Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

A Guide for Consumers of Theology

November 30, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Our recent annual “America’s Best Churches” issue drew more than the usual deluge of reader and parishioner complaints. Hence it behooves me as editor of U.S. News & World Report to again offer a public explanation of our much-misunderstood church rankings methodology.

In thanking those who took the time to write, I would remind all in the community of believers that our rankings are intended as a public service to aid spiritual consumers in making one of life’s highest-impact personal choices. We claim no infallibility in our rankings. We strive to provide accurate, user-friendly data to allow seekers of quality worship to do their homework and grasp truth with full confidence that they are comparing apples to apples. Yes, we visibly spread the word about the handiness of our shopper’s tool, but we can’t be held responsible if certain churches choose, for example, to display, as a recruiting come-on, their U.S. News ranking on a banner atop their steeple.

We reject the assertion that church reputations are made or broken based on tables published once a year in our magazine. Nor do we find any signs that “America’s Best Churches” encourages a “one-size-fits-all” path to the mountaintop. Frankly, any American who would build an entire cosmological belief system on a two-or-three-point rise in a church’s year-to-year U.S. News ranking should probably stop, take a deep breath and meditate a bit on values, personal style, and the theistic limits of magazine journalism.

As proof of our good faith, we have always been willing to consider critiques of our research metrics and make warranted adjustments in our process for arriving at the rankings. That is why we have urged restraint upon those outspoken theologians who in recent months have been encouraging church ministers to boycott our informational surveys: A boycott will only make it more difficult for our researchers to compile a full portrait of America’s religious marketplace and present all good-faith competitors on a level laying field.

Neither our openness to methodological challenges nor our efforts to keep our influence in perspective, however, should be taken as a sign that houses of worship shouldn’t continue to seek ways to improve. Indeed, many of our reader complaints stem from feelings among congregants that our surveys failed to capture such measurable steps forward as energy-efficient stained-glass windows, form-fitting cushioned pews, and imported communion wine.

Some critics charge that our emphasis on counting average Sunday service attendance unfairly favors urban congregations over rural ones. But in recent years we have refined the formula for balancing the actual turnout with the local population’s potential. And we’ve enhanced accuracy by verifying the numbers reported by church secretaries with spot-checking through on-site visits by independent observers.

As “America’s Best Churches” has evolved over the past decade, we have adopted recommendations from our “loving critics” that we loosen some of the criteria that give higher rankings to the more doctrinaire denominations. We trust that this year’s methodology no longer penalizes parishes that favor folk masses or Christian rock over traditional organ music.

Our much-maligned “enforcement of dogma” measurement, which detractors complain is biased against Unitarians and favors Catholics and evangelicals, continues to prompt soul-searching among our nonsectarian team of clerical advisers. Suggestions for further improvements are welcome.

Matters of faith are -- don’t we know it -- highly subjective. The only dogma we maintain at U.S. News is a staffwide conviction that theology consumers who’re feeling their way to divinity should not be left to approach the deity without an up-to-date and well-packaged scorecard.

One admittedly self-interested point: It is true that “America’s Best Churches” has become one of our brand name’s top publishing successes. But as a private corporation, we don’t consider that a reason to do penance. We are hard at work on the first edition of “America’s Best Mosques and Temples.” We think you’ll find it enlightening.

Charlie Clark is senior editor and director of press relations at the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on A Guide for Consumers of Theology

  • Thank you!
  • Posted by Lee on November 30, 2007 at 6:50am EST
  • Charlie, you're a genius! In your next edition, could you please begin ranking state legislatures?

  • Posted by Steve on November 30, 2007 at 7:40am EST
  • Bravo!

  • Posted by Fred on November 30, 2007 at 8:30am EST
  • What is an evangelical? What is a fundamentalist? I cannot find these terms in the Bible. Also, if you wnat to start something try to define the terms "liberal" and "conservative" also.

  • Posted by Peruvios on November 30, 2007 at 9:40am EST
  • Whine, whine, whine. If college leaders didn't brag about the performance of their institutions, they wouldn't be ranked.

    If faculty and admissions officers did not rank students as part of the admission process, colleges wouldn't be ranked.

    If colleges didn't compete by building over-priced rec centers and charging hundreds of dollars for mandatory athletics fees, then colleges wouldn't be ranked.

    If the AAUP was really anything more than lobbying group for faculty salaries (as evidenced by the title of of their most sought after publication 'The Annual Report of the Economic Status of the Profession'), colleges wouldn't be ranked.

    Go ahead, complain about the rankings. Rank churches, legislators, administrators, anything you like just to feel better about yourself.

    Actually, ranking administrators would be a great idea: those at the top and the bottom would gain the greatest salaries. After all, some folks would want to hire the most despised administrators because clearly they are doing something right if faculty don't like them.

  • Good for a laugh - but...
  • Posted by T-bone on November 30, 2007 at 10:10am EST
  • This article gave me a chuckle on a Friday morning...
    It should be noted that many churches and ministry organizations do have their own accreditation board, called the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (http://www.ecfa.org/). They describe their mission as helping churches and ministries "earn the public’s trust through adherence to seven Standards of Responsible Stewardship".

  • Clarification on the EFCA
  • Posted by Robert on November 30, 2007 at 2:00pm EST
  • T-Bone -- the EFCA isn't like an accreditation board for churches. It's more like a Better Business Bureau for religious fund-raising. There are, of course, many organizations out there seeking money under the cover of religion. Some of these are legitimate charitable organizations, but some are just scam artists seeking to use religion as their leverage into people's wallets. Signing up with the EFCA distinguishes the former from the latter. Just Fyi....

  • Accreditation board
  • Posted by T-bone on November 30, 2007 at 6:20pm EST
  • While the ECFA may not be an official "accreditation agency", it does serve the a accreditation role role by providing the public with information about the trustworthiness of an organization, specifically related to the financial expenditures of a church or ministry. In this way it serves a similar function of accreditation agencies - the so-called "public's trust".

    What I was trying to point out was that although we see "ranking churches" as silly, there is a real need for a mechanism to provide clear information about whether or not a ministry or church is going to use your donation in an acceptable manner.

    In the same way, there is a real need in higher education for mechanisms that provide information about the use of public funding and the quality of education that is provided.

  • Posted by Markus Kemmelmeier on November 30, 2007 at 9:15pm EST
  • HILARIOUS. Thank you.