Fastest Growing Church in the US?

[Ryan Scott]

- I am of course kidding about the Whiskey Ridge.

Thanks so much for your service on our DAB.

Why? It seems like fantastic advertising - "you mean they're called whiskey ridge and then don't even drink?"

[Dave McClung]

Just some thoughts: Numbers going up doesn't equal growth. Numbers going down doesn't equal failure. Sometimes numbers going up does not mean growing into the kingdom. And sometimes numbers going down is the only way for a community to actually be growing into the kingdom.

Ryan, I can't argue with your statement because of the general terms of your comment; however, I will say that if "numbers going down" continues over the long run it equals failure by any measure. As I understand the Great Commission, our task is to present the gosepl to as many people as we can. In my 68 years in the church, I have never seen a situation were "numbers going down" resulted in more people accepting Christ. Everywhere I have served, when the gospel is presented enthuastically, the numbers go up.

Please expain how your reconcile your statement that "...numbers going down is the only way for a community to actually be growing into the kingdom." Is it strictly theoretical or can you name a specific situation where that is true? I am unaware of any such situation. I can think of two different local churches where the pastor has announced that the church needs to get down to the "truly spiritual" people. In both cases, the churches have declined to a core of judgmental old timers. They lost all of the young people. Sure, the pastor could brag that 100% of the members were "saved, sanctified and living a committed life", but they weren't reaching anyone for the kingdom. In my experience, churches that are fulfilling the great commission always grow.

[Dave McClung]

You might want to check with Heidi

Yes, Heidi is still a member of the DAB.

[Rich Schmidt]

Please expain how your reconcile your statement that "...numbers going down is the only way for a community to actually be growing into the kingdom." Is it strictly theoretical or can you name a specific situation where that is true? I am unaware of any such situation. I can think of two different local churches where the pastor has announced that the church needs to get down to the "truly spiritual" people. In both cases, the churches have declined to a core of judgmental old timers. They lost all of the young people. Sure, the pastor could brag that 100% of the members were "saved, sanctified and living a committed life", but they weren't reaching anyone for the kingdom. In my experience, churches that are fulfilling the great commission always grow.

I'm guessing he's referring to moments or seasons like the one described in John 6:66, when many of Jesus' disciples left him because of his difficult teachings. I've heard stories of churches going through periods of decline as they become more focused on the mission, losing those who don't like the changes (for a variety of reasons), but those stories generally end with the numbers beginning to climb again as lives are transformed by the gospel.

That's my guess. I'll be interested to read Ryan's response.

[Greg Farra]

If that doesn't work out for you, perhaps you could move just NW of Toledo, Ohio where I grew up and start a Nazarene church in Hell (Michigan)

BILL

We call the whole state that name.

[John Kennedy]

My first teaching job was in Blythe, CA. Hope, AZ is about 50+ miles east - Hell, CA (no longer in existence - burned up?) was about equal distance to the west. The old timers used to say that Blythe was halfway between hope and hell (and they moved it west in the summer).

[Gina Stevenson]

We call the whole state that name.

Definitely agree, both in winter and then again when it is mosquito season here. Seems to be many more of them in a humid clime like this, compared to the desert out West!



*{now back to your originally scheduled thread}*

[Ryan Pugh]

I don't know. I think there are a whole bunch of problems counting people in the first place. Are they only counted if they attend a worship service on Sunday? If they give a certain amount of time to serving the church? If they are making disciples themselves? If they say they are actually living like Christ (which probably means our numbers are going to go way down)? I just often have a hard time seeing the value in counting people, especially when our numbers are most closely scrutinized and celebrated at District Assembly as if they're all that matter or even the most important thing that matters.

Ryan, I can't argue with your statement because of the general terms of your comment; however, I will say that if "numbers going down" continues over the long run it equals failure by any measure.

But when we have local churches of which the people come from all over the place and do not actually share the Christian life together, perhaps the best thing that can happen is for that local church to disperse and begin living the Christian life within their community. That would mean numbers would go down and perhaps all the way down, but in my eyes, it would be more meaningful for the kingdom.

