Model

Definitions:

 “A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further study of its characteristics”

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

“A systematic description of an object or phenomenon that shares important characteristics with the object or phenomenon. Scientific models can be material, visual, mathematical, or computational and are often used in the construction of scientific theories.”

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

Destination

 

 “if you don’t know where you are going, then how do you know when you get there?”

 

 

------------------------------

Forrest Berry

 

Management by Measurement vs. a Problem Solving Culture

Another good Blog…

 

Key Points:

 

·         You get what you measure, but don’t be surprised if people are ingenious in destructive ways in how they get there.

·         You can’t force a solution by adding even more metrics.

·         Only by knowing what you did (the process) will you know why you got the results you achieved (or did not achieve). This is a process of prediction, and is the only way people learn.

·         Learning takes practice. Practice requires humility and a mentor or teacher who can see and correct.

 

 

http://theleanthinker.com/2008/10/14/management-by-measurement-vs-a-problem-solving-culture/

 

Management by Measurement vs. a Problem Solving Culture

As I promised, I want to expand on a couple of great points buried in John Shook’s new book Managing to Learn, published by LEI.

A while back I commented on an article, Lean Dilemma: System Principles vs. Management Accounting Controls, in which H. Thomas Johnson points out that

Perhaps what you measure is what you get.
More likely, what you measure is all you get. What you don’t (or can’t) measure is lost.

In his introduction to the book, Shook describes the contrast:

Where the laissez-faire, hands-off manager will content himself to set targets and delegate everything, essentially saying, “I don’t care how you do it, as long as you get the results,” the Toyota manager desperately wants to know how you’ll do it, saying “I want to hear everything about your thinking, tell me about your plans.”

and a little later:

This is a stark contrast to the results-only oriented management-by-numbers approach.

Shook then also references H. Thomas Johnson’s paper. (like minds?)

But I would like to dive a little deeper into the contrast of leadership cultures here.

Let’s say the “management by measurement” leader thinks there is too much working capital tied up in excess inventory.

His countermeasure would be to set a key performance indicator (KPI) of inventory levels, or inventory turns, and “hold people accountable” for hitting their targets.

Since there is little interest expressed in how this is done, the savvy numbers-focused subordinate understands the accounting system and sees that inventory levels are taken at the end of each financial quarter, and those levels are used to generate the report of inventory turns. This is also the number used to report to the shareholders and the SEC.

His response is to take actions necessary to get inventory as low as possible during the week or on the day when that snapshot is taken. It is then a simple matter to take actions necessary. A couple of classics are:

• Pull forward orders from next quarter, fill and ship them early.
• Slow down (or even stop) production in the last week or two of the quarter.
• Shift inventory from “finished goods” to “in transit” to get it off the books.

While, in my opinion (which is all that is), actions like this are at best deceptive, and (when reported as true financial results) possibly bordering on fraud, the truth is that these kinds of things happen all of the time in reputable companies.

So what is the countermeasure?

In a “management by measurement” culture, the leader (if he cares in the first place), would respond to put in additional measurements and rules that, hopefully, constrain the behavior he does not want. He would start measuring inventory levels more often, or take an average. He would measure scheduled vs. actual ship dates. He would measure “linearity” of production.

Fundamentally, he would operate on the belief that, if only he could measure the right things, that he would get the performance he needs, in the way it should be done. “The right measurements produce the right results.”

While not universal, it is also very common for a work environment such as this one to:

• Attach substantial performance bonuses to “hitting the numbers.”
• Confuse this with “empowerment” – and perceive a subordinate who truly wants help to develop a good, sound plan as less capable than one who “just gets it done.” He is seen as “high maintenance.” (“Don’t come to me with problems unless you have a solution.”)
• Look for external factors that excuse not hitting the targets. (Such as an increase in commodity prices.)
• Take credit for hitting the targets, even when it was caused by external factors. (Such as a drop in commodity prices.)

Overall, there is no real interest in the assessment of why there even is a gap between the current value and the target (why do we need this inventory in the first place?); and there is even less interest in a plan to close the gap, or in understanding if success (or failure) was due to successful execution or just plain luck.

The higher-level leader says he “trusts his people” and as such, is disengaged, uninformed, and worse, is taking no action to develop their capabilities. He has no way to distinguish between the people who “hit the numbers” due to luck and circumstances (or are very skilled at finding external factors to blame) and the ones who apply good thinking, and carry out good plans. Because the negative effects often take time to manifest, this process can actually bias toward someone who can get good short-term results, even at the cost of long-term shareholder value.

This is no way to run a business. A lot of businesses, some of them very reputable, are run exactly this way.

So What’s The Alternative?

Shook describes a patient-yet-relentless leader who is determined to get the results he wants by developing his subordinate. He assigns a challenging task, specifies the approach (the “A3 Problem Solving Process”) then iterates through the learning process – while applying the principle of small steps. At no point does he allow the next step to proceed until the current one is done correctly.

“Do not accept, create, or pass on poor quality.”

He has a standard, and teaches to that standard.

He is skeptical and intently curious – he must be convinced that the current situation is understood.

He must be convinced that the root cause is understood.

He must be convinced that all alternative countermeasures were explored.

He must be convinced that everyone involved has been consulted.

He must be convinced that all necessary countermeasures are deployed – even ones that are unpopular.

He must be convinced that the plan is being tracked during execution, results are checked against expectations, and additional countermeasures are applied to handle any gaps.

And he must be convinced that the results came as an outcome of specific actions taken, not just luck.

In short, even though he might have been able to do it quicker by just telling his subordinate what to do, in the end, that Team Member would only know his boss’s opinion on a particular solution for a specific issue… he would not have taught how to be thorough.

The Learning Countermeasure

If we start in the same place – too much inventory, too few turns – the engaged leader starts the same way, by setting a target.

Then he asks each of his subordinates to come back to him with their plan.

By definition that plan includes details of their understanding of the situation – where the inventory is, why it is. It includes targets – where the effort will be focused, and what results are expected.

