Measuring Church "Success?"

I'm not satisfied! Let me explain. I've read church growth books, taken graduate classes in the same subject, attended seminars, and have reviewed probably hundreds of statistics on growth and decline within the church both in the U.S. and worldwide. One of the common threads that runs throughout the literature and the lectures seems to be asking the question: How do we measure the "success" or "failure" of our efforts as church planters and missional church leaders? In light of the concept of stewardship, it's not at all a bad question. We should ask if what we are doing is making a difference. However, how we typically measure "success" leaves me feeling completely unsatisfied.

The main way we've measured success is by counting the number of people involved in local church, organizations, or denominations. I'm not scared of counting numbers of people. I have no negative life experiences that makes me afraid of adding up numbers of souls. Besides, I do indeed want more and more people to know Jesus. And do I want to see Bronx Fellowship increase in the number of participants? Yea, I do. But as a measurement, counting heads increasingly misses the mark. For example, numbers may just represent people that are shifting from a few dying churches to one new, more hip church rather than genuine Kingdom growth. In addition, someone showing up "at church" doesn't necessarily mean they are living a cross-shaped life. It just means that they are there and perhaps have fulfilled some basic doctrinal or organizational requirements.

Recently, there has been greater emphasis among mega churches, cell-based churches, and seeker-sensitive churches to request greater levels of commitment and institutional loyalty. Members must round 2nd & 3rd base (metaphors for training classes) or perhaps procede through _____ church classes 101, 102, & 103. Leaders should be able to quote the mission statement, be punctual to meetings, answer e-mails, and jump through all the hoops that say "I'm a committed member of this church." Now, I suppose this might be getting closer to a solid system of measurement because it's focusing more on specific behaviors than on simply showing up. However, it still seems to leave me unsettled in my spirit.

While I would certainly hope that our participants in Bronx Fellowship are committed to their faith community and to the network as well as grow more responsible as individuals, I'm not sure that generating greater institutional loyalty is an adequate measure of our church planting efforts either. It still seems to miss the mark. Being committed to a faith community may often be an expected result of faith in Christ, but I wonder if its a very good litmus test for measuring "success" overall. And while I am excited about others becoming committed to participation with our church network, that still isn't the ulitmate goal set before us.

If we desire to measure "success," there still must be something more. It seems that there are deeper, more fulfilling questions that may help us determine if what we are doing might have value. Such as: Are we beginning to resemble Jesus? Does our Christlikeness make a difference in the lives of one another and others with whom we have contact? Can we, as a group, be identified with the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5) or the Beattitudes (Mt. 5)? Does the world know that we are Christ's followers by how we love one another (John 13)? To me, the measurement question that we regularly need to ask ourselves is: Are we, as a community, becoming more and more like Jesus?

It's ironic and sad to say that it seems that this would be a significant shift away from (church) business as usual. It would require a different set of lenses. And if we are being true to the spirit of the question, it steers us away from self-righteousness influencing the evaluation process. I would think that it might begin with aligning our lives, values, and practices with those of Jesus and then to consistently live into this as a reality. I suppose it might often cause us to realign our priorities. (I'm constantly challenges by the absolute abandon with which Jesus makes decisions about how he orders his life. Taken in context, it's definitely counter-cultural for most high-acheiving Americans.) It seems that every other good thing would take a lessor role to that one central, penetrating question. Is our faith community looking more and more like Jesus?

To me, this is a worthy standard of measurement, but it will never stand complete. It's not supposed to; we are called into relationship. Relationship is ongoing, tranformational, dynamic, and liberating. Furthermore, a negative outcome to this question isn't solved by a better tweaking of the system or an improved marketing campaign as helpful as these might be in other less central areas of the church's life together. Instead, it calls for a good long look in the mirror. Transformation doesn't take place simply by outward change of behavior, but rather it takes hold through an inward working of faith, hope, and love.