File this one in the ‘delusions of grandeur’ category. Despite the fact that the largest churches in the USA number in the thousands, we commonly call them ‘megachurches’ (mega = million). The megachurch designation is sooo 20th century though.
Look for large churches to begin referring to themselves as ‘gigachurches’. A gigachurch has everything that a megachurch has, but is at least a thousand times better. Now that we are comfortable with the ‘giga’ prefix due mostly to our exposure to computer terminology, the ‘mega’ prefix has lost its mystique. The time to change is now!!
It would be a breath of fresh air if any significant number of Nazarene churches were functional enough to actually reach “mega” size, much less “giga-size” — regardless of the definition applied.
Meanwhile it would seem that 99% of the Nazarene churches will have to be quietly content with referring to themselves as “byte-size”.
Interesting comment, javipa… Is the size of a church a measure of its dysfunction?
pastorherb
Our district participated in a six-month study on “Natural Church Development.”
We learned that only healthy, functional churches grew steadily (fast or slow) every single year for at least fifteen years straight. Interestingly, healthy and functional churches as defined by steady numerical growth for over fifteen years were more common in small towns.
Healthy, functional churches are also defined as multiplying themselves. They started other churches on a “regular” basis (and not “just” mission churches in other countries) which is only corporately possible under the structure of the COTN.
On a personal note, if the pastor isn’t healthy and functional, the church won’t be either. Churches become personality clones of their pastors — no exceptions.
Another interesting thing we learned from NCD, is that none of the churches that grew consistently over a fifteen year period experienced a senior pastor change. The pastors of every church studied stayed put.
So, its fairly certain that to make sure there isn’t consistent, predictable numerical growth and reproduction of itself over a long period is to have a periodic pastoral change. And…if a pastor sticks around for fifteen or more yeas and the church still neither reproduces or shows consistent growth, then it’s obvious there is dysfunction in the pastor.
Metric vs. criteria is what I am curious about. With what criteria are we *defining* a healthy or functional churches? I am reading from your post that the criteria is “growing and multiplying”. I would argue that those are really metrics for measurement, not defining criteria. There is a big difference.
What is a functional church *defined by* – its size or its mission? Too often, I fear we fall into a natural trap of replacing purpose with metrics. Instead of using metrics to inform purpose, we bend purpose to achieve metrics. I see things like “size” merely as ministry indicators not as defining qualifications for successful ministry.
It begs a philosophical question – what is our goal? Is it to convince/aid people to be Christ-followers or make a big church? Of course it is the former, and one “indicator” of success is the latter. But, like most metrics, the former does not always lead to the latter. This is especially true of the emergent “congregations” where a church’s constituency is far greater than its Sunday attendance because it reaches beyond its walls.
I have observed that there are many “large” churches who do a really bad job of facilitating life change (holy living). I also know many small ones that do a fantastic job and who are, in my opinion, much more successful at the mission despite that particular metric (size). Of course the converse is also readily observable in both situations, and the dichotomy illustrates my concerns well.
PastorHerb,
Metrix vs. Criteria is out of my expertise and I don’t claim to have my head around it.
What I hear you saying is that “functional” isn’t exclusive to any size church. All I can say is that any church that fails to reproduce itself (as in replicate) is by any standard or account sterile.
That said, the overwhelming majority of local COTN rarely, if ever, replicate themselves with a purpose in mind of spreading the gospel, but more often because of a split. Most Baptist churches get started this way.
Frankly, the Calvary Chapel movement has largely replicated itself this way with some rather spectacular results.
Nothing seems to motivate off-shoot start-upp more than proving their “way” is “better”. I would say that in the end, it seems healthy. It keeps the juices flowing and fresh. Acts certainly demonstrates this with Paul refusing to minister with certain of his entourage at a point or two, and going separate ways.
There are other reasons that churches don’t grow that represent varying levels of dysfunction and that is the lack of ambition on the pastor’s part. Or perhaps it’s an inability of the pastor to adequately teach the importance of making an increasing difference for Christ through their local church…and/or otherwise motivate the congregation to make an increasing impact on their community.
It’s also refusal to set concrete goals for ministry, or even be clear about what results should be pursued or achieved. (Don’t even tell me that it’s in God hands, not ours. We ARE God’s hands!)