The plan includes detailed understanding of the problems (causes) which must be addressed so that the system can operate in a sustainable, stable way, at the reduced inventory levels.

It includes the actions which will be taken – who will do what by when, and the results expected from those actions. It may include other actions considered, but not taken, and why.

It includes a process to track actions, verify results, and apply additional countermeasures when there is a barrier to execution or a gap in the outcome.

The process of making the plan would largely follow the outline in Managing to Learn. The engaged leader is going to challenge the thinking at each step of the process. He is going to push until he is convinced that the Team Member has thoroughly understood – and verified – the current situation, and that the actions will close the gap to the targets.

Rather than assigning a blanket reduction target, the engaged leader might start there, but would allow the Team Members to play off each other in a form of “cap and trade.” The leader’s target needs to get hit, but different sectors may have different challenges. Blanket goals rarely are appropriate as anything but a starting point. But it is only after everyone understands their situation, and works as a team, that they could come up with a system solution that would work.

Of course then the Team Members who had to take on less ambitious targets would get that much more attention and challenge – thus pushing the team to ever higher performance.

Today’s World

Even in companies deploying “lean”, the quality of the deployment is dependent on the person in charge of that piece of the operation. When someone else rotates in, the new leader imposes his vision of how things should be done, and everything changes.

There are, in my view, two nearly universal points of failure here.

• The company leadership had an expectation to “get lean” but, above that local level, really had no idea what it means… except in terms of performance metrics. This is often wrapped in a facade of “management support.” Thus, there is no expectation that an incoming leader do things in any particular way. (What is your process to “on board” a new leader prior to just turning him loose with your profits and losses?)
• The outgoing leader may have done the right things in the wrong way – by directing what was to be done vs. guiding people through the process of true understanding.

Fixing this requires the same thinking and the same process as addressing any other problem. Just trying to impose a standard on things like production boards isn’t going to work. The issue is in the thinking, not in the tools.

Conclusion

You get what you measure, but don’t be surprised if people are ingenious in destructive ways in how they get there.

You can’t force a solution by adding even more metrics.

Only by knowing what you did (the process) will you know why you got the results you achieved (or did not achieve). This is a process of prediction, and is the only way people learn.

Learning takes practice. Practice requires humility and a mentor or teacher who can see and correct.

 

 

I ran across the following blog that had some interesting things to say about measuring progress…

http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/what_you_measure_is_what_you_get.html

 

What You Measure is What You Get?

"Perhaps what you measure is what you get. More likely, what you measure is all you'll get. What you don't (or can't) measure is lost" - H. Thomas Johnson

Those of you who are Deming fans may liken this quote to Deming's admonition that "the most important figures that one needs for management are unknown or unknowable, but successful management must nevertheless take account of them." (from Out of the Crisis, p121).

I came across this quote recently, which was quite apt as I was completing the end of year wrap-up required of all employees at my firm. Like many firms that run on making the metrics, making them look good, having airtight explanations for variances, plans to move the needle, and so on, the powerpoint decks generally tell a tremendous story. (If only Wall St. could see them - perhaps stock prices would be better?).

Conversely, if you don't have numbers to back up your story, come back and talk to me when you do.

So back to my year end wrap-up, which, by the way, is a key component of performance evaluation, merit increases, and future career path within the firm. I was advised to include as many "quantifiable accomplishments" as possible. Having joined the firm only mid-year, and assigned to work on a quality issue that has plagued the industry for 10 or 20 years, it is probably too soon to declare victory and post a dramatic improvement to the things our customers care about most.

In fact, the bulk of my time has been spent trying to develop facts and data about the process performance, and impress upon the producing organizations the voice of the internal and external customers, so that we can focus our measurements and improvement efforts on the right things. Very basic questions - who are the customers? What do they need? How well are we meeting those needs?, basic questions that we are still trying to answer. All the while, the quality of this particular product hasn't changed at all since I launched the effort several months ago.

Our team has also been highly aware of the dark side of metrics - to Dr. Johnson's point, what you measure may be all you get. And to quote another favorite thinker of mine, The Lean Thinker, "you get what you measure, but don't be surprised of people are ingenious in destructive ways in how they get there" (full post here.) So we strive for 100% on-time performance, only to see our first time yields plummet. Or we strive to measure revisions, only to have needed corrections go un-made in order to show a reduction. As one of my colleagues put it, "tell me what number you want to move, and we'll make sure that we do".

Now, this is not a plea to remove metrics. Only to measure the right things, and measure them correctly, so that we account for the "dark side". So, present on-time performance figures, if that's what's important, but make sure the FTY % is always presented next to it. It's also a plea to keep taking account of the unknown or unmeasurable things that matter - just because we can't measure it, doesn't mean we get to ignore it.

Last week, a senior leader and sponsor of this effort jokingly asked whether I had the problem figured out. Not quite. But I was able to tell him that department X has several talented black belts on it, is now focused on measuring defects the right way, and is starting to really understand the needs of their internal and external customers. To which he replied, "That's a major accomplishment!".

I asked if I could quote him in my wrap-up - it's probably the best piece of data I have going for me thus far.

Whatever holiday you and yours celebrate, I hope it is a good one.

 

 

------------------------------

Forrest Berry

 

Mutiple Levels of Voluntary Association

In our society, we often attempt to craft one-size-fits-all solutions. That same mentality can find its way into youth ministry. However, unless we learn to discriminate (yes, I said discriminate) we may find that our one-size-fits-all solutions in fact fit no one.

Everyone is not the same. Everyone is not at the same place on their spiritual journey. We need to treat people differently depending on where they are and provide opportunities appropriate to various stages.

