AEC1999

Gerald Shenk

This presentation is billed as a "strategic comparison," inviting reflection along the interface between churches such as those described by Christian Schwarz as "healthy," and others which I have identified in a project as "churches that work." I have long been intrigued with the social context of church life, and I welcomed this opportunity to test some observations with persons who have been making some use of the Schwarz materials on natural church development.

When I first received that book by Schwarz, it was thanks to a former student of mine in Croatia who had known of my work and was already working on translation of Schwarz’s materials into Croatian. He correctly anticipated the excitement and intrigue that this work would elicit in me as a sociologist with its comparative and cross-cultural framework. Would we find similar goals even though methods may differ? Or would it turn out to be similar methods, while results diverge widely?

The natural church development materials quickly take us back to the central questions we are asking in this gathering: how do we identify a good church? What are the marks of a congregation that is healthy? How do you select or grow a healthy church? What kind of leadership does a good church require? What kind of vision and direction can we agree upon? Ultimately, along the lines of classic Anabaptist inquiry, what are the marks of the true church? (I am grateful for the analysis provided earlier here by Lois Barrett.)

Perhaps Schwarz’s work with natural church development offers a quick guide to assess these concerns in a given congregation. Can he suggest ways to hone in on weaknesses and fix them? We are, after all, more prone to pragmatism than to theological purity at the level of most local congregations (or so it seems to me).

A quick survey of Schwarz would indicate just such a reassurance. We encounter "growth automatisms" which constitute the "biotic potential" of a given group. Like the seeds sprouting in Jesus’ parable, they grow "by themselves," and the one who planted them does not even know how they do it. The sower’s job is simply to wait then until the harvest and gather in the good mature grain.

Schwarz does warn against pragmatism, however; it seems to have been characteristic for other, previous approaches to church growth. His own approach, he insists, is the principled approach, in keeping with biblical teachings. The theological groundwork comes in Part 4, with a concept of polarity and bipolarity.

I have already heard some appreciation expressed here in our gathering for that framework. I believe this gathering is a welcome opportunity to reflect together as both a "think-tank" and as a report back from front-line practitioners, to test the preliminary results. We should examine the ways in which our concepts of church life may match up with the characteristics described by Schwarz as healthy.

For myself, as a sociologist, there is more than a little intrigue here. Schwarz offers a comparison across cultures in various social settings. His work gives a strong impression of empirical validity, tested in depth and breadth with a solid sample of more than one thousand congregations.

There may, of course, be much more to the method than I have gleaned from reading the first book in the series. At this conference some of us are being introduced for the first time to the further materials, such as the Implementation Guide to Natural Church Development. But at first blush in the widely distributed first volume, Natural Church Development, when you attempt to penetrate beyond the color graphics in a USA Today-style, most of the indicators for congregational health seem to boil down to opinions of participants. What we find throughout the book is percentages of participants who agree that a certain characteristic is true of this congregation, or another is true, etc.

What we are dealing with may prove to be a carefully calibrated set of correlations, calculated indeed with a certain statistical rigor: when x is the case, then likely y is also the case. Reliability and validity in these calibrations may be shown. The associations may make a lot of intuitive sense. These results could be quite obvious.

But they could also be otherwise. What if something is not measured in the original set of survey questions? Nothing can be correlated with something that is not identified. We may as Anabaptist congregations have another set of concerns, perhaps even unique interests, that would not necessarily be revealed as significant or as marks of a healthy congregation by this instrument.

Now I hasten to clarify that I am truly grateful for the folks here who have put the materials into action, testing them with more than a few of our congregations. What are we actually finding? Does natural church development fit our situations? I’ve already heard some positive evaluation and some caution or hesitation. Initially, as I have indicated, it does make enough sense to be plausible. From our discussion already, we could probably agree that ongoing reservations we have toward this material have more to do with what is not there than what is actually there in the method itself.

Even if natural church development does accomplish all it sets out to do, we might as Anabaptists have another set of concerns that are not necessarily advanced at the same time. The tool may be too simple. We may seek outcomes that are not so simply put or identified.

When I tried to penetrate behind the results of the surveys reported in the Natural Church Development book, I became somewhat frustrated. To tell us the answers but not show the questions for a survey seems more like clever marketing than sober scholarship. The presentation is well done, the significance seems substantial; yet a sales scheme could be merely mesmerizing us with apparatus and cleverly tantalizing detail. To take it a single step further, it seemed to me, required a sizeable investment of more money and perhaps seminar time for training. This approach, like many others, might whet the appetite for measurement and analysis when its real purpose could prove to be selling the instruments.

No matter how fine the earnest testimonies of satisfied customers, we must still test whether their newly acquired powers of observation show them something worthwhile to all of us. Is it important to all of us to concentrate our attention on these particular measured outcomes? Are these the characteristics of congregations that we would envision and value?

Are there indeed some satisfied customers among us? What were you seeking when you invested in this instrument? Did anyone among us happen to find a congregation that actually measured up to the targeted "65" level on all eight categories? (One did, in British Colombia.) The very concept of natural development for congregations sounds wonderful. Did it show you that congregations are developing quite naturally, thank you, and little more is required for them to thrive? Does it convey the sense that farmers should simply stand back and wait for the harvest?

Some here have suggested that the natural church development method is better on diagnosis than therapy. Do we learn what is good and what is not good enough about our congregations? Do we receive, along with the diagnosis, a set of guidelines for possible cures? What is the shape of remedies suggested? If one stave of the barrel is low and water is running out in that direction, how do we get that part of the barrel fixed?

