Shalom!
I'm offering here and elsewhere (Holy Leftovers and UMCommunities) a brief look at a book that I think is very helpful. Once again, I'm delighted that Dan Dick is going to be with us in the Wisconsin Conference, UMC, for a while.
A Review of Sorts of Dan Dick’s VITAL SIGNS: A PATHWAY TO CONGREGATIONAL WHOLENESS (Nashville: Discipleship Resources), 2007.
http://www.cokesbury.com/forms/ProductDetail.aspx?pid=519483
The description from the Cokesbury link above reads
Becoming a vital church means having stable and growing congregations that are willing to challenge and be challenged in ministry. After years of research, Dan Dick is able to identify four church types: Decaying Congregations, Dystrophic Congregations, Retrogressive Congregations, and Vital Congregations. Dick carefully describes each category, while pointing out that the goal of being a vital congregation is “neither simple or easy.” The text provides examples of communities in each category, coupled with tools to move congregations down the pathway to vitality. As faithful Christian leaders it is time to transform congregations into communities which work hard and sacrifice to be called a church of God.
I like this book! Perhaps one reason is that Dan recognizes the differences among us. The same “success formula” does not work for all congregations. Moreover, he points out that there are many ways of evaluating “success” for a congregation.
In his study of over 700 congregations (p. 9) he developed two sets of criteria for determining the health of a congregation: growth and stability. From his research four “types” emerged to describe congregations. In his study, “vital churches” (stable and growing) made up just under 10% of the total. “Dystrophic churches” (not stable but growing) made up about 33%. “Retrogressive congregations” (stable but declining) made up about 7%. The largest type in the study is the “decaying congregation” (unstable and declining), which made up just under 51% of the total. Lest this information dismay you, Gentle Reader, Dan points out that he thinks most United Methodist leaders want vital churches, most congregations can work to become more stable, and every congregation has “at least pockets of vitality” that can generate growth.
(p. 13)
The author offers information about issues that matter for vital congregations:
The following seven focus areas are identified by vital churches as those critical areas that emerged as the greatest challenges to vitality. Unless and until the church dealt with these issues, health and vitality was impossible. The critical focus areas for congregations seeking vitality are: thinking holistically about the congregation, balancing inward and outward focus, pursuing lifelong learning, developing ways to measure and evaluate impact, establishing standards with accountability, becoming developmentally complex, and creating transparency. (p. 115f)
Regarding measuring and evaluating impact, Dan Dick suggests that
Vital churches develop qualitative metrics that measure:
· number of lives touched in a positive way
· number of people served
· evolution of participants’ understanding of Scripture and theology
· healthy lifestyle changes of the participants
· improvements in relationships
· levels of connection and commitment to the faith community
These are just a sample of the kinds of things that vital churches learn to measure. These standards take them away from a ‘growth as more’ mentality, to a ‘growth as depth’ mentality. (p. 119)
Dan Dick appears to be an enthusiastic supporter of the “high expectation” church, one that requires that members participate in ways that are subject to measurement and accountability. I waver a bit on this but think having expectations might at least “set the bar” for measurement purposes. He writes:
Vital churches define a set of ‘non-negotiables,’ things they believe describe the least a person must do to be considered a member of the church. Among the things they have identified are:
· prayer with other members of the congregation every week
· development of a personal devotional life (to which they are held accountable)
· participation in some form of communal worship each week
· participation in some form of spiritual formation group (Sunday school, Bible study, accountability group, or discussion group)
· participation in some form of Christian service, outreach, or witness every week (to which they are held accountable)
Individual congregations may have other criteria, but these emerge as the basics in every setting. What happens when someone fails to keep covenant with the basics? They are removed from the active membership roles until they meet the base criteria. (pp. 120-121)
I’m a bit more in tune with what Gustav Nelson has written in his book. Nelson has written SERVICE IS THE POINT (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), in which he states: If the church would see the life and work of each member as part of the mission of the church, then every member would be active. He encourages each member to write a personal mission statement articulating how the member will carry out discipleship within the congregation and in everyday life as well.
Some questions I would ask of these authors and anyone else:
1. How can we learn to balance our evaluation with a tendency to judge the value of a congregation? Or, how do I participate happily in a “decaying church”?
2. In what ways might we “hold one another accountable” for prayer or service?
3. How ought Conferences, etc., allocate resources among the four types of churches?
Shalom!
dave
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Shalom!
You know how it is as we age. We wonder about how our lives got to the place where they are now. What shaped us? What shapes us now?
