Duke Divinity Call & Response Blog

Right. If numbers were not important, why would the gospel writers record how many were in those multitudes that Jesus fed. Numbers in Scripture often have symbolic value (e.g., the 40 days/40 years theme, the number of fish were hauled ashore in John 21:11; the 120 believers in the upper room in Acts 1:15, the urgency of replacing Judas to keep the group at 12). Actually, numbers almost always signify something. Regular record-keeping of the two realities that can be counted in church life -- people and money -- tells a lot (but not everything) about church vitality. But, as Darrell Guder warns us, this must not devolve, as it so easily can, into the commodification of gospel ministry. This is where Guder's excellent book "The Continuing Conversion of the Church" comes into play.

I like your citation of Guder. Trust me, we United Methodists are so completely, assiduously oblivious to numbers (despite our heritage) I don't think we're in danger of Guder's "commodification." We haven't made one single change in the way we conduct church life, evaluate pastors or elect bishops in spite of a loss of two million Methodists.

A agree with Guder that it's all about mission but the only way to get back into mission is to begin counting how many people we have in mission and how many people we serve in mission.

thanks.

'I can’t speak for other church families, but in the Wesleyan family, studied obliviousness to results, deploying pastors without regard to their fruitfulness, pastors shrinking churches, pastors keeping house among the older folks left there by the work of a previous generation of pastors, and churches having a grand old time loving one another and praising God without inviting, seeking, and saving those outside the church, do not make for faithfulness.'

I concede that numbers are not unimportant. However, this blog entry does not seem to present much analysis in terms of the circumstances around the numbers being the way that they are. 'Pastors shrinking churches': well, what might be happening in the community around the congregation? Is it shrinking, people leaving because of economic crisis or other reason? Is there a reason within the history of the congregation? Numbers are, most of all, indicators of something happening,something which should be followed up and addressed, but should not be the only thing that matters.

As for 'pastors keeping house among the older folks', surely this does not mean what it sounds like--that long-term patient ministry among people such as senior citizens, the marginalized and forgotten people in North America, is not part of the call to discipleship because those people are not adding to numbers just getting old and dying. The implication there is that senior citizens just are not worth very much, certainly not worth as much as new Christians. Is that really what 'the Wesleyan family' believes? I wouldn't think so, but maybe I don't know enough Wesleyans.

So, what is more important for the church: growth at any cost, or love at any cost?

What do we say about a bishop whose annual conference lost members last year? Ineffective? If so, why do we listen to his hypocritical rant?

It's actually a moral achievement to be able to be hypocritical. It's not possible without taking a serious stand for something (hat tip to Jeremy Lott here). More substantially your comment sounds like a friend of mine's on Facebook who called this a "parody" of Willimon's earlier self. Come on now, sure he expresses himself forcefully, but does that make something a rant? He uses historical data from Heitzenrater for crying out loud--hardly a man known for historical exaggeration. And the point he makes is serious. It might be wrong, but it shouldn't be dismissed blithely, and any honest look our early movement's emphasis on evangelism, conversion, spreading scriptural holiness and so on, should make the current bureaucratic hand-wringing church very very nervous (in fact, maybe that's what your comment is really saying).

Church membership is declining in all the major protestant denominations. I agree that we all desire effective pastors but to put all the measurement of pastoral effectiveness on gain or loss of membership would be a major mistake. Each local church must play a major role evaluating the performance of ministers. District Superintendents and Bishops should obviously play a role. I agree that incompetent ministers should be removed from their appointments and the ministry through due process.

Okay, let's work with the numbers. I will support the elimination of guaranteed appointments when every bishop and D.S. who supervises a declining conference or district subjects him or herself to the same 18th century numerical standards of accountability that Bishop Willimon lays out for 21st century pastors. At the very least, maybe these spiritually superior elders can link their annual remuneration to the numerical success or failure of the churches under their leadership. That's how things work in the real world, right? It's all in the numbers.

"Give me one hundred preachers who fear nothing but sin, and desire nothing but God, and I care not a straw whether they be clergymen or laymen; such alone will shake the gates of hell and set up the kingdom of heaven on Earth." - John Wesley.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers'" (Matthew 7:21-23).

The fact is numbers are NOT the most important thing to decide if ministry is evetive of not. If anything, it is the idea that large numbers are an antithesis to genuine minisry and discipleship. We need to think about this, very seriously!