Jesus' followers fell into several categories.
- Community as a whole (not necessarily followers at all)
- the Multitudes (large group meetings open to all)
- The 70 - voluntary association on a deeper level by invitation only. Included some level of responsibility and assumes a basic spiritual foundation.
- The 12 - voluntary association on a still deeper level by invitation only. Included greater level of responsibility and assumes a greater spiritual foundation and more face time
- The 3 - voluntary association on a still deeper level by invitation only. Included greater level of responsibility and assumes a greater spiritual foundation and still more face time.
- The 1 - voluntary association on a still deeper level by invitation only. Included greater level of responsibility and assumes a greater spiritual foundation and still more intimate face time.

In youth ministry we also need to consider the difference between involuntary association (those required by parents to be there, sometimes against their will) and voluntary association. We need to create opportunities for voluntary association.



--------------------------
Forrest Berry
--------------------------

Spiritual Free Agents

How much of youth ministry is focused on keeping kids "in the church" rather than keeping them "in the faith?"

We seem to assume that if we do the first, it will result in the second. Unfortunately, evidence suggests that is not the case. We need to recognize the fact that whether we like it or not, our teens are spiritually "free agents." We may control where they are at certain hours of the week, but we do not control their hearts. We may try to deny their "free agent" status, but like it or not, that is what they are. We can either force them to comply until they leave home, or prepare them to make wise and godly decisions as the Free Agents they are.

In the end, they like us, must have a faith that is their own. The sooner we recognize that, the better we can prepare them for all that it implies.



--------------------------
Forrest Berry
--------------------------

National Study of Youth and Religion

The National Study of Youth and Religion (www.youthandreligion.org) is a very comprehensive study of youth and religion.  The following reports are particularly useful.

 

Religion and Spirituality on the Path Through Adolescence [1.8 MB]

Portraits of Protestant Teens [6 MB]

Are American Youth Alienated From Organized Religion? [500 KB]

Family Religious Involvement and the Quality of Parental Relationships for Families with Early Adolescents [500 KB]

Family Religious Involvement and the Quality of Family Relationships for Early Adolescents [900 KB]

Religion in the Lives of American Adolescents: A Review of the Literature. [1.5 MB]

Religion and the Life Attitudes and Self-Images of American Adolescents [1.7 MB]

Religion and American Adolescent Delinquency, Risk Behaviors and Constructive Social Activities [1.2 MB]

Methodological Issues and Challenges in the Study of American Youth and Religion [100 KB]

 

 

Religion and Spirituality on the Path Through Adolescence [1.8 MB]
Portraits of Protestant Teens [6 MB]
Are American Youth Alienated From Organized Religion? [500 KB]
Family Religious Involvement and the Quality of Parental Relationships for Families with Early Adolescents [500 KB]
Family Religious Involvement and the Quality of Family Relationships for Early Adolescents [900 KB]
Religion in the Lives of American Adolescents: A Review of the Literature. [1.5 MB]
Religion and the Life Attitudes and Self-Images of American Adolescents [1.7 MB]
Religion and American Adolescent Delinquency, Risk Behaviors and Constructive Social Activities [1.2 MB]
Methodological Issues and Challenges in the Study of American Youth and Religion

Commitment to Christianity Depends on How It's Measured

http://www.thechurchreport.com/mag_article.php?pageno=1&mid=640&pname=January&pyear=2006

Back of the Book
by Dr. George Barna

Commitment to Christianity Depends on How It's Measured

Four out of every five adults in the United States consider themselves to be Christian. How committed are they to the Christian faith? It depends on how you measure commitment. That’s the conclusion of a new report from The Barna Group, based on nationwide surveys with a random sample of 4,015 people conducted this year. The research explored eight different measures of people’s commitment to their faith.

Eight Measures of Commitment

The indicators of commitment that showed the broadest attachment were those that assessed people’s psychological commitment to their chosen faith, which included:
•    “Have you ever made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in your life today?” (Seventy-two percent said “yes.”)
•    “Your religious faith is very important in your life today.” (Seventy-one percent strongly agreed.)
The research found that more demanding involvement in practical forms of Christianity generated lower scores, such as:
•    “The single, most important purpose of your life is to love God with all your heart, mind, strength and soul.” (Sixty-two percent strongly agreed.)
•    “How committed are you to the Christian faith?” (Forty-two percent said they are “absolutely committed.”)
The lowest scores were recorded for the pair of indicators that required the most intense level of participation in the Christian faith:
•    Twenty-nine percent had attended a church service, prayed to God and read from the Bible during the past week.
•    Sixteen percent said the highest priority in their life was their faith.

Who’s Most Committed?

A demographic analysis of the eight measures of commitment showed highly consistent trends in relation to gender, age, region, ethnicity and faith subgroups.
Women were more likely than men to express a higher level of commitment to the Christian faith for all eight of the factors studied.

Adults who were 40 or younger – i.e., those in the Baby Bust or Mosaic generations – were less likely than older adults to indicate commitment to their faith in relation to each of the eight measures. In addition, the survey found that the older a person was, the more likely they were to be committed to the Christian faith in connection with six out of the eight measures tested.

Residents of the South were the most likely to express significant commitment on seven of the eight measures. Blacks emerged as the ethnic group most likely to be committed to Christianity.

Out of more than 60 subgroups studied in this research, evangelical Christians were the top-ranked people group for each of the eight measures of faith commitment.
The most dramatic differences were found in relation to making their faith the highest priority in their life (55 percent of evangelicals claimed to do so, versus 16 percent of the population-at-large) and demonstrating an active faith (73 percent had attended church, read the Bible and prayed during the preceding week, compared to 29 percent nationally).

Protestant adults had higher scores than did Catholics on all eight measures of commitment. On average, Protestants were 66 percent more likely than Catholics to say they were committed to their faith in the manner posed by the survey question.

Dr. George Barna is an author, pastor and the founder of The Barna Group in Ventura, Calif., a firm specializing in conducting research for Christian ministries and nonprofits.

House Churches, Isolationist and Cult-like?

George barna posted and interesting blog entitled House Churches, Isolationist and Cult-like?

The post is significant for two reasons:
1. He defends the potential validity of non-conventional church structures
2. He highlights the way statistics, including his, can be misrepresented, misapplied and misused.