As I understand the Great Commission, our task is to present the gosepl to as many people as we can.

If this is our task then why are we counting numbers? Do we just need numbers to affirm our faithfulness?

In my 68 years in the church, I have never seen a situation were "numbers going down" resulted in more people accepting Christ. Everywhere I have served, when the gospel is presented enthuastically, the numbers go up.

That's great. Can you clarify what you mean by people "accepting Christ" and "when the gospel is presented enthusiastically" that results in the numbers going up?

Please expain how your reconcile your statement that "...numbers going down is the only way for a community to actually be growing into the kingdom." Is it strictly theoretical or can you name a specific situation where that is true? I am unaware of any such situation. I can think of two different local churches where the pastor has announced that the church needs to get down to the "truly spiritual" people. In both cases, the churches have declined to a core of judgmental old timers. They lost all of the young people. Sure, the pastor could brag that 100% of the members were "saved, sanctified and living a committed life", but they weren't reaching anyone for the kingdom. In my experience, churches that are fulfilling the great commission always grow.

First, let me clarify that I said "sometimes numbers going down..." I wasn't making a statement that numbers must go down in order for communities to be growing into the kingdom.

No, I am not talking about churches that decide only the truly spiritual people belong to the church. That's just dumb. And I think you agree

What I mean is similar to and includes what Rich posted above. If we are really preaching the gospel of Christ, I'm not sure big numbers are the result. Yes, the kingdom is beautiful and when people actually glimpse it, they are drawn to it. But the call to follow Christ is a call to die, so sometimes I wonder if when we have huge churches and huge numbers of people "accepting Christ" if we are really giving them the gospel or some "cutsie version" of the gospel.

So I think that maybe sometimes the church grows smaller because those that aren't yet willing to come and die aren't a part yet. I haven't experienced this in reality in my life, but I have heard and read real stories of it happening.

I'm also not a big church guy. I tend to see the kingdom in terms of small communities living out the way of Christ within their neighborhood. Kinda like a mustard seed. And so when I am always hearing about numbers, I just get kinda jaded I guess.

[Ryan Scott]

If it helps, Ryan. We just went through an entire District Assembly and our DS mentioned numbers once, for about fifteen seconds, saying something to the effect of - Some of our district numbers have been up this is year, which is great, but they don't really tell much of the story of what's happening.

We also received a book with some numbers for each congregation printed in it - I'm not sure how many people did/will read it - or pay much attention to those numbers.

[Ryan Pugh]

If it helps, Ryan. We just went through an entire District Assembly and our DS mentioned numbers once, for about fifteen seconds, saying something to the effect of - Some of our district numbers have been up this is year, which is great, but they don't really tell much of the story of what's happening.

We also received a book with some numbers for each congregation printed in it - I'm not sure how many people did/will read it - or pay much attention to those numbers.

Good. Your experience was much different than mine.

[Dave McClung]

I don't know. I think there are a whole bunch of problems counting people in the first place. Are they only counted if they attend a worship service on Sunday? If they give a certain amount of time to serving the church? If they are making disciples themselves? If they say they are actually living like Christ (which probably means our numbers are going to go way down)? I just often have a hard time seeing the value in counting people, especially when our numbers are most closely scrutinized and celebrated at District Assembly as if they're all that matter or even the most important thing that matters.



But when we have local churches of which the people come from all over the place and do not actually share the Christian life together, perhaps the best thing that can happen is for that local church to disperse and begin living the Christian life within their community. That would mean numbers would go down and perhaps all the way down, but in my eyes, it would be more meaningful for the kingdom.



If this is our task then why are we counting numbers? Do we just need numbers to affirm our faithfulness?



That's great. Can you clarify what you mean by people "accepting Christ" and "when the gospel is presented enthusiastically" that results in the numbers going up?



First, let me clarify that I said "sometimes numbers going down..." I wasn't making a statement that numbers must go down in order for communities to be growing into the kingdom.

