AEC1999

compiled by Ronald W. Waters

Five trained and certified natural church development consultants attended the council meeting. They were:

The New Life Ministries Management Team felt it important to include in this booklet some comments and reflections from these consultants. There was insufficient time to ask each consultant to prepare a detailed response. Several sent a brief statement in response to a quickly composed e-mail request offering them a very short response deadline. In addition, I have tried to include some of the sentiments expressed by consultants during the formal and informal discussions at the council meeting. I am indebted to my colleagues for sharing their insights and responses on very short notice. The thoughts below, however, may not reflect the views of all the consultants mentioned above nor are they necessarily the response Christian Schwarz might give were he to have attended the council meeting or have read these documents. So much for the disclaimer!

The purpose of this response is to clarify some points and to bring some correction where necessary. I will address several issues raised by the presentations published in this booklet or by discussions at the council meeting.

The presentations and much of the discussion at the council meeting focused on Christian Schwarz’s eight qualities of healthy churches. Perhaps we should not be surprised. After all, the subtitle of Schwarz’s primary book, Natural Church Development, is "A Guide to Eight Essential Qualities of Healthy Churches." It is likewise true that the eight qualities generate the most attention of persons who read and reflect on Schwarz’s work or whose congregations complete a natural church development profile.

As I noted in my introduction to natural church development (see page 4), Schwarz’s eight qualities parallel characteristics noted by authors writing from the perspective of church growth, church renewal, and/or congregational vitality.¹ Generally, these authors have discovered their lists of characteristics through inductive or deductive reasoning, through study of a small number of congregations in largely mono-cultural settings, and/or occasionally through biblical survey. What Schwarz has done—and it is a considerable accomplishment—is to establish the trans-cultural existence of these qualities through a multi-cultural research project. Further, he has standardized the instrument he used in this international research project for use by individual congregations in assessing their level in each of the eight qualities. Yet, Schwarz really identifies nothing new in his listing of eight qualities of healthy churches from what others have discovered.

Despite the important value of these eight characteristics, natural church development is much more than these qualities. As I noted in my earlier introduction (see pages 6 and 7), Schwarz’s greater contribution may be his identification of six biotic principles of natural church development—the ways churches might experience "the greatest possible results with the least possible energy expenditure" (NCD, 63)—and the new paradigm that he says underlies it.

Unfortunately, compared to the eight qualities, we spent precious little time in the formal presentations or in our discussions on either the biotic principles or the underlying paradigm shift that Schwarz says distinguishes natural church development from other approaches to church development or church growth.

In defense of our presenters, we still have little detail of Schwarz’s understanding of the new paradigm. Several times I detected that the presenters longed for more information so as to wrestle with Schwarz’s concepts. Schwarz devotes a mere twenty pages in Natural Church Development (83-102) to introducing the assumptions upon which he bases his understanding of natural church development. The forthcoming publication of Paradigm Shift in the Church should provide opportunity for further inquiry and debate on this matter.

Still, as consultants, we hoped for more interaction with this new paradigm from a biblical, historical, and theological perspective. One consultant put it this way:

I’d expected . . . a systematic analysis of one of Schwarz’s most cherished concepts—the bipolar nature of the church. Is it really even a valid postulate? How historically does it play itself out? Is the sixteenth-century spiritualist-legalist controversy a possible indicator? Is it reflected at all in the two kingdom theology of early Anabaptist writers? In light of Anabaptist teaching, does Schwarz’s model fit with our understanding of ecclesiology? And if it has points of congruency, how would Bender’s or Wenger’s twentieth-century reconstructions indicate our own leanings to one polarity or another?

Schwarz does present more information on the six biotic principles: twenty-two pages in Natural Church Development (61-82) and a nearly seventy-page training program in the Implementation Guide (123-191). These principles address decision-making processes and the way in which we approach change in the church. They seem to be consistent with Anabaptist perspectives, but are they? They are rarely present in our congregations. They warrant further investigation for suitability and compatibility with our heritage so that we may know whether they merit implementation in congregational settings.

As consultants, we would have welcomed "equal time" for consideration of these important concepts. Perhaps we could have achieved this balance had it been possible to devote individual sessions to each of the major sections of Natural Church Development. In any case, the New Life Ministries Management Team may want to consider alternative formats for future council meetings to avoid such lopsided considerations.