As we proceed, it is vitally important that we maintian the utmost integrity in our work and be extremely careful to avoid mischaracterizations. Such errors can be quite subtle and unintentional and therefore can easily creep into our work. As Barna puts it:

People often hear what they want to hear, and if it’s not quite what they
need, they “tweak” it to better fit their presentation, without letting facts
get in the way....

I dread the day – which may be here – when church leaders, with good
intentions, are comfortable imitating the insufferable journalistic practices of
lazy or ignorant reporters who convert a single instance into a “trend.” We
unjustly disparage good people by making such broad and unsupported claims. If
we are supposed to be people of integrity and righteousness, our words should
reflect truth and love.

The blog is worth reading.

Church Marketing Sucks

Church Marketing Sucks

This is an interesting website about taking church media, websites, advertising, etc. to the next level and being more professional about it.

The following Except has some good links...


Church marketing doesn't have to suck. Listed below are businesses, organizations and resources that can help your church not suck.

Note: Companies listed work exclusively with churches, though there are literally thousands of marketing agencies and graphic design companies that would be more than happy to help your church not suck. This listing is provided as a service and is not an endorsement.

Full-Service Solutions-Everything from custom graphic design to web services to consulting to pre-designed solutions.
Alban Institute
Artistry Marketing
Breakthrough Media
Details Communications
Faith Highway
FaithSpan
GenEvange
Holy Cow Creative
John Manlove Church Marketing
Outreach Marketing
Mustard Seed Studio
Truth In Advertising

Web Site Solutions-Web sites and Internet marketing.
Advanced Ministry
Church Community Builder
ChurchInsight
Church Web Works
Ekklesia 360
E-zekiel
ImmerseMe
Ministry Presence
SiteOrganic
Vchurches

Multimedia-Video, graphics, presentations, etc. for use in services, sermons, or teaching situations.
Creative Pastors
Highway Video
Nooma
Sermon Spice
Video For Worship
WorshipHouse Media

Resources-Free information and help in the pursuit of better church marketing.
The Barna Group
For Ministry's eQuip
Great Church Websites
Heal Your Church Web Site
Hot or Not Church Sites
Willow Creek Association

The Louisville Institute! -- Mission & History

The Louisville Institute! -- Mission & History

Mission
As a center to support research and leadership education on American religion, the Louisville Institute seeks to nurture inquiry and conversation regarding the character, problems, contributions, and prospects of the historic institutions and commitments of American Christianity. In all of its work, the Louisville Institute is guided by its fundamental mission to enrich the religious life of American Christians and to encourage the revitalization of their institutions, by bringing together those who lead religious institutions with those who study them, so that the work of each might inform and strengthen the other.

History
In late 1990, Lilly Endowment Inc. (an Indianapolis-based private philanthropic foundation) launched the Louisville Institute, based at the Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Created in 1937 by three members of the Lilly family through gifts of stock in their pharmaceutical business, Eli Lilly and Company, the Endowment supports the causes of religion, education, and community development. The Religion Division of Lilly Endowment works with people and institutions of promise to generate knowledge, communicate insights, nurture practices, and renew and sustain institutions that help to make accessible and effective the religious resources upon which a flourishing and humane society depends.

Research Links

The Association of Religious Archives (www.thearda.com) is an online compilation of all publicly available research on the subject of religion. It also has a section on "Best Practices" which is has good material on how to do statistical research.

The first study by National Study of Youth and Religion was funded by a $3.96M grant from the Lilly Endowment, Inc. and took 4 years to complete. Christian Smith, who was the lead researcher on the project latter spoke to a PCA Conference on his research.

The Lilly Endowment, Inc. provides major funding for religious research in America.

In summary, the Endowment supports efforts:

• to deepen and enrich the religious lives of American Christians, primarily by helping strengthen their churches;
• to support the recruitment and education of a new generation of talented ministers and other religious leaders;
• to encourage theological reflection and religious practices that recover the wisdom of the Christian tradition for our contemporary situation;
• to support scholars and educators who seek to help the American people better understand contemporary religion and the role it plays in our public and personal lives;
• and to strengthen the contributions that religious ideas, practices, values and institutions make to the common good of our society.

One of the primary avenues through which Lilly supports research is The Louisville Institute at Louisville Presbyterian Seminary.

Measuring Success in Youth Ministry

According to a study by The Barna Group (Ventura, California), 81% of American teens are engaged in church for an extended period of time yet only 5% hold to even the most basic of historical Christian beliefs.

Other unpublished research of which I am aware, suggests that in a typical large evangelical youth group only about 5% of the teens are genuinely living devoted Christian lives while the other 95% are to varying degrees living "intentionally deceitful dual lives" – in essence putting on a show for parents, teachers and church leaders while living dramatically different lives beyond their view. This same research suggests that there is significantly more pressure to drink, do drug, and have sex within the youth group than among peers outside the youth group. A similar situation seems to exist in Christian schools compared to secular schools.

These findings and others like them beg the question: What's really going on inside our youth groups? What does the make up of our group really look like?

One of the challenges of the Jackson Youth Initiative has been to figure out how to answer these questions.

Visualizing the Situation

The Graph below (Figure 1) represents what many might consider the ideal youth group. You have a few kids who extremely passionate disciples on one end and a few lost people on the verge of becoming new believers on the other and the vast majority are in the middle… beyond new believer but moving toward becoming mature disciples.

 

Figure 1– Ideal Distribution Graph

The same data might be represented by a circle graph(Figure 2) in which the Leader is at the center with the most devoted disciples close to the center and the level of devotion decreases as you move out from the center until you have a few non-believers on the fringes. The arrows represent new people trying to enter the group. Some will be turned away immediately. Those who continue to press in beyond the outer layers of the group will find genuine Christians who can lead them the Christ or to a deeper walk. Those who press in more can find genuine devoted disciples.