I personally don't use John Wesley as my example of what the church should look like. I've studied Wesley and think that he was an incredible human being worthy of praise and at time emulation. The Gospels tend to carry a bit more weight with me.I've read many of Bishop Willimon's books and think that he makes some wonderful points and other times in my humble opinion is way off base.
Every church I have been at has experienced growth, I don't think it's because I am great or do anything special. My goal is always to seek out the interest of the people and then turn that into ministry so we can share the Gospel through deed and word. (It's Relational)
I'm not sure growth is always the sign of health. Many of the churches I have seen grow are consumer oriented and have grown from assimilating the culture. These churches do little in the way of helping other human beings and the plight of the poor and oppressed.
If Bishop Willimon or anyone else will buy my church a couple of the 32 passenger vans I can fill the church up with impoverished street kids.(I'm not sure what a Bishop makes or if this is even feasible.) Now I'm fortunate that our church allows me to fill up our current 15 passenger van with those kids and we are getting more. I can't help but wonder if these are the folks we are reaching or just WASP's from the church next door.
I also wonder if I drug these kids into these growing churches would they continue to grow? Wesley had a heart for the poor and the common man and was considered radical for preaching in the open air. I know that for a fact.
I agree whole heartedly that Pastors in the UMC have many times grown lax or lazy. I think we have in many cases lost the purpose and courage in our current upper echelon to equip those Pastors with the support and guidance they need.I am also confused in who holds the Bishops and the D.S's accountable.
I have not been to a district meeting in my 13 years as a Pastor that I have not been asked or heard chastisement over the need for us to pay our district apportionments.(It's hard to serve two Master's) I believe in accountability for Pastors and D.S's and Bishops. I think numbers are informative and important but are not the means to an end.
I agree with Bishop Willimon in that we have lost our missionary zeal for those who do not know the joy of following Christ. The answer lies in honest, open,intellectual discussion in Christ and not attacking our Brothers or Sister's in Christ's name. It's OK to disagree and continue to dialog.

I believe this all boils down to all Christians in the UMC needing to nourish a zealous heart for the Lord. We need to allow his word to be written upon our hearts so that we truly live it. I've been in many small UMCs and other churches in which you could feel the Spirit alive and breathing. I've been in big program oriented churches that were as cold as ice. What we need are pastors who love people and an organizational structure that seeks them out and welcomes them rather than supporting the status quo. We, meaning Bishops down to Local Pastors, need to have some education in economics, sociology, demography, and similar fields to help us really understand and interpret social-economic trends in our specific communities. When we really understand what's happening in our communities, towns and counties, we can make better ministry decisions. Yes, numbers are important. But they mean nothing if you don't know how to interpret them.

Rev. Willimon:

Welcome to the world of leadership! Your past accomplishments have been largely determined by your own individual efforts. In other words, you were able to "control the show" because you were exercising your unique and particular skills to the exclusion of requiring input and cooperation from others. As long as success depended on your skills alone, you were able to guarantee outcomes commensurate with your individual expertise. Under those conditions, "numbers success" was natural and easy for you. There is no denying that the record reflects that you are smart, gifted and clever! However, my experience in the world of leadership suggests to me that "smart and clever" are not necessarily ingredients that contribute to success where collegiality is required in accomplishing the mission. Often times, extreme egotists find that they are total failures when required to work with and depend on others for successful outcomes. It is one thing to be a clever word-merchant who is able to produce volumes of theoretical guidelines for ministry; however, it is quite another thing to be able to lead people from theory to functional praxis. Large egos become embarrassed when the people they are supposed to lead do not/will not conform to the leader's ego plans for him/herself. This is evidenced most clearly when the leader begins to "pass the buck" and "place the blame" on those who do the work in the field. It translates to something like this: "You are making me look bad and I don't like it so you had better get with the program and give me the inflated numbers that my inflated image of myself requires." You obviously have many gifts and skills but it appears that leadership is not one of them. And finally, I recommend a critical reading of Kierkegaard's parable entitled "The Three-Cent Beer: Can numbers reveal the vitality of religious existence?"

This barrage of comments attacking Willimon's character interests me. He needs no one to defend him. But one does have to be suspicious when an argument is made (Wesley counted numerical growth as an irreplaceable sign of spiritual vitality) and objectors flail out in response against the arguer's character. This latest comment is especially interesting--it welcomes Willimon to leadership when he's been in leadership posts for 40 years and a bishop for six, assumes Willimon has been able to operate previously without input from others (entirely incorrectly), and then implies that Willimon's problem is extreme egotism. Finally toward the end there's a hint of an actual God honest counter-argument on numbers using Kierkegaard, more footnoted than laid out. Other commenters do better--arguing either that Wesley is not a model or asserting (not arguing) numbers aren't important.
I understand this issue is touchy and gets at people's very livelihood. But I don't understand why anything thinks it's rhetorically effective, helpful or true to condemn Willimon's character as a way to get at this issue.

