One of my favorite ministry activities here in Estonia is participating in congregational consultations for the churches within our ECB Church Union. The churches our team consults vary in their structural choices, size and situation. We have consulted both rural and urban churches, both traditional and “emerging” churches and both small and moderately sized churches (which in Estonia ranges between 30 to 300 members).
If you have followed along with my ministry over the years, then you know that the area that interests me most is small churches. There are a number of reasons for this. First and foremost, I just like small churches and I like small places. But I also believe they deserve all of the attention that larger churches get. These churches reach into niche communities that big churches never will and so their importance for the missional task should not be overlooked.
But second, I also recognize that many of the assumptions we make about church health and church growth require some of the advantages that come with moderate to larger sized congregations. The smaller a church is, the more it has to rely on relational rather than programatic advantages in order to sustain its ministry as it continually adapts to varying circumstances.
Arguably, this situation is something quite similar to what we see in the early church where there was very little hint of institutional or cultural advantage and congregations (really “gatherings” or “fellowships”) were identified more by the way than by where or with what they met, worshiped and ministered. Those early churches experience explosive growth even in the face of significant opposition. I’m not sure that our best equipped churches today could say the same. So a third reason to study and support small churches is that they provide us with a living laboratory to look for and test the relational principles that might have undergirded the early church’s success.
Congregational readiness to minister
One of the things we can say about relationally functioning churches is that they succeed at engaging their membership in the shared work of the ministry. Early in my ministry training I was deeply influenced by the conviction that the gift-functions Paul lists in Ephesians 4 (popularized as APEST by Allan Hirsch) exist not to do or even lead the work of the church but – according to the text – to equip the church to function together as the “body of Christ”. Taken as a whole, this chapter develops the idea that God gives gifts to his people in such a way that they can join in the work of blessing, reconciling and restoring creation and humanity. A healthy church according to this vision (a church “body” that has grown up into the full stature of the “head” who is Jesus Christ) is one in which the believers recognize the gifts they have been given, have been well equipped by their “leaders” (our word, not theirs), are happy to serve in those areas, and have experience serving together under the coordination of Christ’s “headship”.
So one of the questions I have always wanted to find a way of answering is: How can we get a good sense of readiness of congregation members to be engaged in the ministry activity of the church?
There is quite a bit packed into answering this question.
- Differing definitions of ministry activity: We have to admit that each church has its own unique sense of calling. Some ministry activities might be relatively universal (teaching, administration, oversight). But others will depend on a church’s demographic makeup, its “bouquet” of natural and spiritual giftings, and the missional situation it finds itself in. Also, some churches may refer to these activities as “programs” with no second thought, while others prefer the language of “spiritual gifting”. So any model for assessing readiness for ministry has to be able to adjust to each church’s definitions of ministry activity and their unique sense of calling (and maybe also offer some assistance in clarifying that calling).
- Readiness is Time-Bound: When somebody tells me that they are or are not ready to serve, that could mean a whole range of things. Somebody who is ready to serve might have served in this way for many years. They have lots of experience and wisdom and feel energized and optimistic about continuing. Another willing person might have no experience at all but is interested in giving a new ministry activity a shot. A person who says that they are unwilling to serve might be burned out, or in need of a sabbath rest, they may be discerning their sense of call or might even be upset about relational dynamics on a given ministry team. While a yes/no answer to readiness may be a helpful recruiting tool, each of these people has a different set of needs based in part on a combination of their past experience, present activity and future willingness to serve.
- Readiness is relational: Readiness is not just about my willingness to serve in a given area. Because the Body of Christ is theologically speaking first corporeal and thereafter institutional, other people’s opinions about my ministry activity matter as much as my opinion of myself. In Paul’s and Peter’s pastoral letters, gifting isn’t just something I recognize in myself. It is something that others recognize in me as I participate in generic service. In the early stages of my ministry activity, I simply volunteer … for anything and everything really. Throughout the New Testament it is clear that a service orientation always precedes the recognition of gifting and potential for leadership. In the course of every-day service, the people around me will start to recognize how God uses me in unique ways. (“Aha, you are so good at helping me understand difficult things; you minister like a liver!” or “Everytime you come into the room we are so encouraged. It feels like a lung full of fresh oxygen!” or “Man you are the strong legs of this church. God says ‘jump’ and you ask ‘how high’?”). Likewise, it matters how well I function cooperatively with other people who are serving in their gifting. If I’m consistently hard to work with, then I probably need to take a good look at whether my way of ministering can be improved to help the body function at its best.
Measuring and visualizing readiness
For now, I’ll leave off the relational aspect of readiness because that requires a specialized means of assesment. But there is plenty to be gained by taking a closer look at willingness to serve in different areas. As I indicated above, willingness is a combination of past experience, present activity and future openness. It’s relatively easy to create a survey question (especially using a multiple choice matrix) to ask people about their past, present and future activity in any of their church’s ministries. If past activity is scored as 2, present as 3, and future as 4, then all combinations of these numbers will be unique sums and each combination can be assessed as its own situation. The following table illustrates this logic.
As you can see in the table, this kind of grading might be very helpful for ministry area coordinators or pastoral staff. With a quick glance, I could see that Robert’s willingness score is 3 for hospitality ministry, 4 for maintenance, and 9 for mission. As Robert’s pastor or mentor, I’d want to know what he learned about himself from a year of service on the hospitality team and why he doesn’t want to continue. I’d probably introduce him to some one on the maintenance team and check in with him over the course of the next year to see if this is a better fit. But I would really encourage him to develop his passion for mission and help him to learn to self-regulate so he would know when to take a break.
For Robert, it might also be helpful to see all of his willingness scores in one place in order to help him clarify his sense of giftedness and calling. In this setting, it would also be important for Robert to know if other people confirmed his suitability for one area of service or another and to get a sense of how well he is doing as a team player and a member of the Body. I’ll pick up on these additional aspects of readiness in a future post.
You’ll notice that the scores in the table are not sequential and that they are color coded. This is simply to indicate at a glace they kind of pastoral care that should be applied. Green colors have some experience and are ready to go but have varying needs in terms of discerning call and ensuring longevity. The sole yellow color – what I’ve called the Optimist – is open to trying something new, but probably needs some guidance and mentoring over the course of their first experience in this area. Red areas are people who don’t want to serve in the future and care should be taken to find out why and to make sure that any negative experiences have been carefully debriefed. These are people who may become important contributors to other areas and need to be cared for as “persons” before considering them as “resources”.
Assessing ministry areas
From an administrative point of view, combining the scores of all respondants in a congregation may give a good indication of which ministries are doing well and which ones need some attention. Take a look at the following bar chart:
Disregard the fact that ministry areas and willingness categories are in Estonian. But notice that the bar chart indicates both the number of respondents for each area as well as the distribution of willingness for future ministry. As was the case with these results, ministry areas can be grouped and analyzed (specialized ministries, healthy ministries, “gateway” ministries, and ministries that need attention). When combined with qualitative feedback from respondents, leadership can direct their attention to either maximizing effectivness or addressing shortcomings in strategically important areas.
If this way of assessing congregational health is something that sparks your interest, let me know in the comments below. I’m actively working on refining this model and gaining more insight into how it might be put to good use in the life of congregations. I’ll pick up from here in a future post to add in the communal aspects of readiness assessment. Until then …