I have no intention of tearing apart a promising method, but so much of the process seems unavailable to the mere reader, reserved perhaps only for the fully initiated. It seems one cannot simply purchase one product and test it for oneself. This difficulty of access reminds me of a recent experience with my son in the health care system, where one technician runs the X-ray, another is paid to develop the film, another to read the results, another to tell you the results, another to provide the proper prescription, and yet another to sell you the medicine itself. How elaborate is the process for a congregation to make use of the natural church development method? How many experts will it take?

In contrast to regular scholarship, where one would expect to find the instrument or survey at least as an appendix for the published work, natural church development requires further purchases and computer processing of the results. This surely reflects the complexity of developing the instruments, but I admit to some dissatisfaction when the data and formulas are not accessible for re-testing and independent verification.

In the meantime, as we have heard here, some of you have already been using this material. You have found the results significant in challenging our churches to work at making themselves more accessible, more intentional about welcoming guests, etc.

A different line of inquiry is modeled in the project to which I’ve referred earlier. I’ve been taking a sustained look at Anabaptist congregations that are known for their sense of local social responsibility, reaching out to neighbors in need in some specific ways. I’ve sought out the ones that are marked by their witness for racial reconciliation, their care for neighbors at risk, their going beyond themselves and the programs for their own membership to make a difference in the world at their doorstep.

I’ve been calling them "congregations that work." They work to reach out to others with the gospel in a way that neighbors perceive as good news. Some have housing ministries, some work with child care; some reach out for the moms who struggle for companionship in the isolation of caring for small children in suburbia. Others may reach into our nation’s prisons or start up some important alternatives in local and elementary education. Many of them tackle things too big for a single congregation to handle; they link up in cooperation with other congregations and social agencies.

The churches I selected were recommended not because they manage to function smoothly in internal programs. They don’t just meet their own members’ needs. They reach out to make a difference for others also. This criterion might not turn up in the Schwarz analysis, as far as I could discern. I did find such a set highlighted in a work by Victor N. Claman and others, Acting on Your Faith: Congregations Making a Difference (Boston: Insights, 1994). More than 200 communities of faith are featured there, combining service and social action. The author explained to me that they followed a clipping service and selected the best examples that had garnered attention in local and regional media across the country.

My intrigue was piqued when I discovered no Anabaptist examples in the set thus selected. I was certain that we had some congregations that would measure well on the same criteria, but somehow they hadn’t been "discovered." Finding them myself was a challenge, and this first round might be considered a pilot project. More should be identified and acknowledged. Their experiences are valuable, and we could all take encouragement from congregations that have been learning how to make a definite contribution to their local community.

When we find these "missional" churches, as the Gospel and Our Culture Network is describing them, they are not likely to be so neat and tidy as the kind that figure well in Schwarz’s analysis. Some are growing and others are not. Some are so busy sending people forth for growth of the larger kingdom of God that the results do not accumulate at the home congregation. In my own community, a congregation of 200 located near a college and seminary can lose as many as 70 participants with the ebb and flow of the academic year. But we choose to consider this an investment in God’s work elsewhere. Our challenges are sure to be found on the qualitative side, even if quantitative growth goals are not on our horizon right now.

In my concluding remarks, I would like to draw your attention to another work, concentrating on options for organizational assessment. Put together by the Christian Reformed Church World Relief Committee, it reflects lessons learned in partnership with NGOs around the world: Partnering to Build and Measure Organizational Capacity. In one crucial section, they suggest a method of appreciative inquiry for assessment that focuses on possibilities rather than just identifying problems to be solved. Diagrams show a "possibility tree," modified from the more frequent "problem-solving tree." Let’s invite a congregation to think about their dreams and potentials rather than their current tensions or difficulties alone. Cause and effects may well be quite similar on either tree, but the possibility tree tends to help people get excited about the future. Identify the opportunities, then ask how they might be achieved. We want to be agents of hope.

I do not pretend much expertise on systems and organizational theory. But I do wonder whether our field work with the natural church development materials will suffer on this count. Looking for the weakest factor, the minimum stave in the barrel, and focusing attention on it alone might be quite discouraging, at least at the outset. Would a positive, affirming approach to capacity building offer a corrective here?

I do wish to draw upon a number of Scripture passages that could or should impact our agenda together, I believe. The task of bringing the Good News to the poor today is highlighted best in the works by John and Sylvia Ronsvalle (a recent one is The Poor Have Faces: Loving Your Neighbor in the 21st Century, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992). Luke 7 records John the Baptist’s painful inquiry on whether Jesus really was the one we were awaiting. The answer included evidence that Jesus’ ministry was bringing the gospel to the poor. Luke 13 points to reversals of the first and the last. Luke 14 urges a careful counting of the costs of ministry, to the point of parting with possessions. Luke 18 shows a "minimum factor" in the rich young ruler’s life, one thing lacking until he gave to the poor.

I believe that no single set of variables or indicators will prove sufficient to test whether we are keeping faith with the entire intention of Jesus’ ministry in our world today. My prayer for our further work with congregations in this Anabaptist heritage is that we would encourage each other to keep the fullness of the gospel witness as the full measuring stick in all our efforts. I thank you for this opportunity to pursue the reflection together in this circle.

Taken from An Anabaptist Look at Natural Church Development (© 1999 New Life Ministries). Permission to reproduce for local church use only is granted. Provided by New Life Ministries, 6404 S Calhoun St, Fort Wayne, IN 46807, through its web site at www.NewLifeMinistries-NLM.org

 2000-2008 New Life Ministries (www.NewLifeMinistries-NLM.org). All Rights Reserved.
(see information on our copyright policy)

Top of Page