 

Figure 2 - Ideal Distribution Circle

I suspect that most youth ministries would say that these graphs are more or less representative of their group. But what if they are wrong?

Left Shift

What if, as some studies suggest, that distribution is shifted farther to the left? (Figure 3, Figure 4)

Figure 3 - Group Distribution Graph Shifted Left


Figure 4 - Group Distribution Circle Shifted Left

In this situation, the Leader is still at the center surrounded by the most devoted of the group. But, the level of devotion decreases dramatically as you move out from the inner circle and a large percentage of the group is comprised of non believers. The arrows still represent new people trying to enter the group. Some will be turned away immediately. Those who continue to press in beyond the outer layers of the group will find that the average person in this youth group is no different from them. Only those who truly press in can even find genuine Christians and even then they may not find devoted disciples.
This group is much different from the ideal group. The entire dynamic has changed. A group like that would need to be ministered to in a different way from one that looks like the ideal group.

Shallow Group

Perhaps the group is not a heavily dominated by unbelievers as represented by Figures 3 and 4. Perhaps it is one that fits the often used phrase "a mile wide and an inch deep." What would that look like? (Figure5, Figure 6)

Figure 5 - Group Distribution Graph – Shallow


Figure 6 - Group Distribution Circle – Shallow

This situation is more similar to the Left Shift group than the ideal group in many ways. While this group is not dominated by strong nonbelievers, it is also not dominated by strong Christians. In this situation, the Leader is still at the center surrounded by the most devoted of the group but this is a group of weak believers. The level of devotion decreases as you move out from the inner circle and a large percentage of the group is so shallow as to be virtually indistinguishable from of non believers. The arrows still represent new people trying to enter the group. Some will be turned away immediately. Those who continue to press in beyond the outer layers of the group will again find that the average person in this youth group is no different from them. Only those who truly press in can even find genuine Christians and even then they may not find devoted disciples.

It seems to me that it would be very important to know which of these groups you were dealing with as a leader and as a prospective group member. It would also be important if you were a parent. How many parents think they are sending the kids to a group that looks like the first one when in fact they are sending them to one of the others?

But how do you know? To my knowledge, no one does an assessment of group distribution like those represented here. If someone were to do such a thing, I think the key would be how do you 1) define and 2) measure the scale (Figure 7)

Figure 7 - Scale

If anyone knows of a scale or measurement system like this, please let me know.

Gracefully Passing the Baton by George Barna

Gracefully Passing the Baton by George Barna

Hey, fellow Baby Boomers. Can we talk?

For many years, we have sweated, argued, fought, manipulated, analyzed, partnered, prayed and strategized to get our own way. We wanted the nation’s values to reflect our own. We wanted to have our fair share (or more) of the decision-making authority. We wiggled our way into key positions as soon as possible. After a period in which we said the system was the problem, we took over the system. Today, we are the system, and there are two generations following us who see that as a serious issue.

For whatever reasons He may have, God has pretty much granted our desires. We have wrestled control of the levers of power and authority away from our predecessors earlier than usual and have wielded that power with more glee than grace. When you examine the ranks of the nation’s corner offices, you find Boomers dominating the positions of CEO, COO, CFO, board chairmen, and corporate president. We have held that sway for the better part of the last decade. The only positions we have largely abdicated are CIO and CTO – the top-dog information and technology posts that rightfully belong to Busters. After all, they understand the digital revolution – we just figure out how to make money off it.

Even within the local church, Boomers rule the roost. Today, 61% of Protestant Senior Pastors are from our generation. Among the current lay leaders, 58% are Boomers. And if money talks, then we have the floor: 50% of the money given to churches last year came out of the pockets of Boomers. (That’s more than double the amount given by any other generation.)

Unfortunately, we are not good at sharing. If we are the richest generation the world has ever encountered, we are also its most selfish. And we are driven by the one value that defines us and on which we are willing to squander our money: power. We believe so deeply in our decision-making capacity, and we enjoy the control and perks of calling the shots so much, that we have no intention of relinquishing that power, regardless of traditions, expectations, reason or future interests.

If you think America’s war against al-Qaeda is a tough, uphill battle, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Take a look at the transition of power that is – well, should be – happening within churches.

Here’s the bottom line: our generation’s time on the throne is quickly coming to an end. In 2011 the first Boomer will reach age 65. By 2015, 15 million of us will be 65-plus; by 2020, 31 million; by 2025, the U.S. will harbor a mid-sized nation within its borders of 65-plus Boomers (an estimated 48 million).

If all went according to plan, we’d be hard at work implementing the world’s most sophisticated and superbly executed transition plan to install the new strata of leaders. We are brilliant strategists and tacticians – just ask us. No generation has ever risen to the heights of excellence that we have, when we put our minds to it. The Builders were a can-do, get-it-done generation. But the Boomers are the ultimate take-no-prisoners generation when it comes to shaping society – and, in some cases, the world.

But where is that transition plan? Who is working it to perfection? When are we planning to hand over the keys to the kingdoms we have built these last several decades? Who are the successors we are preparing to stand on our shoulders and build on the foundations we have laid – as our fathers did with us?

You’d think that since we are the richest generation in world history, and we have acquired more toys, amenities, comforts, security mechanism and pleasure options than we can even quantify, we’d be excited about helping our children to follow in our footsteps.

It makes sense. But it’s not happening.

The sticking point is our core value: power. We love power. We live for power. Power lunches, power ties, power suits, power offices, power titles, power cars, power networks. Whether it is because of an unhealthy desire for control, a reasonable concern about maintaining quality, a sense of exhilaration received from making pressure-packed, life-changing decisions or due to other motivations, Boomers revel in power. The sad result is that most Boomers – even those in the pastorate or in voluntary, lay-leadership positions in churches – have no intention of lovingly handing the baton to Baby Busters.

