty of this? Name them. Quote them. Which D.S's? What are their specific actions and words that lead you to this damning conclusion?

Very good question. I don't just mean that Charles' comment should be bridled. What I mean is, "What is it that contributes to our thinking that they are only interested in those aspects of ministry?" There likely aren't any of us who would prefer that fewer and poorer disciples be made rather than more and better. We would all like to see the Kingdom grow. District assemblies are weird and non-real events. They don't depict the real world. They may represent one snippet of reality, but certainly not the real world of ministry. GSes and DSes have but a short timeslot there to utilize. So do pastors. Usually pastors like to present the best they can of their churches - some even dress up a little for the event. Pastors feel pressure from the DS, who feels pressure from the GS, who used to be a pastor, DS, college president or executive. Some GSes and DSes have come across as having a pretty high interest in some aspects of numbers. There is an inherent desire in most pastors, however, to advance the Kingdom, and it often peaks at times when GSes, DSes and pastors are together. That doesn't mean it originates there, however.

Several years ago, I was serving as coordinator in a city where the Lord was doing some pretty amazing stuff. One of the pastors with whom I worked went through an especially difficult time with family, which included financial, legal and health issues. Linda and I spent time in the hospital with them, prayed with them, were uncharacteristically able even to help them financially. I helped him nearly all night searching for a family member who had run away. I did it not because it was my job, but because I cared. In a meeting a few months later, my friend said to me in front of the whole group of pastors, "All you care about is how many new churches we can start. You don't care about me as a person or what my church is going through." Everyone there knew he was stressed, and so it was merely a little embarrassing. He later apologized and hugged me. It has been my good fortune to have GSes and DSes who have cared and expressed concern at a number of junctures. I've not always produced the numbers they would have liked, or I would have liked. Perhaps that's why those DSes for whom numbers are so important haven't invited me to work with them. I suspect, however, that the pressure for that kind of "success" is mis-credited when attributed to GSes or DSes.

[Marsha Lynn]

Obviously with the numerical determination of success the problem is it really does not say anything about transformation. A transformed people, however, will be noticed by their impact. It is the "enjoying the favor of all the people," factor from Acts 2. That verse was an eye opener to me for how the church should relate to the community.

Roland,

How do you personally balance that verse against Luke 6:26 -- "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets"?

[David Rhone]

Charles--

I think you have an obligation to answer the questiion posed by Scott Sherwood.

[Dave McClung]

Dennis,
I hope that what happens to the few who take the course is that they develop the theological "courage" to define success outside of simple politics. I think that what DS's sometimes "reward" is not always success in the biblical sense (sadly, it is far too rare that they reward what Wesley would call "success" -- or Jesus....).

Anyway, it seems to me best to define success as best we can biblically/theoogically and then let that "flow" into what it looks like every day. Too often we as Nazarenes do it the other way around: we impose a defintion of success (lots of people and/or money, etc.), and then we try to find biblical/historical/theological rationale for it! This seems backwards to me.... DS's and pastors do this, but non-pastors do this, too.

Of course, those who start trying to re-define succes will get accused of not wanting/having "growing churches." This is sometimes true. We do sometimes say that we are being faithful, when maybe we're being lazy. Having said that, I think far too often GS's and DS's and others simply want money, power, and "butts in the seats," and neglect the distinctives of what the Church of Jesus Christ is all about! I hope this changes....

Blessings,
Charles

I have a very hard time defining success in a way that doesn't include "butts in the seats."

Over the years, I have attended more than a hundred district assemblies, so I have heard thousands of pastors reports. I think I have heard about every way possible for pastors to claim "success" without church growth. Such claims always have a hollow ring.

While church growth may be possible without "success", I don't believe success is possible without church growth.

I remember when Linda and I moved to Houston, TX and visited a number of Nazarene Churches. We visited one where the Sunday night attendance was about 20. The topic of the sermon was "We are not small enough yet." In his sermon, he preached that the church would never be totally "spiritual" until all of the people who were not spiritual left. That week he visited our home to welcome us to the community. As we visited, he informed us that we really wouldn't fit in his church. Somehow, I don't think his definition of "success" was the correct one.

[Hans Deventer]

I think the enduring difficulty with this formula is the difficulty in measuring one's contribution (as an individual or faith community) to the spiritual growth of another person. How is transformation tabulated? And how is enduring change differentiated from temporary? How can a series of tiny but enduring steps toward God be given the same weight as more dramatic stories of transformation that will be followed by setbacks that almost or even more than wipe out the advance gained in that one glorious event?

It cannot. Be measured, that is. It can be seen.

Same as love. You can't measure it by the number of kisses or gifts. Yet, that doesn't mean one cannot distinguish true love from the fake version.

[Hans Deventer]

Charles--

I think you have an obligation to answer the questiion posed by Scott Sherwood.

Yes. But not the way he wants it. That would be the personal attack that is forbidden by the NazNet rules. It already came very close.

[Marsha Lynn]

While church growth may be possible without "success", I don't believe success is possible without church growth.


Hmm... by that measure the church in which I attempt to minister is among the unsuccessful. Like many others, we can't get enough people in the front door to compensate for the steady flow out the back door. However, I have a photo of our youth group from several years ago. Almost all of those teenagers, now young adults, are currently involved in some type of ministry in various parts of the country - one as an associate minister, one as a pastor's wife, and the rest in lay ministry. Four of the 83 active churches on the SW Indiana district have pastors who were launched into ministry by the Odon church. At least two more young men are pastoring on other districts. Plus, there are church board members and active laypeople galore who trace their roots back to Odon. We had one in for Christmas from the OKC area last evening. He has a sister somewhere in the Nashville, TN area (Nashville 1st Church, last I knew). And a brother up around Indianapolis. And another sister in the Free Methodist Church not far from here. Yet, the church has never managed to top 100 in average attendance for very long and currently struggles to maintain an average of 50.

How can a church that produces solid Christian young people for years on end and sends them out in ministry but never grows in numbers itself be dismissed so easily as unsuccessful because of empty pews?

Last evening we probably had 20 out for an informal discussion about the biblical account of the birth of Jesus Christ. Not a word was said about us not being small enough. Personally, my heart was full to bursting when I saw a young man walk in with his father to join us. We were reminiscing a couple of weeks ago about my first visit to that household over 16 years ago -- soon after the birth of the young man. I was carrying Cradle Roll material. My visit was unsuccessful. The family did not start coming to church. Not that year. Not in the years ahead. The only transformation that happened that day was in me. I walked away from the encounter saying to myself, "Wow! I LIKE those people! I like them a LOT! What was there about that conversation that has left such a warm glow in my heart? Aha! They seemed fascinated by everything I had to say. They made me feel incredibly interesting and worthy of their notice. How can I change MY approach to conversation based on what I observed today so that I can give others the gift they gave me?"

It wasn't until that baby and his older brother discovered the church through VBS as children and started begging to attend Sunday School that we saw them with any regularity. They would drop the boys off for Sunday School and children's church, sometimes slipping into the morning service, requiring focused effort to catch them afterwards for a greeting before they slipped back out. Yet, last evening the father and "Cradle Roll baby" came to an ordinary Sunday evening service/Bible study of this ordinary unsuccessful church and were among the linger-longers who had to be ushered out in order to lock the doors afterward. There have been a lot of small steps before and after that unsuccessful Cradle Roll ministry I had with them. (I am not involved in most of that story, although the church is involved in various ways.) But, lo, these sixteen years later, how I love that family and what they mean to our church and to my husband and me personally. I STILL like them a lot. (We have even tossed around the idea of vacationing together.) And I still regard them as mentors in the art of conversation.

But Sunday evening Bible study?! And helping with communion a few weeks ago? And plain old traditional revival services last fall? What's next? NMI service? Wednesday evenings? Membership? This might add up eventually to some pretty radical transformation!

Praising God with a full heart on this Monday after another Sunday of doing unsuccessful ministry in an unsuccessful church.

:PTL)

Marsha

[Charles W Christian]

We only have six G.S's. Which one(s) are guilty of this? Name them. Quote them. Which D.S's? What are their specific actions and words that lead you to this damning conclusion?

I was generalizing a bit much here, of course. However, I'll ask you: name a district that does not treat the biggest (numerically speaking) churches as "key" churches on their district. Now, sometimes this is because these big churches have established faithfulness and strong ministry over the years, etc. Other times, it is because (I would argue) that these churches are just big.

