I realise that I am probably a lone voice on this in evangelical circles in Australia (and a lot elsewhere). I may be wrong….but I had to say this….the emphasis on targets is in my view at best a distraction….and at worst dangerous…This is my latest article for Evangelicals Now.
Should we have an Evangelism Target?
Remember the old adage – if you don’t have a target, you will miss it? Or, if you aim at nothing you will hit nothing? It’s an interesting feature of many contemporary evangelical churches that they have strategies, plans, goals and mission statements. And some have even adopted specific percentage goals.
When I first came to Australia to work in evangelism, I was asked to state what my “KPIs” were. This was somewhat difficult, given that I didn’t know what a KPI was! I know now. Key Performance Indicators. I didn’t know what to say. More people praying? People becoming Christians? Preaching the word faithfully. What were they looking for? They wanted facts. Percentages. Measurable outcomes. Figures. Apparently, this is what funders look for.I remember consulting with one church pastor who told me that their aim was to grow their growth groups by 63% in a couple of years. Why I asked 63%? Why not 64% or 62%? I think he got the point.
I have raised this issue several times with people who I admire and who I regard as fine Christian leaders and strategic thinkers. And they always give the same answer. It’s good to have a measurable target to aim at – it gives purpose, encouragement and meaning to our leaders and people. This year the moderator of the New South Wales Presbyterian Church endorsed a proposal from the Gospel Coalition to aim for a doubling of reformed evangelicals in the next 20 years by seeing a 5% conversion growth rate in each of our churches. The Anglicans – at least Sydney Anglicans – are completely on board – as are many others.
It is argued that we go for 5% because it is imaginable, achievable and measurable and it is not beyond us.
But therein lies the trouble. Of course it is beyond us. It is not Biblical to say that whereas 50% is beyond us, 5% isn’t. We cannot convert anyone. We cannot and should not target people. We do not know whether God will save or not. How then can we set targets?’
To argue thus is not to argue that we should not care about people being converted, or that we should do nothing. It is precisely because the Lord cares, and He has called us and provided us with the means that His Spirit uses (the preaching of the word), that we should do so. But we never seek to convert people. We seek to proclaim Christ in order that people may be converted. The distinction is subtle, but important. “When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honoured the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed” (Acts 13v14).
In 2009 Sydney Anglicans set a bold target of 10% of Sydney’s population attending Bible-believing churches. It was missed. By a mile. Over the period 2013–2023, the total Sydney Anglican adult attendance declined 7%, or 14% against the rise in population. Two-thirds of churches declined.
The Sydney Anglican target has now moved from a goal of half a million to a target of 1,750 per year (5% of the 35,000 adult attendees). It’s not enough. And the Presbyterian target of doubling 17,000 attendance to 34,000 in a state with 8.5 million people is not exactly visionary either.
I have been preaching through the book of Acts for the past year in the context of a small church that desperately needs revitalisation. I can honestly say that it has been ten times better than all the books on church planting, missional churches and evangelism that I have read (and there have been a lot). Why? Because one thing that Acts teaches us is that it is not our strategies, plans or targets which work. Paul’s strategies, insofar as he had them, often failed, were changed or were forced into quick adaptation. What works is the Spirit of the Lord. “So, he said to me, ‘This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: “Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,” says the Lord Almighty’” (Zech. 4v6).
This is not to say that we don’t have strategies or aims, but we should aim to ensure that they are Biblical. My fear is that much of our strategy is determined more by sociology than theology. Forget the 5% – let’s go all out for the glory of God… and wait to see what He will do.
David Robertson, is the minster of Scots Kirk Presbyterian Church, Newcastle NSW and blogs at http://www.theweeflea.com
Letter from Australia 124 – An Interesting, Frustrating and Disappointing Conference on Evangelism.
I so much agree. Trust the Lord preach Christ, and trust the Lord expectantly for the growth He intends.
Immanuel means
God for us (Romans 8:28-39)
God with us!
Sydney Anglican clocking in.
Dear brother I cannot say Amen more heartily. The only numerical target the Bible gives me is 144 000 (see Revelation 7:4) and I think that either that number is symbolic (12 x 12 x lots) or we have already surpassed it and so can tick that box and move on to whatever God might have us do next. Which would be to praise him. Which would be the same as evangelism.