No, I am not talking about churches that decide only the truly spiritual people belong to the church. That's just dumb. And I think you agree

What I mean is similar to and includes what Rich posted above. If we are really preaching the gospel of Christ, I'm not sure big numbers are the result. Yes, the kingdom is beautiful and when people actually glimpse it, they are drawn to it. But the call to follow Christ is a call to die, so sometimes I wonder if when we have huge churches and huge numbers of people "accepting Christ" if we are really giving them the gospel or some "cutsie version" of the gospel.

So I think that maybe sometimes the church grows smaller because those that aren't yet willing to come and die aren't a part yet. I haven't experienced this in reality in my life, but I have heard and read real stories of it happening.

I'm also not a big church guy. I tend to see the kingdom in terms of small communities living out the way of Christ within their neighborhood. Kinda like a mustard seed. And so when I am always hearing about numbers, I just get kinda jaded I guess.

Ryan
The reason I chose to jump on your post is because I have heard so many young people who resist accountability. There is a simple truth that has been proven over and over in organizational management. Organizations tend to get what they measure. It works in all kinds of organizations, not just churches.

Over a lot of years, the church boards that I have served on have debated "How will we know if we are doing what we should be doing?" More than a few have taken your position -- "You can't tell strictly by the numbers." All of us know examples of pastors who have hyped the numbers by counting dishonestly. I heard of one pastor who put a hot dog stand in front of the church and gave out free hot dogs. He counted everyone who accepted a hot dog as having attended the church. But, just because some don't count accurately doesn't mean there is no value in counting. The principle is simple -- every one is important. When someone comes to our church, we want to make sure that at least 7 people learn their name and become acquainted with them. Then we want to follow-up to make sure we respond to their needs. How can we tell if we are responding to their needs? They come back. Keeping track of who and how many people come to church is important - not because the gross number is important but because it allows us to know how well we are dong at responding to individuals. In each of the 11 churches I have attended on a regular basis since 1971, attendance has grown during the time Linda and I attended. In each one of them, setting goals and keeping track of the attendance has been important. Numbers are important when you realize that each number represents a person. If a church isn't helping people to connect with God, it isn't fulfilling its purpose.

The simple truth is that if we don't build some accountability into our organizational systems, we tend to lose sight of the main goals. I would be interested to hear how you would build accountability into a church that didn't keep track of the number of people who attend.

You say, "I have heard and read real stories of it happening. " I challenge you to identify even one such church by name. I suspect that what you have heard and read was theory, not real life. In real life, when churches fulfill the great commission, they grow. The gospel, when preached and practiced consistently, is attractive to people. A church that isn't growing needs to reexamine what it is doing.

[Billy Cox]

As I understand the Great Commission, our task is to present the gosepl to as many people as we can.

That's not how I understand the Great Commission. The imperative verb is 'make disciples'. 'Go' is something we do by virtue of particpating in our society/world and 'preach/teach' is one method by which we make disciples. I think some of the difficulty American evangelicals faces is the fact that preaching to get a decision is quick and relatively easy whereas making disciples is time intensive and wildly inefficient.

Despite that, I agree 100% that the Great Commission is not about growing the church down to a holy few.

In my experience, churches that are fulfilling the great commission always grow.

Agreed...even in light of my comment above. I think that a church in a community with stable/growing population will grow even if it's not super-evangelistic...IF it is making disciples and equipping those disciples to graduate and disciple others.

Growth by conversion alone is notoriously short-lived, whereas growth by bona fide discipleship results in growth by conversion and has better retention.

A church with a history of steady decline could be doing many things, but it's unlikely that 'making disciples' is one of them.

[Billy Cox]

I don't know. I think there are a whole bunch of problems counting people in the first place.

As one who makes a sharp distinction between the Church and the organization that calls itself by the same name, I am adamant that the organization continuously prove its value to the Church. All of the organization, hierarchy, systems, employees, committees, conventions, etc. are resources employed in the interest of adding value to the Church. These things are measured using numbers.