I think I mention GS's because for awhile I noticed a trend at a few district assemblies in a row in relying heavily upon "success" models like Steven Covey (Seven Habits, etc.). I do believe we can all learn a lot from folks like Covey and others in the business world who have achieved a level of excellence in what they do. However, I felt that the cart is often put squarely "before the horse" in these estimations, and I felt that the way the messages I heard were conveyed did just that. I respect the DS's and GS's I've met and heard, yet that does not mean I cannot disagree. And I do see and have seen trends in the direction of rewarding sheer numbers and not looking "behind the numbers" for other measuring sticks of "success" in the denomination. Obviously, I think that there are more than just a couple of measurements of "success" in a Wesleyan approach to ministry, or I would not have started this thread in the first place.

Sorry for offense to any, living or dead, yet I stand by the "spirit" of my assertions that denomination-wide our measurement of success has often been boiled down to very low common denominators.

Charles

[Charles W Christian]

Charles--

I think you have an obligation to answer the questiion posed by Scott Sherwood.

I did.... See above. I'll ask you a similar question: Please point me to means of "reward" in the Church of the Nazarene that is more holistic. I'm sure they do exist, but I've rarely heard them emphasized on a district and general level. I didn't mean to question the integrity of DS's/GS's at all, as I pointed out above. Perhaps I was just grumpy that day....:basic04

My intention was to ask a question: Are there measurements of success that we see as a Wesleyan denomination that are holistic and "Wesleyan"? Have we fallen into a trap locally, at a district, and at a general level in which we use a business model alone (like Covey's or even Maxwell's!) to measure whether or not a church/pastor is "successful"? If so, then where do we get this "success" idea: the Bible, the culture, elsewhere? If NOT, then where do we get this "success" idea: the Bible, culture, elsewhere?

Does that help....

Moving ahead bull-like through the China closet of life (but trying not to break anything)....:)

Charles

[Ian Gentles]

"Success" for who, the denomination or the people? Better to be in a group hugged by holy love, than in a multitude well pleased.

[Roland Hearn]

Roland,

How do you personally balance that verse against Luke 6:26 -- "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets"?

Thanks Marsha that is a good question. I think I have heard that verse misused enough as a punch line to see it as fairly innocuous but to be fair I think the two contexts are talking about two different things :

24"But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
26Woe to you when all men speak well of you,
for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.

If we see these things in terms of absolutes then anyone who is wealthy, well fed and laughs is basically lost. Secondly, I'm fairly confident that the early church was not guilty of having everyone speak well of them for they did suffer persecution. My point is that on a whole the community saw the church as a plus. That is to say that transformed people make a difference.

BTW I am not opposed to the idea of factoring numbers into the definition of success I am just convinced on its own it is inadequate. I'm also convinced that a genuinely transformed people make a difference and make counting superfluous. Having said that I am always one of the first to point out that numbers are a pretty important part of the Bible so we shouldn't just discount them all together, in fact there is a whole book named after them.

[Ian Gentles]

Do numbers really matter in a NT pattern of things? Oh don't get me wrong, large numbers are to be generally rejoiced in, but so is pure love!

[Ian Gentles]

Do numbers really matter in a NT pattern of things? Oh don't get me wrong, large numbers are to be generally rejoiced in, but so is pure love!

[Charles W Christian]

I have a very hard time defining success in a way that doesn't include "butts in the seats."

Over the years, I have attended more than a hundred district assemblies, so I have heard thousands of pastors reports. I think I have heard about every way possible for pastors to claim "success" without church growth. Such claims always have a hollow ring.

While church growth may be possible without "success", I don't believe success is possible without church growth.

I remember when Linda and I moved to Houston, TX and visited a number of Nazarene Churches. We visited one where the Sunday night attendance was about 20. The topic of the sermon was "We are not small enough yet." In his sermon, he preached that the church would never be totally "spiritual" until all of the people who were not spiritual left. That week he visited our home to welcome us to the community. As we visited, he informed us that we really wouldn't fit in his church. Somehow, I don't think his definition of "success" was the correct one.



Dave -
You've attended more assemblies than me (you do have the gray beard :basic03), but I hear what you're saying. As a pastor whose given some reports, I have to say that there are years when I have excitedly prepared to show my "10% plus" growth charts and other years when I have not spent as much time talking about "the numbers", since they did not show 10% plus growth!! When numbers are trending in a "positive direction," and you feel as if your church is indeed doing a lot of great things to minister to people, then I do believe that numbers are (can be) a measure of success. But I don't think numbers alone are ever the measure. We're in agreement so far, I think.

Now let me take a slightly dramatic turn.....

1) Jesus's earthly ministry, if it was successful (and I believe it was), was marked by long, long term growth, but very little growth in the short run (from a few to 12 to several more scattered about, to many leaving Him in John 6, to others surprisingly coming to Him later on, to Pentecost, and beyond, etc., etc.). In other words, Jesus's chart (then and now) really looks a bit erratic to me! It does not follow the kind of smooth flow that seems to be emphasized in many "successful church" equations! Sometimes Jesus did indeed "grow by subtraction" (like John 6), and at other times, He seemed to grow by multiplication (like Acts 2). The numbers were not always the focus, although they were mentioned (both positively and negatively) of His measure of "success". They certainly were not allowed to dictate to Jesus or to the Church what their ministry choices needed to be in every case (see Ananias and Saphira, for instance: they lost two giving members that day!! Of course, they gained others later due to the "fear and consternation" that gripped the crowds!). Now, I can't remember the last time I heard us emphasize the good in all of this kind of stuff in regard to "success," but the Bible doesn't back away from it. I'm sure there were some years of Jesus's "reports" that would have rung hollow:

I told them that if they did not wish to rely upon God's Sent One completely then they really have no part of God at all, and many left, yet we had a succesful year of standing for the truth of God in love. Respectfully submitted: Jesus (see John 6 and district growth chart for further information!) :M)
==================================================

2) I don't think that the Bible's numeric growth tries to take into account in every case the transient places in which we live. In a rural pastorate I had, the first year there we had some incredible numbers (the best in the church's 85 year history in every category), yet I knew we weren't healthy! We were just the "new kid in town", so to speak, and many folks in the community dissatisfied (many only temporarily dissatisfied) came to check us out, boosting our numbers in every way! We also reached some new folks, too, but once some of the curious ones went back to their original spots (after their feud with the pastor was over, or after he/she hit the road), then our numbers settled quite a bit in the next couple of years. However, I really think we were more "successful" at the mission of Christ and at impacting our community in those years when our numbers dwindled. So, when the DS asked, "What happened?" (meaning, why the sudden downturn back to "normal"), my enigmatic response was: We got healthier! I'm sure that sounded hollow, but to my dying days, I would have to affirm that it was true....

Today, in our very mobile part of N Seattle, we have lots of new folks coming in, but we have lots of new folks going out, too! Most of our attendance losses in the past two years have been either a) similar to what happened in my description of #2 above, or b) areas where people were genuinely called to go and minister in another setting (either the mission field abroad or another congregation that was struggling). God slowly but surely has brought new faces in, but our attendance this year will not reflect accurately the impact we feel we're having on the community. Nor will it show the myriad of changed lives that eventually could be traced back to this congregation's faithfulness. I'm sure my report will say something like that. I'm sure that some will see it (as I do) as a "successful" year, and to others it will likely ring hollow as "he's just trying to make a year of numeric loss sound good."

God will sort us all out, I'm sure.....

Thanks for the dialogue,

Charles

[Marsha Lynn]

Thanks, Roland. I certainly wasn't disagreeing with you, simply asking a question that others have asked me. Many people believe that if we were real Christians, the world would hate us like Jesus said it would. Hmm... that's another verse. Do you want to take on that one, too, or is your response the same? Is having people like us ever a bad thing?

BTW I am not opposed to the idea of factoring numbers into the definition of success I am just convinced on its own it is inadequate. I'm also convinced that a genuinely transformed people make a difference and make counting superfluous. Having said that I am always one of the first to point out that numbers are a pretty important part of the Bible so we shouldn't just discount them all together, in fact there is a whole book named after them.

Good points. Even in my own post protesting the idea of labeling a church unsuccessful based on lack of growth in membership and/or average attendance, I turned to other numbers -- folks from around the world who can trace their roots back to a church which has been more successful in preparing its young people for ministry in other churches than in retaining them within its own walls.