Lately I’ve been asking “what do we do if God fails the targets we’ve set him? “
I fear the culture of toxic positivity
This is a good expose
I agree with this although on the other hand unlike yourself, I’m not responsible for leading a church so I don’t want to be unnecessarily critical of those who are; but having grown up as a non-believer in my family’s direct sales business, the talk of conversion targets sounds eerily familiar and somewhat out of place when it comes to the Lord’s work. One of the things that make me feel very uncomfortable are the implications of what conclusions are to be drawn if the targets aren’t met?
Thanks for the article David – short, clear, and to the point. I didn’t know the PCNSW Moderator had endorsed this goal – I guess that means we’re all in on it too 😉?
But seriously, as you’ve pointed out, this obsession with goal-setting and numbers is entirely antithetical to the pattern for evangelism (and discipleship) laid down in God’s word – and I think I’d rather follow His lead than bow at the altar of statistically quantifiable outcomes!
I have spent much of my working life in a corporate world of “stretch targets” and similar jargon. Any failure to achieve a target became a stick to beat the staff into working harder next year, while bettering it was simply treated as proof that the business could do even better if only we dug that bit deeper in our efforts; enough was never enough. So I naturally rebel against this kind of gaslighting and manipulation.
However I go further than you – not only is there little or no scriptural justification for this kind of approach, I think that it is positively evil. It comes from the same collectivist mindset which regards individuals as no more than fungible units of production or of other usefulness to society. I know that this is a strong statement, so please do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that every church leader is a latent Pol Pot. Nor am I unsympathetic to the plight of leaders in what can be a pretty lonely and soul-destroying role. However the devil does make work for idle hands; it must be very tempting for staff embedded in denominational institutions or other pointless and parasitical parachurch organisations, such as the increasingly preposterous Evangelical Alliance, to justify their existence by conjuring up these kind of schemes and imagine that good intentions justify the means.
At the end of the day, what does a numeric target achieve? So you miss it (for several reasons, the more likely outcome) – resulting in an almighty hangover, a return to the doldrums which probably gave birth to the idea, and the discovery that this particular cure was worse than the disease? Or you achieve/beat it: “hooray, job done, we can all go home now because only 90% of our town is going to hell”? I really do not think that things are meant to work like this.
I completely agree . There is a danger in turning churches into businesses .
Also if there is a strong emphasis on targets people get tempted to manipulate and promote whatever brings people in .
It’s not the quantity it’s the quality of solid Bible teaching . Jesus said he would build his church . He also just told us to go and make disciples of all men telling them the good news .
Well said and I totally agree.
I completely agree. We can’t hit targets in something we are not responsible for i.e. conversions. Only God can do that. We must have vision, but not targets
Agree.
Interestingly, just above your tweet in my timeline was this one: a new meta-analysis on the impact of goal setting on performance found:
1. Process goals had a large effect on performance
2. Performance goals had a moderate effect
3. Outcome goals had a negligible effect
https://x.com/stevemagness/status/2002825657785389347?s=20
I agree with your assessment of numerical goals. I have wondered if a church ought to have a staff elder who is notably gifted in evangelism and an evangelism budget as part of the church’s general budget. Part of the hope for these ideas is to increase discipleship in evangelism within the local church. Would a numerical goal of having 100% of membership able and active in sharing their testimony and the gospel? Might never reach that goal but it seems a worthy goal.
I’ve found that leaders who develop contextual strategies have a desire to intentionally move churches toward health. I think that strategies are a tangible expression of intentional leadership as illustrated by the Apostle Paul. I agree that numerical targets invite ungodly sociological responses, and I don’t see any biblical foundation. One can have strategies without the artificiality of embedded numerical goals. Biblically based strategies use the resources that God gives for church growth and health, and depend on God for their efficacy.
I’ve just finished reading some of Andrew Root who argues that churches get trapped in a cycle of “having” to meet arbitrary growth targets. In his book, “When Churches Stop working, ” he has some interesting chapter headings, such as ” Busy People, Busy Church–A Killer Cocktail, and ” Forget the Mission Statement–Get a Watchword.” I’m finding Root a good conversation partner.
Thank you for this David!