by Rob Campbell
My next three posts (each weekly post arriving to you on Wednesdays) will concentrate on evaluating the health of a cell church. These thoughts were a collaborative effort of the pastoral team at CCC. However, the lead runner concerning “Evaluating a Cell Network” was Pastor Michele Gooch (CCC’s Inter-Generational Network Pastor). Certainly, we understand that these thoughts are not perfect. Yet, my hope is that they will provide a framework for you to consider growth and health in your context.
A Typical Cell Church Evaluates Health by Measuring:
â€¢ Number of Cells
â€¢ Number of Multiplications
â€¢ Number of members in a Cell
â€¢ Number of baptisms per Cell
â€¢ Number of people on the â€œtraining trackâ€
â€¢ Percentage of Celebration attendees in cells
A few questions. Are the measurements cited above a true assessment of health? Does your church track such data?
10 thoughts on “Evaluating the Health of a Cell Church (Part One)”
This blog is Korean version of Rob’s article, “evaluating the health of a cell church, Part One.”
To me an accurate measure would include members living a victorious life, but I admit that’s hard to determine. Would not an accurate measure of health include some kind of measurment of spiritual growth of the group members?
I’m new to cell groups so please excuse my ignorance. I look forward to reading more comments and insights.
En algunas iglesias no se evaluan las celulas por temor de no tener los numeros que se dice. Ami me gustaria que se midiera todo eso es un buen punto para en realidad saver si la iglesia esta saludable.
Rob you’ve brought us back to a reality we sincerely need in Cell ministry. The addage “you don’t get what you EXPECT, you get what you INSPECT” holds true here. Health is measurable and the values you list work well in week-to-week tracking and reviewing with leadership (coaches / supervisors / district pastors), but the key is actually holding ourselves accountable to the “brutal-facts” review on a regular basis. Our greatest progress happened when I met with coaches each week and handed out the printed updates of each health barometer.
These measurements are all really good and similar to what we have been using, although I must admit we need to be more consistent. However, we recently identified a potential problem with these kinds of measurements. They are basically all numbers based and we have found that whilst these are important they can also be a one dimensional view of the church and can de-motivate people. For example they do not show us changed marriages, restored families, character changed, finances re-ordered, transformed lives etc. We have found that these ‘other less tangible measurements’, really motivate our people. The problem is how do we measure them and/or include them in our ongoing evaluation of health?
I agree. We need to measure the health of the members. Our goal is to change lives, not just record big numbers. How many marriages were fixed, how many people broke the chains of debt, and how many anxious people found joy.
It cannot be that difficult to develop performance measures that could capture the growth and victory of the group members.
One measure we have just begun using — how many of our groups are involved in a minstry in the community — being
This are good, helpful indicators, like blood pressure, eye dilation, pulse rate, respiration, weight and blood tests as human health indicators.
In our cells, we also check up on a few measurable health factors, comparable to exercise, nutrition, sleep and srtess in human health.
These include time and frequency devoted to the activities described in Acts 2:37-47, the one-another commands of the NT, degree of member participation (1 Cor 14:24-26)…
Other things we track beside these are: Where people are in our equipping track and who is mentoring the new believers. To highlight these other important changes taking place (spiritual growth, marriages helped etc) we use testimonies and written stories in our newsletter to keep these before the people. Changed lives really motivate the troops.
It’s a question of shepherds knowing their flocks, isn’t it? It’s the same story in any organisation. Statistical measurements can tell us lots of things, but at some stage there has to be some MWA (management by walking around). Get face face to face with people and ask questions…
I am sure the higher up the coaching chain the more leaders try and get as much feedback straight from the folk at the grass roots level…
Is that what you coaches out there do??