If your church hired a janitor to clean the church every Saturday and the person only cleaned 1 Saturday per month, would you just brush it off by saying that on that 1 Saturday, the church was spectacularly clean? Wouldn't you be upset to realize that last Sunday's poop stain was still in the toilet after Sunday's service.

The same is true of these organizations and systems that we spend so much money on. When someone says that numbers don't matter much, it's the same as saying that it doesn't really matter whether the time/money we spend yields any results.

[Billy Cox]

If it helps, Ryan. We just went through an entire District Assembly and our DS mentioned numbers once, for about fifteen seconds, saying something to the effect of - Some of our district numbers have been up this is year, which is great, but they don't really tell much of the story of what's happening.

We also received a book with some numbers for each congregation printed in it - I'm not sure how many people did/will read it - or pay much attention to those numbers.

Show me an institutional official who claims to not care about accountability and measurement of outcomes, and I'll show you someone who is either using back channels to ensure the organization's well-being or someone who needs to be fired for failing to do their job. Utilizing the benefit-of-the-doubt method, I imagine that the former is likely the case. If publicly shaming low-performing pastors at district assembly doesn't make them perform any better, then why do it?

...kind of like the way Ronald Reagan gets credit for cutting taxes while increasing revenue collection by eliminating tax loopholes.

[Ryan Scott]

Dave,

I know for me the issue is not counting, numbers, or accountability - but the way in which we go about those things. I'm a big advocate for counting things that matter in a congregation - even if that means we can't compare one to another.

I love the goal you've set of having at least seven people learn the names of newcomers. That's a wonderful measure of accountability, but perhaps not one suitable for every congregation.

I've heard churches that count the number of women whose call to ministry they've supported during the year - or the number of families who regularly receive food.

I think what a lot of people are reacting to is the uniformity of our numbers. We all know that Sunday Worship attendance doesn't tell an accurate picture of the health of a congregation - but we've not really done anything to keep it from becoming the primary means by which we measure each congregation.

We also can move beyond numbers for our accountability. I know one local board that reviews its success by asking "how has our congregation made the Kingdom of God more evident in the world this year?" These sorts of things are not as easily quantifiable or duplicated, but they can be very effective tools.

Obviously, just as people can abuse the numbers system, a system of accountability without numbers can be equally abused. Still, I think it's important to use some combination of both.

One of the things I really appreciate about the Mid-Atlantic District, where we're moving soon, is the focus on particular accountability. I asked what I'll be accountable for in ministry and was told I'll be held accountable to the vision God is giving us for ministry. There are no other expectations beyond those we have for ourselves.

That can be a scary proposition, but it's also really freeing. Numbers will definitely be involved, but they'll be numbers we think are valuable to count and not numbers we're being told to count by someone three levels up in the bureaucracy.

Ultimately when we look at worship attendance statistics, it's not a measure of success on its own, but a measure of success for those congregations whose ministry primarily revolves around participation on Sunday. That's still a vast majority, but it's certainly not every one of them.

I don't imagine you're disagreeing with much of this at all; I merely wanted to give a different perspective.

[Ryan Scott]

Show me an institutional official who claims to not care about accountability and measurement of outcomes, and I'll show you someone who is either using back channels to ensure the organization's well-being or someone who needs to be fired for failing to do their job. Utilizing the benefit-of-the-doubt method, I imagine that the former is likely the case.

Our DS care very deeply about the numbers - he routinely confesses and apologizes for caring too much. I am glad that he doesn't let himself, or our district get too consumed with them, though. He's very much a pastoral leader - he promotes and celebrates the work of God in our congregations and attempts to be a redemptive presence in those congregations where it's just not happening much.

From an organizational standpoint I can see where "failure" could be an apt description of our district; it's small and generally getting smaller by most traditional measures. I see a leader who is allowing people with passion and vision to do what God has called them to do - and he's generally taking the organizational heat for them. There's a few other pastors from my district here, I imagine they can attest that we don't have a pushy DS, backchannel or otherwise.