Of course, given that every church has some level of attrition -- death, if nothing else -- every church that wants to remain alive has to achieve some success in either attracting new members or retaining enough young people to provide some biological growth. Even holding steady denotes some level of "growth".

Marsha

[Charles W Christian]

We only have six G.S's. Which one(s) are guilty of this? Name them. Quote them. Which D.S's? What are their specific actions and words that lead you to this damning conclusion?

Further clarification:
I mean "want" these things for the denomination, not for themselves! Yikes...I did not state that clearly, and I just noticed that. So, the implication was not meant that GS's and DS's were "in it for the power/money, etc.", rather: too often GS's and DS's have set these goals as the "end all, be all" for our denomination....

I said it right in my head, but it did not come out as intended when I wrote it. Now I see what the big fuss is about.... Sorry about that one -- it got away....

:eek::thanks):fav03:fav17:fav11:fun03

[Dave McClung]

Hmm... by that measure the church in which I attempt to minister is among the unsuccessful. Like many others, we can't get enough people in the front door to compensate for the steady flow out the back door. However, I have a photo of our youth group from several years ago. Almost all of those teenagers, now young adults, are currently involved in some type of ministry in various parts of the country - one as an associate minister, one as a pastor's wife, and the rest in lay ministry. Four of the 83 active churches on the SW Indiana district have pastors who were launched into ministry by the Odon church. At least two more young men are pastoring on other districts. Plus, there are church board members and active laypeople galore who trace their roots back to Odon. We had one in for Christmas from the OKC area last evening. He has a sister somewhere in the Nashville, TN area (Nashville 1st Church, last I knew). And a brother up around Indianapolis. And another sister in the Free Methodist Church not far from here. Yet, the church has never managed to top 100 in average attendance for very long and currently struggles to maintain an average of 50.

How can a church that produces solid Christian young people for years on end and sends them out in ministry but never grows in numbers itself be dismissed so easily as unsuccessful because of empty pews?

Last evening we probably had 20 out for an informal discussion about the biblical account of the birth of Jesus Christ. Not a word was said about us not being small enough. Personally, my heart was full to bursting when I saw a young man walk in with his father to join us. We were reminiscing a couple of weeks ago about my first visit to that household over 16 years ago -- soon after the birth of the young man. I was carrying Cradle Roll material. My visit was unsuccessful. The family did not start coming to church. Not that year. Not in the years ahead. The only transformation that happened that day was in me. I walked away from the encounter saying to myself, "Wow! I LIKE those people! I like them a LOT! What was there about that conversation that has left such a warm glow in my heart? Aha! They seemed fascinated by everything I had to say. They made me feel incredibly interesting and worthy of their notice. How can I change MY approach to conversation based on what I observed today so that I can give others the gift they gave me?"

It wasn't until that baby and his older brother discovered the church through VBS as children and started begging to attend Sunday School that we saw them with any regularity. They would drop the boys off for Sunday School and children's church, sometimes slipping into the morning service, requiring focused effort to catch them afterwards for a greeting before they slipped back out. Yet, last evening the father and "Cradle Roll baby" came to an ordinary Sunday evening service/Bible study of this ordinary unsuccessful church and were among the linger-longers who had to be ushered out in order to lock the doors afterward. There have been a lot of small steps before and after that unsuccessful Cradle Roll ministry I had with them. (I am not involved in most of that story, although the church is involved in various ways.) But, lo, these sixteen years later, how I love that family and what they mean to our church and to my husband and me personally. I STILL like them a lot. (We have even tossed around the idea of vacationing together.) And I still regard them as mentors in the art of conversation.

But Sunday evening Bible study?! And helping with communion a few weeks ago? And plain old traditional revival services last fall? What's next? NMI service? Wednesday evenings? Membership? This might add up eventually to some pretty radical transformation!

Praising God with a full heart on this Monday after another Sunday of doing unsuccessful ministry in an unsuccessful church.

:PTL)

Marsha

Marsha
I am not trying to put down anyone's church, but if we define "success" in a way that does not include church growth we are accepting a watered down version of "success."

Beleive me, I have had those years in the corporate world when we "invested for the future", "consolidated our market position", "reduced our market risks" and did all those other things besides making a profit for the shareholders. Over the long run a corporation isn't successful if it doesn't make a profit for the shareholders. In the same way, a church may have periods of time when it isn't bringing in new converts, but in the long run a church isn't successful unless it is growing the kingdom.

[Dave McClung]

Hmm... by that measure the church in which I attempt to minister is among the unsuccessful. Like many others, we can't get enough people in the front door to compensate for the steady flow out the back door. However, I have a photo of our youth group from several years ago. Almost all of those teenagers, now young adults, are currently involved in some type of ministry in various parts of the country - one as an associate minister, one as a pastor's wife, and the rest in lay ministry. Four of the 83 active churches on the SW Indiana district have pastors who were launched into ministry by the Odon church. At least two more young men are pastoring on other districts. Plus, there are church board members and active laypeople galore who trace their roots back to Odon. We had one in for Christmas from the OKC area last evening. He has a sister somewhere in the Nashville, TN area (Nashville 1st Church, last I knew). And a brother up around Indianapolis. And another sister in the Free Methodist Church not far from here. Yet, the church has never managed to top 100 in average attendance for very long and currently struggles to maintain an average of 50.

How can a church that produces solid Christian young people for years on end and sends them out in ministry but never grows in numbers itself be dismissed so easily as unsuccessful because of empty pews?

Last evening we probably had 20 out for an informal discussion about the biblical account of the birth of Jesus Christ. Not a word was said about us not being small enough. Personally, my heart was full to bursting when I saw a young man walk in with his father to join us. We were reminiscing a couple of weeks ago about my first visit to that household over 16 years ago -- soon after the birth of the young man. I was carrying Cradle Roll material. My visit was unsuccessful. The family did not start coming to church. Not that year. Not in the years ahead. The only transformation that happened that day was in me. I walked away from the encounter saying to myself, "Wow! I LIKE those people! I like them a LOT! What was there about that conversation that has left such a warm glow in my heart? Aha! They seemed fascinated by everything I had to say. They made me feel incredibly interesting and worthy of their notice. How can I change MY approach to conversation based on what I observed today so that I can give others the gift they gave me?"

It wasn't until that baby and his older brother discovered the church through VBS as children and started begging to attend Sunday School that we saw them with any regularity. They would drop the boys off for Sunday School and children's church, sometimes slipping into the morning service, requiring focused effort to catch them afterwards for a greeting before they slipped back out. Yet, last evening the father and "Cradle Roll baby" came to an ordinary Sunday evening service/Bible study of this ordinary unsuccessful church and were among the linger-longers who had to be ushered out in order to lock the doors afterward. There have been a lot of small steps before and after that unsuccessful Cradle Roll ministry I had with them. (I am not involved in most of that story, although the church is involved in various ways.) But, lo, these sixteen years later, how I love that family and what they mean to our church and to my husband and me personally. I STILL like them a lot. (We have even tossed around the idea of vacationing together.) And I still regard them as mentors in the art of conversation.

But Sunday evening Bible study?! And helping with communion a few weeks ago? And plain old traditional revival services last fall? What's next? NMI service? Wednesday evenings? Membership? This might add up eventually to some pretty radical transformation!

Praising God with a full heart on this Monday after another Sunday of doing unsuccessful ministry in an unsuccessful church.

:PTL)

Marsha

Marsha
I am not trying to put down anyone's church, but if we define "success" in a way that does not include church growth we are accepting a watered down version of "success."

Beleive me, I have had those years in the corporate world when we "invested for the future", "consolidated our market position", "reduced our market risks" and did all those other things besides making a profit for the shareholders. Over the long run a corporation isn't successful if it doesn't make a profit for the shareholders. In the same way, a church may have periods of time when it isn't bringing in new converts, but in the long run a church isn't successful unless it is growing the kingdom.

[Charles W Christian]

FYI:
If you look back at my second post in this thread, I did clarify what I meant in the (unintentionally) condemning-sounding language in my last paragraph.... Thanks for pointing out my mistake, guys....

Blessings,
Charles

[Marsha Lynn]

Marsha
I am not trying to put down anyone's church, but if we define "success" in a way that does not include church growth we are accepting a watered down version of "success."

