;)
Painting By The Numbers: Should Statistics Shape Ministry?
Posted by Cyle Clayton in Uncategorized
I paint, not well, but I paint. Some people were over at the house for a Christmas party and three of them were admiring one of my better works. Most of what I paint, I hide, but I liked this one. I felt inspired when I painted it, so I was enjoying their admiration.
I learned how to do research and how to analyze the research of others from a behavioral psychologist. He taught me that numbers are just numbers. The same data, especially when gathered from subjective sources like surveys, can be used by two people to present opposing conclusions. So, while numbers don’t lie, they also don’t tell the truth. Case in point: polls showed Huckabee would lose Iowa and Obama would win New Hampshire.
Remember the painting? One of the guys asked, “You painted this?” Smiling, I replied, “Yes, I did.” Another guy said, “Wow, that’s good. I can’t even see the numbers.” Ha, ha, big laugh. I DON’T paint by the numbers. I am an “arteest.” I wonder if, in this age of research, statistics, and surveys of the unchurched, we are doing ministry by the numbers rather than by inspiration?
Thanks to George Barna, the church today exists in an age of research. For 20 years, Barna used surveys, statistics, and analysis in an attempt to reform the church into the disciple-making organism it is supposed to be. Our own convention has great researchers (Thom Rainer and Ed Stetzer). All in all, I think their research is balanced and has been helpful. However, twenty years of research guided ministry hasn’t produced a turnaround. As a matter of fact, it has had some negative impact, especially on the ministry leaders who read all of it.
In almost every case, ministry by the numbers accuses the church and excuses the unchurched. Stetzer surveyed unchurched people and found that they didn’t know who Jesus really was, but thought highly of him; they see the church as it is, and they don’t think highly of it. So, he and Mark Kelly determined that the church is the problem, and it must change so that people will think highly of it. That is painting by the numbers, not by inspiration.
The general concensus of Christian researchers is that when people don’t think highly of the church, the church must change. Jesus said the world would not think highly of us. Unchurched people are, by definition, not in favor of church. If they were, they’d go to church. The Jesus most people believe in is respected by most people. The real Jesus, however, is rejected by most. Churches that are designed by the real Jesus are filled with love and truth. Most define love as unlimited acceptance. Inspired churches love people, but they also love them truthfully. Jesus loves as where we are, and He loves us too much to leave us where we are. That concept is not embraced by the unchurched. In inspired churches, members mutually submit to one another, and that is also not embraced by a culture that is increasingly self-determined.
So, here are my conclusions about doing ministry by the numbers; 1) it has contributed to innovation within the church and that is often good, 2) the underlying assumption that the church is always to blame has contributed to pessimism and discouragement within the church, and that has contributed to the dropout rate, and 3) priority must be given to doing church by the inspired Word rather than by the numbers, even if that means being displeasing to an increasingly unchurched culture.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Cyle,
As I understand what you are saying, I agree with your main premise: we have a tendency to get enamoured with statistics, and make that our main point of reference, rather than God’s Word and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
However, in the interest of seeking the correct balance here, I want to play the devil’s advocate a bit, and defend the view from the other side.
In the way we “do church,” there are certain aspects that are essential, and that are non-negotiable, if we are to be faithful to Scripture. However, there is also a good bit that is merely a result of cultural trappings and historical accident.
If, as Scripture teaches us, we are to be all things to all men in order to win some; and, some of the “cultural trapping” and “historical accident” aspects of the way we “do church” are putting up barriers to “reaching some,” in the name of biblical faithfulness, we need to be willing to be flexible. I believe that statistics, inasmuch as they help us identify some of these aspects, can be helpful.
As a cross-cultural missionary, I must constantly exegete Scripture, and exegete culture as well. If not, I will likely find myself trying to plant churches that are irrelevant (at least, in some aspects) to the people segment with which I work. I believe that the same principle holds true to ministry in the States as well.
Cyle,
Good post and thoughtful point. At the same time, I sort of agree with David. If we are “doing” church according to the Word, then we will be making every effort to contextualize the message in such a way that it more effectively reaches our “target” group … the lost.
