Archive

Archive for the ‘Healthy Church Network’ Category

Subject to Change – 7

Last time, we discussed the second way a leader builds trust…through success. Let’s look at another way to bring this critical element of trust into our leadership efforts…

A third means by which trust can be achieved is personal transformation. Here, we have decided to trust our pastor because of the impact his or her ministry has had on our lives. In the work of making disciples, those who shape lives establish a powerful influence on the lives they have shaped. So we say, “Pastor, your efforts have changed us. So now, we trust you to change our church.”

Personal transformation builds the most powerful form of trust possible in a ministry relationship. You can see such impact modeled in the relationships Jesus shared with His disciples. After a few years of almost daily interaction with Jesus’ teaching and miraculous moments, the disciples were ready to be world-changers on His behalf. When His work in their lives was punctuated by His resurrection—a moment that made their own deaths look a lot less threatening—they circled the globe with His message, enduring death threats of their own and standing firm when those threats became reality. He had changed their lives so now they trusted Him completely.

Of course, personal transformation is no overnight achievement. In fact, of the four methods for building trust, this one likely takes the most time. But it’s also why most of us became pastors anyway. We want to make a difference, and the lives of people are where we really hope to make it.

To some degree, personal transformation can seem like a combination of the relationship and success approaches. It begins with a genuine commitment to the existing congregation—to grow them, serve them, and teach them to serve others. As that priority becomes clearer, then the people are strengthened to aid our pursuit of the church’s measures of success. When we feel loved and understood, we will roll up our sleeves with you, and that’s often where we find the life-change we’ve long desired for ourselves.

If you want to grow a church without growing it’s people, you’ll be found out soon enough. Selfish success stories seldom endure in the local church. Frankly, it’s hard to imagine God himself getting on board with such an agenda or allowing one of his local families to suffer one for very long. Congregations are rarely enthused about building a name for their pastor, especially if they get very little from the bargain themselves. I think we can assume God is on their side on that one. Instead, a pastor’s genuine desire to see his people discover life as its meant to be lived keeps the focus where it rightly belongs.

While personal transformation will usually prove to be the most powerful means of building trust, it can also be the most difficult to measure. Pastor’s presence alongside my hospital bed can prove he loves me and there are metrics we can use to identify or church’s successes, but how do I know when personal transformation is occurring? What measuring stick can we use to determine real progress and how can a pastor reach higher on that stick?

The answer is usually told in the stories we’re living.

Pastor, if you’re going to have this kind of impact on our lives, we need to see your passion for the lives we currently have. Regardless of the numbers in the sanctuary, we need to sense your heart for us, and the hope you have for what we can become. Some of us stopped dreaming a while ago and our family members haven’t mentioned our potential in quite some time. When you teach and preach in a way that says you believe in us and want to walk with us into our futures, we know you didn’t come to our church just to reach other people. You want to reach us too.

I love visiting Mt. Rushmore—that chiseled collection of granite presidential heads one can find amidst South Dakota’s Black Hills. As a huge Abe Lincoln fan, I can spend hours at any site where he is in focus. Add Washington, Jefferson, and Teddy Roosevelt, and you have more than tripled the attraction.

Why those four? Actually Gutzon Borglum, the original sculptor at Rushmore, rejected the first list of carving candidates suggested by the guy who dreamed of the monument in the first place. Lewis and Clark, Red Cloud, and Buffalo Bill surely impacted the West, but Borglum insisted on sculpting those who had made their mark on a wider scale. Good call. The four great men he chose had transformed a nation. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt had founded, expanded, and preserved this superpower and stood as symbols of its courage. As such, they are among the most trusted leaders in our nation’s history.

Who would be on Mt. Rushmore if it were your life we were celebrating? For me, the list is easy—my dad, my immigrant grandfather, my first pastor, and his young adult son. I won’t fill the pages it would require to explain how each of these men have transformed my life, but I can think of no one whose head should be carved on my life’s mountain ahead of theirs.

Now, seeing family members on that list shouldn’t be too surprising, but including my pastor and his son seem significant to this context. Actually Pastor Howard held that title in my life for twenty-six years and his ministry has certainly impacted the other thirty-one. He put my growth, and the life advancement of dozens of others ahead of any church growth agenda he might have harbored. His son lived the same way, leading me to my initial faith decision and becoming a valued mentor in my teen years. They, along with my dad and grandfather, shaped my life in ways I can’t fully describe. Rushmore’s reserved for folks like that.