We did analyze these qualities rather extensively. One key issue raised was whether these eight qualities are adequate to describe the church. Might we discover more qualities through an extensive study of the Scriptures as opposed to a sociological study of congregations? What if these additional qualities are biblically sound but are not apparent in growing churches? Do they still describe a healthy church? If they are not present in growing churches, should those churches still be considered healthy? And are Schwarz’s characterizations of these qualities substantial enough? Is the amount of laughter in a congregation, for example, a sufficient test to help us know if we can love our enemy?

Tom Yoder Neufeld calls for identification of additional principles drawn directly from the Scriptures to augment this perspective (pages 19-21). Lois Barrett likewise calls for looking at larger issues related to heralding the reign of God.

I must quibble a bit with some of Yoder Neufeld’s interpretations in his otherwise fine section on biblical observations related to the eight qualities. These less-than-accurate interpretations make Schwarz’s quality characteristics seem less adequate and substantial than they are.

For example, in writing about functional structures on page 16, Yoder Neufeld fails to catch Schwarz’s distinction between valuing traditions and being "tradition-bound" (Schwarz’s definition of "traditionalism"; NCD, 29). When referring to worship services, Yoder Neufeld rightfully expresses uneasiness with equating "inspiring" with "having fun" (page 16-17). Though Schwarz does title one section, "May worship services be ‘fun’?," the tenor of his writing is on the "literal sense of inspiratio and means an inspiredness which comes from the Spirit of God." This, he says, often causes people to say, "going to church is fun" (NCD, 31). This may seem a minor distinction but an important one nonetheless.

Regarding need-oriented evangelism, Yoder Neufeld says that "in natural church development evangelism is largely subsumed under the personal individual engagement of the 10 percent gifted for this task" (page 18). But Schwarz clearly indicates that "it is indeed the responsibility of every Christian to use his or her own specific gifts in fulfilling the Great Commission" (NCD, 34). Further, Yoder Neufeld says that "Schwarz views [evangelism] as focused on where non-Christian individuals identify their own needs" and that need-oriented evangelism should "not rely solely on those in need to define their needs" (page 18). This caution may be true, but Schwarz’s use of "need-oriented" is to distinguish his approach from "‘manipulative programs’ where pressure on non-Christians must compensate for the lack of need-orientation" (NCD, 35). In fact, what Schwarz advocates in this quality characteristic seems to be very characteristic of Jesus’ approach: 1) help a person self-identify his/her need, but 2) go beyond the self-perceived need and move to the deeper spiritual need not yet identified by the person, thus 3) meeting both needs in the process (see for example, Luke 8:43-48; 17:11-19; 18:35-43; John 5:1-15; cf. a slightly different approach in Luke 5:17-26; 18:18-25).

My quibbling aside, there is another issue related to the adequacy of Schwarz’s characteristics. One consultant felt that several of the ideas for additional quality characteristics proposed by the plenary presenters and others in discussion could fit under Schwarz’s eight, taking them to a deeper level. Let me paraphrase his concern:

Several persons seemed to indicate that Schwarz’s eight qualities were too shallow—that we need to push people to a deeper level. I agree. But even if Schwarz’s questions may be posed at too shallow a level, what does it mean if our churches cannot even achieve this level. For example, how may we hope to form a new humanity through worship if those already attending are not being blessed? If we cannot even have coffee together, how can we ever hope to love our enemy? I still affirm that the eight qualities at least minimally address the broader concerns expressed. Achieving the eight qualities at these minimal levels may provide a foundation for moving to the deeper levels.

Another consultant wrote:

Certainly there is room to challenge Schwarz on the adequacy of the eight characteristics as a complete picture of a healthy church. As behavioral indicators, the collected data indicates they are necessary. That does not require that they are the holy grail or are a "quick fix" for a struggling church. There may well be other indicators and other responses to grappling with church health. They provide one more tool in the belt, however—one I’m not prepared to remove based on the limited critique expressed to date.

I agree that we need to spur one another to deeper levels of spirituality and deeper expressions of our faith in daily life and behavior. These quality characteristics, however, seem to provide a good place to start in assessing ourselves as congregations.

