Home › Blogs › Michael Kooiman's blog

A New Measure of Viability

Posted November 17th, 2009 by Michael Kooiman

Back in the old days, the church seemed to think viability was a numbers game. Drop below a certain membership number, and you were no longer a viable congregation. I'm sure the number varied from place to place, but one hundred was a popular threshold. It's hard to pay a full-time minister with less than a hundred members, so the number was fairly logical.

What became apparent, in time, was the strange resilience of congregations. Two of the congregations on my settlement charge had six and seven members respectively. Logically, they become one congregation of thirteen members, and carried on like there was nothing unusual about this. Stewardship levels were good, heat was donated, and the total utility bill could be measured in cents (one electric light in the centre of the sanctuary--the organ required only pumping).

Here in the big city, we get occasion questions about congregational viability and how to measure it. Sometimes it is rather obvious. The congregation that closed after failing to pay their gas bill is a quick example. It got cold inside really quickly. But what about the average church, soldiering along, and uncertain about the future? I'm suggesting a new measure of viability, with four components. A surplus in one category can compensate for a deficit in another, and then create an average. Here are the four:

Environmental Footprint: How much gas do you burn? Is your building insulated? Have you upgraded windows or doors? Are you heating the neighbourhood or operating as a good steward of the environment. Central United Church, where I serve, is an 1887 behemoth with a couple of extensions. On a scale of minus 5 to plus 5, I'm going to give us a minus 3.

Social Capital: How much social capital does your congregation generate? Are you feeding the hungry in your area, are you significant contributors to local causes? Do you have actual congregational volunteers actively engaged in bettering the community? Central has a neighbourhood centre in the basement, with food, supportive counselling, and harm reduction (needle kits and condoms). Plus 3 on this measure.

Rental Decisions: Is your congregation engaged in cost recovery through renting space? Who do you choose to rent to, and what criteria have you set? Related to the above, are you strengthening the community or selling your soul? I am of the opinion that renting to private schools is contrary to the ethos of the United Church, a traditional supporter of public education. At Central we have the drop-in, and host some receptions for the local funeral home. Plus 2.

Congregational Vitality: This is the most subjective measure, but an important one, nonetheless. Does your congregation reflect the neighbourhood? Do you have enough volunteers to manage the administration of your congregation? Do you offer programs that enhance the discipleship of your members? Are your people happy? Without going in detail, I'm going to give Central a plus 1 on this measure, because we can always do better.

Tally your numbers, and you get a measure. My sense is that remaining in the plus side of an average is a measure of a viable congregation. You will see that I have given Central an overall score of plus 3. Not bad. I know of another congregation in the city (they know who they are) that have an uninsulated 1950s building, with dwindling numbers, that is mostly rented to a private school. The outreach they do barely compensates for the shortfall in other three areas. With a minus 6 or 7 overall, I would say they are no longer viable and should ponder disbanding or amalgamating with another congregation.

Give your congregation a try.

Comments

November 19, 2009 - 5:09pm - davidewart
davidewart's picture

Viability Measures

Helpful comments Michael.

By your definition "viable" may not mean "sustainable" or "thriving," but since we often only use the last two to evaluate our "success," I think your comments make for a more nuanced way of assessing how we're doing.

I'm wondering if you have any thoughts about incorporating:
- "how are we doing doing in relation to broader social trends" (e.g. in national rates of: church attendance, use of web based social media, changing demographics, etc.), and
- "how are we doing in relation to our neighbourhood" (e.g. do we inside the church reflect who our neighbours are - do we "look like" them)
into a measure of viability?

I ask this because it seems to me that a recuring weakness in most discussions about viability / sustainability / thrivability is that there is no discussion of the environment in which we are trying to be congregations. Viable organisms are not self-sustaining. They are viable because they are in a healthy, symbiotic relationship with their environment.

My concern about many congregations is that instead of adapting to what there is "more of" in their environments, they have adapted to what there is "less of." This is not viable for the long term as congregations simply become expert at declining; at getting by with less until there is no more.

Your inclusion of Rental Income above is what triggers this concern for me as rental income is a way of adapting to less income from donations, which of course is the result of there being fewer people making offerings. This is not a viable strategy because eventually those fewer people age, the building ages, and eventually needed repairs are too expensive and/or too complicated for the remaining people to manage.

And just to finally bring this a close, my bottom line concern in this is that we need to learn to talk about viability in a way that doesn't suggest every single existing congregation can/will be viable. IMHO our present environment just will not support all our current congregations. If we don't say this clearly, then we burden our clergy colleagues and lay leaders with unrealizable hopes and inevitable guilt for being failures because of some personal fault - an unstated possible implication of your comments above is that every congregation can be viable - and if they're not? Well it must be an internal problem.

I am only a sporadic reader / commentator so my apologies if you have already shared similar thoughts and concerns. And again, my thanks for your work in helping us lift up new criteria for assessing / planning / hoping for viability.

David Ewart

November 19, 2009 - 6:58pm - clergychickita

thanks for your post,

thanks for your post, Michael.

To your components I would add:

Articulate Christian identity: do your members share a common vision of the Christian life(at least a common continuum of belief? Do they have the ability to articulate their faith, and have they found ways to share their faith with those within the congregation as well as those outside it? Would renters/neighbours identify the congregation as a community of faith? How is the mission of Jesus Christ alive in this congregation?

Some of the above is contained in your components, but not all of it. I truly believe that unless congregations figure out who they are and whose they are, they are not truly viable.
shalom!