Pastor, we can tell when that’s who you want to be for us. You know our names, remember chunks of our important stories, and help us target a destination for our futures. So you bring the passion and we’ll bring our very lives, and the stories such a merger will write could prove to be the best future our church can find. You may want to change the way we do church, but your greater goal is to change us more into what we really want to be. Frankly, we’ll be glad for you to change both.

 

Subject to Change – 5

A leader builds trust in one of four ways—relationship, success, unblemished integrity, or personal transformation. Let’s consider each of these, discover how they build a foundation for change, and identify how much change each will allow a pastor to achieve before the ice beneath his feet begins to crack.

First, trust is built through relationship.

This used to be the pastor’s wheelhouse. A new pastor would join his congregation, knowing that the best first step would be to engage the people, get to know them and the extending branches of their families, and understand their worlds from an up-close perspective.  Pastors once launched their ministries with plans for people rather than plans for change, believing they needed to walk in the former pastor’s shoes for a while before being certain of any new steps to take.

Sunday sermons and Sunday dinners, wedding rehearsals and their subsequent receptions, graduation parties, hospital visits, kids’ ballgames, family funerals—these, and other moments like them, prove to be the construction sites where a pastor’s relationships are built. Pastor’s influence in our lives is established by his presence in our lives. Experienced pastors understand that their preaching is a job requirement, but they really become “pastor” by their presence in the midst of life’s major moments, especially its crises. Preach a great series on the Beatitudes and folks will appreciate you, but sit in the Intensive Care Unit and hold their hand as doctors remove dad’s ventilator and your role in their family changes forever.

And, as that influence grows, trust grows as well. Through relationship, pastor has proven that he’s one of us. We’ve come to know him as he has prioritized knowing us. So we attach ourselves and our family’s spiritual futures to our pastor because we know him, we like him, and we trust him. Will we, then, let him direct changes in our church? Yes, at least to a point—the point that our relationship can withstand.

You see, when pastor has established healthy relationships with us, we come to believe that he understands us and our needs more fully. He does. So we are willing to trust his heart for us because he has proven that heart in our cemeteries and hospital wings. He’s laughed at our jokes and eaten blueberry pie in our dining rooms, so he has proven his commitment to us and we like him. Change? Go ahead, pastor, we trust you…to a point.

When your influence or leadership is built on relationship, we let you lead because we like you. But change too much or go too fast and we start liking you less. “You may have done an amazing job with grandma’s memorial service, but decide to discontinue my Sunday school class, and we’re back to square one!”

This “zeroing out” of the love bank often catches pastor by surprise and inflicts some of his deepest hurts. He’s caught off-guard when the family that he’s held together by the bailing wire of his late-night counseling efforts suddenly decides to leave the church.  He doesn’t understand how his long-time friend and fishing buddy withdraws his membership over last Sunday’s song selection or why the babies he’s held and slipped candy to for a generation now want the Associate Pastor to replace him.

Yes, at times we the people can be a bit fickle. We may sometimes allow our mole hills to become mountains you can’t climb, but there’s something we need you to understand. In a journey of change, relationship is essential, but it will only take you so far. If we let you lead because we like you and the changes you’re making lead us not to like you anymore, well, you can see that your recent withdrawals from our love bank have overdrawn your account. So we close it.

Funny thing about relationships, though, they won’t let you make a lot of change, but we won’t let you make any change without them. Making changes at church without first building relationships is like trying to cash a check when you’ve never made a deposit. If you do that, the bank teller’s going to frown at you, and shake her head until those horn-rimmed glasses fall from her ears.

Now, there are two modern realities that work against a pastor’s priority of making relationships. The first of these is the increasing size of today’s churches. A half-century ago, a pastor would typically arrive on scene and be welcomed by eighty to a hundred people, ready to launch life’s journey together. Today, that average has almost doubled and there are many places where the assembled well-wishers could fill the local high school’s gymnasium…twice. To build relationships with hundreds would be overwhelming. Keeping this size of a crowd happy requires a politician, not a pastor.