It’s hilarious how the pastor’s who seem to be unable to get out of their own way in achieving something observable and measurable are always the ones who claim “that numbers aren’t important.” Yeah, they aren’t important to them until they get to the point where they can’t collect a paycheck. Then, somehow numbers get REAL important. Well, if numbers are important when they fall below a certain point, then how much more important do they become when God puts a big dream to achieve in ANY pastor’s heart?
Nobody is more resistant to goal setting than the unsuccessful or lazy and unmotivated.
Meanwhile, [most I say] older congregations just act like “poor men’s country clubs,” regardless of their size. “Growth” then represents an upset of the status quo and pecking orders…and thus an anathema to the culture of the church.
Some churches need to die…like an acorn…so that a new one can be nurtured to make a fresh difference for Christ that the sickly and decaying ones could no longer make.
This isn’t a complete treatise on the subject of course, and the obsolete corporate structure the local churches certainly contributes a large part of the local church’s ineffectiveness, stagnation and dysfunction. That’s for another post.
I guess what I am trying to say is that the goals ought to be mission-centric, not metric-centric. I have no problem with the replication “metric” as I actually consider that a “goal”. And, I would agree that growth should come (in one way or another) from successfully realizing goals. However, I would be careful not to dismiss a small ministry as being dysfunctional.
I haven’t read through each of your comments, but a rewarding exercise is to go through scripture and look at how fruit is measured. The times that numerical value (the number of apples) is of essence can be counted on one hand. The times that the nature (the quality of the apples) is of essence is hard to count. i.e.: “The fruit of the Spirit is _____”…you know the rest.
Even Willow Creek has repented of counting apples rather than creating good apples:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2007/10/willow_creek_re.html
I think that as a church that preaches and teaches holiness, the CotN would do well to focus on the “making” aspect of her mission.
When it comes down to it, people will be drawn to authentic Christian living. Maybe not in mass, but growth will occur.
If growing numbers are of essence, then perhaps we should join the local mosque:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest_growing_religion
PastorHerb,
You wrote, “I guess what I am trying to say is that the goals ought to be mission-centric, not metric-centric.”
As a layman, desperate to see something happen in my own church, after 20 years, I would say that, “I would settle FOR the pastor to actually set a goal for “anything” and give us “something” to achieve as a body of Christ, as opposed to continuing to give in to the inertia. If it were simply a goal to run 55 — that would be a stunning about face. All we hear is self-serving statements that, “God builds His church” and “numbers aren’t important”. [Can you sense my frustration with the lack of concern ambition?]. BTW, the pastor is excellent at “in reach”. There’s no church with a more personally available pastor. He answers the phone, loves to talk, is compassionate, loving….and yet zero growth whatsoever — in one of the fastest growing suburbs of our state.
So whether a goal is stemming from metric or mission based impetus, I could care less. Anything’s better than the stagnant, in-grown situations I’m observing up close.
God does build his church yes, and if we fail to cooperate in fulfilling the great commission (locally and globally), God will (and does), find others who’ll accept the task and run with it — regardless of whether is metric or mission centered.
We get what we ask for, according to Mark 11:23-24. The problem I see is that very few of us in the COTN are really asking that God entrust us with enough people/participants in a given congregation to be considered a “mega” anything.
The largest church to me was started from scratch at the same time mine was. Twenty years later, they have six “daughter churches”. Three were angry split offs, the rest were deliberate “launches”. The last one had over 600 in attendance its first Sunday. The mother church operates from two locations with satellite video from one to the other for worship.
The pastor’s original stated goal was to average 500 in morning worship within 10 years (or by 2000). Since 2000 they enjoyed a 20% average increase in worship attendance and today average 7,000 in worship.
What’s the difference between the COTN and the “other” church. The “other” one maintains a vision and goal, the COTN makes claims that numbers aren’t important. And…so…they aren’t.
Javipa – I hear your frustration, and I share it. However, I am not willing to give up mission over metrics when pursuing the purpose, values, and processes of the church I am pastoring. I am not saying that metric are not important, but they need to be appropriately applied, as tools to measure success at the goal – they should not be goals unto themselves.
I have enjoyed a couple of books from people who are moving beyond the church-growth paradigm to the kingdom-growth paradigm. These guys, many of whom were growth-at-all-costs evangelists have taken a step back to critically examine the fruit of their labors. I am talking about guys like Reggie McNeal (Present Future) and Thom Rainer (Simple Church, Essential Church). They are desperately trying to alter course, a course they helped to set. Their clarion calls remind me of George Whitefield’s self-reflecting lament of the “rope of sand” he created.