[Dennis M. Scott]

The Windham, NH, church existed on paper for about three years. In the last year of her "existence", eight households went into pastoral or missionary service, and the church disappeared - I think into Kingdom work. I will be the first to confess that I am disappointed that what is there now is not what most of us had envisioned. The church I right now pastor has had the goal of of making disciples of men in transition from prison and substance abuse programs, and assisting them in plugging into more traditional churches throughout our state. We pretty much encourage people to leave. There are times when it seems to me like we're only fooling ourselves, because inspite of our stated objective, it just doesn't feel real good when fewer people are attending. Most of the traditional measuring instruments aren't especially helpful. In general, Dave's observations are valid.

[Craig Laughlin]

The single best reason to do metrics in the body of Christ is that they did it in the early church. Read through Acts and highlight every time they quantify the number of people. Sometime is is specific like 5000 (we assume they are not using our level of rigor for establishing this number) sometimes it is broad like "Great crowd" or "large number" sometimes it speaks to process like "the Lord ADDED to their number DAILY those that were being saved) but however they said it, they measured a lot and reported it.

I suspect the purpose was to illustrate what the Holy Spirit was doing and that should be our motivation as well. No argument that we have applied the metrics in all sort of less than noble and even evil ways but that is a question of application and function.

I also agree that metrics can and should be a tool in accountability. It needs to be used in sophisticated ways and has a long and ugly history of being applied in simplistic ways but again the problem is with understanding metrics and applying them in ways that bring spiritual health rather than harm.

I really think the issue is that we need to start measuring more and better things. nickels and noses is an extremely crude measure and can be very misleading. We need to keep that measure but we need to add others. (Disciple creation, % of church involved in volunteering, number of volunteer hours given, giving units, amount of hours given in service outside the benefit of the local church, and on and on)

Just my thoughts. Statistics are the X-ray of organization. You may not like what you see but when properly understood they tell the truth.

[Dave McClung]

Dave,

I know for me the issue is not counting, numbers, or accountability - but the way in which we go about those things. I'm a big advocate for counting things that matter in a congregation - even if that means we can't compare one to another.

I love the goal you've set of having at least seven people learn the names of newcomers. That's a wonderful measure of accountability, but perhaps not one suitable for every congregation.

I've heard churches that count the number of women whose call to ministry they've supported during the year - or the number of families who regularly receive food.

I think what a lot of people are reacting to is the uniformity of our numbers. We all know that Sunday Worship attendance doesn't tell an accurate picture of the health of a congregation - but we've not really done anything to keep it from becoming the primary means by which we measure each congregation.

We also can move beyond numbers for our accountability. I know one local board that reviews its success by asking "how has our congregation made the Kingdom of God more evident in the world this year?" These sorts of things are not as easily quantifiable or duplicated, but they can be very effective tools.

Obviously, just as people can abuse the numbers system, a system of accountability without numbers can be equally abused. Still, I think it's important to use some combination of both.

One of the things I really appreciate about the Mid-Atlantic District, where we're moving soon, is the focus on particular accountability. I asked what I'll be accountable for in ministry and was told I'll be held accountable to the vision God is giving us for ministry. There are no other expectations beyond those we have for ourselves.

That can be a scary proposition, but it's also really freeing. Numbers will definitely be involved, but they'll be numbers we think are valuable to count and not numbers we're being told to count by someone three levels up in the bureaucracy.

Ultimately when we look at worship attendance statistics, it's not a measure of success on its own, but a measure of success for those congregations whose ministry primarily revolves around participation on Sunday. That's still a vast majority, but it's certainly not every one of them.

I don't imagine you're disagreeing with much of this at all; I merely wanted to give a different perspective.

