How’s It Going? Part 4: A common objection

Confused dolls wondering who is winning and who is losingI want to address a common objection at this point.

One of the most thrown around lines in management blogs is “What gets measured gets managed”. This is held alongside “Measure what matters”. The idea is that we work to impact the numbers we are held accountable for, and so good leaders ensure people’s attention is focused on the right numbers. Some circles within the church respond to this by saying that the things that matter for us can’t be measured, because they’re invisible, bringing everything I’ve said to naught. How can you assign a number to an increase in love, or servant heartedness, for example?

Don’t miss the wood for the trees

The first thing to say in response to this is that, just because some things can’t be measured, doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot within the church that can have a number assigned to it. Many of these aspects are important, and can be measured with basic metrics.

Know your role and focus on that

The second thing to say is that it is sometimes better to measure the inputs we are responsible for, rather than the results God is responsible for. Since love is something God is responsible for producing in Christians, something we have no direct influence on, we are better off measuring whether we are providing an adequate context for growth in that area. That would be the difference between saying, “We want our members to be loving” and “We want our members to have worked through teaching about love, to be part of a smaller fellowship group, to have a close friend in the church, etc”. This approach sometimes turns that which doesn’t seem measurable around.

Be realistic and creative

Lastly, there are times that what we are aiming at is our responsibility, but it is still subjective. For example, we could say we want our members to serve according to their gifts. Then we take the following approach: we ask a sample set of people to score a statement on a spectrum; something like, “My ministry involvement matches my gifts”, or “I see many people at our church whose ministry involvement doesn’t match their gifts”. That will give us an aggregate rating across a spectrum. Asking that same question, in the same way, over a longer period provides a temperature gauge. As soon as the temperature changes (when it deflects from the historical norm), we are moving closer to or further from our goal.

So, how can you put a number to the intangibles? Well, a few ways. Can you think of anything in church life my suggestions above wouldn’t cover?

How’s it going? Part 3: Why are external measures important?

Frustrated man in front of whiteboardThose of you who have made it this far may be having two responses: firstly, this sounds like a lot of work and, secondly, I’m not sure it’s worth the effort.

The reality is that most ministers serve in churches where they have intimate knowledge of almost everything that goes on in the church, from fire hydrant services to pastoral situations. Most information goes through them, and they are the clearing house for most decisions. Because of this, when they make decisions they are able to intuitively weigh more factors than even the most advanced system of analysis. I imagine it is from them that this hesitancy will come.

So, why introduce a system that slows you down? I want to suggest three reasons.

Firstly, you’re already doing it. Whether you like it or not, metrics pervade your world. When you decided where to work, what career to pursue, or even who to marry, you used metrics to make the decision. When you choose to buy an ice cream on the beach, or join a gym after your ice cream binge, you used metrics. When you evaluate your latest sermon, or consider how well your mid-week group is doing, metrics inform and shape that evaluation. God has made us as rational creatures, and metrics are just the pieces of info we pull on as we go about rationalising towards an end. So, I’m not asking you to do something you aren’t in some way already doing.

Secondly, I’m not saying you need to develop an advanced and cumbersome feedback system of endless spreadsheets and piles of paperwork. I’m suggesting you get clear on where you are heading and how you will know if your plans to get there are succeeding or failing. Now, that can happen in your mind. However, from those I’ve listened to and read, putting it in writing forces you to be clear and decisive in a way that we usually aren’t in our heads. Scheduling time to frequently review what we’ve written down, and evaluate how things are going, has the added benefit of providing a ballast when the waves of busyness come our way. Temporarily slowing down in this way can prevent the additional effort required when we wake up one day and realise we’ve drifted off course. It can also increase our effectiveness by helping us more clearly see the things that we need to say “no” to.

