Assumption vs Fact

As I looked at Lovett’s presentation from the 27^th a question arose.  On slide four it states:

 

•       Existing churches alone cannot be expected to increase attendance in proportion with population growth.

 

•       The only means by which the denomination can possibly keep pace with population growth is through new church starts.

 

Are these assumptions or facts?  In planning I’ve always been taught that you make assumptions to fill in the gaps where you just don’t have enough information to conclusively make a statement of fact. Then, as the situation develops, you either validate or replace your assumptions.  I mean, I don’t disagree with either of those statements because they seem intuitively obvious to me. But, at the same time, how do we know they’re true?  For instance:

 

·        Existing churches alone cannot be expected to increase attendance in proportion with population growth.

o       Why not?

o       Does past failure pre-determine future outcomes?

o       Is this a uniquely American experience/phenomenon? Are churches in our growth areas (i.e. overseas) able to draw people in to them without the apparent necessity to go to where they are?

o       Have we told “existing churches” they are expected to grow in proportion to population growth in their areas?

 

I’m also curious as to how the current economic situation and its short-to-mid-term projections impact all this?  What was the economic situation during the data gathering period and how does a change in that situation (either positive or negative) influence projected future church growth activity.

 

Also, not to be overly “business like” with this, is it too much of a stretch to set benchmarks & goals for churches once they’re chartered?  I mean, we start new churches and EXPECT them to be successful. We give them targets, goals, and objectives which are big motivators (in addition to the motivation of the Holy Spirit!)  In such an environment everyone involved knows they need to succeed and they do what it takes to accomplish that goal.  However, once they’re chartered we just seem to let them go their own way.  It seems only reasonable to me to say to churches that if they expect to remain part of the UM connection, draw on UM pastoral resources, apportioned dollars, etc., that we ought to hold them accountable for success, however we’ve defined that for each congregation. That’s just basic Wesleyan thought isn’t it?  I mean if you were in an early society meeting and weren’t living up to the standards you were voted out.

 

Peace,

 

Neville