In the larger church, people soon figure out that close relationship with the pastor isn’t realistic. So we don’t expect him to officiate the kids’ wedding or show up at the clinic to pray before each colonoscopy. Instead, we like our pastor because he seems likeable—from a distance. We know him (or think we do) because of what he shows us in the pulpit. He’s kind because he seems kind. He’s smart because he sounds smart. He cares about us—you can tell that by the way he crafts each week’s benediction—but we really don’t know him. We may, however, know some people who know him, and they say good things.

In many larger churches, relationship isn’t a realistic means for building trust. Those pastors will have to look to one of the other two options we’ll consider in a moment.

The second reality is our principal subject in this chapter—time. Building relationships takes time, there really are no shortcuts. It’s this requirement that has many pastors growing impatient. They’re attending conferences where the latest idea looks like the perfect solution to an aspect of congregational weakness, and waiting a few months or even years to try it out doesn’t seem appealing.

When I first became pastor of our congregation in Wichita, a fellow pastor told me that I wouldn’t really be the pastor for the first five years I held the title. That’s about how long it takes to build the needed relationships to lead. He ruined my evening—several of them, in fact. I decided right there not to like that fellow pastor, and it had nothing to do with the fact that his congregation was six times larger than mine!

But he was right.

Relationship building is time consuming work. And pastors, especially those leading congregations of 400 or less, have no choice but to make that investment. You simply cannot lead change until you have proven your love and care for the people, and that requires you to live some life with them before launching us all forward onto new avenues.

But that doesn’t mean you can’t achieve some change until you’ve entered year number six. Change can be achieved more rapidly if you can work effectively with those in the church who currently possess the influence you haven’t had time to build. Often, those sitting around the deacon table or others among your leadership team have put in the time and proven their care for the congregation. If you can respect and value these friends, and learn to trust their sense of judgment and timing, you can make some earlier progress on the future—steps you could never successfully take on our own.

Still, even with the help of these friends, you need to be prepared to spend some time before we’ll trust you enough to let you determine our direction. Sheep follow their shepherd’s voice, and it takes a little while for that voice to become familiar—time spent bringing us to green grass and extricating us from life’s thorn bushes. We want you to lead us, but we need to be sure that you really know us before we can be sure that you know what is best.

Metrics That Matter – Part 1

NOTE TO MY REGULAR READERS: This week I am with Kansas Assemblies of God pastors, explaining these church health metrics. These five blogs are posted together for their benefit.

Numbers are a somewhat controversial topic when it comes to the local church. Some chase them, believing the size of the crowd will speak volumes about their own effectiveness. Others simply insist that Jesus wants to reach everyone, so everyone is the goal. Still others focus their energies on smaller gatherings, searching for an intimacy the crowd can seldom achieve. Church isn’t a numbers game, and yet it really is.

Okay, now that’s a confusing paragraph. But the life of the local church can’t be summed up in an attendance board or income statement. The so-called “nickels and noses” measures seem to be commonly used to evaluate churches, while we simultaneously insist there’s more to it than that. We want to insist that a healthy church is a growing church, and yet there are enough examples of unhealthy growth to give us caution. So how do you really measure effective local churches?

Like the annual trip to the doctor’s office for a physical, a real health evaluation is going to be comprised of multiple measures. You just can’t say you’re healthy if your weight is in line with your height. You don’t get a good health diagnosis for blood pressure either. There’s cholesterol to count and a heart rate to measure. And truth is, all these could be at perfect levels only to discover a cancerous tumor growing within. In truth, health measurement requires a number of inter-related measures.

Over the next few weeks, we’ll look at some of these. Taken together, they can provide a better picture of health than the simple chart of last week’s attendance.

  1. The AC ratio.

The AC ratio actually takes that attendance number (annual weekly average) and sets it over the number of conversions occurring each year. So if your church averaged 100 in attendance last year, and you saw 10 people choose to follow Christ in that same year, the math is fairly simple–Avg. Attendance / Conversions or 100/10, which equals 10.

What the AC ratio means is that for every ten people attending your church, one person became a Christian. Another way to say it would be, “it takes ten of us to lead someone to Christ in a year.” Now, we understand that ten of us didn’t actually target the same person over a twelve-month period, but you get the idea.

In church health circles, we can call the AC Ratio a measure of missional effectiveness. Since the mission Jesus passed to us is to make disciples, this metric gives us some insight into how we’re doing with that. So…how are you doing with that?

