I suggested in an earlier post that we need church metrics that measure whether or not we’re accomplishing our mission as a denomination – whether our members are becoming better disciples of Jesus Christ and whether that discipleship is leading to the transformation of the world.  I suggested that all church members should be asked on a yearly basis about their progress in discipleship, including growth in love, knowledge, and faithful service.  Ministers, DS’s, and bishops should also be asked about how their ministry has led to the transformation of the world and where the church has been successful in helping bring about the kingdom of God.

The metrics proposed by the CTA mostly measure members and money.  Specifically, the seven CTA metrics measure attendance, membership, baptism, and giving.  But it doesn’t matter how many members come through our doors if they don’t become better disciples once they’re there.  It doesn’t matter how many members we have and how much money we take in if this money and these people don’t make the world a better place in God’s eyes.  We could potentially be welcoming a lot of new members who give a lot to the church but not ultimately be fulfilling our mission if all these members don’t grow in their discipleship of Jesus after arriving in the church and do nothing for the transformation of the world.

We can only know if we’re fulfilling our mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world if we ask directly about the components of our mission – discipleship and transformation.  The Barna Group report suggests that congregations may be having problems fulfilling the UMC mission, at least in some areas, but we’re not going to know more unless we ask, not about members and money, but about discipleship and transformation.   We know there are membership and financial problems in the UMC.  We can tell that with the data the church currently collects.  Nevertheless, those problems with membership and money would be insignificant if it turned out that we weren’t fulfilling our basic mission adequately.  Yet we won’t know whether or not we’re fulfilling our basic mission unless we ask questions that actual assess our progress toward that mission.

As I said in my original post about church metrics, I agree that the church needs a renewed push toward vital ministry, and proper metrics can be part of that push.  Yet what you measure determines where your focus is and where your effort goes.  The metrics proposed by the CTA put our focus on propping up an institution through members and money, not carrying out God’s mission by making disciples and transforming the world.  Using the CTA metrics, we’ll focus on increasing members and money for the support of an institution.  We may be successful, but what we’ll have is a stronger institution, not success in achieving the mission for which that institution exists.  If we’re really serious about making disciples and transforming the world, that’s what we should measure because that is where our focus will then be and that is where we will put our efforts.

For those of you not familiar, the Call to Action is a document/plan prepared for/by the UMC to counteract trends of declining membership in the United States.  The Call to Action involves several aspects, but among them are a focus on “vital congregations” and assessing the vitality of churches based on seven metrics that measure membership, attendance, baptisms, and giving.  Measuring and monitoring such numbers (referred to occasionally as “dashboard indicators”) and holding pastors and churches accountable for them has been one of the most controversial aspects of a report with a number of controversial aspects.

I would like to suggest three things about metrics and church accountability: The current metrics are not theologically sound.  Another set of metrics might be.  This other set also has the potential to better unleash ministry and assist the church in mission.

First, it is important to point out that we are in many ways not ultimately responsible for the fruit our ministry bears.  We do not make converts to Christ; the Holy Spirit does through the administration of God’s prevenient grace.  We may be the means, but the Holy Spirit is the main actor.  The work of the church is ultimately God’s work, which God invites us to participate in, but whose success is ultimately dependent upon God, not us.  Therefore, I think it is a bad idea to measure membership and baptisms.  Sure, we should be a church that is reaching out to others, but it’s judging us on something that is ultimately the work of the Spirit.

That does not mean, however, that there should be no accountability in the church.  As a Wesleyan, I believe that we are responsible for responding to God’s grace through faithfulness and service.  Furthermore, I believe that we have a responsibility for encouraging and equipping each other in our faithful obedience to God’s call to service.  Finally, I believe that some metrics can assist in that process of mutual accountability.

Such metrics would measure not raw numbers of members and money but instead try to assess the ways in which the ministry of the church has contributed to the transformation of the world.  In the language of non-profits, they measure outcomes (how things are qualitatively different because of your work) and not outputs (how much of something you’ve produced).

Such metrics would ask all church members questions like the following: Have you (and how have you) grown in the knowledge and love of God in the last year?  Have you (and how have you) sought to more faithfully live out your Christian calling in the last year?  Do you feel like you have more or less of the knowledge and skills necessary for effective ministry than you did a year ago?  It would ask pastors similar questions, but also questions like this: Have you developed in your understanding of your vocation?  Church leaders, pastors, and district superintendents would be asked: How is the world different because of the ministry of this church?  Where has the Kingdom of God come into being because of the work of this church?

Such questions would have the advantage of holding all church members (and not just pastors and bishops) accountable for faithfully engaging in ministry.  One of the problems of the current Call to Action plan of assessment is that it makes elites responsible for the success of the church.  But effective ministry is the responsibility of all Christians, an insight which Wesleyans should recognize as much as any others.  By encouraging us all to reflect on whether we are being faithful disciples of Jesus Christ, such assessments would drive home our mutual responsibility to respond to the grace of God.  We may not be ultimately responsible for the results of our ministry, but we are, all of us, responsible for engaging in ministry as best we can.  Proper evaluation, like all efforts at equipping the saints for ministry, should reinforce that point.