Beleive me, I have had those years in the corporate world when we "invested for the future", "consolidated our market position", "reduced our market risks" and did all those other things besides making a profit for the shareholders. Over the long run a corporation isn't successful if it doesn't make a profit for the shareholders. In the same way, a church may have periods of time when it isn't bringing in new converts, but in the long run a church isn't successful unless it is growing the kingdom.


OK. I still disagree but I don't need a "success" stamp of approval to love being where I am. As I said elsewhere, when one lives in an economically depressed area with people constantly moving on to greener pastures, it takes "growth" just to keep the numbers from dropping to zero. Of the 75 people who have walked through our doors thus far in December, only 19 of them were active members 15 years ago, before our last pastoral change. If you're going to define "success" as including real numerical growth, you're overlooking all of the "growth" it takes in some times and places just to stay steady or not drop faster.

That's not to say that I haven't listened to the same reports you have and noticed how they sometimes stand in contrast to the numbers. And I'm sure there's a "super-pastor" out there somewhere who could achieve real numerical growth here in Odon, who could stop the stream of traffic out the back door while still bringing in new people through the front door. He or she would probably need to start by somehow attracting a better grade of laypeople, however, because the best we can do isn't achieving that goal yet.

I've used the analogy before of a school. When one graduates a class of "seniors" every year and brings in a new class of "freshman", numerical growth is less of a concern than preparing the student body for life beyond school. And doing something about the "drop-out rate".

You look at churches like the one I am part of and say that a failure to grow numerically indicates that the church is not successfully ministering to the community. And you're right. Too many people are slipping through our fingers. And yet ... we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses who can testify to the success of this church in setting them on their spiritual journey. Perhaps in that final day of judgment, the numbers will come out all right. In the meantime, there is no lack of ministry opportunity here for today and tomorrow. Unless Charles comes up with a definition of successful ministry that doesn't necessarily include numerical growth, I can only say that perhaps some of us are called to minister in an environment that doesn't include success. There is certainly blessing in it. As the man said in the search for the Holy Grail, "[We're] not quite dead yet."

Marsha

[Charles W Christian]

OK. I still disagree but I don't need a "success" stamp of approval to love being where I am. As I said elsewhere, when one lives in an economically depressed area with people constantly moving on to greener pastures, it takes "growth" just to keep the numbers from dropping to zero. Of the 85 people who have walked through our doors thus far in December, only 18 of them were active members 15 years ago, before our last pastoral change. If you're going to define "success" as including real numerical growth, you're overlooking all of the "growth" it takes in some times and places just to stay steady or not drop faster.

That's not to say that I haven't listened to the same reports you have and noticed how they sometimes stand in contrast to the numbers. And I'm sure there's a "super-pastor" out there somewhere who could achieve real numerical growth here in Odon, who could stop the stream of traffic out the back door while still bringing in new people through the front door. He or she would probably need to start by somehow attracting a better grade of laypeople, however, because the best we can do isn't achieving that goal yet.

I've used the analogy before of a school. When one graduates a class of "seniors" every year and brings in a new class of "freshman", numerical growth is less of a concern than preparing the student body for life beyond school. And doing something about the "drop-out rate".

You look at churches like the one I am part of and say that a failure to grow numerically indicates that the church is not successfully ministering to the community. And you're right. Too many people are slipping through our fingers. And yet ... we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses who can testify to the success of this church in setting them on their spiritual journey. Perhaps in that final day of judgment, the numbers will come out all right. In the meantime, there is no lack of ministry opportunity here for today and tomorrow. Unless Charles comes up with a definition of successful ministry that doesn't necessarily include numerical growth, I can only say that perhaps some of us are called to minister in an environment that doesn't include success. There is certainly blessing in it. As the man said in the search for the Holy Grail, "[We're] not quite dead yet."

Marsha

Wow, Marsha -- A "thanks" is not quite enough. The best theology is often done by the poets among us, I believe. You would certainly qualify as BOTH (poet and theologian) in my book. I don't know the full extent of the "rightness or wrongness" of what you said, but it's really good. And if you wrote a book along the themes you have expressed, I would sure buy it!

God bless, and thanks again....

Charles

[Scott Sherwood]

After digesting the posts in this thread, several thoughts jump randomly to mind.
1) Charles' subsequent posts are helpful.
2) Still though, my questions were not answered as much as the initial generalization was defended. I am not against generalizations, but in order to have merit they must be composed of specifics.
3) Most D.S.'s I have observed do not have a track record of great growth as pastors, except perhaps when compared to the rampant decline which has come to be the norm. This makes me think there must be other criteria for their selection, which argues against "numbers" generally being given too much weight.
4) I would agree that if the great commission is our goal, no set of numbers will be sufficient to measure our progress. However, when viewed as vital signs, they are invaluable. Try telling your medical doctor that all he cares about are numbers the next time he tells you that you have no pulse. We very well may be emphasizing the wrong numbers. The primary numbers we celebrate are those that measure "coming and sitting" rather than "going and making." This is dangerous because organizations tend to value what we measure. It makes sense then that people today characterize as saints those who were at church "every time the doors were open." What would happen if we celebrated even more some other sets of numbers: Those involved in ministry. # of times gospel presented by laity & clergy. # of disciplers. # discipled. # of discipled who become disciplers. ???
5) We tend to value short term numbers too much and long term numbers too little. I would much rather have a good decade than a good year. In fact, there are things you can do to make a year look good that actually work against decadal growth. I would rather see us save our awards for decadal growth and ignore annual growth.
6) Better yet, how about scrapping awards all together. True kingdom growth is its own reward. One positive of these awards though, is that they expose those among us prone to bitterness and resentment. I am drawn to those who hear of God's great work in other places and praise God for it. They make good teammates. Personally, it builds my faith to hear of kingdom success in other places, because the same God who is doing it there can do it where I am.

[Charles W Christian]

After digesting the posts in this thread, several thoughts jump randomly to mind.
1) Charles' subsequent posts are helpful.
2) Still though, my questions were not answered as much as the initial generalization was defended. I am not against generalizations, but in order to have merit they must be composed of specifics.
3) Most D.S.'s I have observed do not have a track record of great growth as pastors, except perhaps when compared to the rampant decline which has come to be the norm. This makes me think there must be other criteria for their selection, which argues against "numbers" generally being given too much weight.
4) I would agree that if the great commission is our goal, no set of numbers will be sufficient to measure our progress. However, when viewed as vital signs, they are invaluable. Try telling your medical doctor that all he cares about are numbers the next time he tells you that you have no pulse. We very well may be emphasizing the wrong numbers. The primary numbers we celebrate are those that measure "coming and sitting" rather than "going and making." This is dangerous because organizations tend to value what we measure. It makes sense then that people today characterize as saints those who were at church "every time the doors were open." What would happen if we celebrated even more some other sets of numbers: Those involved in ministry. # of times gospel presented by laity & clergy. # of disciplers. # discipled. # of discipled who become disciplers. ???
5) We tend to value short term numbers too much and long term numbers too little. I would much rather have a good decade than a good year. In fact, there are things you can do to make a year look good that actually work against decadal growth. I would rather see us save our awards for decadal growth and ignore annual growth.
6) Better yet, how about scrapping awards all together. True kingdom growth is its own reward. One positive of these awards though, is that they expose those among us prone to bitterness and resentment. I am drawn to those who hear of God's great work in other places and praise God for it. They make good teammates. Personally, it builds my faith to hear of kingdom success in other places, because the same God who is doing it there can do it where I am.


I think #5 above helps put your #4 and #6 in better context, and maybe that's my main concern. When "raw numbers" become our goal, then don't we have a tendency just to string together some numbers and then move on? Then, what's left behind is too often a church that does not reflect the holistic emphasis of the Gospel, and often does not resemble what the stated mission of the Church is really about! So, I guess that numbers can be a reflection of success (not the ONLY reflection, I would be quick to add), but we have made it the "end" or "goal" far too often. It's about emphasis, in my view. Sadly, when short-term numbers are achieved, little else is often asked about in regard to things like doctrinal integrity, true transformation of people, ethics, etc. On the "flip side", often short-term numeric lags are labeled as failure! This would have put Jesus in a great bind in most districts I know of, sadly....

