Evaluating Emerging Churches within the PC(USA) context
A committee of my synod (Lincoln Trails) invited me last fall to attend a meeting to discuss how we might rethink evaluating emerging new church developments. Present at the meeting were several presbytery executives, a synod executive and a lay moderator of the meeting and the congregational development committee. Also invited were two other new church development pastors from our synod (Won Ho Kim from Emmaus Road in Dekalb, Illinois, and Nancy Mockros from Life Path Church in Lafayette, Indiana.)
I’m the organizing pastor at Wicker Park Grace, in Chicago, IL. Our community has a 7-year New Church Development Grant (we stretched the 3/5 year grant out over a longer period,) and so in order to continue getting those funds, we need to show that we are developing in positive “successful” ways. (We’re beginning year 3 out of 7.)
I want to share here some of the things that came out of that meeting and open up a conversation about this at this site. This is partly probing the relationship between emergent churches and the PC(USA), especially when the denomination is funding them through the new church development funds of the Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assembly.
But what is success in an emerging church? How do you measure it? Here are some of our initial thoughts.
First, we talked about a changing paradigm. Where the bottom-line question has tended to be “How do we create sustainable models of church?” a new framing question might be “How do we develop vibrant missional communities?”
We talked about key values of emerging faith communities being: authenticity, spiritual discernment, and building community connections. This whole conversation was trying to explain, explore, clarify, and share the pastors’ experiences and perspectives on working with the emerging communities that we are working with.
Here are some questions that we came up with that might be asked of emerging churches (instead of “how many members do you have?” and “how many are in attendance at worship?” end-of-story):
*Describe the Missional Practices of the Emergent Community: How is the faith community engaging the larger community?
*Describe the Spiritual Practices of the emerging community: How is the community growing spiritually?
*How is community forming? What are the dynamics of the relationships that are forming? What kind of holistic community is developing?
*How do you know when someone is committed to the Community?
*Describe “contacts” rather than “members”: the number and variety of contacts, participants, covenant participants (if you use any language like this), and leadership of this Community.
*Describe contact with non-Christians.
*How are indigenous leaders being cultivated?
*Describe connections with the larger church.
I’m wondering what people think of these ideas, and also what are other new church developments or new presbymergent worship gatherings doing/thinking about in terms of success and evaluation?
Thanks for the opportunity to be in conversation!
Comment by wb on 16 March 2007:
Thank you for posting these questions. I think they cover well the basic missional idea of equiping (discipling/cultivating) and sending (engaging/connecting).
Also the way they are asked require more “story” responses then statistical analysises of programs, membership, attendance and giving.
As I am conversing with PNCs, this provides a good perspective to see how particular communities may be challenged to look beyond their products (programs and members).
Comment by Jan Edmiston on 16 March 2007:
Nanette — This is so helpful as we’ve started a new, non-traditional worship experience. Thank you.
Comment by Tom Robinson on 17 March 2007:
I would be very interested, Nanette, in what you discover. I am doing course work in postmodern worship, and this presbytery (as are several presbyteries) is looking into emerging churches. Whenever I see the term “successful” on something like this it makes my skin crawl, so I was glad to see your questions go much deeper than a market-driven evaluation. Heaven knows we in the church have seen enough of that stuff.
Comment by Nancy Mockros on 17 March 2007:
Just to add, as someone who was part of that synod meeting with Nanette, the PCUSA seems to have a ways to go before people in evaluative places embrace our ideas of what constitutes health, growth, vibrant or viable ministry. While we are all trying to remain hopeful, don’t be surprised by the reality.
Any ideas about how to promote the vision for changing this perception? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been threatened with termination because my ‘worship services’ (God Parties) don’t have higher numbers. It has been unspeakably damaging to the ministry, those involved and me as a pastor to be threatened frequently just when one is inviting more people or trying to get the word out or start a new small group… are we inviting people to something that won’t exist in a matter of weeks? So that’s what I’ve discovered. I made a video interviewing people involved with the ministry and why they thought it important, and that seems to have been a good thing. Otherwise, I’m at a loss as to how to communicate with those who fund it that it’s not only about head and $$ counts. HELP.
Comment by Tom Robinson on 18 March 2007:
Nancy’s posting brought up another concern about how we do things in the church - it seems that we run after the newest ‘thing’ and give it a paltry amount of time to be ’successful’ and then when it doesn’t match our unrealistic expectations we pull the plug. Kennon Callahan in “12 Habits of the Effective Church” pointed out that any new program in the church needs to have at least 3 years just to take root and 4-5 to see any growth. It seems to me that we as presbyters in the church need to support these new ministries and not rush to judgment becuase they don’t meet somebody’s expectations (which are usually totally out of line).
