Wendy emailed me a very interesting article today. "How to Measure Viability" by Thomas Bandy discussed how to measure the viability of churches and when to decide it is time to “pull the plug on them.” In the article, Bandy argued that “many regional judicatories are being held hostage by non-viable churches” and that “most viable churches have distanced themselves from the denominations.” (I'm quoting from it because it isn't available on the web.)
Since I’m committed to spending the next two years working intensively with my presbytery as Moderator-Elect and Moderator, that assertion really got my attention. I think there is a lot of truth in it and that is a real problem because those viable churches are the ones that can provide the resources and example that the “less viable” or “ non viable” churches need.
Since I’m committed to spending the next two years working intensively with my presbytery as Moderator-Elect and Moderator, that assertion really got my attention. I think there is a lot of truth in it and that is a real problem because those viable churches are the ones that can provide the resources and example that the “less viable” or “ non viable” churches need.
Bandy suggests that a leader of a church must give three years of effort devoted to trying everything possible to help a “non-viable” church grow. If within 6 months after the end of that time at least 3 out of the 5 following criteria are not realized, then it is time for the pastor to move on and for the judicatory to close the church:
• Net increase of 20 percent of the adult members in serious, partnered midweek, spiritual growth disciplines that include daily Bible reading, intercessory prayer for strangers, intentional conversation about God, increased financial giving at least 3 percent above the average weekly gift to the church and perfect worship attendance (except for reasons of health).
• All (100 percent) of the board members can publicly, individually articulate the answer to this key question: What is it about my experience with Jesus that this community cannot live without?
• The average number of newcomers or visitors in attendance at weekly worship has increased by at least 10 percent.
• The congregation has staked significant money and volunteer energy (proportionate to its budget) on a signature outreach ministry towards a micro-culture not currently represented in the church;
• At least 10 lay members have separately and individually come to the pastor without any outside encouragement or announcement to declare their readiness to do whatever it takes to follow Jesus in mission…and agreed to pray together for the resurrection of the church.
Those are some very specific criteria. I think Bandy’s emphasis on spiritual development of the members, increase in visitor attendance and a proportionate commitment to mission outside the congregation are the keys to success of any revitalization effort.
Many of us in church leadership have resisted setting objective measures of success in this area, fearing that to do so seems to limit God’s grace and power to transform. Bandy argues that his criteria are not measuring God, but our faithfulness—or lack of it. Indeed if we agree to judge others by this criteria, we will be judged by it ourselves. And maybe we’ll be found lacking, too. It is too tempting to exclude ourselves from this judgment.
Ouch! Jesus had something to say about that:
Many of us in church leadership have resisted setting objective measures of success in this area, fearing that to do so seems to limit God’s grace and power to transform. Bandy argues that his criteria are not measuring God, but our faithfulness—or lack of it. Indeed if we agree to judge others by this criteria, we will be judged by it ourselves. And maybe we’ll be found lacking, too. It is too tempting to exclude ourselves from this judgment.
Ouch! Jesus had something to say about that:
... how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.
Luke 6:42.
9 comments:
Thanks for this post! I like the criteria. I think this gives some helpful advice for how to think about this.
Wow. Six months is not a very long time. I shudder to think how many churches would not measure up.
And this would be especially painful for a mega church that didn't meet all criteria. A big one that had gotten smaller, but still represented a large percentage of per capita giving. Could be painful.
Then on the other hand, I'd want to know which churches DID measure up so I could go join one and be challenged to grow further myself.
Interesting. I, too, like the emphasis on spiritual development.
Would like to read that article.
That said, I'd like to know what the criteria are for 'non-viability'. Lack of growth, etc.? Is 'non-viability' influenced by geographical location(small rural or historic inner-city church)? Smaller congregations in older historic urban church buildings often keep going due to large endowments despite declining membership. Or, the inability to call a pastor who wants to work w/that size church possibility of no gain.