Finally, for now, let me say that I, too, really do enjoy seeing ministries experience great days. My criteria, though, is no longer "how are they're numbers"! When numbers are "up", then I certainly do get excited, especially now that I happen to pastor a church that has at times sent folks and resources out to assist congregations in their growth. However, I know of big churches that are not healthy, yet they can hide that sometimes behind the big numbers. Conversely, I know of smaller churches that rarely show a big increase or any increase at all on paper that are indeed "missional" and are important influencers of their community for Jesus Christ. You don't have to ask which one I think should be "rewarded" if indeed we do keep the reward systems....

Thanks for the chat,

Charles

[Scott Sherwood]

Charles,

In your judgment, some churches are more "missional" than others and have more "influence on the community for Jesus Christ." On what basis do you make this judgment? Is your criteria something the denomination could use?

[Charles W Christian]

Charles,

In your judgment, some churches are more "missional" than others and have more "influence on the community for Jesus Christ." On what basis do you make this judgment? Is your criteria something the denomination could use?

First, I think that it is not just in my judgement that some churches are more "missional" (BTW, "missional" is just lately a term that I like, but I have come to some sort of peace in using it, although there are a myriad of definitions!!). In some ways, it is like the Supreme Court definition of pornography: you know it when you see it! :q):M)

Seriously (and secondly), I think there are certainly attempts out there -- yes, by GS's and DS's and pastors, etc. -- to address this issue of what "missional" can mean "beyond the numbers." I think such attempts take time to "trickle down," so to speak. Some questions that I think are good starts (since you asked) may sound something like this following:

1) Are we as a church consistently conducting Christ-centered opportunities for corporate worship that are driven by Scriptural authority and by Christ's mission to "go into all the world and proclaim the Good News"?

2) Are we reaching people in our culture, not by simply becoming like them, but rather, by intentionally demonstrating to them how they can change and become more like Christ? In other words, are we truly helping build bridges between where they are and where Christ is?

3) Do our budgets and structures explicitly reflect our values (they already will implicitly, of course....)?

4) Are we influencing our neighborhood, community, and sphere of influence for Jesus Christ in a way that causes them to note the difference that our being part of the Church of Jesus Christ makes in our lives?

5) Do we see people consistently finding a home in our church family as a result of evangelistic efforts? (see I'm not "anti-number," but notice too that I am not simply "counting heads" either!)

6) Are we aware of where God is at work in this community setting and are we "joining" God in those ways?

7) Are we consistently rewarding (locally) those things that are important to Jesus in regard to the fulfillment of the mission of the Church? How?

==============
Anyway, there are other things, and none of them are very easy to measure "on paper," probably. However, they are the kinds of things that churches can measure through dialogue together as a congregation. They are the kinds of things my board and I have talked about over the last 3 1/2 years or so, and hopefully these kinds of congregations continue.

Wouldn't it be fun to go to an assembly and have churches choose among these kinds of emphasis and spend time telling their stories in that regard, instead of going to the equivalent of some sort of Christian Beauty Contest in which the best "built" church or the wealthiest church is placed in a "seat of honor" and those that are fulfilling other aspects of the Great Commissioned are virtually excluded? Just dreaming a little.... Not bitter, just concerned.....

Blessings,
Charles
:basic01

[Scott Sherwood]

I like your criteria, if not your assessment of our current leadership. I think these are exactly the kind of intangibles our D.S's struggle to analyze when working with boards to call pastors.

I have not been around other denominations all that much, but it has been my experience that there is a massive undercurrent of anti-numbers sentiment in ours. In fact, just about the quickest way to lose friends in our circles is to have a growing church. As a young pastor, my primary mentor who was very young himself and pastored a growing church had a moral failure and resigned. The glee with which it was discussed at the next pastors' gathering was almost enough to lead me to the want ads.

Regarding your ideas for assemblies, for the last two years our pastors reports have consisted of just this. Dr. Gunter has asked each pastor to bring along a new Christian and tell their story. These stories have been inspiring and have focused us on the mission (making disciples). I was somewhat concerned that these new Christians would feel like trophies on display, but the result has been exactly what Dr. Gunter predicted. Celebrating their stories has caused them to esteem their own experience even more highly and catapulted them forward in their spiritual journey. It is heartening to see the pastor of a seemingly struggling church of 30 tell a story of life change every bit as inspiring as anything that could happen in a church of 3000.

Every pastor can build relationships with pre-Christian people, share the gospel with them, shepherd them through a decision, and disciple them toward maturity and multiplication.

This is one answer to your question about a district that celebrates the right things. And better yet, it was initiated by a G.S. The D.S. embraced it, the pastors have cooperated (some with initial grumbling), and the laity have LOVED it. Many of these stories have also featured the layperson(s) instrumental in the new Christian being born again.

[Charles W Christian]

I like your criteria, if not your assessment of our current leadership. I think these are exactly the kind of intangibles our D.S's struggle to analyze when working with boards to call pastors.

I have not been around other denominations all that much, but it has been my experience that there is a massive undercurrent of anti-numbers sentiment in ours. In fact, just about the quickest way to lose friends in our circles is to have a growing church. As a young pastor, my primary mentor who was very young himself and pastored a growing church had a moral failure and resigned. The glee with which it was discussed at the next pastors' gathering was almost enough to lead me to the want ads.

Regarding your ideas for assemblies, for the last two years our pastors reports have consisted of just this. Dr. Gunter has asked each pastor to bring along a new Christian and tell their story. These stories have been inspiring and have focused us on the mission (making disciples). I was somewhat concerned that these new Christians would feel like trophies on display, but the result has been exactly what Dr. Gunter predicted. Celebrating their stories has caused them to esteem their own experience even more highly and catapulted them forward in their spiritual journey. It is heartening to see the pastor of a seemingly struggling church of 30 tell a story of life change every bit as inspiring as anything that could happen in a church of 3000.

Every pastor can build relationships with pre-Christian people, share the gospel with them, shepherd them through a decision, and disciple them toward maturity and multiplication.

This is one answer to your question about a district that celebrates the right things. And better yet, it was initiated by a G.S. The D.S. embraced it, the pastors have cooperated (some with initial grumbling), and the laity have LOVED it. Many of these stories have also featured the layperson(s) instrumental in the new Christian being born again.

Scott -
I didn't mean to pass judgement on our current leadership, and you'll note in my last response (above) that I make note of some good things happening under the direction of GS's (like Dr Gunter, for example) and DS's. I must confess I have joked with DS friends who have been newly elected that the clock is ticking on how long it will take for them to lose their ecclesiology, but they know I'm kidding....:basic05

Seriously, I have noted examples where districts are trying to move toward broader criteria, and I'm even seeing it in my own home district, and it pleases me greatly....

My own DS has been a great reminder to me of the importance of sticking to an assignment even when the numbers are not "flashy", and I appreciate this.

Too often, I do think this broader, more holistic emphasis upon success is lacking, but maybe what you're describing and what I'm beginning to observe is a trend in the right direction!

May it be so....

God bless,
Charles

[Richard Call]

I fully agree with Hans, et el when they say success is measured by people being Entirely Sanctified, also, those who are called to a specific ministry whatever that may be. Holiness is self expanding. When one is filled with God's love he starts giving it away. That's church success. All other measurements have a lesser purpose. A truly sanctified church will grow and spread its message.

[Bob Evans]

I think numbers are a part of the picture but don't tell the whole story. In our town have a non nazarene church that prides itself on leading 5000 people to Christ each year. They run 125 in worship but they have hit their goal 5 years running.

I think the consecrated life leads to service as well as a concern for the lost and needy both locally and around the world. Perhaps this must be part of the consideration as well.

[Dave McClung]

...3) Most D.S.'s I have observed do not have a track record of great growth as pastors, except perhaps when compared to the rampant decline which has come to be the norm. This makes me think there must be other criteria for their selection, which argues against "numbers" generally being given too much weight.
....

Scott, I take it that you consider being elected or appointed district superintendent is the sign of "success" for a pastor. I would judge differently.

[Scott Sherwood]

Scott, I take it that you consider being elected or appointed district superintendent is the sign of "success" for a pastor. I would judge differently.


Absolutely not. While it is certainly not a sign of failure, my point was in part that the quality of these D.S.'s ministries was clearly evident apart from and beyond their numbers.

If you'll remember the post that started this thread (which has since been clarified) stated that G.S.'s and D.S.'s are too concerned about money, power and butts in the seats. My point is that our denomination demonstrates quite often that there are more important things than numbers in assessing the quality of one's ministry. This is evidenced by the fact that many of our D.S.'s did not have a record of explosive growth in their pastorates.