Finally, the New Testament envisages team leadership in the form of a plurality of elders. These elders are the guardians of God’s flock, and God will hold the group responsible for where the flock wanders. It is wise to listen closely to the senior minister (or rector, pastor, bishop), based on their insights into the situation on the ground, but it is unwise for the rest of this group to abdicate their role in being a guardian of God’s people by deferring completely to them. This is especially true of the church’s future. The senior minister will be wise to keep in step with the rest of the team by having a clearly articulated and agreed upon picture of where the church is heading – and a scoreboard, so it is clear how things are going.

I hope these three reasons go some way to convincing you that clear vision and regular review will assist you in being a more effective and faithful minister for our Lord Jesus.

How’s It Going? Part 2: We need a scoreboard

Dart in the bullseyeI’m of the opinion that improving in how we evaluate our ministries can help us be better stewards of the resources God has given us, helping us better meet His intended ends. To do that, we need to set up a scoreboard and figure out the score.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I don’t believe we have the freedom to adjust God’s mission, or what maturity and faithfulness mean. These are fixed by the apostolic witness. But we do need to know how we’re doing in relation to His standards. And we do need to do the hard work of figuring out how we will go about meeting, and preparing others to meet, those standards. We also need to figure out whether our various methods and tactics are bringing us closer to, or leading us further away from, God’s goals for His church. To pull that off, we need to constantly be evaluating. Unless we want to calcify, there must be some form of feedback loop that keeps us reforming how we do things on the ground.

What I’m suggesting is that we can do better than evaluating ministry by sitting around a table with our ministry heads, asking each in turn, “How’s your ministry going?” and then being content with them either pointing to the attendance stats, or giving a subjective rating.

What that requires of us is to

  • clarify what our ideal situation is,
  • figure out what structure best supports that situation,
  • determine the best indicators of whether we are moving towards or away from that desired future state, and
  • choose milestones at which you need to take any actions.

We can then assess where we stand in relation to these indicators, which can be done at a macro level (looking at the whole church) or the micro level (zooming in on one aspect of church life), and adjust our tactics based on that feedback.

Establishing our ideal situation and structures is no small task. They will be informed by the Bible, our context, our moment in time, our tradition, and the collective desires of those whom God has gathered in your local church. Getting clear here is incredibly important, but for another day. We’re going to focus in on indicators.

The indicators (or metrics) are feedback devices that act as co-pilots, guiding us towards our destination. So, the more vivid that destination is, and the more appropriate the indicators, the better placed our group of local church leaders/guardians is to be setting the agenda and faithfully shepherding.

My bet is most of us have some form of what we’d love to see already buried in our heads. And the reality is that, if you do, that is what you are drawing on in your responses to whatever feedback you get. My question to you is this: how confident are you that those you serve alongside share the same mental picture of the future?

How’s It Going? Part 1: An alternative to beating up on numbers

Close of man reviewing a reportSoon after I finished studying at theological college, I was hit with some bad news: my father had fallen terminally ill. He’d invested a lot in me so, when he approached me to help with a succession plan for his company, I was only too willing to help. I got on board and got stuck in. I was unaware of it at the time, but rubbing my theological training up against a business environment flagged a big gap in my formal training: leadership and management. So, when I saw Graham touching on ministry evaluation I got excited.

I’ve noticed the trend Graham points to, of people offering attendance stats when asked about the ministries they’re involved in, but I wanted to offer a different perspective on why they do that. I’m of the opinion that people do this because they don’t have better tools to evaluate their ministries. Don’t get me wrong, I think most people who read this will have a framework for what makes a ministry distinctly Christian, but I haven’t seen many work that out into something that can answer the question, “How’s it going?” So, we default to the situation Graham describes.

We’re ill-equipped here because our formal training wasn’t trying to prepare us to analyse the complex organism that is the local church. A lot of church leadership requires management skills, and management skills aren’t what a theological college is trying to instil. That’s not to say we’re ignorant of the deficiency – quite the contrary! I think this partly explains why we get so excited when someone like Andrew Heard comes along: he offers a deployable package, in the 5Ms, that holds together theological and practical awareness. Even those who want to argue with him usually do so over whether his theological focus is unbalanced or errant, not whether his approach to managing God’s household is useful or correct.