I don't disagree at all, but let me share a real-life story. A district superintendent recently shared this true story with me. A pastor who has served in several different churches over more than 20 years in the Church of the Nazarene called him and said, "I need to move. The church were I am now serving can no longer afford my salary. Please share my resume with churches who are looking for a pastor." The ds, said, "Let's look at your profile. Every church that you have pastored as decreased in attendance and in finances during the time you were pastor. What would you like for me to tell the church that is looking for a pastor?" The pastor didn't respond. The ds told him, "The best church you will ever pastor is the one you build right were you are."

My point, if a pastor's vision doesn't include a growth in numbers, he or she better build the church they envision right were they are.

[Billy Cox]

Our DS care very deeply about the numbers - he routinely confesses and apologizes for caring too much. I am glad that he doesn't let himself, or our district get too consumed with them, though. He's very much a pastoral leader - he promotes and celebrates the work of God in our congregations and attempts to be a redemptive presence in those congregations where it's just not happening much.

From an organizational standpoint I can see where "failure" could be an apt description of our district; it's small and generally getting smaller by most traditional measures. I see a leader who is allowing people with passion and vision to do what God has called them to do - and he's generally taking the organizational heat for them. There's a few other pastors from my district here, I imagine they can attest that we don't have a pushy DS, backchannel or otherwise.

For those who want to be free of the numbers game and district/church politics, it's easy enough to cash out one's chips and leave the reservation...but I have found that people want to have it both ways; to poo-poo the institution's silly games while consistently cashing the institution's checks.

I couldn't do it and sleep at night. Others apparently figure it out. More power to them.

[Ryan Pugh]

As others have stated, accountability is important. I agree. I just don't think numbers are the best way to have that accountability. It might be for the current church model that most of our churches are under, but it's not for the one I am seeking to be a part of. Stories of transformation and joining God in what God is already doing in a neighborhood are what I think are better avenues for accountability and "measuring" our faithfulness. Call me idealistic, I probably am, but I'm just not concerned with counting people for many reasons. And I don't think our youth and the younger generations give a great deal about numbers.

You say, "I have heard and read real stories of it happening. " I challenge you to identify even one such church by name. I suspect that what you have heard and read was theory, not real life.

You're right, I can't name a church by name that first exactly what I describe. But the ones I have read about do not seem to fit just a theory.

In real life, when churches fulfill the great commission, they grow. The gospel, when preached and practiced consistently, is attractive to people. A church that isn't growing needs to reexamine what it is doing.

While I do think that the kingdom of God's love and grace is attractive, the call to pick up a cross and carry it isn't really. So again, if people are lining up at the door to get in, let's make sure we are really inviting them to lose their lives.

This whole conversation assumes that we are all talking about church in the same way. In reality, we probably have very different ideas of what church looks like and that affects our discussion a great deal. It's good though. Thanks for it.

[Billy Cox]

While I do think that the kingdom of God's love and grace is attractive, the call to pick up a cross and carry it isn't really. So again, if people are lining up at the door to get in, let's make sure we are really inviting them to lose their lives.

'Take up your cross' is only one of several metaphors for following Christ, so fixating on that one image to the exclusion of others tends to leave us with a distorted idea of what it means to be a Christian.

In a land of religious freedom and tolerance, 'take up your cross' doesn't have much application unless we spiritualize it to the nth degree or tether it to an unpopular political agenda.

[Ryan Pugh]

'Take up your cross' is only one of several metaphors for following Christ, so fixating on that one image to the exclusion of others tends to leave us with a distorted idea of what it means to be a Christian.

I'm not intending to exclude others. But taking up a cross seems to encompass the call to lose our lives for the kingdom's sake.

In a land of religious freedom and tolerance, 'take up your cross' doesn't have much application unless we spiritualize it to the nth degree or tether it to an unpopular political agenda.

I don't think 'take up your cross' is tied to religious freedom or tolerance. It's tied to a way of life that runs against systems that keep people in bondage, which is still very applicable to the land we live in, and especially when we consider that we aren't really bound by the land we live in.

[Billy Cox]

I'm not intending to exclude others. But taking up a cross seems to encompass the call to lose our lives for the kingdom's sake.