In self-defense, we may point out that Busters are not poised to lead effectively. They whine and they lack the ferocious work ethic that allowed us to reign. They are not as good at analysis and prescription. They lack the vision to see beyond incremental gains and thus fail to motivate people to pursue grand dreams. They refuse to sacrifice their own resources to make the kill. Often, they don’t even respect the notion, much less position, of leadership.

And how many of us have tried to mentor them, only to experience their tepid commitment or an outright rejection of our efforts because they don’t like our values or tactics? When we have tried to frame reality for them, they waved their postmodern views in our modern faces.

However, this is more rationalizing than wise, strategic, fruitful, biblical thinking. Busters are not the perfect successors we wish they were – just as we were not the perfect successors to our accomplished, world-changing Builder predecessors. My advice to us: get over it.

So here’s what I see coming down the line. Conflict between the generations over position and authority. Widespread Buster flight from the institutions and movements we have labored for so long to build up. Classic damage control by Boomers, positioning us as the saviors compensating for a younger generation of irreverent and incompetent wanna-be’s. And, ultimately, the further dilapidation (and, in some cases, collapse) of the local church as we know it today. There are many churches where this scenario is already staging Act 1, Scene 1.

There are four things that we probably need to do regarding the integration of Busters (and even some of the younger Mosaics) into the positions of power and authority within our religious institutions.

First, Boomers have to graciously and joyously let go of the reigns. We have had our chance and we made the best of it. It was a privilege to lead God’s people and to challenge society to join Him in His ways, but it was a privilege granted, not earned, and which now rightfully must be passed on to the next generation.

If we can objectively examine the big picture we will realize that our efforts cannot bear the maximum return on our investment until we enable those who follow us to embrace and enhance what we developed.

As self-absorbed people, we struggle to acknowledge that the Church – and, for that matter, life – is not about us. The purpose of our leadership is not to magnify self but to be used by God in the furtherance of His kingdom. Insistence upon continued control is a clear reflection that we do not understand God’s purposes for us, and that we have misled the community of believers. As an act of Christian stewardship it is our responsibility to pass on the baton with grace, love, hope, excitement and joy. This is not a “sacrifice” on our part: it was God who allowed us to lead, for a season, and it is His prerogative to usher in a new cadre of leaders to pick up where we left off.

Second, let’s use our world-class giftedness to create a plan for the transition. I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of seeing weak-kneed, dump-and-run transitions where the Boomer arrogantly and self-righteously leaves without setting the table for the Buster who follows. If people take their cues from leaders, what message does such behavior send? Besides, Boomers have achieved numerous breakthroughs during our tenure by planning our actions and carefully executing the plan. Handing off the baton demands the best plan we have yet crafted. The plan must establish the timing of your departure and the process for preparing your successors to succeed. Where’s your plan?

Third, we must allow – and even encourage – the emergence of new models of ministry that either improve or replace what we introduced and nurtured. Just as ministry models such as seeker, praise-and-worship and even multi-ethnic ministries were our refinements of or responses to Builder institutions, we must anticipate and support such progress even if it is not what we might have done. Scripture gives them, as it gave us, abundant leeway in methodology. Let them put their fingerprints all over the model they develop.

Keep in mind that a great leader is defined not by the methods that he/she deployed but by their commitment to the vision that God has entrusted to him/her. Even in exiting, your responsibility is to make sure the vision is championed after you leave. So build bridges with your predecessors to ensure the vision lives on, and allow them to build on the vision in ways that respect the vision but reflect the evolving context. Busters will use different language, different symbols and icons, and different procedures. So what? If you have shared God’s vision in a way that they, too, treasure and commit to it, then you have done your job. Move on.

Finally, spend hours of time in prayer to honestly seek God’s guidance in this transitional time. The fact that you are reading this probably means you have some type of church leadership role. Consider what you are doing to facilitate an appropriate transition of power to the next generation. We do not want to be “the old farts hanging on to positions of power, reveling in their past glories.” (Does that sound vaguely familiar – perhaps as something you and I might have said 25 years ago when we were scheming to grab the power and positions held by our parents?) Let God speak – and listen carefully to what He is asking us to do with the gift of responsibility that He entrusted to us for a season. Never forget the Genesis 12 principle – you have been blessed to be a blessing. How does the Lord want you to bless – rather than bully and block – the generation of leaders who will inevitably replace you? What can you teach them about the heart and the character of God through the way you welcome them into leadership?

Hey, we’re just Boomers, not the “old farts” we once saw as the threat to our own self-realization. I bet you’re not ready to be put out to pasture just yet. You have a lot to give to many people – and a lot of joy to receive from imparting your years of experience-based wisdom. Show that wisdom by championing the rise of a few young leaders today. It’s a win-win strategy.