These guys present a solid case that “numbers” are not as “principal” a metric as once understood. The “principal” metric is much more abstract – changed lives – which resulted from intentional laser-like focus on mission. According to them, numerical growth typically follows such a path. But, they caution that the focus ought to be on mission, not numbers – otherwise you may build a giant house – but of cards.
As a church planter I tend to scrutinize ministry models. There are a ton of “growing” churches in my area – but what kind of growth is it? Typically, it is transfer (church hoppers) or biological (babies). Rarely are these churches growing from actually changing people’s lives – you know, new converts and renewed converts.
I pray that your pastor will find his way to forward-looking goals. But I also pray that they are mission-centric because “growth” is not enough – it needs to be the right kind of growth. I would rather have a church of 10 people that reach out than 10,000 who occupy space.
Pingback: in.his.grip » Blog Archive » mission.vs.metrics
PastorHerb,
This discussion has been very enlightening to me, and your arguments are thoughtful. I can’t disagree with the whole of what you’ve stated. The issue, for me, boils down to “mission complacency” vs. “mission urgency”.
Most folks in the church really could care less if their neighbors go to Hell, or not. That’s the problem. Metric or Mission-centered evangelism is irrelevant since the folks aren’t sharing their faith, bringing ‘enough” of their friends to church in enough numbers to make any difference on the size of their church — or whether it reproduces itself.
Whether their local church runs fifty, or five thousand, makes no difference except that certain of their needs are met.
And if the church is “quiet and content” the pastors seem happy to keeps things just that way and not invite the dysfunction that the lost represent to a church operation, much less the “community” of believers. Notwithstanding, the healing of the very dysfunction we seek to address is what really creates momentum and enthusiasm for evangelism in the church.
Meantime, our numbers seem to reflect that fewer folks give a rat’s rear end what size their church is otherwise, and have no practical concern that their neighbors are just a few years, months, or possibly days from ending up eternally lost.
Not everyone of course is this ambivalent, but enough are to ring a bell and say “LET’S DO ‘SOMETHING’!…”
When any church is able to attract multitudes of the spiritually sick, of which I include the church-hoppers, then we can naturally expect to make a bigger impact on the community for Christ — regardless if the goals are metric, or mission-based.
Frankly, the spiritually sick have been the one’s responsible for most of the conversions to Christ in my experience and observations. They’re on the bleeding edge of a new life in Christ and they’re excited about sharing what God is doing. When they’ve been able to keep their jobs; stop smoking; not cheat on their wives, they’re jazzed up and excited and “selling” Jesus to their friends!
So, maybe some mega-churches do just collect retread, pew-potatoes from other churches and never achieve a meaningful percentage of conversions. At least they can minister to a lot more spiritually sick folks than the puny church does. I could say here that a non-growing puny church is utterly spiritually sick.
Either way, we’re about ministering to both the spiritually dysfunctional and to the healthy.
The problem for me again is the lack of mission urgency to reach the lost. So, if some pastor only has the capacity and vision to prod me to help him get 100 folks saved by the end of 2009, I’m not only happy with that, but I’m downright deliriously happy!
Do I need a pastor to motivate me? No. I’m self-motivated (and rare), and already making a difference for Christ.
In fact, I’ve already posted my metric goal of winning 65 people to Jesus by 2010 within my (small) circle of influence). All I hear is “crickets” from the church leadership regarding this BHAG (“Big Hairy Audacious Goal” as one General Supt. puts it). It’s just too scary, personally threatening, and off-putting to get their minds around anything representing such an impact for Christ.
Finally, I’m old enough to remember the Herald’s 1960′s era editor, George Smith’s motto, “By All Means Save Some!” So I just say let’s just do that, by all means!
Great post!
Javipa,
We certainly need more people who care about mission, so I will pray that your passion is infectious. To borrow from you – by all means, let’s do something!
In His grip.
Thanks for the prayer, I need it!
This lady in the church asked me to prayer for her. Of course I told her I would. Then she says, “Good. I need the prayer, and you need the practice.” Whah!!! LOL!
I am late in finding this thread, however, the problem of non-growth is as current as your most recent heartbeat. I believe the non-growth problem belongs 99% of the time to the pastor because of his/her lack of leadership, vision and passion for the lost. Leadership can be taught/learned. Vision can be developed. Passion is the result of a heart yearning to help others enter into a relationship with Christ.