And yet we live, quite comfortably. As a result, 'take up your cross' has been reinterpreted as living a life that is church-centric to a radical degree, which seems to be a mockery of the original metaphor.

I don't think 'take up your cross' is tied to religious freedom or tolerance. It's tied to a way of life that runs against systems that keep people in bondage, which is still very applicable to the land we live in, and especially when we consider that we aren't really bound by the land we live in.

The fact that the US government is not executing people for professing Christianity renders the 'take up your cross' imagery about as countercultural as watching cartoons on Nickelodeon. I suspect that Paul's letters (with a backdrop of pagan syncretism and ecclesiastical infighting) will contain far more applicable metaphors than the books written with the destruction of Jerusalem and the threat of annihilation as a their backdrop. This doesn't mean that the other books are worthless (although someone will surely accuse me of saying so) but rather that we would be wise to lean more heavily on metaphors that will resonate better with our contemporary audience.

Otherwise, the church is left answering questions that nobody is asking.

[Dave McClung]

Our DS care very deeply about the numbers - he routinely confesses and apologizes for caring too much. I am glad that he doesn't let himself, or our district get too consumed with them, though. He's very much a pastoral leader - he promotes and celebrates the work of God in our congregations and attempts to be a redemptive presence in those congregations where it's just not happening much.

From an organizational standpoint I can see where "failure" could be an apt description of our district; it's small and generally getting smaller by most traditional measures. I see a leader who is allowing people with passion and vision to do what God has called them to do - and he's generally taking the organizational heat for them. There's a few other pastors from my district here, I imagine they can attest that we don't have a pushy DS, backchannel or otherwise.

Ryan
Your district is the best example I know of what happens when an organization starts counting. A previous district superintendent of the Philly District decided (I think he was right) that inadequate compensation for pastors was a big problem. He started emphasizing pastor compensation. He provided information to church boards and encouraged them to do the best they could in paying their pastor. He made in the most important thing. Although he has been gone for many years, the Philly District still has the highest average compnesation for pastors in the denomination (I have not seen the past couple of years, but the last report I saw still had the Phillly District at the top.)

In my opinion, many of those who don't like counting, just can't decide what is really important. It is easy to say that Sunday Morning attendance isn't the most important thing, but it is much harder to say what is. I can remember a time when Sunday School Attendance was considered the most important. I know a church that considers the number who participate in small group ministries as the mos important.

My position is simple, decide what is most important, then keep track of it.

[Billy Cox]

My position is simple, decide what is most important, then keep track of it.

Thank you Peter Drucker.

[Dan Henderson]

The fact that the US government is not executing people for professing Christianity renders the 'take up your cross' imagery about as countercultural as watching cartoons on Nickelodeon.

Execution is not the only way to cause suffering. If it were only that easy.

[Ryan Pugh]

I've been following a conversation twitter/facebook that made me think of this thread. The conversation is based on youth ministry, but I think it applies here. Andrew Root, a professor at Luther Seminary, just wrote something I think expresses some of what I've been trying to say. He says that we tend to speak of and do youth ministry (or ministry in general) as some sort of technology that we try to use to fix a problem, but that misses the point. I bolded the part that especially stuck out. What do you think?

In a technological perspective all social problems are obstacles, something to be solved/overcome, lacking a more cosmic, moral, spiritual frame (that can handle things like evil, revelation, a paradigm of death to life). If ministry is technology it gets caught in obstacles to problems than the very gospel itself, which is not the overcoming of technological problems but the embracing of death (sin) for the sake of life. We just keep looking for the technology to solve our problems (of cultural/social legitimacy or something) in ministry rather than seeking to bend our actions to the action of God. After all God's action is very inefficient--it is like a woman who cleans and cleans looking for one lost coin (wasting all her energy). And numbers matter to God, yes, I guess, but in a crazy un-technological way, where 1 is greater than 99, it is a completely new math 1>99. The gospel destroys technological efficiency... (or at least Jesus parables do).