David, it does, indeed,apply here in the U.S. as well. In the short six-year life span of my church we have had time after time where people have moved in to our community (sort of a “parachute drop” into our culture) and tried to “show” us how we are doing things “wrong.” I fear that I am on the edge of dealing with one of those situations right now. In essence, these kind, well-intending people have wanted us to reform our model of church in such a way as to resemble their model back home. But what “works” and what church “looks like” in suburban Chicago, Louisville, Atlanta, Miami, or Orlando simply will not “fly” here in rural western Kentucky. We have to use good sense and a healthy dose of common sense if we intend to minister with relevance.
I fear that so much of what we deal with in Southern Baptist life … when we hear folk proclaiming that we need to rid ourselves of all this “newfangled” stuff and get back to doing church in the good, old-fashioned Bible way … is simply a way of saying everyone should be doing church the way they do. And that is something that we must avoid at all costs. (Obviously, Cyle, I’m not saying that about you … our models of church are almost identical.)
It takes churches of all types, personalities, and flavors to reach all of the people of our nation (or even the world). The one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter approach simply is not good enough.
Did I chase a few rabbits, or what?
David,
I don’t think you’re playing devil’s advocate. I think you’ve stated it well.
I was thinking about an old fashioned balance scale, the type with two pans suspended on small chains on either ends of a long arm that floated on a fulcrum. Where do we place the balance? Should it be perfectly balanced between the two sides, should it be heavier on the side of culture (the numbers), or on the side of scripture (inspiration)?
I would like to contribute Acts 5:13-14 to the discussion. “…but the people esteemed them highly. And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women.” The church was clearly attractional in the early pages of acts, yet without compromising the message of the gospel. The primary method of outreach that the early church engaged was the healing of the sick. It appears to me that they were meeting the very practical needs of the community around them and the result was great interest in the gospel.
Cyle,
I think the illustration of the balance scale applies well. Following through with that, if you can show me from Scripture that how I am “doing church” is not faithful to God’s design, then that trumps everything else. The balance should be heavier on Scripture. But, once we are clear on the basic requirements of church from a Scriptural standpoint, there is still plenty of room for flexibility on the cultural standpoint. The problem comes when we disagree on what is Scripture and what is culture. If you are imposing your cultural biases on me, and trying to pass it off as Scripture, then I believe I am justified in standing up to you, and calling your bluff. And, a whole lot of what we do, when we “do church,” is just cultural preference. That is why I appreciate so much the efforts of some to think objectively and radically about ecclesiology. We are being encouraged to do this, for instance, in the IMB. Some bloggers that I read, and who do this well, in my opinion, are Alan Knox (http://assembling.blogspot.com) and Guy Muse (http://guymuse.blogspot.com).
I particularly like number three. I don’t see enough of that in churches today.
But while we’re on the subject, “Lets fire the pastor/music minister/youth guy because the numbers are dropping off in his area of ministry.”
One of the things we often leave out of any discussion of ‘church growth’ is that this approach leaves the back door wide open. God adds to the church those who are being saved, not programs, initiatives, or roundups–however well intentioned. I think we SBC’ers are at least guilty of denying that idea when we think ’40 days of Purpose’ or whatever other program we’ve bought into has anything to do with growth.
The second problem is that we have wrongly defined growth for so long that we forget it’s actually supposed to be ‘Christian maturity’ rather than how many we had in Sunday School or the number of contacts and Baptisms we get to report on the ACP.
Geoff,
Yep, you and I do church similarly and rurally, and that’s not necessarily what works in the urban north. I agree with that.
Dave,
I knew Acts would come up. I was thinking about the context of this verse. The people were attracted to them after Ananias and Saphira were struck dead, and as the apostles worked many signs and wonders. Maybe we need a few lying church members struck dead to kick off a healing crusade
I agree to an extend with what you say. They were meeting the practical needs of the community around them, to a point. The feeding and caring ministry of the church was primarily focused on its own widows (Acts 6).
