Comments on: Is "Grow" a Four Letter Word?

By: alaina

alaina — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:29:24 +0000

i know all too well the ills of the “to-read” list. so. many. fun. things!
the thing that i am loving about resident aliens is the brevity it uses to explain issues of deep gravity without being weighty in language or presumptuous about the reader’s foreknowledge.
they unpack a number of contemporary concerns of the church in very thoughtful, but accessible ways.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 21:35:25 +0000

I think it’s a great analogy and makes perfect sense. It’s an indicator, predictor, and standard of measurement, but not the final word.

I’ve noticed the posts on Resident Aliens. Haven’t read it yet. It’s on my “to-read” list, like so many others. But you are enticing me to pick it up sooner rather than later.

By: alaina

alaina — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:06:59 +0000

it must be youthministrymeetswillimon month. i’ve been reading resident aliens (one of the hauerwas co-authored books) and have been reading some of willimon’s writings as bishop.

–

perhaps numbers in ministry are a bit like a person’s weight. this is an imperfect analogy, so play along. i’m not thinking in terms of growth (as in a growing weight is typically a bad thing, a growing ministry is decidedly not), but in terms of the tools’ effectiveness in measuring health.

a person’s weight can be very useful if a person needs to lose weight. It indicates progress, setbacks and change. at the same time, a person can use unhealthy techniques to stimulate that weight loss. weight is an indicator, not a full view. for a full view of a person’s health, you must go beyond the surface and measure blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.

likewise, numbers in ministry can indicate poor health or healthy progress, but they never provide the full view. you must also look at faithfulness to scripture, service to the community, relationships among the people.

i don’t think it is necessarily a bad thing to help people recalibrate their understanding of healthy numerical growth, but it must be tempered with a full view of congregational health assessment.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:12:16 +0000

Thank for the thoughts Jerry. Might we be able to say that a church that numerically is stagnant or in decline for a number of years is likely to be unhealthy, but a church that is growing numerically might be healthy depending upon where that growth is coming from?

It just seems to me that a healthy church can’t be in constant decline. Eventually it has to pick up.

By: Jerry Watts

Jerry Watts — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:48:12 +0000

Thanks. I too have become a fan of Willimon. Thanks for wrestling with the counting issue. I think your question about have we swung too far as a reactionary response to counting is critical. Personally I have a love hate relationship with counting. I love counting when my numbers are good and hate it when they are bad! It’s no wonder declining mainline churches don’t like to count. That being said the danger of course as your post reflects is using this metric as the only factor that validates our ministry and compells us to use whatever consumer tool at our disposal to get folks to show up. That view short changes discipleship and is not the model of the early church in Acts. Somehow we have to learn to avail ourselves to the tension of both/and. The confrontation (or celebration) of numbers is helpful and good, so long as remember it was aligning ourselves with the moving of the Spirit that made the difference and not the other way around. My vote? GROW is NOT a four letter word if remember where the Growth comes from. Thanks Matt, great thought provoking post!