I noticed the end feature in the May 4th NEW YORK TIMES email page, and it took me back to seminary days. I was finishing up my first year.
TODAY'S HEADLINES
The New York Times on the Web
Monday, May 4, 2009
- ON THIS DAY -
On May 4, 1970, Ohio National Guardsmen opened fire on anti-war protesters at Kent State University, killing four students and wounding nine others.
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/20090504.html
Besides all the turmoil of the Vietnam era, there were at least two other things working on me around that time. One was the Chicago Eight/Seven Trial, and the other was the subject of this TIMES look back to Kent State. I can remember washing dishes as I listened to the soap opera that was the trial and wondering what in the world had happened to us as a people!
Apparently I was asked to edit the student newspaper (one typed it, proofed it, dittoed it—remember the ditto fluid and those blue sheets?—and placed it in the mailroom) right after the Kent State killings. I edited that issue and the entire next year. But those killings affected me deeply. There were other killings on other campuses too. How could we do this to our own people?
So I commented on the killings in the paper. In fact, though I am no artist, I drew a “cartoon,” which consisted of a peace sign with four bullet holes in it. Among my comments was this sentence: “Revising politics, regaining compassion, restoring relationship, and renewing life all begin at home.”
Now about two years after retiring, I observe that the challenge remains just about the same, and the violence we use to contain violence has about the same effect it did then. When will we ever learn? How long, O Lord, how long?
I note that in the article the TIMES did in 1970 it was reported that when the National Guardsmen fired their guns, some of the guns were pointed to the sky, and I remember that my college roommate, a gentle, sensitive man, had been drafted. I read his letters. One was about his attending a Bob Hope show before he was shipped to Vietnam. He wrote to the effect that he wished he could tell the protesters that he didn’t favor the war either. He came home. He was different, said the woman he married, but he came home.
“All we are saying,” sang protesters, “is ‘Give peace a chance.’” It’s the song we still need to sing!
Shalom!
dave
You know how it is as we age. We wonder about how our lives got to the place where they are now. What shaped us? What shapes us now?
I noticed the end feature in the May 4th NEW YORK TIMES email page, and it took me back to seminary days. I was finishing up my first year.
TODAY'S HEADLINES
The New York Times on the Web
Monday, May 4, 2009
- ON THIS DAY -
On May 4, 1970, Ohio National Guardsmen opened fire on anti-war protesters at Kent State University, killing four students and wounding nine others.
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/20090504.html
Besides all the turmoil of the Vietnam era, there were at least two other things working on me around that time. One was the Chicago Eight/Seven Trial, and the other was the subject of this TIMES look back to Kent State. I can remember washing dishes as I listened to the soap opera that was the trial and wondering what in the world had happened to us as a people!
Apparently I was asked to edit the student newspaper (one typed it, proofed it, dittoed it—remember the ditto fluid and those blue sheets?—and placed it in the mailroom) right after the Kent State killings. I edited that issue and the entire next year. But those killings affected me deeply. There were other killings on other campuses too. How could we do this to our own people?
So I commented on the killings in the paper. In fact, though I am no artist, I drew a “cartoon,” which consisted of a peace sign with four bullet holes in it. Among my comments was this sentence: “Revising politics, regaining compassion, restoring relationship, and renewing life all begin at home.”
Now about two years after retiring, I observe that the challenge remains just about the same, and the violence we use to contain violence has about the same effect it did then. When will we ever learn? How long, O Lord, how long?
I note that in the article the TIMES did in 1970 it was reported that when the National Guardsmen fired their guns, some of the guns were pointed to the sky, and I remember that my college roommate, a gentle, sensitive man, had been drafted. I read his letters. One was about his attending a Bob Hope show before he was shipped to Vietnam. He wrote to the effect that he wished he could tell the protesters that he didn’t favor the war either. He came home. He was different, said the woman he married, but he came home.
“All we are saying,” sang protesters, “is ‘Give peace a chance.’” It’s the song we still need to sing!
Shalom!
dave
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
New Wesley Journal: Methodist Review
Shalom!
The NEWSCOPE for May 6, 2009, reports that there is a new, online, free source for Wesleyan studies!
The board of directors and the sponsors of The Methodist Review, Inc., launched “Methodist Review: A Journal of Wesleyan and Methodist Studies” on May 1. As an open access, peer-reviewed electronic academic journal at www.methodistreview.org, Methodist Review publishes scholarly articles in all areas and eras of Wesleyan and Methodist studies, including biblical, theological, ethical, philosophical, practical, historical, biographical, and social-scientific topics and methodologies. The journal is partly a successor to and partly a transformation of “Quarterly Review: A Journal of Theological Resources for Ministry (QR), which was published jointly by the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry and The UM Publishing House from 1980 to 2005.
