Mission agencies and societies are gearing up for what could be the
greatest decade of church growth of the century. If the churches of the
Restoration heritage are to keep pace, better networking in strategy and
evaluation is a must. There are four basic components to any sound
strategy: thinking, planning, acting, and evaluating
(Dayton and Fraser 1990:37).
Missions personnel of all classifications (missionaries, missions
instructors, and missions committees) thrive on the first component,
thinking. They come up with some creative ideas of how to meet grandiose
projections for church growth. Many are even able to make solid plans.
The majority of missionaries are also hard workers. The gifts of
thinking, planning and working are prevalent.
Evaluation on the other hand, is sorely missing from most missionaries'
tool bags. The lack of this crucial component restricts the potential of
any program. David Barrett analyzed 788 plans to evangelize the world
(Barrett and Reapsome 1988). None of the plans have reached their goal
and few were in action very long. The downfall of most was the absence of
an evaluation process.
The impression that mission work is a volunteer endeavor and that
accountability is inappropriate has caused many missionaries not to reach
their full potential in productiveness for the Lord (Parshall 1990:247 and
Cook 1990:251). Parshall estimates fifty percent of the missionaries on
the field work under their potentials because of the deficiency of
evaluation (Parshall 1990:246). Sponsoring congregations are beginning to
desire and require more accountability through evaluations. It is more
advantageous for churches in consultation with missionaries and missions
teachers to set the evaluation processes. Better goals and measurement
will result.
Accountability gives the added benefit of reducing stress and giving
missionaries the perception that their task is important (Herr 1987:43).
The annual church growth study and other evaluations allow others to have
input concerning the goals for the next year. Missionaries do view
themselves as shouldering the entire program. Supporters and other
missionaries can offer advice based on what they see in the evaluations.
Dayton views accountability to God coming through evaluations (1983:71).
How else would one conclude he has accomplished what God expects of him.
When assessment and accountability are missing, the potential for failure
is also high. Evaluations come in at least four stages.
After the criteria list is drawn up for prioritizing possible targets,
data concerning the target areas should be collected from reference works
such as World Christian Encyclopedia, Operation World, Ethnologue, and the
Unreached Peoples series. The latest Mission Handbook should be consulted
to ascertain which denominations or agencies are working in the area. The
headquarters of these groups are usually very willing to share church
growth information either by phone interviews or fax messages. After this
information is gathered and digested, an on-site research trip to prime
candidate areas is in order. The purpose of the trip is to gain current
church growth data; logistical information concerning church registration,
finances, and housing; and receptivity assessment.
It is difficult for a prospective team of missionaries to collect and
assimilate all of this data. Trained and experienced researchers should
be used. From their experience they can add a credible subjective "feel"
for the possibilities in addition to the facility of evaluative data
collection.
Evaluation can help missionaries make sounder plans for the future by
pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of present strategies. In our
work among the Kipsigis people we did not see any steady increase in
church growth until we were visited by Dr. Ira Hill, an inventor and
experimental scientist, who explained to us procedures for goal setting
and assessment. We had been operating on the task level without clearly
defined overall goals dictating those tasks. From 1977 until now, yearly
church growth studies have been conducted to evaluate progress toward
annual goals.
The evaluation is of performance and not people. "Whatever happened in
terms of goal achievement needs to be evaluated in terms of means and
methods" (Dayton and Fraser 1990:322). Fundamentally, church growth
studies cover the growth of congregations and each segment of the
congregations (such as sex, age set, literacy, and religious background).
Donald McGavran's Understanding Church Growth sets forth basic church
growth principles and definitions for most of the variables. Ebbie
Smith's A Manual for Church Growth Surveys describes the procedures for
church growth studies. The appendices offer checklists and material lists
which are very helpful. Examples of church growth studies are Church
Growth Among the Meru: Ministry of the Churches of Christ in Meru, Kenya
-- 1987 and Church Growth Among the Kipsigis of Southwest Kenya Vol. 4.
The real worth of church growth evaluations come from asking why goals
were met or not met. What procedures and strategies should be continued
or changed?
Yearly goals and tasks should be set based upon the results of the church
growth. This produces a sharpened focus for planning and action.
Further, it possesses an excellent environment for methodological
innovations.
When a work is experiencing severe difficulties, some problem evaluation
techniques used in the business world are useful. The Quick fix and
Strategy Planning for Nonprofit Organizations are valuable sources for
problem resolution.
Outside experts are often willing to help. Missions professors, former
missionaries, and counselors should be used as consultants by sponsoring
congregations as well as missions teams.
Some attempts have been made at a globalized outlook. Tex Williams'
initiative in the sixties encouraging congregations to adopt countries for
evangelization was an admirable attempt. An evaluation of global
strategies at this point, however, would find little to evaluate. We are
definitely at the initial evaluation stage. This is especially evident
when researchers from our movement enter the offices of missions directors
in denominations and agencies. These directors have a good understanding
of what is being done globally by their mission. They talk in terms of
five and ten-year plans for a continent and the world. They are far from
having a finely tuned system. What Jim Reapsome, Director of Evangelical
Missions Information Service, says about these missions agencies is
indicative of the Churches of Christ.
As I meet with elderships and missions committees, it has become obvious
that our leadership is looking for advice and direction in missions.