In the Assemblies of God in 2014, the AC Ratio across the United States among all 12,849 churches was 4.2. So, across our Fellowship, it took four of us to lead someone to Jesus. Back in 1980, the national AC Ratio was 5.5, so you can see that we’ve been more effective with this first part of our Great Commission assignment in recent years. However, this ratio may show us something about church size too. In 2014, churches under 200 it takes about six of us to produce a convert each year, while the average for churches over 400 in attendance hovers around three of us.

Now there are a number of factors to consider if we’re going to determine a “healthy” rate, but given the increasing U.S. population and the likely number of unchurched folks in your community, surely an AC of at least 5.0 should be achievable in most places–if we’re really trying to reach people.

It’s just one measure, but it’s an important one. There are, however, several others to consider if we’re going to get the full health diagnosis, so go ahead and calculate your AC Ratio, but stay tuned…

Metrics That Matter – Part 2

NOTE TO MY REGULAR READERS: This week I am with Kansas Assemblies of God pastors, explaining these church health metrics. These five blogs are posted together for their benefit.

Well, we’re back to the numbers game as we continue our look at the metrics that drive church health. Last time, we reflected on the “nickels and noses” measures of local church life, concluding that while more people and more money for ministry are good things, they aren’t truly the best measures of church health. Just because something is bigger doesn’t mean it’s better–that’s why some of us go to the gym a few times each week. If bigger was the goal, well, I’d eat more bacon.

2. The CW Ratio

Our second metric for consideration is called the CW Ratio or the Assimilation metric. With the CW Ratio, we measure annual conversions against annual water baptisms. Here we’re asking, “how many of our converts did we keep long enough to get them baptized?”

This is a measure of assimilation because it shows, at least in part, that we are connecting those we are reaching to the ministries of the local church at least long enough to help them take this important discipleship step. So, maybe we had a large outreach last year and saw 15 people come to Christ. Over the next few weeks (sometimes months), we want to measure how many of those 15 were effectively connected to the church. Unless you baptize at the outreach event itself, this number can help us see if we’re assimilating these new believers into the life of the local church.

Now certainly there will be additional measures for assimilation, but the CW Ratio is a great way to see if our efforts are solely evangelistic, or if we’re achieving some real discipleship goals. Some churches report hundreds of conversions each year and yet their attendance only grows by a handful, if any. Why? Apparently we’re either over-reporting our conversions or we’re not doing a great job of connecting with folks after the “altar event.”

In 2014, U.S. Assemblies of God churches baptized one person for every 3.4 converts reported. That means we helped fewer than 1/3 of our converts take this essential step. Is that good enough? Probably not. For purposes of health, we have set a CW Ratio of 3.0 as a healthy target. That means we must see at least 1/3 of our converts baptized. Now some might think we should baptize 100% of our converts, and it’s hard to disagree with such thinking. But some of those converts may have been from other communities. Others may have attended an outreach, but haven’t made it to a worship service yet. So, 1 of 3 seems to be a minimum goal, but if you can achieve a CW Ratio of 1.0, we’ll rejoice with you!

Interestingly, smaller congregations report lower CW Ratios than larger churches. For example, in 2014, AG (US) churches under 200 in weekly attendance reported a CW Ratio of less than 2.5 while churches over 700 showed a CW Ratio of more than 5.0. Why the difference? Remember that larger churches report a much higher rate of conversions, and likely find it more difficult to maintain contact, even with these that have taken their first life-changing step. It’s a challenge, but one to which larger churches are giving increasingly more focus. Over the past decade, these largest of our churches are seeing their CW Ratio slowly decline (a good thing).

Want to do better with baptisms? Try offering more opportunities for baptisms. Also, look for ways to shorten the gap between the conversion moment and the chance to step into the water. You might also consider explaining this next step while you are in the altar with the new believer. In fact, that’s a good approach in all areas. With every step someone takes in their faith, help them understand the next step so they can chart a consistent course for their lives. As one pastor said, “Do all you can to ‘keep them moving forward’ so you can help people become more firmly planted in their faith.”

Metrics That Matter – Part 3

NOTE TO MY REGULAR READERS: This week I am with Kansas Assemblies of God pastors, explaining these church health metrics. These five blogs are posted together for their benefit.

Once again, we continue our look at the metrics that drive church health. As we have seen, the “nickels and noses” measures of local church life aren’t truly the best measures of church health. Just because something is bigger doesn’t mean it’s better. If bigger was always better, then doctors would stop bugging us about expanding waistlines.

