How do You Measure Mission Effectiveness?

by Jacob Clagg, Director of Communications

The process of reimagining has taken us to a number of different areas. We’ve reimagined missions, evangelism and discipleship, the use of our physical space as churches, and even the reason behind why we gather at all. Looking ahead, it would be good to know if all these new ideas are actually working or if they are less effective than we had hoped. In short, we need a way to measure whether or not we are achieving our goals and our mission. So, what are our performance metrics? How do we, as a church, measure if we are achieving the mission set out before us?

We set out to create a panel consisting of pastors from across the denomination and from a diversity of churches. We brought them each a set of questions about how they measure success and what metrics they count. We openly discussed their methods, their trials, their successes, and their failures. What follows is an analysis of their responses and key takeaways for churches of any size and in almost any context. Panelists are credited at the end. We are grateful for their cooperation and wisdom.

What's Wrong with the Old Metrics?

The most common metrics in our current era, and especially pre-covid, are the metrics of money and people, or “nickels and noses,” as one panelist said. It is becoming clearer and clearer that while having more people show up at your church is almost never a bad thing (unless those people have pitchforks and torches), ‘more people’ communicates almost nothing about the depth of those people’s discipleship. Indeed, we may in hindsight realize that Covid, despite its devastation, was also used as a tool by God to realign the church with His vision. When churches reopened, and large portions of our congregants never came back, there has been a realization that those old numbers were no longer a viable metric for charting our course; in fact, they probably never were. It is then timely, prudent, and imperative that we get these metrics right.

Effectively, all our panelists recognized that the metrics of nickels and noses were not the metrics of success. They had been at one time. Indeed, so vital and obvious were these metrics that they might be found in any number of locations plastered around the church building. One panelist even told stories of actual scoreboards being put on display in front of the congregation each week. If we are under the impression that what we count communicates what is important to our congregations, then it’s no wonder that shallow metrics like these communicated a shallow vision for the church, and has, dare we say it, produced shallow Christians.

This is not to say that counting these things has no purpose and no benefit. One key takeaway from our panelists was that abandoning these trusted metrics may make churches feel unanchored or directionless, like an old ship at sea without a compass. Instead, panelists suggested repurposing the metrics for good but different meaningful outcomes. For instance, counting money and displaying that quarterly or yearly for the congregation is largely about financial transparency, legitimizing the ministry as diligent, above board, and faithfully stewarded. Tracking money can be an indicator of the congregation’s generosity or of the church’s high responsibility. Likewise, counting people is a practical necessity for shepherding well, especially in large congregations. Systems that measure attendance can be used for the express purpose of pastoral care. It can tell us who needs a visit from a pastor or leader, or who is new and needs to be introduced to the community of believers. This is to say that these metrics do serve a purpose, but it is not the purpose we have often thought they served. They do not tell us if we are correctly aligned with God’s mission. They do not tell us if we are effective disciple-makers for Christ.

New Metrics

So, if it’s not money and people, what are the metrics church leaders should be measuring? It's important to note that many of the CGGC churches are still experimenting with metrics, and given the nature of a panel, there is not one monolithic answer, nor are all the panelists in the same developmental space. That being said, let’s talk about the trends we noticed from our panelists.

All our panelists spoke clearly about the need for community engagement. How they measured this was different, but a defining feature of success is whether or not the church has meaningful impact on the community outside of the walls of the church building. For some panelists, this looked like backpack programs, feeding programs, community centers, or even affordable housing. It also included hosting outside organizations inside of the church. For instance, one panelist's church hosted a back-to-school drive. The hosting church neither organized the event nor helped to operate it but supplying a space and, thereby, providing a service for the community, was a metric for success.