People in my church have said to me they wish our pastor would lead us into growth and not just be concerned about expanding our building for a non-expanding congregation. Building facilities is not the same as building the Kingdom!
Let’s also be aware that our Universities do not teach leadership skills to our pastors-in-training. Our Universities are good at telling us “what to do” and fall way short in teaching the “how to do”. Most pastors I know learn leadership skills after graduation. Guys like Dr. John Maxwell, and many others, are filling the gaps our Universities and Seminaries willfully neglect. This must change.
Six years ago, I sat in a Board Meeting that lasted for 2 hours and not one time did we discuss ideas to increase our outreach effectiveness within our community.
I am embracing more firmly the idea that the most effective way to grow the Kingdom is to start new churches that are not hindered with worn-out traditions and total acceptance of the maintenance/survival model of operation.
God help us in these last days.
PepsiKid
PepsiKid,
The COTN needs a lot more than new churches.
It’s entire organizational structure is a maintenance-oriented, command-and-control enterprise where imagination and vision are hardly manifest as anything more than a book title.
Look around the church and see who the denomination holds in high esteem. Are any of them known for substantial church growth?
Are any pastors/churches, domestic or foreign, that experience substantial (or even wild) growth (there are some) celebrated as models?
If you cite one, then this is by accident and anecdotal at best.
The COTN is today just a grossly politically correct, flaccid enterprise, that instead of leading itself as a instrument of God’s salt and light into the world, is just light, and not enough salt to make a difference in “taste”. It takes no risks, makes no public stands, keeps it head covered, and is now giving way to the “emergent church” heresy, just to add insult to injury.
Beyond that, the arrogance and terrible resistance to anything that cannot be reduced to a manageable system is ignored, or even rejected. This isn’t new, but if you want to see something happen in the church…it’s going to have to start with you and me in our local church (if it’s functional enough that we don’t get kicked out!)
Otherwise, waiting for the general COTN to make things work is like waiting for a run-down clock to rewind itself. First, it can’t, but second, it doesn’t want to.
I hope I don’t sound too negative, it’s just that for 30+ years I’ve witnessed the COTN seemingly appear to slowly collapse of it’s own importance and self-regard.
Now, of course, we can’t expect a church led by a supreme committee (as opposed to a single, strong leader) to ever move out of that box can we?
I would LOVE to be proven wrong.
So probably the best thing to do is support the local pastor we can find who…
* Wants to work (not all do).
* Grow his church (not all do).
* Is not obsessed by his own importance.
* Has little reverence for anything other than the desired results.
* Is capable of casting a vision.
* Isn’t afraid of using his imagination.
* Will model himself after those who are accomplishing already what he envisions for his own ministry (not all do or will).
And here’s some more practical ideas:
Have the pastor appoint and assemble his own church board constituted from those actually in like businesses (ministries), not made up of those with little more to offer than some money and being available.
That’s just not enough expertise and qualification to do more than provide a nearly predictable “veto” pen to an ad-hoc group of hacks, who wouldn’t normally be considered competent/skilled enough to serve on anything but a non-profit board in the first place. There’s a reason that church boards get a bad name.
The wrong folks are on them.
Churchman,
Your post is interesting to me because my 30+ years of ministry experience has enabled me to see most of what you mentioned in your post. I don’t view this as you and I being negative. Seeing weaknesses is a positive examination because seeing the problem is half the solution to the problem.
I agree with your assessment that our church needs a makeover. I think the General Church moves too slowly but that may be because I tend to think, move and explore like a Wave Runner instead of an Aircraft Carrier. This causes some grief, however it also leads to exciting discoveries and ministry events.
I think we need to examine the General Leadership’s role and responsibility for our denomination and then compare that with the local church’s role and responsibility. They are not the same. If the General Church is the Aircraft Carrier then the Local Church is the Wave Runner. These roles are vastly different yet complimentary and co-dependent. We need each other!
My experience (and I believe history reveals this as well) teaches the most effective life-changing, church transforming ministries begin within the Local Church. Your statement “…if you want to see something happen in the church…it’s going to have to start with you and me in our local church…” is absolute truth. Grassroots ministry is most productive because we are engaged in hand-to-hand combat while our General Leadership is sitting in the war-room talking about what need be done to motivate the Local Troops. Some of our General Leaders have told me they struggle with how to re-connect with the people in the pews. Serving at that level separates them from the people they are trying to lead.