All plenary presenters spoke to this issue, especially delineating the place of the church in the reign of God. They called for a broader focus: beyond emphasis on the health of individual congregations to heralding the reign of God. The plenary speakers and the listening committee concluded that the eight qualities address issues of church growth, despite Schwarz’s apparent arguments to the contrary.

Tom Yoder Neufeld said the church is not an end in itself; rather, it is an essential part of the increasing reign of God:

What is to grow? Is it not the sphere of God’s reconciling and restoring reign? It is the growth of the kingdom of God that matters finally and not simply that of the church. True, the church too is to grow and develop but the church as the Messiah at work announcing and ushering in that kingdom. Church growth and development must not be severed from the prime concern of the reign of God (page 12).

Gerald Shenk’s study of "churches that work" promotes criteria for church evaluation other than a more narrow focus on numerical growth:

They work to reach out to others with the gospel in a way that neighbors perceive as good news . . . (page 35).

Our challenges are sure to be found on the qualitative side, even if quantitative growth goals are not on our horizon right now (page 36).

Yoder Neufeld in particular and Shenk to a lesser degree are careful to say that they are not seeking excuses for churches that are declining (page 21). Yet they see other factors as higher criteria than numerical growth.

Lois Barrett seemed to draw the sharpest distinction between an emphasis on growing the church and one of heralding the kingdom. She challenges natural church development particularly at the point of assumptions.

Natural church development begins with the "how" to grow, not the "why" and the "what." It does not start from a biblical base. Therefore it confuses faithfulness and effectiveness. To correct these problems is not a matter of fiddling with the details but a matter of underlying assumptions (page 30).

By focusing on the eight qualities and comparing them with the broader issue of heralding the reign of God, we may have been expecting more of them than they were intended to accomplish. To borrow Yoder Neufeld’s idea of "comparing apples and oranges" and using it in another way, were we comparing the "how" of natural church development with the "why" and "what" of Anabaptism?

Lois Barrett moved us to comparing the "hows?" when she proposed an alternative to Schwarz’s natural church development profile: twelve "Empirical Indicators of a Missional Church" from the Transforming Congregations Toward Mission project of the Gospel and Our Culture Network (pages 31-32). These indicators do bring a broader perspective to the table and attempt to address the "how" question from the perspective of heralding the reign of God.

It may be that the underlying assumptions of natural church development and of the Gospel and Our Culture Network project differ. I’m not sure that Schwarz has ignored the "why" and "what" questions, though he does not treat them in depth in Natural Church Development. It may be that he does answer these questions differently than we might. Until Paradigm Shift in the Church is published, it may be premature to compare his assumptions with ours. My suspicion at this point is that our differences may be more from depth of inquiry than by contradistinction on broad assumptions.

It struck me while reviewing the presentations that our point of departure may be broader than natural church development. Haven’t we had similar discussions before, particularly about the emphases of the church growth movement, and failed to come to common ground? Isn’t that perhaps why we struggled with whether natural church development is just another church growth program or something new altogether? Our differences are more fundamental, focusing on what we envision to be the role of the church and what it should be heralding: the eschatological message of the in-breaking of the reign of God or the emphasis on bringing individuals to saving faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

While longing for the broader, eschatological implications of the reign of God, we natural church development consultants (and church growth consultants in general) focus on reaching as many individual persons as possible for saving faith in Christ and engagement in the life of the church. In so doing, the reign of God may become more visible. Others among us focus on the implications of the church as herald and sign of God’s already and impending reign, recognizing that the visibility of God’s reign is seen in part in the number of persons who are fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ as saving Lord. Barrett is probably right that our differences have more to do with our assumptions than with the details of natural church development (or any other church growth or renewal process that has come before).

As natural church development consultants, we had difficulty seeing how the twelve "Empirical Indicators of a Missional Church" (pages 31-32) could be used to assess the "how" question, particularly among a large number of congregations. This raises the important issue of research methodology.

