I totally agree…there are huge theological, philosophical, and sociological considerations to be made when collecting any data. It must be done carefully and thoughtfully, and so on. That said, shouldn’t it still be done? Why wouldn’t it be done? How else can success be defined and measured? We make decisions in our lives every single day based on numerical evidence and “objective” data. Why would we not do it here? Why would it be acceptable in this conversation to make assertions without any objective evidence to support them? I still don’t understand.

Thanks for your patience with me…

Norton

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that words/concepts like “objective” and “empirical evidence” are becoming fossils of the Enlightenment and modernity and so on. But I don’t think that really applies here.

Let’s be real honest and pragmatic here. If someone says that LSU is a better football team than Penn State, we can determine whether that assertion is well-founded by looking at all kinds of data. If I’m trying to decide whether to buy a Toyota or a Kia, I read consumer reports and trust their conclusions because of the wealth of tests they have performed. If a person is considering whether a neighborhood is safe or not, looking at crime rate statistics would be a good idea. If you’re choosing a doctor to perform life-threatening surgery, you’re probably going to want some numbers about the amount of procedures he or she has performed and rates of success as you consider them.

So, when I hear someone make assertions (quite strong in book form) that a certain type of organization (A) is less successful or healthy or effective than another type of organization (B), I think it’s entirely appropriate to put forth some basic data comparing A and B. Without any reasonable data, one’s conclusions just become opinions and nothing more. Wouldn’t you agree? How can one assert that there would be “bigger” impact if we dispersed 15,000 people from a megachurch to smaller churches without any data to support this?

In fact, what if I had data that supported just the opposite? What if I could show a study done by Harvard Business School of 2,000 churches, both small and mega that revealed that the large majority of small churches spent more money per capita on staff, resources, and facilities and produced less converts and contributions to social justice ministries per capita than megachurches did? Would that make a difference? If so, why would that evidence be needed to validate the effectiveness of megachurches, when you didn’t require “evidence” to support David’s argument?

Just my 3 cents.

Norton

You said: Thanks for your response. However, I’m still a little baffled about why objective evidence isn’t important to substantiate your assertions and conclusions.

As for the “objective” part, I think many folks would say that the very consideration that such “objective truth”, esp. in the context of something like a social science, is: A) impossible, and B) a rotting fruit of modernity, and C) simply a bad idea, in the same way that the Tower of Babel was a bad idea (the social sciences came from the posotivist notion of the “good” in “predicting the general progress of all humanity”…which is a bit absurdly god-like).

As for the “evidence” part, I think many folks out there wouldn’t necessarily want to throw the notion of “evidence” out the window, but I would also guess that many folks are highly suspect of the weight it carries in the empirical sciences, which are also a product of modernity and Enlightenment thought.

And I would imagine D.F. would have many more thoughts on the above as well as many more better and more substantial thoughts on the specifics of various “objective” and “subjective” “truths” or “falsities” in the current world of American evangelicaldome.

Peace and Goofiness

Jason (Hesiak

I think I’m with Norton here. I attend a mega-church, and found myself intrigued by your argument. (and the fact that I wasn’t at all offended speaks of your objective tone, so thanks!) And yet, even while I wondered if you’re right, that’s all I could do. Because without data, the argument’s purely conjecture. Of course, those who don’t like mega will agree. And those who support it will disagree. (and both based on reasonable anecdotal evidence…)

Based on your post, it would seem easy enough to compare four data points (staff, budget, attendees, and baptisms) for churches and derive a “Kingdom activity” ratio. And then we could really compare apples to apples. For example, church A has 150 staff, $20M budget, 10k attendees, and 150 baptisms in a given year. Church B has 5 staff, $750k budget, 500 members, and 5 baptisms in a given year. Dollar for dollar, staff for staff, member for member, which bore more fruit?

Do you know of a study like this? If so, I think that would add tremendous value to your discussion…

Thanks for the interesting post.
Jason

Thanks for your response. However, I’m still a little baffled about why objective evidence isn’t important to substantiate your assertions and conclusions. I agree that megachurches must be willing and open to ask the tough questions. But how else can one determine if smaller, more organic, less produced churches are have more “significant impact for salvations, justice and outreach” in the absence of objective criteria and numerical data? Anecdotes and blogs, as helpful as they are, shouldn’t be the primary basis of such wide-sweeping conclusions about the effectiveness of all megachurches. Wouldn’t you agree?

Norton

The important issue is that the question is being asked. Being part of a very large church myself, I am not convinded that “asking the question” will change anything. The “group think” that exists at mega church leadership levels tends to be self propigating i.e. “we need to be more intentional and missional, we need to reach out in authentic ways, we need to be ‘salt and light’….I know, lets start a new cool program designed to reach college kids! Tell the design team to create a logo-”. Do you get what I am saying? The larger the church, the steeper the slope. Big ships turn slowly over many miles. Sometimes the Word and the deed DO NOT go hand in hand. Changing a paradigm is most difficult. I can’t speak for every mega church, but even in a well meaning, Bible teaching discipleship environment believe me it is a BATTLE to keep the main thing the main thing.