My Photo

About Me

« The Gospel-Driven Church | Main | Must Have Accessories For Summer »

April 07, 2005

Comments

Mike Daling

Congratulations at your success in finding an answer to this question.

The problem with all of this is that 'maximum impact' is very relative to the situation one is in. Bob hinted at this about a week ago - and (provided this was actually what he was saying), he was correct. When you use the quote 'living things grow', I would answer with a hearty 'amen'. However, how the heck do you measure growth? We certainly would not say that it is limited to numbers (as you have said over and over again), but what other ways are there? At what point to we say, 'I have done my job today, I will work as hard as I can tomorrow as well, but this is ultimately left up to the Spirit'?

I am not certain that you are able to narrow it further than 'maximum impact sustained over the longest period of time.' The 'maximum impact' where you are is going to look very different than the maximum impact where I am. I think that most of us try for maximum impact - given that we all know of churches that do not even try. So, is the measure of 'success' found in sustaining? Probably not, but it is easier to pick out something that was not a success if it is not sustained.

Maybe the only way to evaluate 'success' in church is to evaluate what success is not. We are not a success if we are unable to establish relationships in the community. We are not a success if we fail to make disciples - and so on. This needs to be constantly evaluated, but I would ask you if you can ever see a time in ministry where you would look out and say, 'I have been successful' or 'this church is a success'?

KEVIN

Great stuff Mike.

Yeah, I have been trying to come to terms with a definition of "success" that will place a proper emphasis on "faithfulness". But, like all these things, faithfulness is quite difficult to quantify.

Your point on the role of the Holy Spirit is also well taken, and is one that I have been trying to work with for a later post. Being "a community created by the Spirit" must always be at the forefront of our definition, or we will be an utter failure...and a man-centered arrogant one at that. As far as books on this topic go, I don't think I have read anything better than VanGelder's The Essence of the Church.

I think that "faithfulness", combined with "missional engagement" and "proactivity" (I'm still working on those categories) will bring us closer to be able to create some sort of evaluative rubric-- that will critique and encourage us, but never leave us packing up things early, because "I have been successful today". I think that the final analysis will always turn on
a) moving toward "success"
b) realizing that our efforts are not producing it.

Nate Iseman

This is a great question. I am new to the concept of Church planting and God has been doing some redical things in my life over the past year. I have recently pondered how a Chirstian should measure success in any endeavor. If I run a mile in under 4 minutes, am I more successful in His eyes? If my business has a profit of $1 million does that mean I have achieved success in God's eyes? To humans and to our culture, I would be wildly successful, but in God's eyes I would be no better. So in regard to church planting, if I plant a church that grows to 500 members in a year, what does that mean other than the church is a popular place to hang out? The more I think and write about this the more I think about what the early church did. They prayed for one another, broke bread together, lived the gospel, shared the gospel, knew fear and faced it, took pride in God not themselves. There must be some way we can look at action such as those I listed and determine whether or not we are doing those same things for the same reasons and be able to say that we are being (note the present tense) successful in a Church Plant....then again, how can we ever claim to be successful in anything when we are humans and to say we have no sin is make Christ a liar....I have thought myself into wreck...thank you, Kevin, for posing this perplexing question...I am sure I will be much more productive at work today now I will have thoughts, doubts and questions relating to success on my mind...

KEVIN

For those of you who don't know him, Nate (he prefers to be called "Nace") has become one of my best friends over the last year. Brother, however one defines "success" in friendship, you're light years ahead of most in being one.

As far as the questions you raise, we have to keep ourselves from blurring categories. I'm not talking here about defining what it means to be loved, accepted, or approved by God. This is a free gift of grace, in no way impacted by the fact that I can run a mile in half the time you do, or chop wood four times faster than you.

Regarding the examples you have raised, if someone can beat you in a foot race (consistently, let's say), then they are clearly a better runner. Those that played football at the Division I level are clearly more "successful" athletes than I am (as are those who experienced greater success than I did at the D3 level).

All things being equal, if someone runs a store just like yours that doubles your profits, their store is more successful than yours...according to a definition of "success" from a business standpoint. This is not to say that the other guy is loved more by God. It may just say that he is lucky, or that he is genuinely more successful.

Now, what I'm trying to determine is this: Can we say that one church plant is more successful than another? And if so, on what terms? This is not to say that one team of people planting a community of faith is loved more by God, but it is asking the question-- are some groups "successful" where others are not (see Bob's latest comments here for some great steps in this direction).

Rob Merola

I enjoyed reading your thoughts about Buckinghams's definition of success. And actually, I think you hit the nail right on the head when you took that question to its next level: measurability.

Whatever model of church one is using, I think this is critical. And I think it is thoroughly Biblical and consistent with the teachings of Jesus, who does not hesitate to use numbers (parable of the sower, parable of the talents, for instance) and does not hesitate to embrace objective standards (ie, fruitfulness, a concept which fascinates me as a gardner).

It seems to me that humans naturally count what they care about. Kids who hate math can tell you the batting avgs of their favorite baseball players; fisherman tell you how many they caught and how big; couples count how many years they've been married.

So the big question is: what does a faithful Christ follower count? What standards let a church know she is living into her full redemptive potential?

All of which is to say that I don't think your post necessarily ended up where it began, and may even suggest a possible direction in which to continue.

Rhonda Harrison

Pertaining to measurement, how about a scale of 1-10 and comparing to progress that you are pursuing and not some other church plant. This would allow you to measure progress as time progresses and to evaluate how far you have moved from the starting point.

For instance a goal could be to impact the community by talking to 20 people and asking a particular question. At the end of that week scale the # of people talked to according to diversity, receptivity, ect. Next, scale the question asked according to relevence, interest, ect. Do this for four weeks and evaluate the entire process as to impact and direction for the future. I think this could be valuable in pointing out misconceptions, anamolies, distorted statistics/expectations Just some brainstorming

Rhonda Harrison

Pertaining to measurement, how about a scale of 1-10 and comparing to progress that you are pursuing and not some other church plant. This would allow you to measure progress as time progresses and to evaluate how far you have moved from the starting point.

For instance a goal could be to impact the community by talking to 20 people and asking a particular question. At the end of that week scale the # of people talked to according to diversity, receptivity, ect. Next, scale the question asked according to relevence, interest, ect. Do this for four weeks and evaluate the entire process as to impact and direction for the future. I think this could be valuable in pointing out misconceptions, anamolies, distorted statistics/expectations Just some brainstorming

The comments to this entry are closed.