I’ve been told it is easier to start a new church than to re-start a stale, stagnate, stubborn church. Some churches hold on to fruitless traditions and methodologies defending them has sacred and holy. At the same time they are quick to reject new ideas without trying to understand or appreciate the creative new life they represent. It seems they would rather breathe in the smoke filled air than to walk over to the window and take in life-giving, clean, fresh air.
I am reading “Unleashing Courageous Faith – The Hidden Power of a Man’s Soul” by Paul Coughlin. I recommend you read this book as well. It is painfully refreshing.
So, Churchman, what are we to do?
I see two choices:
1) We can continue to discuss the problems until we tire. OR
2) We can begin to discuss solutions until our local Wave Runners are transformed or until we are excommunicated.
Since it is up to you and me, what is our first step to leading our local church into the uncomfortable realm of transformation?
I realized the teens in my youth group were not in a position to change their homes into Christian homes since many of their parents were not Christians. So I told them to modify Joshua’s declaration to Israel to: “As for me and my ROOM, we will serve the Lord.”
What is our first step? Will we allow the Holy Spirit to use us to transform a “room” in our local church?
Transforming the local church may be too large a task, so maybe we should start with brainstorming ideas to help someone in our church to move toward personal transformation. Then we two will be three.
Holy Spirit, lead us in these last days.
PepsiKid
PepsiKid,
Great post!
I’m not sure if I can respond to all you wrote, except to add some feedback. I have seen some light at the end of the tunnel.
The last two Generals I’ve heard speak have been very frank about the condition of the church. One of them declared that he didn’t want to be a general that presided over a declining denomination. Man!
Another one gave an honest assessment of where the church was/is, and a challenge to do “something” to turn things around.
These were challenges to the local pastors and laity to bring some life/growth back into the church using some imagination (including prayer, fasting, and plain old witnessing, eeewwwe! j/k).
Even though the appeal was somewhat clunky, and revealed the dearth of understanding about what to do, at least it was a challenge. So, it’s not that nobody wants to wind the clock back up, as it were.
************
Do we realize that nobody, except for our favorite son, James Dobson, has a national presence or media recognition. And nobody knows Dobson is/was a Nazarene.
Everybody knows who the Mormons are. Where do you think all these folks are getting the TV bibles from? Or learning about “the savior?” From Mormons, yes.
Why aren’t at least our regional Nazarenes buying air time for our local pastors so they can get the message of entire sanctification on the air, and raise the awareness for our local churches? Just asking.
Again, nationwide, our denomination effectively has zero public media presence. We’ve got some very good holiness preachers, but few, if not none of them is nationally known. A couple of the generals are tremendous communicators. Why don’t we hear them on national radio or TV?
We’re engaged in overseas missions’ media. Why doesn’t this happen domestically?
For example, why isn’t the San Antonio radio market, to pick one, populated with programming featuring the good preachers all across that region, or nationally?
How about Chicago, Los Angeles, or Seattle? We are nowhere with the message of holiness, except for a few loners out there that are doing it on a shoestring in no-man’s land with no network of help.
What’s interesting, is that the few preachers who do manage to get on the radio in these small towns, become recognized locally and their churches tend to grow accordingly.
Everybody likes to go to the church where everybody else likes to go to church. And these are frequently the same places that everybody knows the preacher. Just saying.
That’s all I got for now.
Good post.
Just heard a “harvest’ report about our missionary work in Africa (Sudan) areas.
Our missionaries have been showing the Jesus Film all over East Africa (99.5% Muslim) and seeing conversions at levels not seen since the book of Acts was written!
Evangelism results may seem lackluster here in the U.S. by comparison, and are frustratingly anemic, but at least our missions money is making a wild difference in these 4th world areas.
We learned that there’s now over half-million new Christians and thousands of church plants, home churches, and outposts established as a result of Nazarene mission evangelism.
Sadly we’ve had 25 Nazarene missionary-preachers killed by Muslim radicals in recent months/years. Thankfully, even more people have responded to the gospel as a result!!!
It’s exciting to know that our missions money is making a difference this big — in the MOST UNLIKELY places.
Who knew God was still working like this today!?
Pingback: mission.vs.metrics | in.his.grip