Continental and global plans need to be developed by groups of experienced
missionaries and missions academicians. Barrett and Johnson offer steps
toward planning and networking (1990:74,75,92-106). Databases such as the
one developed by Mac Lynn at David Lipscomb University and the one at
Abilene Christian University need to be sharing information and constantly
updating. Based upon those statistics, researchers need to develop
priority lists for continental and global strategies. These strategies
should not only be presented in forms which encourage creative new
research and planning but also be presented in forms which are easily
understood and challenging for the leadership in local congregations.
1. There are two excellent computer based resources available: GRDB
(Global Research Database) and Atlas for Missions both from Global Mapping
Incorporated in Pasadena.
2. Other useful works for strategy building in the series are World-Class
Cities and World Evangelization, Unreached Peoples: Clarifying the Task,
and Seven Hundred Plans to Evangelize the World.
AN URGENT NEED FOR EVALUATION
by
Richard Chowning
Abilene Christian University
Abilene, Texas
ACCOUNTABILITY AND EVALUATION
Innovative goal setting and ruthless, yet celebrative, evaluation is a
productive mix. The evaluation causes one to be accountable to self and
supporting congregations. The evaluations, whether conducted by
individual missionaries, by a team, or an outside expert, will expose the
results of the program. Evaluation is common to most enterprises, but
because accountability is vague in the mission enterprises of the Churches
of Christ, this crucial aspect is often neglected to the detriment of the
entire mission thrust. Other denominations and missions agencies require
reporting procedures or send representatives to evaluate works. Works
have benefitted from third party evaluations.
"This accountability is not just to God. It is accountability
to God's people, the church, to God's world. To refuse
to be accountable to the household of faith is to do
violence to a basic premise of mission theology."
(Olson 1978:164)
Without some form of formal accountability, a missionary and his
supporters seldom know to what degree good stewardship is being practiced.
McGavran described the effect of lack of assessment as "missionary fog,"
a haziness about judging stewardship (McGavran 1970:67).INITIAL EVALUATIONS
Prior to goal setting, preliminary and diagnostic research should take
place (Wagner 1987:159-160). Very few works begin with an in-depth
evaluation of the target field. Such blind or foggy beginnings squander
time and effort. The book and workbook That Everyone May Hear is an
excellent resource for planning initial evaluations of target areas.
Criteria for field selection should be drawn up carefully. A survey of
criteria lists developed by others would be a good place to begin
(Chowning 1985).REGULAR EVALUATION
Once missionaries move to the field, regular evaluation should be a tool
of the team and a requirement of supporting congregations. The regularity
of evaluations correlates with the time element of the goals. C. Peter
Wagner, who has planned and successfully accomplished some grand goals in
missions, suggests that goals be planned for five year segments and be
evaluated and adjusted every one or two years (Wagner 1987: p. 154).
Edward Dayton advises that the early stages of a plan's implementation is
the most decisive time for evaluation. "Early evaluation might have
uncovered situations where misunderstanding, lack of communication, and
inappropriate methods of evangelism were producing resistance rather than
belief" (Dayton 1983:71).PERIODIC EVALUATIONS
Periodic evaluation of specific segments of the church are helpful.
Leadership training programs, youth emphasis, and contributions are some
of the more obvious segments which profit from rigorous scrutiny. Rites
of passage, worship services and missionary team cooperation also benefit
from appraisals. The team who worked among the Quiche Indians of
Guatemala in the seventies were aided by the outside
evaluation of their work by Dr. C. Philip Slate. The leadership training
program among the Kipsigis changed direction after a survey polled the
opinions of the leaders who were being trained.NETWORKING GLOBAL STRATEGIES AND EVALUATION
Thus far the thrust of this article has been the selection and ongoing
evaluation of a particular target area of the world. Improved evaluations
are taking place in some areas. The greater weakness in the Restoration
heritage churches is an evaluation of global strategy.
"At a time when a ripple of networking has gently
nudged the missions establishment, apparently we
are still pretty much like a cluster of isolated lifeboats,
each one struggling alone against a monstrous wave of
mounting unbelief around the world" (Reapsome 1988:211).
David Barrett and Todd M. Johnson in the newest addition to the AD 2000
series, Our Globe and How to Reach It, offer advice which we would do well
to explore (1990). They emphasize the need to network in global strategy
planning. The book contains a list of global plans and networks in and
among denominations and missions agencies (1990:74-75). According to
Barrett and Johnson's definitions, we have no plans or networking on
global perspectives. We do have some understanding of the current
situation as evidenced by the world statistics presented elsewhere in this
journal. Prioritizing and planning would be the next logical step.CONCLUSIONS
The need for evaluation and the access to tools and data require
cooperation and networking on a scale far beyond the present situation. A
key to progress in this area is trust. A missionary has to trust that
when he rigorously evaluates his work, he will receive encouragement and
advice from others and not criticism. Researchers and planners need to
trust each other by raising above parochial protection and competition of
institutions and develop networks of communication which utilize the best
minds and best tools available. God challenges us to pray and work toward
these ends. The world is dying in sin. We can no longer put off from
generation to generation what we have understood as the required and
achievable task before us.
Mirrored by permission of ACU Missions Personnel
Direct questions and comments to Ed Mathews,
![]()
Page maintained by