Comment by Reyes-Chow on 18 March 2007:
Nanette . . . thanks. I would also challenge those of us in emergent churches to think about how we envision sustainability: fiscal, institutional, structural, etc. As we enter our 6th year, shifting into that 150 participant range, these kinds of questions are smacking us in the face as we deal with issues of leadership, connections, etc.
While I know these are the kind of questions that I cringe at when used as a litmus test by outside groups, I think a valid area of conversation to be had “within” the presbyterian emergent family.
Comment by RPS on 19 March 2007:
I”ve waited to comment to let some of the thoughts posted here “simmer.” I’m also one of the “emerging NCD” pastors and I regularly pull my hair out over this very issue.
It was mentioned about how one of our metrics is more “story-telling.” I can assure you that my Presbytery isn’t the least bit interested in that as a tool for evaluation. Missional practices, outreach, spiritual formation… when attempting to translate these “postmodern” facets of who we are (using the word for lack of a better one) into the very trenches of modernity… We can talk all we want. The response is… “But there aren’t enough numbers and there isn’t enough money.” We’re two years in (With more mistakes all around that we’re still recovering from and actually making some headway in spite of all of them)… yet already the same discussion that’s happened in so many places is being whispered here: When to “pull the plug.”
And yes, I fully agree with Tom’s comment re: Callahan’s book… but why are we in SO many instances continuing such outdated practices? (I know of more than 6 NCD’s that were “on the way” and yet ended at 2 - 3 years because of the exact same things Nancy mentions here. Do we suffer from some form of denominational A.D.D. or retardation? We don’t seem to learn, despite all the discussion in groups like this, and despite the overall poor track record that should point out our “status quo” method of approaching NCD work is at best an iffy prospect (Does anyone really know any stats on how many (of any type) fail versus how many are still viable at 2 years, 3 years, or 5 - 10 years?) Or are we “preaching to the choir” when those who need to hear what we’re saying just aren’t listening?
I’d like to hear more of the same thoughts on Nancy’s and Nanette’s questions. WE all know it’s harder doing it the way we’re doing it (even if the “old model” doesn’t really work very well - at least not in my area of the country.)
If we were missionaries overseas, no one would be asking the questions we regularly field. So how do we begin (I don’t think we’ve even started) conveying the fact that many of our alternative or “emerging” or whatever we want to call them NCD’s are truly a “new thing” that is still in its infancy — a metaphor here: to attempt to ask a 3-year old to walk to school is both stupid and foolhardy. Why then are “we” essentially asking missions and ministries that are brand new, untried, experimental, etc. to be adults before we’re even weaned?
This is (IMO) a MUCH bigger issue than perhaps any of us knows. It gets to the heart of a lot of what McLaren, et. al. are really talking about. So how do we build trust with folks that seem to distrust even the language we use to describe what God is calling us into?
Rodger Sellers
Comment by Jason Burns on 19 March 2007:
I hate to be so cynical, but.. Max Planck (one of the guys most responsible for postmodern thought in science) said, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
I hate to think that it is that way, but Planck is in a position to speak considering what he did in science. Sometimes I think one has to keep fighting the good fight until there are more around you who are “familiar” with your ideas. Perhaps God will still move and will still do something else…
Comment by Robert Shaw on 19 March 2007:
Nanette thank you for continuing this conversation in this broader community.
One correction, the moderator of the Synod’s Subcommittee on Church Developmen is a half-time interim pastor at a congregation that would like very much to grow the community served by their non-traditional worship service. This is also the second Synod I have served as moderator of a church development committee.
My hope for this conversation is a re-examination of the MDRC form leading towards revisions that will better assist GA, Synod, and Presbytery committees understand NCDs and help them grow.
Comment by Nanette Sawyer on 23 March 2007:
Thanks, everyone for adding your thoughts here. Let’s keep sharing our experiences. As Nancy and Rodger said, just because we’ve put these out there doesn’t mean they’re being adopted.
Robert, thanks for chiming in. I’m sorry I missed that you’re a pastor! Glad you’re part of the conversation.
Bruce, point taken on sustainability. It’s something all of us struggle with, I think.
At Wicker Park Grace, our vibrancy and participation are increasing. It’s really exciting. However, we’re a fledgling community that needs to learn how to really be community.
I’m reading How (Not) to Speak of God, by Peter Rollins and I like the way he talks about his community, (Ikon in Ireland), tithing not to the institution but tithing relationally.
I think we need to talk within our communities about what it means to be connected to each other and committed to each other.
That’s what I hope we can grow into at Wicker Park Grace, but in the meantime we have to keep the doors open.
living into the Hope,
Nanette
Pingback by Presbymergent Retrospective, 2007 : presbymergent on 5 January 2008:
[...] of posts on the theme “Why I Am Presbymergent.” Notable guests like LeRon Shults, Nannette Sawyer, and Troy Bronsink, weigh in with posts of their [...]