Or, there may be declining churches that hold to the same theological stance as the judicatory and, therefore, are left alone and it's actually the large growing churches of the opposite theological stance who are treated as 'non-viable'.
QG - I find I do not like this rubric because it is measuring God. Yes, there are certain spiritual sounding criteria, but the bottom line is a numbers gain.
Membership losses, or indeed failure to increase often do signal a problem. However, it is God that gives increase. Our programs, however innovative, do not.
I have seen too many instances of, for example, targeted marketing - that are absolutely at odds with the New Testament. I have also seen the exponential (I believe only temporary) growth of 'ministries' that offer novelty and weak (IMO wrong) theology. Health and wealth gospel, for example, is always a large draw. Living in TX, you get to see some of these up close and personal.
Don't get me wrong - I don't believe presbyteries can perpetually sustain moribund congregations, but adding a criteria of this kind doesn't seem to me to take all things into consideration. There have been times when, for example, being faithful, results in lower attendance - when a congregation refuses to tell people what they want to hear. If (as Protestants) we believe our own history (and it isn't solely propaganda), we'd be forced to conclude that often minorities are more faithful to Scripture. Yes, we tend to focus on the numeric successes like Luther - but what of Hus, or countless others who were simply the persecuted fringe? Or, for that matter, what of the dissenting (confessing) church in Germany - clearly they were less numerically successful, but few would argue that they were not, in fact, right.
Similarly, demographic issues sometimes have an effect that is beyond the control of the congregation. These may necessitate closing a church, but I'm not sure that this is the best approach.
Good discussion, everyone. As I understand the entire article, the criteria is to be applied only AFTER an all-out 3 year effort at revitalization. Maybe Wendy can shed some light on this.
Bandy doesn't define "nonviable" or "viable" in the article. Those of you who commented about how those terms could be applied made good points.
I think that a nonviable church is one that is not self supporting--it could also be a church that is so internally conflicted that it cannot function and requires repeated intervention from a judicatory.
While I understand Will's point, we cannot use the "God's in charge" argument to dismiss human efforts in nurturing the faith community.
The recent report on growing congregations by the Hartford Seminary made the point that cause and effect should not be assumed; they reported correlations.
I think we all have some sense of what a "viable church" looks like: Clear beliefs, member involvement, a thriving CE program, and so forth. But are these causes or effects? Or are they coincidences? Personally, I think coincidence is not the explanation, and I tend to fall on the "effect" side of the discussion, while recognizing that the spiritual disciplines that I see as effects can also serve to cause further spiritual growth.
It sort of reminds me of the question "Was Paul right or was James right?" To which the answer is an unequivocal "YES!"
I suspect no small church would meet his criteria of viability, and certainly no church with members on the lower side of the income spectrum. I realize the criteria are given in terms of percentages, where do you draw the line on self-supporting viability? Would he consider a house church, or a church with part-time ministry, "viable" or would their size automatically mean that is not the case?
Finally, his criteria are incredibly extroverted. Is the contribution of a person who is not readily able to speak about faith, but who is the church's faithful soup kitchen coordinator, not a sign of the church's viability?
Perhaps the UCC is not a good comparison to your situation, since we do almost nothing to underwrite other churches aside from a few grant opportunities. But I don't see how a church such as Small Church, which is vital in many of the ways Bandy enumerates, but still numerically small, could be a drag on anyone. Context, context, context. (Much like location, location, location.)
The Bandy article is available in the Sept/Oct 2006 edition of Net Results. Online, if you're a subscriber,
here.
I think he's right on ... he says later in the article that there could be very faithful churches who are not viable ... I think that's an important distinction. Some congregations are viable but not faithful; some are faithful, but not viable. Most, however, I dare to say, are not either ... they are faithful to a tradition, to a history, to a practice ... but they are not willing to go deeper and broader, like Bandy suggests.
I have seen this somewhere before.
But I think it can take up to 6 years frankly with the really nonviable churches. Would love to read the whole article.
Thanks for sharing this.
I wish you well as the moderator with these kind of churches.
Post a Comment