To all,
I still think we’re too trendy and I think that is driven by the idea that being all things to all people is of utmost importance. The focus is almost always, “What new thing can we do?” I think the focus should be, “What old thing can we do?”
What about the issue of discouragement? Look, when I read all the statistics, and I look at who we are and where we live, I can get pretty discouraged, and so do most of the other pastors I talk to. A guy down the church who has almost nothing going at his church has read Simple Church. He told me they were going to streamline, to make it simple. Look, he can barely get people to come on Sunday and Wednesday, has no other outreach ministries, but he’s going to do simple church and cut back so people can have more time to be involved in the culture. I think that’s trendy. It doesn’t sound very inspired.
By the way “a guy down the church” was supposed to be “a guy down the road.” I’m in a rush. I’m headed to the library to read Winnie The Pooh to kids in between making hospice visits on my day off from the church. I know, Roger, I need to get a life, but I am engaging my culture.
It is the responsibility of each generation to study the scriptures anew and determine the best ways to (1) evangelize people in its culture and (2) enable God’s people to worship in their own idiom. (And by the way, by its very definition lost people cannot worship God because true worship is Spirit-led [1 Cor 2:14-16].) Simply following a tradition will not suffice in an ever-changing society. The constant and unmovable factor is the eternal Word of God. The task remains the same and has not change: evangelize the lost and disciple the saved. How that task is fulfulled effectively in each culture and generation will not be determined by tradition, but by the wisdom that God gives to each generation of believers who approach Him themselves and ask Him (Jas 1:5). It’s a cop out simply to ride the tradition of the past, and it probably won’t be very effective.
To counter your mention of Simple Church, I’ll counter you with a mention of Organic Church by Neil Cole.
Seriously though, I’ve been reading Organic Church this week. After I got over the irony of reading a book (seed substitute) that exhorts its readers to not use seed substitute as its source of ministry philosophy, I found this book struck a chord with me.
I’ll admit that I’ve read blogs and books that had a certain type of coolness and edginess to their philosophies and approaches to ministries that appealed to my pride. To be blunt, those things won’t fly in my working class ex-suburban context.
So where should I go for cool ideas for my context?
The parables about the soil found in Mark 4 can tell me a lot about my local context. Where is the good soil in my context? What can happen overnight in my area that can only be attributed to God?
I’m still chewing on this, but I think the major thing I get from this book is that while I’m examining the ground, caring for the ground, etc, I have to be careful to remember to SOW THE SEED.
Still wondering about the negative attitude toward church that seems to be so prevalent in every study about church growth that comes out now. It just seems that the underlying assumption is that if people don’t like church, church should change in a way that makes them happy. I’d like to see a follow up to Stetzer’s survey with the 80% or so who had a negative attitude about church. I’d like to see how many of those people had ever been to church. So much of what we talk about in “doing” church, has to do with what we do in our worship services or in our other attended events. Most people don’t have a clue about what we’re doing in our worship services. So, it may not be so much about changing what we’re doing when we gather together as a body of believers as it is about how we live when we leave our gatherings.
My fear is that we use the “numbers game” as an excuse to keep what we like & minsters to us, instead of doing what needs to be done to reach people. Maybe is sounds harsh, but I’ve too many people use the excuse to prop up their programs/needs & neglect real discipleship efforts. Maybe we need to remember that a church should be =intentional= in its focus, a focus that reaches the niche God called that church to reach. No church can be everything to everyone, but when it is only anything to its own =members= & the unchurched won’t give the Message a hearing because of the church’s Methods, there is a problem.
Ryan,
While there may be some practical reasons to focus on a niche, I’ve always found it difficult to reconcile “go into all the world” and preach the gospel to “all the nations” with niche churches.
Mega churches are not niche churches. The granddaddy of all “target group” churches is Saddleback and they offer something for just about everyone.
Look, we’ve spent ten years working to reach families with children, and we have. But, we had to work to do it together. We had to minister to the senior adults who are here as well. And, right now, we’re reaching as many 40 – 50 year olds as we are 20 – 30 year olds.