But what is better? We’ve already looked at missional effectiveness and assimilation ratios. These have shown us how we’re really doing at doing the job Jesus gave us to do. How many of us does it take to reach someone with the Gospel each year? Are we maintaining contact with those converts long enough to get them into the waters of baptism?

3. The AW Ratio

Today, let’s combine those two previous metrics into a “kingdom growth” ratio.

We call it the AW Ratio because it measures our average attendance against the number of people we have baptized in a year. If we have 100 people attending our church each week and we baptize 10 people in a calendar year, then our AW Ratio is 100:10 or 10:1. Make sense?

Here’s why it matters. In our attendance-driven focus in the local church, a growing church can result from a number of possible factors. Chief among these can often be transfer growth–people start coming to our local church that we’re previously attending another local church. So we have more people and their old church diminishes a bit, a net gain for our local church but no movement forward for THE Church.

Now, church transitions such as these happen all the time. The result often makes the expanding church feel more effective, after all they have more noses to count and more apparent evidence of success in their ministry efforts. Now, we could say a lot about the long-term stability of transfer growth, but that’s not our point in this blog. Here, we’re looking at measurements, and we really want to measure another kind of growth–true KINGDOM growth.

So, are we growing by reaching new people–people formerly unchurched or those who have drifted away from a relationship with God? Are we achieving net gains for the Church, by engaging such folks and bringing them to Christ? Growing churches may insist that this is how they’re truly growing–that transfer growth isn’t driving their increasing attendances–but how do you know?

The AW Ratio is here to help. You see, most evangelical churches list water baptism as a requirement for membership. So those we are truly adding to the Church each year are those that are converted and baptized, thus becoming potential new members of the Church. Now, I’m not trying to mess with your theology. We know that at conversion an individual is adding to Christ’s kingdom, but it’s at the point of baptism that they are potentially added to membership in our local community of believers. So newly-baptized converts comprise the “non-transfer growth” of our local church.

So how are we doing with that?

Now, without getting too math technical and overburdening this blog with stuff many may not wish to read, let me briefly mention that the AW Ratio is actually found by combining our two previous metrics–the AC and CW Ratios. In simplest form, the AW Ratio is the product of those other two ratios so:

AC x CW = AW

So let’s say you have a church of 90 people and you had 18 new converts last year. That means your AC Ratio is a healthy 5.0, because 90/18 is 5. Then lets say that you baptized 6 people in that same year, so your CW Ratio is a healthy 3.0, because 18/6 is 3. That means your AW Ratio is 15.0, a number you can get by multiplying 5.0 and 3.0. You can also get the number by using the attendance and baptism numbers themselves (90 / 6 = 15). Make sense?

Here’s what you need to know. A healthy AW Ratio should be 15.0 or less. Frankly, if your AW is greater than 20, you’re likely not reaching enough new people to maintain the local church at its current attendance, at least not for long. Your attendance may be climbing, but if you’re not baptizing at least one person for every 15 in attendance each year, your growth is predominantly of the transfer variety, and that may not prove the healthiest long-term.

In our previous metrics blogs, we saw that in the U.S. Assemblies of God (our denominational group), small churches tend to struggle with the first metric and large churches struggle with the second. When you combine the two, the AW Ratios tend to be very similar, regardless of church size. The AW Ratios in 2014 were healthiest for churches between 50 and 400 in attendance (AW between 13 and 13.5). Churches under 50 and those between 700 and 1000 had the worst AW Ratios (almost 16.5) which tells us that many of these churches may have trouble sustaining growth into the future.

What is your church’s AW Ratio? Is it healthy? If not, which factor is the source of the struggle? Are you not reaching people or are you not keeping those you reach long enough to see them baptized?

The AW Ratio helps us keep the main thing in focus. We are to make disciples–not just grow churches! Remember that the kingdom of God is not about numbers. IT’S ABOUT STORIES! And it’s those individual stories, those journeys from sinner to baptized believer, that prove the health of our local church.

Metrics That Matter – Part 4

NOTE TO MY REGULAR READERS: This week I am with Kansas Assemblies of God pastors, explaining these church health metrics. These five blogs are posted together for their benefit.