For most panelists, this missional approach was seen as fundamentally reciprocal. It provided a blessing to the community but also had immediate, wide-ranging benefits for the congregation as well. It might bring more visitors to the church, but it also had the effect of boosting engagement and commitment to missions, which in turn often meant church members contributed more giving. This means that community outreach has counter-intuitive benefits which are often overlooked. It is assumed by many churches that community engagement will cost and will therefore ultimately be a drain on resources, but the panelists’ experiences suggest that while missions certainly take up resources, congregants are far more likely to contribute additional resources when they believe in a mission. The theme has been that churches believe that they lack sufficient resources to start a missional expression, but our panelists suggested that resources became available after the mission was initiated, not before. This requires, on the part of church leadership, faith not only in God’s direction but also in the congregation.

Panelists measured both the number of community outreach events and the number of volunteers for these events. This was typically done in group meetings with church leaders or volunteers to see which outreach opportunities were most effective, and to gauge congregational interest in continuing the ministry. The quality/value of impact on the community and the increased engagement of the congregation were both measurable and clear indicators of success. Those who volunteer are almost by definition more dedicated and, therefore, more likely to be discipled people. Counting volunteers and their engagement becomes a health metric. If proportionally, we have few volunteers, the same volunteers, or no volunteers, then we have a strong indicator that something is amiss. This may indicate that the outreach expression is a mismatch for the congregation.

Panelists put a heavy emphasis on the importance of congregational engagement, and when that was lacking, it was the outreach expression, not the congregation, that typically needed changing. Most outreach opportunities are good things, but not all outreach expressions fit all churches. This runs counter to the narrative of pastors begging their churches to line up with the mission. Instead, the panelists suggested that a church will, in most circumstances, align with an outreach opportunity that it finds meaningful. I.e., the church isn’t lazy; it’s just not the outreach for them.

For easier measurement, one panelist mentioned counting baptisms. It sounds obvious but the idea was postulated that baptisms are a key indicator of life in the church and of the commitment of believers. If new believers are being baptized, or if past believers are recommitting themselves, then new life is happening, and disciples are being made. Unlike counting noses, counting baptisms is a “hard” number. It really tells us something about what is happening. An entirely apathetic person could show up in a church pew, but an apathetic believer is unlikely to be baptized or make a public declaration of their faith.

While it’s not a data-driven metric, stories and anecdotes are the core elements of what we’re looking for. If we are looking for changed lives or for genuine discipleship, then speaking to people and hearing about how they have changed is the correct metric to measure. Admittedly, it’s a difficult metric to quantify, and catching those stories on a large scale becomes a logistical nightmare. Still, as an additional metric, perhaps a supplemental metric, stories are a key indicator.

Measuring stories could be framed as ‘answered prayers.’ Often pastors do the good work of checking back with congregants with urgent prayer requests to find that God has made mountains move. There is much rejoicing, but rarely is this documented. It would be profoundly helpful, particularly at the end of a year, to have a list of answered prayers in the church. Such a thing is near tangible proof of God’s active presence in the lives of the believers around us and would be a powerful reminder that despite the waxing and waning of ministry, God moves anyway.

One pastor offered the metric of ‘resolved conflicts.’ If we are actively growing in our discipleship, then we ought to be displaying the fruit of God’s spirit in our lives. This should mean less gossip and more honest conversations with those we disagree with. It should mean that we resolve our differences and our conflicts in ways that bring understanding, not division. It’s a tough metric to keep track of because we are prone to move on from conflict swiftly or avoid it completely. Reconciliation ought to be a hallmark of Christian discipleship, especially between disciples, and if so, it ought to be a metric for success.

Lastly, it is probable that failure is itself a metric. Counting what doesn’t work could be an effective tool to get us back on track. On the other hand, we were reminded by all our panelists that God’s vision for our churches is far greater than our own. Just because our vision is getting squashed doesn’t mean God’s vision is failing. It is perhaps true that in chasing after God’s mission and vision requires persistence in the face of apparent failure to see how God works all things for the good of those who love Him.

Panelists: Rob Bergman (First Church of God, Columbia City, IN) Kendall Hughes (Leadwood First Church of God, Leadwood MO) Craig Flack (Celina First Church of God, Celina OH) Dwight Lefever (Providence Church, New Providence PA) Mitch Johnston (McMechen First Church of God, McMechen WV) Tim Welsh (Manteca Church of God, Manteca CA)