So much niche marketing sounds like exactly what we don’t want to do. I mean, when you design a church to please a niche, haven’t you just done what you were trying not to do? You changed so you could reach people, and in so doing, you’ve established a church that plays to that selfish motive. What makes any of us think that the people we’re reaching today will want to change in 10 – 15 years? Maybe the real issue is discipleship and not marketing.
Please don’t hear any harshness in my comments. I may be in disagreement with you, but I’m not trying to be disagreeable.
Ok, I think I was wrong. I think I had copped at attitude toward Ed and I’m pretty sure he and I are on the same page, perhaps in the same paragraph.
I’m in the middle of listening to Ed Stetzer talk at the Louisiana Bapist Convention evangelism conference. It’s being simulcasted. He’s talking about the 4 commisions.
[...] the time that has to do with the fact that the Jesus said the world would hate us (see my post at http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/01/18/the-impact-of-statistics-on-ministry/). Sometimes, though, we give them good reason to hate us. There’s salt. There’s [...]
I am probably the least worthy to post on here, but as a current parachutist I can say that when I hear people referring to “our culture”, I always think of this Bible passage.
Romans 12: 1-3
1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
3For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.
Granted many argue and are probably mostly correct in the fact that this applies to our human bodies, but I offer you the thought that it can also apply to the church body.
As I continue in the MBA program, we as a class have discussed the housing and economic crises in the U.S. many times and have come to the following hypothesis. “As our world gets smaller, our natural disasters get larger, gas prices and air fares continue to rise and our economy continues to weaken, more and more Americans will begin to move closer to their roots to be closer to family and have less travel expenses.”
I can testify to this because of where I work and have seen first hand how many people are parachuting into this country side society. The idea of “the way we do things here” went out the window the minute many, like my wife and I, decide that the country side is the best place, at least for us, to raise our kids. To explain part of the reason for our move, let me state the fact that my wife is part Cherokee Indian and even though the main reason for our move to this area was to start a youth camp, we also wanted to be closer to her roots in Ohio so that one day we can show our kids where she came from without having to take out a second mortgage so that we can afford the trip.
Continuing the thought process of this posting, I have to say that this thought of “our culture” only shows, at least to my wife and I, that a disconnect has happened between church and the community. The thought of church growth through programs and missions has me concerned with the possibility that the community has been placed in the back burner until the funds allow for a change.
I’ll be honest in saying that when I got out of the Army in 2001, we left our church in Georgia because of an interstate move and haven’t found a church like it through the years. There will always only be one of those, but we have been blessed to have found several churches with similar drives through the years and the moves. Granted the opening statement of this paragraph automatically leads many to believe that our main goal in life is to change the churches we go to so that it will fit our idea of a “perfect church” and I can tell you that it isn’t at all. This is simply an incorrect assumption and I learned in the Army that when you assume something, you are only making something out of “u” and me. This opening statement should only make one wonder why this particular church made such an impression in our lives. Any other thought process especially feelings of resentment towards our fond memories simply reveals to me a personal problem with pride.
The reason we have such love for this country church in Georgia is not because of their programs, music, etc. It is because of their heavy involvement in the community not caring who knew or even who noticed. It was such a Christ-like love for the community that not only would mountains be moved when there was need no matter how big or small, but the Holy Spirit was always there guiding us in His direction. That’s the agape love towards the community that we are constantly looking for. Agape by definition means to love, to be full of good-will and exhibit the same… to have a preference for, wish well to, regard the welfare of. It is my personal conviction to find a way to make a impact in the community first and the rest of the world second just as God will judge His community, meaning the church, first and the rest of the world second. I live by this military leadership statement and being in Christ’s army I feel it applies. “If you are going to talk the talk, then you better be ready to walk the walk.” It is time to start walking.
I choose to not publish my name, for it is not I who speaks the meat of this message but rather God who has allowed me the privilege to use my experiences to provide this posting.