http://www.barna.org/component/wordpress/archives/77

------------------------------

Forrest Berry

Report Examines the State of Mainline Protestant Churches

Report Examines the State of Mainline Protestant Churches

Ventura, CA - December 7, 2009 When Baby Boomers were born, the Protestant landscape of America was dominated by the six major mainline denominations. (Those bodies are typically considered to be the American Baptist Churches in the USA; the Episcopal Church; the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; the Presbyterian Church (USA); the United Church of Christ; and the United Methodist Church.) Since the 1950s, however, mainline churches have fallen on hard times, declining from more than 80,000 churches to about 72,000 today. The growth among evangelical and Pentecostal churches since the 1950s, combined with the shrinking of the mainline sector, has diminished mainline churches to just one-fifth of all Protestant congregations today. In the past fifty years, mainline church membership dropped by more than one-quarter to roughly 20 million people. Adult church attendance indicates that only 15% of all American adults associate with a mainline church these days. A new report issued by The Barna Group focuses upon changes in the mainline churches during the past decade. The report examines shifts in both the adults who attend those churches and the pastors who lead them. Congregant Statistics Over the course of the past decade, the number of adults who attend a mainline church on any given weekend has remained relatively stable, ranging from 89 to 100. The current median is 99 adults. One reason why that average has remained steady has been the population growth of the United States, with the mainline churches attracting just enough newcomers to maintain attendance levels that are similar to the years when the nation’s population was considerably smaller. The current attendance figure is lower than the norm during the heyday of the mainline bodies. Demographics suggest that the mainline churches may be on the precipice of a period of decline unless remedial steps are taken. For instance, in the past decade there has been a 22% drop in the percentage of adults attending mainline congregations who have children under the age of 18 living in their home. Also, the proportion of single adults has risen, now representing 39% of all adult attenders. That has been driven higher by a rise in the number of divorced and widowed adherents. The numerical decline is also related to the relative difficulty that mainline churches have experienced in attracting young adults. For instance, young adults (25 or younger) are 6% of the national population, they are just one-third as many (2%) of all adults attending mainline churches. At the other end of the age continuum, the statistics show that about one-quarter (27%) of American adults are 60 or older, but more than one-third of mainline attenders (35%) are 60-plus. Another hurdle for the mainline bodies has been attracting minorities. These churches struggle in reaching Hispanics and Asians. While Hispanics make up 16% of the US population, they are only 6% of the mainline population. Asians represent 4% of the American public, but only half that proportion among mainline congregants. The failure to add substantial numbers of Hispanics is especially significant, given both the rapid increase of the Hispanic population as well as the outflow of Hispanics from Catholicism to Protestant churches in the past decade. Most of the Hispanics leaving Catholicism for another faith community are settling into evangelical or Pentecostal Protestant churches. There is a behavioral reason for the decline of mainline churches, too: just one-third (31%) of mainline adults believe they have a personal responsibility to discuss their faith with people who have different beliefs. Commitment and Loyalty Sometimes money can mask a serious problem. That may be the case within the mainline community. Cumulatively, these denominations generate more than $15 billion in donations each year. In fact, during the past decade the median church budget of mainline congregations has risen substantially – up 51%, to about $165,000 annually. As positive as that sounds, though, chances are good that the upward pattern will not continue. One reason is the relative decline in the household incomes of mainline adherents. During the past decade, the educational achievement of mainline congregants has plateaued while the median household income level has suffered. In 1998, the median income was 12% higher than the national average, while in 2008 the median among mainline households was 2% lower than the national norm. Money may be the least of the mainline’s challenges, though. A bigger worry is the decreasing engagement of congregants with church life. As noted earlier, weekly attendance figures have remained stable, but that hides the underlying problem of softer commitments. For example, adherents attend church services less frequency than they used to. Volunteerism in these churches is down by an alarming 21% since 1998. Adult Sunday school involvement has also declined, by 17% since 1998. The tenuous ties that millions of mainline adults have with their church are exemplified by their willingness to consider other spiritual options. Just half (49%) describe themselves as “absolutely committed to Christianity.” Slightly more (51%) are willing to try a new church. Two-thirds (67%) are open to pursuing faith in environments or structures that are different from those of a typical church. Almost three-quarters (72%) say they are more likely to develop own religious beliefs than to adopt those taught by their church. And nine out of ten (86%) sense that God is motivating people to stay connected to Him through different means and experiences than in the past. Evidence of waffling commitment is found elsewhere, as well. A minority of mainline attenders are presently involved in some type of personal discipleship activity. Less than half contend that the Bible is accurate in the life principles it teaches. Only half of all mainline adults say that they are on a personal quest for spiritual truth. And when asked to identify their highest priority in life, less than one out of every ten mainline adults (9%) says some aspect of faith constitutes their top priority. Mainline Pastors The nature of those who lead mainline congregations has been rapidly changing, too. One of the most telling findings in the Barna study was the aging of mainline pastors. A decade ago the median age of mainline Senior Pastors was 48; today it is 55. That represents a shockingly fast increase, representing a combination of too few young pastors entering the ranks and a large share of older pastors not retiring. Another study by Barna found that an unusually high share of Boomer pastors are refusing to retire or plan to retire in their mid-sixties, and that succession planning is a glaring weakness in most Protestant churches. To read more about the imbalance between younger and older pastors, click here. The percentage of mainline Senior Pastors who are female has risen dramatically, from 15% to 21% in the last 10 years. Oddly, while the education level of mainline pastors has dropped a bit – 82% have a seminary degree, down from 90% in 1998 – compensation levels have jumped substantially, rising by 40% in the last decade. Currently, senior pastor compensation packages represent one-third (33%) of the typical mainline congregation’s budget. One of the enduring idiosyncrasies of mainline churches is the brief tenure of pastors in a church. On average, these pastors last four years before moving to another congregation. That is about half the average among Protestant pastors in non-mainline churches. Equally significant is the fact that 93% of mainline senior pastors consider themselves to be a leader, yet only 12% claim to have the spiritual gift of leadership. George Barna, the researcher who analyzed the data for the report, commented that mainline Protestant churches seem to have weathered the past decade better than many people have assumed, but that the future is raising serious challenges to continued stability. He identified the quality of leadership provided – especially regarding vision, creativity, strategic thinking, and the courage to take risks – as being the most critical element in determining the future health and growth of mainline congregations. He also indicated that the approach that many mainline churches take toward some current social issues – e.g., environmental challenges, poverty, cross-denominational cooperation, developing respectful dialogue, embracing new models for faith expression, and global understanding – position those churches well for attracting younger Americans. About The Barna Group The Barna Group, Ltd. (which includes its research division, The Barna Research Group) was started in 1984 by George Barna. It is a private, non-partisan, for-profit organization that conducts primary research on a wide range of issues and products, produces resources pertaining to cultural change, leadership and spiritual development, and facilitates the healthy spiritual growth of leaders, children, families and Christian ministries. Located in Ventura, California, Barna conducts and analyzes primary research to understand cultural trends related to values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. If you would like to receive free e-mail notification of the release of each new, bi-monthly update on the latest research findings from The Barna Group, you may subscribe to this free service at the Barna website (http://www.barna.org%29/. Additional research-based resources, both free and at discounted prices, are also available through that website. About the Research This report is based upon several national telephone surveys conducted by The Barna Group. The surveys among mainline adults in 1998 included 267 adults; in 2008, there were 1,148 mainline attenders interviewed. The surveys among pastors involved 492 mainline senior pastors drawn from random samples of Protestant churches. The range of sampling error associated with the sample of 267 adults is between ±2.7 and ±6.4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The range of sampling error associated with the sample of 1,148 adults is between ±1.3 and ±3.0 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. These allowances do not include other types of error (known as non-sampling error) that can occur in surveys, such as errors arising from question wording, question sequencing, and the recording of responses. © The Barna Group, Ltd, 2009. Copyright Disclaimer: All the information contained on the barna.org website is copyrighted by The Barna Group, Ltd., 2368 Eastman Ave. Unit 12, Ventura, California 93003. No portion of this website (articles, graphs, charts, reviews, pictures, video clips, quotes, statistics, etc.) may be reproduced, retransmitted, disseminated, sold, distributed, published, edited, altered, changed, broadcast, circulated, or commercially exploited without the prior written permission from The Barna Group, Ltd.