Though Schwarz was attempting to assess qualities of health, he used a quantitative research methodology. This approach develops hypotheses and tests those hypotheses against numerical data collected. Based on his early reading of church growth literature and studies of smaller numbers of congregations in Germany, Schwarz was able to hypothesize about how church health and church growth might correlate. He was able to test these hypotheses through his international research project. Because Schwarz has a philosophical bent toward abstracting principles from many models (in this case, over one thousand churches from around the world) then individualizing those principles for specific congregations (NCD, 17), he chose a quantitative methodology. Quantitative research approaches may be used with either a large or small sample size. However, this approach—using a questionnaire, computer tabulation, and analysis for statistical correlation and probability—is particularly essential for a project encompassing a sample of over one thousand cases (congregations).

The Transforming Congregations Toward Mission project, however, appears to utilize a qualitative research methodology. This approach focuses more on words than on numbers. Researchers observe behavior and interview persons to gain an understanding of a case. Data is recorded in words—sometimes hundreds of thousands of words. Analysis through interpretation of verbal data requires an inductive approach. The result of many qualitative studies is development of new theory.² Qualitative research methodologies lend themselves to studies of a few individual cases (as opposed to the study of thousands of cases, as in Schwarz’s project). Qualitative research is possible with larger sample sizes, but it requires rigorous training of multiple research assistants and extensive efforts at standardizing the recording of their observations to assure the integrity of the data collected. Interestingly, the qualitative research method, using a limited number of churches or case studies, is the common approach for church growth studies. It is this type of study in particular to which Schwarz objects because of its small sample size.

Neither qualitative nor quantitative research methods are better or worse than the other. Both have their place in research methodology. In fact, it is common today to combine both qualitative and quantitative methods in research projects. Using multiple approaches to gather and interpret data from several angles may result in a more comprehensive understanding of reality. This research methodology is called triangulation.³

In attempting to understand organizational behavior, no one tool or methodology can properly assess a situation. My point is that both qualitative and quantitative approaches have their place in proper research. We as consultants would not want to say or imply that the natural church development profile is the best or only tool for assessing congregational health and vitality. A commonly used interpretive framework for congregational studies looks at two dimensions: national vs. local factors and contextual vs. institutional factors. Using this framework, the natural church development profile is one approach to examining local institutional factors.⁴ It does not assess national contextual, national institutional, or local contextual factors. It may address some factors in the spiritual dimension as well.⁵ The effective natural church development consultant, as all skilled consultants, will use multiple tools to help congregations understand their context and situation more fully and to design appropriate and successful interventions to help them be more effective in fulfilling their mission.

Another significant issue raised was whether it is better to concentrate on our strengths or our weaknesses.

The conventional wisdom from organization development, strategic planning, and many corporate renewal intervention efforts is the SWOT analysis: identifying our strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. When a strength and an opportunity match up, it provides a natural place for developing a new ministry. While we must avoid denial of weaknesses and threats, we don’t focus unduly on them. Where possible, we use strengths to address our weaknesses.

The natural church development approach is fundamentally different, yet it includes some similarities. Schwarz sees the eight characteristics not so much as strengths or weaknesses that we can live with or without; rather he sees them as vital signs. Medically speaking, if we see the doctor for a check-up, it doesn’t matter how strong we may be in seven vital signs. If one vital sign is weak, the doctor focuses attention there. In a similar way, if one of the four basic minerals needed for successful plant growth is missing from the soil, our plants will not improve by increasing the levels of those minerals that are already higher. The goal is for a good balance among the minerals, bringing all elements up to their proper level (NCD, 54).

For example, let’s assume that Schwarz’s eight qualities are in fact a church’s vital signs. Increasing need-oriented evangelism will likely have little positive impact on health and growth if a congregation is completely lacking in loving relationships—new people reached will quickly be turned away by the unfavorable attitudes expressed by an unloving people.

Ideally, Schwarz suggests that a church should concentrate on all eight qualities all the time. However, few congregations can spread their energy so broadly. Focusing on the minimum factor is a strategic approach, concentrating energy where the vital signs are weakest. It includes using the congregation’s strengths to help it improve in its areas of weakness. From that perspective, it still allows a concentration on strengths by using them in creative ways to overcome weaknesses (NCD, 50-51).