Well, we’re back at it today. taking a look at the metrics that drive church health. As we have seen, the “nickels and noses” measures of local church life aren’t truly the best measures of church health. In fact, in the U.S. Assemblies of God today, a slightly higher percentage of large churches are plateaued or declining than are smaller churches.

So if bigger isn’t always better, what is better? We’ve considered a few metrics that measure things like missional effectiveness, assimilation, and true kingdom growth. These have shown us how we’re really doing at doing the job Jesus gave us to do. How many of us does it take to reach someone with the Gospel each year? Are we maintaining contact with those converts long enough to get them into the waters of baptism? Are we adding to the kingdom of God, or just to our numbers in a single local setting?

4. The CS Ratio

Next up, is a ratio that’s unique to and essential for the Spirit-empowered Church, one that measures how many of our converts are taking the next step of experiencing Spirit baptism. We call it the CS Ratio–or Conversion to Spirit-baptism ratio–and we insist that it’s truly a measure of both effective discipleship and mobilization.

Let me explain. In the Spirit-empowered local church, we first want to know the ratio of converts to Spirit-baptism because such a calculation will tell us how we’re doing at discipling our converts and guiding them to this critical experience. Like the Apostle Paul’s question of the Ephesian believers, “Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?” They hadn’t, but soon did receive–and we have the same goal for our converts.

So, this ratio measures our progress in leading our converts to this empowering relationship. Like our convert to water baptism ratio, we want to see at least a 4:1 result, allowing for the fact that our wider conversion net may “catch fish” that don’t normally swim in our neighborhood. If we’re effectively discipling the new believers that connect with our church, we’ll see them water baptized and Spirit-baptized, so we use a similar target ratio for both the CW and CS–in this case, 4 to 1.

But we can’t stop there. You see, someone might get excited if they discover that their CS Ratio is actually 2:1, or even almost 1:1. YES! We think. Because such a ratio would mean that nearly ALL of our converts are taking this important discipleship step. There is, however, a second side to consider with this ratio. Since Spirit-baptism was given to us principally to empower us for witnessing, shouldn’t growing numbers of Spirit-empowered believers lead to even more rapidly growing numbers of conversions? Spirit-baptized believers are fully equipped for significant impact in their families, their communities, and around the world.

That means a CS that’s too low may be telling us that we’re failing to mobilize the Spirit-empowered folks we have. Some churches treat Spirit-baptism as though the experience is their little secret or private possession. They celebrate the presence of the Holy Spirit inside their walls, but fail to connect with the true purpose of the encounter. So they shout and celebrate together, but limp their way from Monday to Saturday, seldom making an impact on the world around them. Such churches have a mobilization problem.

So, when we consider the mobilization side of things, we really don’t want to see a CS Ratio below 3:1. If the ratio moves below that threshold, we are likely discovering that many of our people are experiencing Spirit baptism, but the number of our converts aren’t being significantly affected. On the Day of Pentecost, 120 Spirit-empowered folks witnessed 3,000 conversions–on a single day! And that was in a culture just as hostile to our message as most of our communities, if not more so.

Ultimately, a healthy CS Ratio will likely land somewhere between 3:1 and 4:1. While some could argue the finer points of this target, it seems likely that this range will allow us to continue reproducing Spirit-empowered believers at a healthy rate–and that’s critical for the Spirit-empowered local church’s future.

The beauty of this ratio is that when our numbers are outside this range, we can determine if we have a discipleship problem or a mobilization problem. If the CS Ratio is higher than 4:1, we know ours is a discipleship need. We simply aren’t getting our conversions to this point in their discipleship journey. If we fail to do that, how long will ours continue to be a Spirit-empowered congregation?

And, if our CS Ratio is below 3:1, we know we must work to activate our people toward the reason God has given such power. We must mobilize them or they will continue to view this gift as something for their own private blessing.

In the U.S. Assemblies of God, smaller churches (under 200) have shown greater success with this ratio, keeping theirs near 4:1. But we’ve already seen that many of these churches aren’t producing converts at a healthy rate (AC Ratio), so this bit of good news might be a bit misleading. If many of these churches had healthy AC Ratios, they would likely have CS Ratios under 3:1, revealing a mobilization problem.