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/17-leadership/323-report-examines-the-state-of-mainline-protestant-churches

------------------------------

Forrest Berry

The Hypersocialized Generation

This is an excellent blog by Al Mohler regarding HyperSocializing which Ligon Duncan reposted in his church newsletter (The First Epistle).

http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/11/06/newsnote-the-hypersocialized-generation/

NewsNote: The Hypersocialized Generation

Jeffery Zaslow of The Wall Street Journal opens his article with the story of a 17-year-old boy sent to the vice principal's office after being caught sending text messages in class. The vice principal, Steve Gallagher, told the boy to pay attention to the teacher, not to his cellphone. Even as the boy nodded politely, Gallagher noticed something amiss -- the boy was texting about his discipline for being caught texting.

"It was a subconscious act," said Gallagher. "Young people today are connected socially from the moment they open their eyes in the morning until they close their eyes at night. It's compulsive."

Zaslow calls the lifestyle of these young people "hypersocializing." As he observes:
Because so many people in their teens and early 20s are in this constant whir of socializing—accessible to each other every minute of the day via cellphone, instant messaging and social-networking Web sites—there are a host of new questions that need to be addressed in schools, in the workplace and at home. Chief among them: How much work can "hyper-socializing" students or employees really accomplish if they are holding multiple conversations with friends via text-messaging, or are obsessively checking Facebook?

There is an argument to be noticed here. Some assert that this generation of teens and twenty-somethings has developed an invaluable ability to multitask, to frame arguments with few words, and to stay constantly connected. Some, like Ben Bajarin of Creative Strategies, go so far as to argue that these young people are so skilled at "multimedia socializing" that their social skills are superior to previous generations, rightly understood.

Others, noting the time spent obsessively checking digital devices, see a loss of community, a fog of constant chatter, and, for both employers and educators, a massive volume of lost time. As P. M. Forni at Johns Hopkins University observes, "There is a lot of communication going on that is futile and trivial."

Consider what this means for educators:

Educators are also being asked by parents, students and educational strategists to reconsider their rules. In past generations, students got in trouble for passing notes in class. Now students are adept at texting with their phones still in their pockets, says 40-year-old Mr. Gallagher, the vice principal, "and they're able to communicate with someone one floor down and three rows over. Students are just fundamentally different today. They will take suspensions rather than give up their phones."

As Gallagher concludes, asking students to separate themselves from social media for the school day seems futile. "It's like talking to kids about why they don't need air."

Jeffery Zaslow's article, published in the invaluable "Personal Journal" section of The Wall Street Journal, is directed mainly to the business community, where executives are hard pressed to know how much they should (or even can) restrict social networking among younger employees. But the issues he addresses go far beyond the business context. His article should be read by parents, pastors, teachers, and anyone who cares about the minds and souls of young people.
One thing is clear -- Zaslow is not exaggerating. Almost every parent of a teenager or twenty-something will recognize the truth of his diagnosis of "hypersocializing" among the young. If anything, the issues range beyond the concerns he identifies. Business executives are concerned about the financial costs and economic impact. Educators are rightly concerned about distractions from the learning process. But what does this hypersocializing do to the souls of young people?

As prophets of technological pessimism from Jacques Ellul to Neil Postman have reminded us, every technology comes with an effect on the soul. How does this digital revolution effect the souls of young people who quite literally sleep with cellphones on the pillow, lest they miss a text message in the night? What space is left for the development of flesh-and-blood friendships? How are they related to people who do not have access to text messages? Is their communicative ability now limited to 140 characters in a burst?

Among young Christians, what space is left for the development of a devotional life? Do their lives contain any space for extended quiet and reflection, for prayer, or for reading anything longer than a text message?

This is precisely where evangelical Christians need to invest serious thought and reflection. We should all be concerned when Steve Gallagher laments that these young people think they need constant access to social media the way they need oxygen for breathing.

Then again, maybe the real problem is much worse than Zaslow and Gallagher acknowledge. Is this phenomenon limited to the "hypersocialized" young? In the spirit of personal confession I must admit that I turn on my iPhone the moment the plane hits the tarmac on landing. I feel irresponsible if I do not post regular Twitter updates and check email and messages constantly. Colleagues, friends, and constituents expect "hypersocializing," and they now range across the age spectrum.

There is no going back -- at least not in terms of retreat. The social universe is a fact of life, and a missiological challenge for the Christian church. We are all Facebookers now.

The hypersocialized generation of teenagers and young adults needs to learn limits. Parents must provide those limits for their children and encourage them in older offspring. Educators and executives cannot ignore the challenge, but there is as yet no mechanism for determining proper balance in a world growing more hypersocialized by the day.

We are all looking for someone to figure this out and find the responsible boundaries. When this happens, let's hope they send a text message to the rest of us.
_____________________________
Jeffery Zaslow, "The Greatest Generation (of Networkers)," The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, November 4, 2009.