The "learning circle" Lois Barrett shared in her live presentation provides a helpful conceptual framework for understanding thinking and learning. The four steps in this circle are 1) why, 2) what, 3) how, and 4) do it! The "why" and "what" questions are more reflective and the "how" question and the "do it!" statement are more active. She noted that perhaps 75 percent of North Americans focus on the active rather than the reflective side.

Sometimes we have made distinctions among ourselves as either "academics" or "practitioners." Such distinctions are two sharp, for none of us is purely either. Yet most of us tend toward one side or the other. I would venture that most of us who are natural church development consultants see ourselves on the "practitioner" side. That also puts us squarely on the active side of the learning circle. It is preferable for us to answer the "how" question of any challenge and then just get on with doing something it! It’s not that we don’t care about the "why" and the "what" In fact, we natural church consultants came to this council meeting hoping to get help in examining the "why" and the "what" of natural church development. We actives need the reflectives among us to give us a solid basis in the biblical, philosophical, historical, and theological underpinnings.

Likewise, the "academics" among us are not purely reflectives, but they probably tend toward that side of the circle. As reflectives, we cannot spend all our days in the ethereal world of the "whys?" and the "whats?" of life. The actives help us move beyond reflection to examine the "hows?" and get on with life by "just doing it!" We really do need each other!

Each group faces a real danger: we actives can become so busy in determining "how" and then "doing it" that we miss the important underpinnings. The result can be rushing off after every fad that comes along. We need the stability and mooring that our more reflective brothers and sisters bring to the table. You help us gain perspective and keep us from losing the basics and the best of our Anabaptist and believers’ church heritage. Thank you.

But those among us who are more reflective face an equal danger: we can become so enamored by asking about any new approach, "How Anabaptist is it?" that we may talk a good thing to death. We don’t baptize the new concept and fully accept it as our own, nor do we fully reject it and go on in search for what may meet our particular needs. In so doing, we never get around to really doing anything.

This has happened with various concepts in our past. One consultant said that three times in the past decade he has attended a conference such as this—one that held the promise of a major paradigm shift for the church. Each time—with church planting and intercessory prayer in the late ’80s, more recently with the cell church model, and now with natural church development—we have carefully examined the concept, we have scrutinized it and analyzed it and asked if it is really Mennonite or Brethren. But in the end, we have failed to come to consensus about whether our response should be "thumbs up" or "thumbs down."

As a result, we often scuttle our opportunity to be on the cutting edge of a new thing God is doing. This leads to chasing after the next new thing. We just run around from one thing to another, lost in the "why" and "what" and "how" and never doing much of anything. In the alternative, some take up one approach, others a second, and still others a third. Then we either compete with one another for our perspective or we look suspiciously at one another. In either case, we do not advance the work of Christ in the world.

Perhaps it is still too soon in the young life of natural church development to determine whether it is a passing fad or God’s next major paradigm shift for the church. Time will tell. My plea and that of my natural church development colleagues is that we 1) take the appropriate time to study the underpinnings of natural church development and that we 2) continue to assess and tweak it as we put it into practice among our congregations. If we cannot accept it, then we need to keep looking to see where else God is working and join him in that work.

When we do so, we will enjoy the blessings that may come from living out the six biotic principles:

Somehow that seems very much like being the body of Christ and becoming a sign of the reign of God.

Notes

¹ Compare, for example, the writings of Kennon L. Callahan (Twelve Keys to an Effective Church: Strategic Planning for Mission, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1983), Carol Childress ("Five Windows into the 21^st Century Church," Next 3(3), December 1997), Ken S. Hemphill (The Antioch Effect: 8 Characteristics of Highly Effective Churches, Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), George G. Hunter III (Church for the Unchurched, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), Lyle Schaller ("What Constitutes a Healthy Congregation," The Parish Paper, August 1997), Dann Spader and Gary Mayes (Growing a Healthy Church, Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), Stephen A. Macchia (Becoming a Healthy Church: 10 Characteristics, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), and C. Peter Wagner (Your Church Can Grow: Seven Vital Signs of a Healthy Church, Ventura.: Regal Books, 1976).

² Adapted from Nancy Burns, "Standards for Qualitative Research," Nursing Science Quarterly. Cited in Paul D. Leedy, Practical Research: Planning and Design. Fifth ed. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co, 1993), 140.

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

Top of Page