The lead article looks interesting. Here's the abstract:
What Makes Theology “Wesleyan”?
Sarah Heaner Lancaster, Catherine Keller, Donald A. Thorsen, Dennis C. Dickerson, Charles M. Wood
Abstract
In an address to the 1982 Oxford Institute of Methodist Theological Studies, Albert C. Outler outlined an agenda for what he called “Phase III” of Wesley Studies, proposing a slogan for Methodist theologies: “Back to Wesley and his sources, and then forward—with his sense of heritage and openness to the future as one of our models.” Subsequently, much work has been done in the area of Wesley Studies to illumine Wesley and his sources. This has led to questions about the possibility of, and need for, what might be called a “Phase IV” of Wesley Studies—moving beyond Wesley Studies per se to apply the results of research in the area more broadly to the constructive theological work that is now being carried out in the life and thought of the body of Christ (and not only in those church traditions having a historical connection to John and Charles Wesley). Some theologians use Wesley and Wesleyan themes in their work, but they may or may not self-consciously identify themselves as standing in the broad Wesleyan (or Methodist) tradition. Some make specific reference to or use of the theology of John and Charles Wesley in their own constructive theological work; others do not. The panel discussion presented here, from a Wesleyan Studies Group session at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion, focused on the question of whether a “Phase IV” of Wesley Studies can yet be discerned by addressing the question “What makes theology ‘Wesleyan’?”
Shalom!
dave
The NEWSCOPE for May 6, 2009, reports that there is a new, online, free source for Wesleyan studies!
The board of directors and the sponsors of The Methodist Review, Inc., launched “Methodist Review: A Journal of Wesleyan and Methodist Studies” on May 1. As an open access, peer-reviewed electronic academic journal at www.methodistreview.org, Methodist Review publishes scholarly articles in all areas and eras of Wesleyan and Methodist studies, including biblical, theological, ethical, philosophical, practical, historical, biographical, and social-scientific topics and methodologies. The journal is partly a successor to and partly a transformation of “Quarterly Review: A Journal of Theological Resources for Ministry (QR), which was published jointly by the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry and The UM Publishing House from 1980 to 2005.
The lead article looks interesting. Here's the abstract:
What Makes Theology “Wesleyan”?
Sarah Heaner Lancaster, Catherine Keller, Donald A. Thorsen, Dennis C. Dickerson, Charles M. Wood
Abstract
In an address to the 1982 Oxford Institute of Methodist Theological Studies, Albert C. Outler outlined an agenda for what he called “Phase III” of Wesley Studies, proposing a slogan for Methodist theologies: “Back to Wesley and his sources, and then forward—with his sense of heritage and openness to the future as one of our models.” Subsequently, much work has been done in the area of Wesley Studies to illumine Wesley and his sources. This has led to questions about the possibility of, and need for, what might be called a “Phase IV” of Wesley Studies—moving beyond Wesley Studies per se to apply the results of research in the area more broadly to the constructive theological work that is now being carried out in the life and thought of the body of Christ (and not only in those church traditions having a historical connection to John and Charles Wesley). Some theologians use Wesley and Wesleyan themes in their work, but they may or may not self-consciously identify themselves as standing in the broad Wesleyan (or Methodist) tradition. Some make specific reference to or use of the theology of John and Charles Wesley in their own constructive theological work; others do not. The panel discussion presented here, from a Wesleyan Studies Group session at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion, focused on the question of whether a “Phase IV” of Wesley Studies can yet be discerned by addressing the question “What makes theology ‘Wesleyan’?”
Shalom!
dave
Monday, May 4, 2009
Change and Church
Shalom!
The Alban Institute is featuring an interesting book with the following excerpt:
http://www.alban.org/conversation.aspx?id=7754
Seems to me that there's a lot of helpful recognition there! The local congregation is its own organism, and in my opinion, each one is unique. When we keep trying to apply the latest "thing" to every situation, we keep being frustrated!
Shalom!
dave
The Alban Institute is featuring an interesting book with the following excerpt:
http://www.alban.org/conversation.aspx?id=7754
Seems to me that there's a lot of helpful recognition there! The local congregation is its own organism, and in my opinion, each one is unique. When we keep trying to apply the latest "thing" to every situation, we keep being frustrated!
Shalom!
dave
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