Jason:

Your post reminds me of the Rodney King approach to conflict: "Why can't we all just get along." I offer the following observations:

1) Being in a leadership post (for any amount of years) does not necessarily indicate that the person occupying the post possesses leadership skills. There are many other factors (e.g., politics, network connections, favoritism, etc.) that can elevate an individual into a leadership position.
2) "....using Kierkegaard, more footnoted than laid out." I was under the impression that the format for response was "comments" rather than documented research and exegesis. One definition of "comments" is "an observation or remark expressing an opinion or attitude." Perhaps you should warn those who wish to make a comment that they should "cease and desist" if they violate the Rodney King query of "why can't we all just get along?"
3) Yes, a legitimate argument was made: "Wesley counted numerical growth as an irreplaceable sign of spiritual vitality." Beyond that however, Willimon's arrogance was evident and insulting ("mindless mantras" and "yada, yada, yada"). In this instance, his rhetoric lacks the mark of leadership and signifies an "attack" on a segment of those under his "leadership." Passing the buck and placing all the blame on those who do the work in the field is never a characteristic of leadership.
3) I chuckle at "high-handed" bishops who support their selective agendas with whatever Wesleyan authority they need to sustain a position. It's as if they have forgotten Wesley's letter to Asbury: "How can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be called 'bishop'? I shudder, I start at the very thought! Men may call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never by my consent call me a bishop! For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake put a full end to this! Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better."
4) Finally, I do not suggest that there is anything wrong with being brilliant and successful based on one's individual gifts and skills. I reiterate however, that this kind of success does not by fiat produce leadership skills in any individual. Willimon was speaking from a leadership position and his choice of words betrayed his lack of respect for those he is supposed to be leading. I think it suggests negative personal character traits that are anti-thetical to effective leadership.

It seems as though attacking Willimon is becoming a new sport from his posts here, to his blog, to the UMC website. Usually, you're getting close to the real problem when people complain the loudest.

One of the things I appreciate about the Church of the Resurrection in Kansas City is that they very early adopted the position that they would be a "whatever it takes" church. When special needs children arrived on a Sunday morning for Sunday School, the pastor promised the families that they would have a Sunday School class ready within the week and the members responded!

Instead of being a "whatever it takes" church that seeks out those that Christ sent us to teach and to serve, we seem to think that we can sit within our sanctuaries and dictate the way things will work. Yes, sometimes low numbers may indicate that the pastors and lay leaders may have taken a faithful and unpopular stand. However, it might also mean that the church is turning in towards itself.

Context matters, but it should not stop us from creating accountability structures for churches and pastors.

As a United Methodist Pastor and a Duke Div. Grad whose life has been profoundly changed by the writings of Bishop Willimon, I agree that as a church many of us have become complacent, insular and, for lack of a better word, lazy when it comes to the growth of our churches. This demands that our church structure begin to hold pastors accountable for the state of the communities in which they live.

However, that being said, Bishop Willimon's post can leave readers with a dangerously incomplete picture of how we should tackle this enormous problem. This post, if taken by itself, does not account for the rich complexity of judging a church's spiritual vitality stemming from, among other places, the individual contexts where churches find themselves situated.

Recall the words of Luke 9:5, where in sending out his disciples Jesus warns, "If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet as you leave their town as a testimony against them."

It seems that for that first set of preachers, Jesus acknowledged that many people simply wouldn't accept their message. He does not seem to gesture to any idea that where ever the word is rightly proclaimed people will INEVITABLY come beating their chests and whailing for salvation. No, he acknowledges that a faithful proclamation of the Gospel will sometimes yield little to no fruit. This idea is again confirmed by the parable of the sower.

This idea lies at the heart of the Wesleyan emphasis on free will. At the end of the day, each individual person decides whether or not they will follow Christ, and the responsibility for their decision lies with them.

The reason why focusing on numbers is so alarming to people is, I think, because many of the mega-church, non-denoms have forgotten how to fail. They have refused to accept the fact that sometimes people will, en mass, reject their message, so they decided to water-down the radical nature of Jesus' call for discipleship in order to win more converts despite wide-spread rejection of the true gospel, "Those who do not pick up their cross and follow me have no place in my Kingdom."

So yes, while numbers may have a place in judgment over a church's effectiveness, my fear is that too much reliance on these factors may lead us to a larger, more spiritually impotent church.

The Bishop might do well to explain to the church some other facets he uses in determining ecclesial and pastoral faithfulness, if for no other reason than to keep Methodists everywhere from making the same mistake as so many mega-churches have done. Then we might be able to begin the hard work of performing the renaissance necessary within our church in order to be able to stand against the crimson-tide of secularism that has already taken over so much of the Western world.

Being a Christian,I've had a lot of experiences in the church ministry. I've been to a lot of trials and testings but the only thing I promised my self is to count it all joy for God has something to reward me. The joy of serving Him is somehow hard to begin but I realized it's worth fulfilling. Being an effective clergy, like any other ordinary member, needs management and with the presence of God.