While I most certainly do not have the gift mix best suited for an overseers ministry, I hold those who oversee my ministry in VERY high esteem. While it is not "the" sign of success in the pastorate, it is most definitely a move up on the organizational chart. These leaders have been placed by my church in authority over me. These are the men and women who have been identified by our church as called & qualified of God to oversee pastors and churches and collectively the entire denomination. The D.S.'s under whom I have served have without exception had a powerfully positive influence on my ministry and life. Those I have known who have been called into the superintendency have been of the caliber that it has reinforced my trust in the church's wisdom.

If I was asked what "the" sign of success is for a pastor, I would say this: Having been entrusted by God with souls, have I been a good steward of those souls by shepherding them through the "order of salvation" well enough that they themselves are becoming stewards of souls who in turn become stewards of souls? Am I showing God a sufficient return on His investment in me AND am I helping to produce people who are showing God a sufficient return on His investment in them?

If we were all about this, giving awards for 5% growth would become a thing of the past. We need to quit thinking in terms of addition and start cooperating with the Holy Spirit's pattern of multiplication. Multiplying Christians. Multiplying Churches. In the Horn of Africa, no one is ordained until they have planted a church that has planted a church. No church is officially organized until it has planted a church that has planted a church. They have a better idea of what success is than we do. Their 900 or so new pastors over the last three years would really help our conversation here, but I'm afraid we would poison them. And far from watering down holiness and discipleship, their explosive numbers have come about on the strength of their holiness message and their commitment to multiplying disciples.

[Houston Thomas]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=3]I have a very hard time defining success in a way that doesn't include "butts in the seats."

I'm way late here and hesitate to jump into a discussion that has already unfolded significantly.

The problem isn't the measurement of butts in the seats. It is the priority of that measurement.

Understanding that organizations measure what is most important to them, I would argue that we are measuring butts in the wrong seats. Currently, we place the most emphasis upon financial contribution and morning worship attendance. Two important statistics, just not the most important statistics.

The only way that "butts in the seats" is a significant measuring metric is if we operate from an understanding that the church is built on a weekend worship service.

Really, that line of thinking is upside down. The church is built on its specific mission. The weekend worship service only reflects the mission of the church. Measuring effective disciple-making looks a lot different than simply measuring attendees.

I would strongly argue for a context specific measurement. In this situation each local church would assess what disciple-making looks like in their contextual situation, inform the District Office with measurable goals, and report on those goals at District Assembly.

In our context that would look something like this: This year at X church we counseled X# of people out of addictive behavior, pulled Y families out of poverty, X# of people joined with us in our mission (membership), etc.

[Ron Davis]

The only way that "butts in the seats" is a significant measuring metric is if we operate from an understanding that the church is built on a weekend worship service.

Really, that line of thinking is upside down. The church is built on its specific mission. The weekend worship service only reflects the mission of the church. Measuring effective disciple-making looks a lot different than simply measuring attendees.

I would strongly argue for a context specific measurement. In this situation each local church would assess what disciple-making looks like in their contextual situation, inform the District Office with measurable goals, and report on those goals at District Assembly.

In our context that would look something like this: This year at X church we counseled X# of people out of addictive behavior, pulled Y families out of poverty, X# of people joined with us in our mission (membership), etc.

I like your point here. I have been thinking for some time now the common practice of Sunday morning worship services being the primary goal of the church. Everything is geared toward increasing the number of people attending that service.

If you were going to start a new church where the central focus was not on Sunday morning worship what would it look like?

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

The type of pastoring that I have been involved in with Dwayne, has had a number of different goals. What if you are trying to relocate a very old church, that has never had an inside bathroom, and the one outside is past using-the preacher has to stop speaking until the train on the track, right behind it, gets past? Of course, what ever we do should be for God and souls, but many times, other things consume much of the time. So, the building programs at the first two churches.
What if you are pastoring a transient church, of young military people, that do not, as yet, see the need of tithing, and the congregation is consistently changing the people in the congregation. But, we saw souls saved, and get their feet down spiritually, answer the call to preach, and take the gospel to other countries when they shipped out...and some are ordained elders now.

The last church, which was the military one, became an integrated church, after the schools that had been on the base, over forty years shipped out to Pensacola. Oh, we saw such wonderful conversions, and the struggles to change their lives. Our dream was for them to have a black pastor, and that has been realized. We feel that there is a great future for that church, that was organized by the family of a retired Navy guy, in a town, that did not have a COTN.
Souls born into the kingdom, are the reason for the gospel, but other things have to be done, also. Dwayne worked as a counselor for the state, for our main support.

[Sara Sheppard]

I think there are numbers that we can look at that are good but not "seat filler" numbers.

What % of worship attenders also attend some sort of discipleship throughout the week. In other words, if you have 1000 in AM worship but only 450 attend discipleship are you any healthier than a church that has 100 in AM worship and 95 of those are also in discipleship. I would say that the smaller church is healthier.

What % of worship attenders are actively involved in ministry?

How many has your church "sent" this year? Be it off to a christian higher education, off to start a new church, off to a mission field?

How many homeless have you fed?

How many clothing drives have you had?

What % of worship attenders were involved in a mission trip this year?

I would love for pastors to tell us about the ministries their church is involved in within their community instead of numeric gain.

I do believe, that more often than not, a church that is ministering and is healthy - will usually be growing. There are rare occassions where location will prevent that more than anything (living in an area where the number of people overall is declining).

[Steven Martinez]

I try to measure three aspects of growth in my ministry:
1. Spiritual Growth of the congregation as seen through discipleship
2. Community Growth - are we making an impact in the community around us
3. Numerical Growth - If #s 1 and 2 are being met than #3 is almost assured. A successful church will have these three things. However, only number 3 can be measured in a quanitative manner. Therefore the assumption in our assemblies is that churches who have numerical growth must have Spiritual Growth and Community growth as well. Is this always true? I do not know. However, we must understand that large churches do not always have growth. Some churches have 1000s but never grow beyond that and their growth pattern stays flat for they simply replace those who leave. Personally, I think the CoN has lacked in the area of Community Growth. What impact do our churches have in their community? Do they make a difference? Are they known by the neighborhood? Are they in good relationship with the neighborhood? Etc.

[Marsha Lynn]

Anne,

If the ministry you describe here is not "successful" ministry because it doesn't result in increased attendance/membership, then I would say that success is not something we need to particularly worry about as workers in the Kingdom of God. We already know that the quest for wealth should not drive our lives. Nor should the quest for human recognition and praise. God hasn't called us to be successful in the eyes of the world. He has called us to be faithful to the priorities of His kingdom: to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. (as per Micah 6:8) Successful ministry by men's standards may be evidenced by numerical growth. Successful ministry by God's standards must always and forever be demonstrated by love and faithfulness. I'm not sure which Charles is teaching about.

Marsha

The type of pastoring that I have been involved in with Dwayne, has had a number of different goals. What if you are trying to relocate a very old church, that has never had an inside bathroom, and the one outside is past using-the preacher has to stop speaking until the train on the track, right behind it, gets past? Of course, what ever we do should be for God and souls, but many times, other things consume much of the time. So, the building programs at the first two churches.
What if you are pastoring a transient church, of young military people, that do not, as yet, see the need of tithing, and the congregation is consistently changing the people in the congregation. But, we saw souls saved, and get their feet down spiritually, answer the call to preach, and take the gospel to other countries when they shipped out...and some are ordained elders now.

The last church, which was the military one, became an integrated church, after the schools that had been on the base, over forty years shipped out to Pensacola. Oh, we saw such wonderful conversions, and the struggles to change their lives. Our dream was for them to have a black pastor, and that has been realized. We feel that there is a great future for that church, that was organized by the family of a retired Navy guy, in a town, that did not have a COTN.
Souls born into the kingdom, are the reason for the gospel, but other things have to be done, also. Dwayne worked as a counselor for the state, for our main support.

[Billy Cox]

While counting attendance is an imperfect measurement, it is still relevant.

Would a church that is the center of transformation in its community really consist of approximately the same 50 people year after year?

I think that church attendance is a more meaningful statistic now than it was in yesteryear when church was the only game in town.

[William Hunter]

If a church has the ability to have high powered music and dynamic preaching, they will fill seats---and there may nothing at all going on that brings people to a true life transformation.