Large churches are on the other end of this challenge. In our largest churches (1000+), the CW Ratio is nearly 8:1, meaning that only 1 in 8 converts WILL EVER become Spirit-baptized at current levels of discipleship. Now, these churches see a very high level of conversions, so perhaps the message here is that the ministry emphasis has shifted so significantly to a conversion focus, that discipleship can’t keep up. No matter the cause, it’s difficult to imagine a church with a CS Ratio this high remaining a Spirit-empowered local church into the next generation.

For Spirit-empowered local churches like ours, the CS Ratio is a critical measure of health. If we’re not producing Spirit-baptized believers, what will our future truly be? The CS Ratio can help any size church take a close look at their effectiveness both in discipleship and mobilization. This number can reveal if we’ve become so focused on conversions and church growth that we’re missing true people growth or if we’re allowing our Pentecostal doctrines and practices to create a sub-culture in our congregation that makes little difference in its world. Either option will reveal unhealthy realities that, in time, will prove cancerous to our future as a Spirit-empowered force.

Metrics That Matter – Part 5

NOTE TO MY REGULAR READERS: This week I am with Kansas Assemblies of God pastors, explaining these church health metrics. These five blogs are posted together for their benefit.

Over the past few weeks, we’ve been taking a look at the metrics that drive church health. As we have seen, the “nickels and noses” measures of local church life aren’t truly the best measures of church health. In fact, in the U.S. Assemblies of God today, a slightly higher percentage of large churches are plateaued or declining than are smaller churches.

So what is healthy anyway?

For a Pentecostal congregation, it’s hard to argue against the priority of effective reproduction. After all, if the assignment is to make disciples and we, ourselves, are disciples, then reproducing ourselves or establishing others on our same path would seem to be the general idea. Of course, reproducing would also include multiplying ministries, congregations, and every other expression of disciple life we are living together.

5. The AS Ratio

Our next metric to consider seeks to measure exactly that. How are we doing with reproducing Spirit-empowered disciples? After all, if we don’t produce such people, from where will the next generation of Pentecostals find their missionaries, their pastors, their deacons? Since the experience of Spirit baptism is essential for roles of spiritual leadership, the local church must begin to measure how they are doing with the effort to produce such people.

Sadly, many churches struggle to find a sufficient number of leaders who meet these qualifications. Some meet in communities where pastor candidates don’t exactly line up. Others sweat through their annual business meeting preparations, wondering if someone qualified to fill an empty deacon slot will emerge. Let’s not forget the “out there” assignment either. Will we find Spirit-empowered people to send across the globe in the next generation? If we don’t reproduce Spirit-empowered disciples in our generation, the answer will get uncomfortable in a hurry.

The AS Ratio measures average Sunday attendance against annual Spirit-baptisms. In our last blog, we already learned how to measure discipleship and mobilization using a comparison of Conversions and Spirit-baptisms. When we elevate the focus to the entire congregation, we’re asking, “How many of us does it take to produce a Spirit-baptized disciple?” Frankly, if we’re not doing that sufficiently, then we won’t have the Spirit-empowered leaders available in the future.

Since we said that a healthy missional effectiveness ratio (AC) would be one annual conversion for every five attenders, and we said that a healthy discipleship/mobilization ratio (CS) would see one Spirit baptism for between 3 and 4 annual conversions, we can put these two together to find the AS Ratio. The formula works like this:

AC Ratio x CS Ratio = AS Ratio

So, if we’re producing at the healthy levels, the following would be seen:

5.0 (AC) x (3.0 > CS >4.0) = 15.0 > AS > 20.0

This means that if both the AC and CS ratios are healthy, our AS would be between 15:1 and 20:1. Of course, you can do less math and simply divide your average attendance by the number of annual Spirit baptisms to get the AS Ratio, but using the AC and CS Ratios will help you uncover which might be bringing unhealthy results.

What does it all mean? Let’s say a church of 200 in attendance saw 5 people experience Spirit baptism last year. That means the church has an AS Ratio of 40:1. Now we should rejoice over the 5, but we actually didn’t see enough Spirit-baptized to demonstrate healthy reproduction. Using our 15:1 – 20:1 target, we know that a church that is reproducing at a healthy level, would likely see 10-14 such baptisms, if they are discipling and mobilizing their people at a healthy levels.

Now, don’t get lost in numbers. Just understand that the Spirit-empowered future of your congregation will likely be determined by whether or not you’re reproducing the Spirit-empowered reality of your current generation. If your church is growing but you’re producing fewer and fewer Spirit-empowered leaders, how can that future emerge?