So, over the next few posts, I want to share a few thoughts on ministry evaluation. What do you think would be worth touching on?

Church Growth: A Response

Recently on Rekindle, Graham has reflected on church metrics. What I’m posting here was originally written as a comment on this post, but I’ve decided to move it to a post of its own, because I feel the topic is important enough to (try) keep the conversation going. Here’s what I had to say.

I wonder if Graham isn’t singing in harmony with Carl Trueman and others: there is a big problem with our current desire to be popular and celebrated. Churches are finding themselves in awkward positions, where their use of metrics is driving them to look a pale shade of early church life. We really should be heeding these warnings, and considering where our use of metrics and our ungodly desires are urging us on in increasingly unhelpful directions. This is something Graham’s post makes inroads with.

However, it might be worth separating the issues he raises: on the one hand, we need to discuss the wrong desires that are calling for data-comfort, and on the other, we are reading data wrongly, and so need to be helped to use it properly. His post addresses the first, but I think a Rekindle series on the latter would be helpful (and demanding). Perhaps we should attempt it.

Data is a fantastic feedback tool, and larger churches (especially) should have people who know how to interpret and are listening to all the data they can get their hands on, because of the nature of these institutions and the use data feedback provides as a management tool. If done properly, I think it could even help address the problems of Trueman and co.

I read Natural Church Dynamics by Schwarz a little while back. He locates himself within the church growth movement, but almost completely ignores attendance figures because of their inability to explain their existence. All his measurables revolve around the quality of church life because he sees these as the ‘growth forces’ that result in worthwhile numerical additions. I say this to flag the reduction of metrics to church attendance in Graham’s post, but also to segue into this next point.

What I found interesting while reading was the significant overlap between Heard’s 5Ms and his 8 growth forces: both see health as the crucial factor that influences numbers. Whether that is helpful or right, and if both, the exact way maturity influences conversions are useful conversations that we should be having.


In my original comment, I posted a quote from Tim Keller’s Center Church. I just dropped it in there, out of nowhere. I included it because I felt it provides useful language and an accessible framework, which holds together both the need to be faithful and the need to reach the lost. For the sake of continuity, here’s the quote:

“As I read, reflected, and taught, I came to the conclusion that a more biblical theme for ministerial evaluation than either success or faithfulness is fruitfulness. Jesus, of course, told his disciples that they were to “bear much fruit” (John 15:8). Paul spoke even more specifically. He spoke of conversions as “fruit” when he desired to preach in Rome: “that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles” (Rom 1:13 KJV). Paul also spoke of the “fruit” of godly character that a minister can see growing in Christians under his care. This included the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22). Good deeds, such as mercy to the poor, are called “fruit” as well (Rom 15:28).
Paul spoke of the pastoral nurture of congregations as a form of gardening. He told the Corinthian Christians they were “God’s field” in which some ministers planted, some watered, and some reaped (1 Cor 3:9). The gardening metaphor shows that both success and faithfulness by themselves are insufficient criteria for evaluating ministry. Gardeners must be faithful in their work, but they must also be skilful, or the garden will fail. Yet in the end, the degree of the success of the garden (or the ministry) is determined by factors beyond the control of the gardener. The level of fruitfulness varies due to “soil conditions” (that is, some groups of people have a greater hardness of heart than others) and “weather conditions” (that is, the work of God’s sovereign Spirit) as well.
The church growth movement has made many lasting contributions to our practice of ministry. But its overemphasis on technique and results can put too much pressure on ministers because it underemphasizes the importance of godly character and the sovereignty of God. Those who claim that “what is required is faithfulness” are largely right, but this mindset can take too much pressure off church leaders. It does not lead them to ask hard questions when faithful ministries bear little fruit. When fruitfulness is our criterion for evaluation, we are held accountable but not crushed by the expectation that a certain number of lives will be changed dramatically under our ministry.”

Church Growth: Must We be Passionate about Numerical Growth?