While counting attendance is an imperfect measurement, it is still relevant.

Would a church that is the center of transformation in its community really consist of approximately the same 50 people year after year?

I think that church attendance is a more meaningful statistic now than it was in yesteryear when church was the only game in town.

[Billy Cox]

If a church has the ability to have high powered music and dynamic preaching, they will fill seats---and there may nothing at all going on that brings people to a true life transformation.

One can fill a sanctuary without transforming lives, but I sincerely doubt that a prevailing, transforming church will be half empty on any given Sunday.

[Ian Gentles]

Course they is a difference between what we want for a church, and what people are looking for in that church. We need to ask, what are people looking for? what are their needs? in our modern society. We have a doctrine to apply, a message to proclaim, but in what ways are we doing this?

[William Hunter]

That is an incomplete picture of what may be happening. A spiritual success for a local cong. may be a true pruning/cleansing by God---not something done by human design, but something that God is truely doing. There could be going on in the church a process of learning the depths of prayer and intimacy with God, which is far more meaningful that just numbers. I'm not sure numbers are the lone criteria for judging success. That is a terribly secular mindset. To gage a congregation's success there must be a deep searching of what God is actually doing in a given cong. It's too easy to buy into the usual church growth idea and miss the movement of God totally.




One can fill a sanctuary without transforming lives, but I sincerely doubt that a prevailing, transforming church will be half empty on any given Sunday.

[Roy Richardson]

I'm working on writing some curriculum for NNU Online (their new MDiv program; I'll be teaching the course, too), and I'd love to have some naznet input on this particular question, which will come up at some point in the course:

How does one measure "success" in church life in light of Wesleyan theology? And (as a follow-up), how does being a "Wesleyan minister/church" influence our measures of "success" as a church?

Anyway, I have some thoughts, but no "pre-packaged" ideas per se, so a wide range of input is welcome from pastors and non-pastors alike!

Thanks,
Charles

<mounting soapbox>

Ahem

Success, IMHO, is when lives are transformed, people become Christlike, and the church moves outside of the building. When people begin to see the world around them as Christ, and Mr. Wesley saw it, that would be a great success story. Sort of a 21st Century "In His Steps" by Charles Sheldon.

Believers driven by love of Christ making a material difference in the lost and hurting world around them.

<Stepping off of soapbox>

We now return to our regular programming.:rolleyes:

[Mike McVey]

If you were going to start a new church where the central focus was not on Sunday morning worship what would it look like?

I don't think most people would consider it a church. They might look at it as a mission, but not a church. The problem is that most church planters are looking to their weekend services as their telos or end-goal.

I am in the midst of helping re-start a church and we do not put our central focus on Sunday mornings... and it shows :). We put our focus mostly on reaching unchurched children and that is where we are seeing God work the most. My thought is that whatever a new church's central focus was, that would be the area that they would see God working the most.

And I'm not sure if avoiding weekend services makes us more or less "successful", but what we stress in those services makes the people that come out of them. If the main goal is evangelism, then it is interesting how many people get saved at that church. If it is sanctification, it is interesting how many people get sanctified at that church. If it is worship, it is interesting how many people feel God touching their heart at that church. If it is numbers, it is interesting how quickly a pastor goes on to pastor a bigger church...

Hmmm...

[Steve Hendrix]

Well, old friend, I'm clearly jumping into this discussion very late. But since this is your post, I thought I'd wade into these treacherous waters even as the angels head for the beach.

Now that I'm neck deep (oh, who am I kidding - I'm in over my head) in the "missional leadership" program at Fuller, I'm looking at these same questions a little differently. After pouring through most of the posts here, I noticed that (with a few exceptions) the posters were starting with a de facto understanding of the word, "success." So, here are my questions: in your prep work for the NNU cirriculum, have you deconstructed the word yet? Is it possible to even ask the question without assuming organizational standards of evaluation (i.e. measurable data)? Given the intent of MANY of the posts, would we be better off searching for a different word? To what extent do you feel the MDiv students would benefit from a more postmodern understanding of what has been called "success"? And are we clear on why the issue even matters? (For the record, I think it does. But I just want to know if we're clear on why it matters.)

In one of our lectures, Alan Roxburgh used the analogy of the stage to describe the church. He was using the analogy to highlight a different set of issues, but I think his imagery applies to this question. He describes the church as having been thrust on stage with a script to a completely different play than the one being performed. It may just be my bias, but it sounds to me that many of the posters to this thread have been bumping into the same chairs on stage. From my point of view, they have touched on (if not banged on it with a sledge hammer) the tension that exists between organizational goals and those of the slightly less institutionalized institution known as "the Kingdom." Simply put, it almost (and I'm tempted to delete that word) sounds like we're talking about two different things here. Are we talking about the "success" of the organized church or the "success" of the Church? Can there be one without the other? Inquiring minds want to know!!

Just some thoughts. Give my love to Edna!!

And have a merry Christmas!

Steve

[Mike McVey]

6) Better yet, how about scrapping awards all together. True kingdom growth is its own reward.

You get the General Church to drop the awards, and I will believe 100% that the CotN is committed to building the Kingdom and not filling seats or padding wallets.

[Scott Sherwood]

You get the General Church to drop the awards, and I will believe 100% that the CotN is committed to building the Kingdom and not filling seats or padding wallets.

No you wouldn't.

[Mike McVey]

How does one measure "success" in church life in light of Wesleyan theology? And (as a follow-up), how does being a "Wesleyan minister/church" influence our measures of "success" as a church?

One of my first answers would be, which Wesley? Which theology? We could start small and distinctive within the CotN. Are we talking about Ken Grider's Wesleyan theology? William Greathouse's? Richard Taylor's? Mildred Wynkoop's? How about little further back, H. Orton Wiley's? Bresee's? Are we looking to those who were holiness and not Wesleyan, or strictly Wesleyan intermingled within the holiness tradition? Do we look at the Wesley who stayed Anglican until his death, or the one who commissioned the likes of Asbury? How much are Albert Outler, Rebekah Miles, and Randy Maddox allowed to contribute? What about Len Sweet?

I think you know why I am asking these questions, Charles. I think Steve brings up a valid question concerning the definition of "success". Someone else mentioned at what level: local, district, general? Are we talking about distinctly Nazarene or Wesleyan as a whole?

My personal opinion. There is only one thing that defines Christians, and it is especially prevalent in Wesley's thoughts: love, the agape kind. Of course that's as much a loaded answer that needs to be unpacked as the question itself. How do you put a condition (measurement) on something that is unconditional? It's something you do. And you can only do it if you have seen it embodied. I know of a lot of people who say they love people, because they know that is the answer that some want to hear. And that continue to delude themselves that actually do love others. But they never actually embody this love they proclaim.

I haven't read enough of Wesley to know if he measured his "success" or not. But I do know that a great portion of Brits remember him more for fighting illiteracy than being a preacher. That may help us understand that love is something that extends outside of the church and that the results do not function as to increase the size of a church. But then again, it may.

Charles, I'm sorry to give you a superficial answer, but I don't know if there is a deeper answer that can escape the capitalistic business model that surrounds our culture. For example, Scott Daniels use to tell us students that the theology department was preparing us for a church that doesn't exist. Why? Part of it has to do with the "real world" and the "real church". But it also has as much to do with the conditions that the department thought felt they needed to teach us, prepare us for. My problem here and elsewhere is that I see so little of what looks like the peaceable Kingdom that I struggle if it ever will be. I see a lot of love proclaimed, but little embodied.

I think I will quiet down some.

[Jim Monck]

I would hope we are a church that experiences the Holy Spirit not just talk about Him! To be a church of Holy Spirit power. All else without this us futile.

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

Are Wesleyan churches distinctive in relationship to the Holy Spirit? Somehow it doesn't sound right to say that the distinctive doctrine of the Nazarene Church is we have the Holy Spirit? In fact, it does sound right to say we are the church that believes in sanctification.

Could it be we came into being less and less because of theology and more and more because of social issues and rules; the kinds of things that often are the reason for starting lots of churches?

[Charles W Christian]

Well, old friend, I'm clearly jumping into this discussion very late. But since this is your post, I thought I'd wade into these treacherous waters even as the angels head for the beach.

