Hello Everyone -- instead of writing comments two times.....once for Vicki's post and once for Wayne's note, I figured I would just respond to both with a new post. Vicki -- by now you should also be ready to start receiving e-mail notification of this new post (please let me know if it works).
In response to what Vicki and Wayne said, I completely agree (how about that!) It seems like more people is one of the very few gauges I hear being used to measure the strength of a church or the success of the pastor's ministry. To be sure, numbers could mean a fruitful ministry, but that is not always the case.
What other gauges could we use? A short brainstorming session gave me these ideas: 1) The percentage of missionaries to total church population--for example, 0% vs. a church with 5% or 10% would be very telling. I believe it was the Moravians who sent out 90% of their membership into missions (see www.moravian.org/history).
2) The percentage of dollars going towards missions and/or local outreach
3) The percentage of the number of people being saved and becoming committed members
I am sure there are lots of great indicators that I am not thinking of right now....does anyone have any other ideas they could add?
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Unit 1 Issue 1 SDQ #2
Good Morning All,
I believe the first question we were to consider is "What does today's evangelical culture consider a strong church?" The first thought that came into my mind was programming. I believe that most churches think that if they can just run the right programs the right way that the body will be strong. And I believe that the scorecard for success in these programs most of the time is the number of bodies participating and giving.
How does this differ from Paul's understanding of a mature church? Maybe a lot, maybe not much.... In the multiple passages of scripture that we read for this Issue I see the following list of characteristics of a strong church: preaching the gospel, strengthening the disciples, encourage to remain true to the faith, appointed elders, grew daily in numbers, imparting of spiritual gifts, not unsettled by trials, love increase for each other, strengthen in every good deed and word.
The main difference that I see here is the nature of the heart impact in many of the terms that are used in Acts and Paul's epistles. Paul is encouraging heart change and maturity amongst the body. Though from the outside a well programmed, but shallow church may not look that much different from what Paul would consider a strong church. A true evaluation would need to have an intimate relationship with that body to gauge the the heart health of the body. But obviously there would be a lot more depth to the programming in a Pauline strong church.
I believe the first question we were to consider is "What does today's evangelical culture consider a strong church?" The first thought that came into my mind was programming. I believe that most churches think that if they can just run the right programs the right way that the body will be strong. And I believe that the scorecard for success in these programs most of the time is the number of bodies participating and giving.
How does this differ from Paul's understanding of a mature church? Maybe a lot, maybe not much.... In the multiple passages of scripture that we read for this Issue I see the following list of characteristics of a strong church: preaching the gospel, strengthening the disciples, encourage to remain true to the faith, appointed elders, grew daily in numbers, imparting of spiritual gifts, not unsettled by trials, love increase for each other, strengthen in every good deed and word.
The main difference that I see here is the nature of the heart impact in many of the terms that are used in Acts and Paul's epistles. Paul is encouraging heart change and maturity amongst the body. Though from the outside a well programmed, but shallow church may not look that much different from what Paul would consider a strong church. A true evaluation would need to have an intimate relationship with that body to gauge the the heart health of the body. But obviously there would be a lot more depth to the programming in a Pauline strong church.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Boys, where are you?
Boys, I left on Friday and was sure you would have had a hot debate by now. Chris had a retreat, but the rest of you? Where are you??
This evening in church Todd read from the EFC district newsletter (or something like that). The head of the MN District wrote it (right Kevin?). Anyway, he said the same things I did in my previous post, but added building and staff to numbers and programs. I actually had building in my original notes, but didn't add it in my post as I was in a hurry.
Okay, I'm passing the torch, jump in.
This evening in church Todd read from the EFC district newsletter (or something like that). The head of the MN District wrote it (right Kevin?). Anyway, he said the same things I did in my previous post, but added building and staff to numbers and programs. I actually had building in my original notes, but didn't add it in my post as I was in a hurry.
Okay, I'm passing the torch, jump in.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Unit 1 Issue 1 SDQ #2
Okay, guys, I'll get the ball rolling. I pull out of Roch. in 30 minutes and I expect to see many great discussions when I get home! :)
The question was: What does today's evangelical culture consider a strong church? (Follow up to ... what was the nature of the qualities Paul used to evaluate the maturity and strength of a church?)
My thoughts ... sadly, I think most evangelical churches today put much weight on numbers. Number of attenders who "give" and number of programs.
Paul was passionate about preserving the fruit, establishing believers in the gospel and assuring understanding of the message and its implications.
Paul also looked for transformed lives. I think we fall short in this area.
I also think many (dare I say most) evang. churches jump from program to program, always seeking the new and improved package that will draw people ... givers. I don't mean to make it sound like it's all about money. We are all commanded to tithe and use our talents and time for the Church. However, I think most churches (oops, I said 'most') want the people and the pocket change more than they want to disciple, train leaders, and multiply churches.
Ah, not a cynic ... just an observation. I'd say more ( you know I would!), but I have to fly.
Next?
The question was: What does today's evangelical culture consider a strong church? (Follow up to ... what was the nature of the qualities Paul used to evaluate the maturity and strength of a church?)
My thoughts ... sadly, I think most evangelical churches today put much weight on numbers. Number of attenders who "give" and number of programs.
Paul was passionate about preserving the fruit, establishing believers in the gospel and assuring understanding of the message and its implications.
Paul also looked for transformed lives. I think we fall short in this area.
I also think many (dare I say most) evang. churches jump from program to program, always seeking the new and improved package that will draw people ... givers. I don't mean to make it sound like it's all about money. We are all commanded to tithe and use our talents and time for the Church. However, I think most churches (oops, I said 'most') want the people and the pocket change more than they want to disciple, train leaders, and multiply churches.
Ah, not a cynic ... just an observation. I'd say more ( you know I would!), but I have to fly.
Next?
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)