A few weeks back I posted on church attendance and the role numbers might play in evaluating ministry, both positively and negatively. I argued that unqualified numbers indicate little more than trends, can be misleading or even deceiving, and easily become a source of discouragement. One of the catalysts for my own reflection upon the church growth movement and its principles has been Andrew Heard. I have critiqued an aspect of his teaching (here), but in this post I want to interact with his point from Acts that being passionate about numerical growth is a necessary part of the gospel fabric and ministry. When presenting this at a conference, Heard admitted that being passionate about numerical growth leaves us wide open to compromise, providing a sort of tension. However I believe that being passionate for growth also requires careful qualification. I hope to develop that, in part, with this post.

Growth in Acts was a result of the church’s passion for Christ

Church growthBefore we get to some of those qualifications, we must ask if does Acts does show that being passion for numerical growth is necessary for gospel ministry. I have written previously on the purpose of Acts, arguing that by embedding gospel sermons in narrative Luke’s aim was to: (a) call its readers to repentance and faith in Christ while (b) emphasising that the success of the gospel is owed to the Holy Spirit. More simply, we might say that Acts emphasises the word about Christ and the work of the Spirit. There is no denying that Luke records numerical growth throughout (Acts 2:41, 47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1, 7; 11:24; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20). But in holding to the aforementioned twofold purpose of Acts, this numerical growth resulted from the faithful proclamation of Christ made effective by the Spirit, which is why we repeatedly read that it was the Lord who added to his church. To risk being accused of splitting hairs, I think we would do better to argue from Acts that the apostles were passionate about Christ and dependant on his Spirit, rather than passionate about growth and dependant on methods. With that in mind, let us consider two qualifications for the statement, ‘Being passionate about growth is a necessary part of gospel fabric.’

Numerical growth must be measured by real conversions to Christ

I mentioned some of the dangers of metrics in ministry in my previous post. One of those is the misuse of numbers; we can, as one commenter said, seek “data-comfort” through metrics. This is not to say that this will always be the case but we must ask both why we are counting on Sundays and what those statistics show. The problem with counting heads on a Sunday is that the number of people who attend services is not an indication of how many Christians belong to your church. Therefore what we can infer from numbers is confidence of growth, perhaps of “seekers” but not an indication of conversions. Commenting on Acts 2, John Stott writes, “Salvation and church membership belonged together; they still do.” All of the numbers in Acts refer to conversions, not adherents or visitors. History tells us that tens of thousands of Jews made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for Pentecost and therefore we can safely assume that Peter addressed more than 3000 people. In fact, Acts 2:41 makes it clear that not everyone who heard received the word and baptism. The incredible number in 2:47 was not how many listened to Peter but how many came to Christ.

Conversions have little to do with us

Church growthAnswering the question, “Who grows the church?” in The Courage to be Protestant, David Wells strongly expounds the sovereignty of God. He writes, “Nothing…is more absurd than the panic that now grips the evangelical church. It is terrorized by the specter of postmodernity. Reading today’s “how-to” literature, one has to draw the conclusion that the church’s days are numbered unless we rush in to prop it up with our own know-how. God, you see, has more on his hands than he can possibly handle.” Wells concludes that section of his book with an appeal for us to let God be God over his church, for this will liberate us from feeling or thinking we must do what we are incapable of doing: “We cannot impart new life.” Believing numerical growth can be unlocked by a better strategy comes close to unbelief. Wells continues, “We turn to structures and programs, appearances and management, advertising and marketing. Our preoccupation is with what we do and therefore with what we control.” Strategies, structures, and ministry models do not deny the sovereignty of God but the confidence we put in them to grow God’s church might.

My hope in writing this post is not to promote theological knit picking and it certainly is not to discourage being passionate about growing God’s church. But, working backwards through my points: we must remember the place of human effort and planning within the sovereignty of God. The most God-glorifying expression of our passion for growth will be seen in impassioned prayers for conversions. Finally, if we are truly passionate about growth we will preach Christ and him crucified, in the power of his Spirit. Nothing less will do. Nothing less will grow the church.