Now that I'm neck deep (oh, who am I kidding - I'm in over my head) in the "missional leadership" program at Fuller, I'm looking at these same questions a little differently. After pouring through most of the posts here, I noticed that (with a few exceptions) the posters were starting with a de facto understanding of the word, "success." So, here are my questions: in your prep work for the NNU cirriculum, have you deconstructed the word yet? Is it possible to even ask the question without assuming organizational standards of evaluation (i.e. measurable data)? Given the intent of MANY of the posts, would we be better off searching for a different word? To what extent do you feel the MDiv students would benefit from a more postmodern understanding of what has been called "success"? And are we clear on why the issue even matters? (For the record, I think it does. But I just want to know if we're clear on why it matters.)

In one of our lectures, Alan Roxburgh used the analogy of the stage to describe the church. He was using the analogy to highlight a different set of issues, but I think his imagery applies to this question. He describes the church as having been thrust on stage with a script to a completely different play than the one being performed. It may just be my bias, but it sounds to me that many of the posters to this thread have been bumping into the same chairs on stage. From my point of view, they have touched on (if not banged on it with a sledge hammer) the tension that exists between organizational goals and those of the slightly less institutionalized institution known as "the Kingdom." Simply put, it almost (and I'm tempted to delete that word) sounds like we're talking about two different things here. Are we talking about the "success" of the organized church or the "success" of the Church? Can there be one without the other? Inquiring minds want to know!!

Just some thoughts. Give my love to Edna!!

And have a merry Christmas!

Steve


Man, I've missed out chats...."Has anybody here seen my old friend Steve...Oh, I wonder where he's gone; He freed a lot of people....",etc. etc.
:q):M)

You do make good points here. A short answer is that I am really not dwelling on the idea of "success," and this very long thread only represents one portion of one lecture out of eight weeks! But you know how it is.... I was working on something and my mind began to wander (as it often does) about things like "How would Wesley define success?", etc. The course is actually "Wesleyan Tradition in Context." It's the "in Context" part that's hard! :-) The reason is precisely what Mike M. mentioned -- Which Wesleyan tradition(s)?, etc.

Anyway....

Maybe prevenient grace has something to do with this. Here's how:
If we really believe God is already at work, calling people to Himself, etc., then we have some reason to believe that God has some goals (a goal?) in all of this: a goal for where we are, our sphere of influence, our kind of congregation, etc., etc. So, success would have to begin with seeing "where" and "how" God is working in a particular context, it seems to me. If my congregation is in a context and has the giftings to give a lot to missions, for instance -- say, more than the "typical" congregation of its size, then it should probably spend lots of time and energy doing that, right? And if it does, then maybe more of its "numeric growth" will come from places away from its actual building, right? Well, wouldn't that be some sort of success? I know it's not easy to measure on paper, but it's some sort of "success" in regard to fulfilling God's purposes, etc., right?

So, all of these posts are helping me think through those things for a handful of unfortunate online grad students who will be mercilessly subjected to my warped ways for eight weeks as "guinea pigs" in the laboratory of Naz learning! :-) May God have mercy. . . . :eek::fav07:fun14:fun17:gen07:cs01

Blessings,
Charles

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Four important things that we are called for are to believe, be a witness, obedient, and faithful. It seems to me that the other things will fall in line.

[Billy Cox]

Simply put, it almost (and I'm tempted to delete that word) sounds like we're talking about two different things here. Are we talking about the "success" of the organized church or the "success" of the Church? Can there be one without the other? Inquiring minds want to know!!



At times, the church manages to be the Church. At other times people or groups who have been shunned or persecuted by the church manage to be the Church.

I believe that they are not one and the same. They can exist independent of one another and all too frequently they do.

[David Pettigrew]

I have a very hard time defining success in a way that doesn't include "butts in the seats."

Over the years, I have attended more than a hundred district assemblies, so I have heard thousands of pastors reports. I think I have heard about every way possible for pastors to claim "success" without church growth. Such claims always have a hollow ring.

While church growth may be possible without "success", I don't believe success is possible without church growth.

I remember when Linda and I moved to Houston, TX and visited a number of Nazarene Churches. We visited one where the Sunday night attendance was about 20. The topic of the sermon was "We are not small enough yet." In his sermon, he preached that the church would never be totally "spiritual" until all of the people who were not spiritual left. That week he visited our home to welcome us to the community. As we visited, he informed us that we really wouldn't fit in his church. Somehow, I don't think his definition of "success" was the correct one.


1.) My least favorite part of district assembly (by my count, I've attended in the neighborhood of 32) is getting to hear "I know our numbers don't show it..." fifty times.

2.) I'm positive I know the pastor you are referring to, and, as I'm sure you know by now, he did you a favor! This story is especially ironic since the name of his church had the word "evangelistic" in it.:)

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

If Dwayne and I had depended on "butts in the seats" over the years, in the kind of work we did, we may have never witnessed the wonderful conversions that we have witnessed. Sometimes, you have to practically live with the people, even be their parents and grandparents, or whatever you have to be to them. We have written out many checks to help those that seriously needed it, but now the church treasurer writes out those checks. No, they are still not big, but give them time. This is a new adventure, and exciting time for the black pastor, of an integrated church. I have already written enough before, that ought to convince people that that is not always the ultimate story of success.

We have just this week gotten a report from a church we pastored many years ago. We built where the DS wanted us to, but it was totally, the incorrect place to build. Now after many years, they have built somewhere else, and they have someone new coming in nearly every Sunday. We all but sweated blood over that place. I now see a great future for the work of God there.

The Millington church is seeing a new day, and I see a great future there, also. We are thrilled over the conversions of those coming from "raw, outright sin," a they had began were doing before Dwayne retired. The black pastor is so thrilled with the church. The church is stable financially, spiritually, etc., and great days are ahead. But, someone had to be Apollos. Someone had to do the watering, and now these churches are beginning to reap, the harvest of souls, into the kingdom of God.

There is a big possibility that the Forest City church in Arkansas will get a black pastor, even though, all of the people there are white. They are very receptive to this. Only time will tell. Sunday will be Dwayne's 12th Sunday morning to speak in morning worship there--78 miles, one way from us--since early September. Just pray for God's will for them. We went over there one night of their revival with a black minister-took three black ladies from Millington with us. All three jumped up and testified, when testimonies wre ask for. There was a good size congregation of both races there. Some folk made things right with the Lord, and they plan to worship with a Baptist congregation, the last Sunday of December, in order to use their baptistry.

Job's comforters can just do what we sometimes tell old slewfoot to do-"Tuck tail and run." We enjoy working with people "where the rubber hits the road." It is exciting. The COTN and God's work is STILL ALIVE and WELL!

[Scott Sherwood]

But, someone had to be Apollos. Someone had to do the watering, and now these churches are beginning to reap, the harvest of souls, into the kingdom of God.

Yours is a beautiful story of success with souls. That's really all success in ministry is: successfully shepherding souls toward Kingdom life. Your passion for making a difference where "the rubber meets the road" is inspiring and most definitely counts as success of the highest order in my book.

Shepherding people into victory IS success.

Some pastors demonstrate an ability to become shepherds of shepherds. These are not the only successful pastors, but they do show us the way beyond personal or church "success" to literally accomplishing the great commission: multiplication. I'm fifteen years in, and I have yet to master this. God reminds me often that it is not about drawing a crowd. It's about making disciples who make disciples who make disciples who make disciples . . .

[Billy Cox]

2.) I'm positive I know the pastor you are referring to, and, as I'm sure you know by now, he did you a favor! This story is especially ironic since the name of his church had the word "evangelistic" in it.:)

Now that you mention it, that pastor drove the van to SNU extravaganza one year and when I started playing one of my Petra tapes, he told me there is nothing Christian about 'rock' and stated that no devil music would be tolerated in his van.

That was really a sad story and one of my best friends left that church to help start Lake Houston Church of the Nazarene.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Years ago, a Memphis church hosted Petra, for a concert. Some thought it was terrible.

At the first church Dwayne pastored, we took a group for a concert at a little country Methodist church. Some of our people got up and walked out, and I was so embarrassed. In fact, it was the young people. They thought the music the teens were performing in a church was very inappropriate.
One was my very best friend, and I gave her "a fit." I told her that people looked down on the church enough, without them doing something like that. We were in our early thirties.
Ask Gina, about some of the songs we sing when she calls me. Dwayne puts a disc in our digital piano, and we have a trio. And, we are Christians having a little fun.