







































Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 

   

Bronkema, Spiritual Metrics as a Bulwark Against Secularization: Reflections…  1  

 

 

Spiritual Metrics as a Bulwark Against 

Secularization  
 

David Bronkema 
 

 

 

One of the problems that Christian relief, development, and advocacy organizations wrestle with is 

how to ensure that their programs are holistic in terms of integrating the spiritual with the 

material.  This article explores how and why being intentional about including spiritual metrics into 

our planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation processes holds great promise to enable 

that integration to be done well, and to guard against the “secularization” of those efforts. 

 

 
Introduction 

The integration of faith with development efforts is 

an age-old challenge among Christian relief, 

development, and advocacy organizations in terms of 

how exactly to go about doing so.  One of the recurring 

problems is that there is a tendency to separate out the 

spiritual into its own category in such efforts, even as 

organizations remain committed to integration.  With 

the increasing interest in spiritual metrics, defined as 

measuring the spiritual impact of programs, this issue 

continues to come to the fore.  At the Accord Research 

Alliance (ARA) pre-conference intensive (ARA) in 

October of last year (2022), Jayakumar Christian 

brought up this issue head-on, stating several times in 

his keynote presentation that we should not “slice off” 

the spiritual from everything else and try to measure it, 

because in so doing we would be buying into and 

propagating the perspective that you can and should 

separate the spiritual from the non-spiritual. “All 

economics is spiritual, all politics is spiritual,” 

Jayakumar said, going on to insist that we need to 

approach and deal with all things as such. 

To many who are deeply interested in and 

committed to ensuring a holistic approach to their 

relief, development, and advocacy efforts, and who thus 

take spiritual dimensions seriously, including planning 

for and measuring the spiritual impact of their 

programs, this statement created uncertainty, 

confusion, discomfort, and concern among listeners, 

and for several reasons. At the very least, this statement 

seems to throw into question the means and methods 

they were and are currently undertaking to bolster and 

fortify these integrative efforts; at the most, it seemed to 

posit that these efforts in and of themselves were sorely 

misguided and even potentially harmful.  

Given these concerns, it seems wise to explore in 

more depth exactly what Jayakumar Christian was 

saying, especially its programmatic implications around 

spiritual metrics. This brief reflection seeks to begin to 

do that and set the stage for a follow up conversation 

with Jayakumar and others in the symposium that 

occurred on May 4, 2023. The root argument in this 

reflection is that it seems to me that what Jayakumar was 

warning against was succumbing to or even perhaps 

unwittingly nourishing the danger of a 

“spiritual/secular” dualism in our attempts to measure 

the spiritual, a warning that is always timely and 

important because the danger is constantly present. Let 

me explain why, if done well, spiritual metrics actually 

create a bulwark against the threat of the 

spiritual/secular division. 

 

Definitions and Foundational Observations 
Let’s start with definitions of the “spiritual” and the 

“secular” to ensure we are all on the same page in terms 

of our language and terms. One dictionary definition of 

the “spiritual” is “relating to or affecting the human 

spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things,” 

or “relating to religion or religious belief,” whereas a 

dictionary definition for “secular” is “denoting attitudes, 

activities, or other things that have no religious or 

spiritual basis” (both taken from Oxford Languages 

English Dictionary through Google). It is important to 

make two foundational observations here. First, both of 

these definitions point to the importance of 

understanding the spiritual and the secular as concepts 

that fundamentally revolve around a relationship with 

the divine:  the first embraces it and the latter rejects it, 

denying that such a relationship exists, either because 

there are aspects of life where the divine is not relevant 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 

   

Bronkema, Spiritual Metrics as a Bulwark Against Secularization: Reflections…  2  

 

or present, or because the divine simply does not exist. 

For Christians, on the other hand, we believe all things 

are under the lordship of Christ, that he relates to, is 

present in, and governs all things, at all times 

(Colossians 1:15-20), whether we are aware of it or not, 

or, as Jayakumar said, not only are economics and 

politics spiritual, all things are!  

 

Underpinning Theological Foundations 
Now consider what it means for us, as we carry out 

our lives and work, that Christ relates to, is present in, 

and governs all things. A good place to start is with the 

theological insistence that there are four main 

relationships we should pay attention to: our 

relationship(s) with God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), 

with ourselves, with each other, and with creation. If we 

look at these through the lens of the spiritual and the 

sacred, two things jump out. First, there is no question 

that in the first of these relationships, our relationship 

with God, the “spiritual” element is constantly present. 

As we seek to know God better and draw closer to God, 

we are inherently engaging “the spiritual,” and there is 

no danger of losing that from view. Second, this is not 

the case with the other three relationships. Rather, 

when we engage in relationships with ourselves, each 

other, and/or with creation, whether it be through 

economics, politics, or the environment, there is a 

strong tendency for us, especially in the West, to push 

God out of the picture, to “secularize” things, to relate 

to each other and to creation without relating to God in 

the process, or without having God present. Many of 

the forces pushing in this direction have found their 

greatest strength in the Enlightenment and its legacies, 

a theme that can be explored later. Suffice it to say that 

this secularization, this “despiritualization,” is exactly 

what Satan constantly strives to bring about, and against 

which we must always be on guard, as Jayakumar so 

helpfully challenged us to be. Two related questions 

immediately arise: first, how do we prevent such a 

secularization in our programs from happening?  

Second, how do we intentionally strive to deepen the 

spiritual dimensions and spiritual impacts of our 

programs?   

 

The Role of Spiritual Metrics 
To my mind, spiritual metrics provides answers to 

both of these questions, because the planning, 

implementation, and evaluation efforts geared towards 

measuring the spiritual dimensions do three things; (1) 

they help bring the spiritual dimension back in where it 

has been lost; (2) they strengthen it where it is weak;  

and (3) they create a bulwark against efforts to downplay 

it, because as it is integrated with the other dimensions. 

In other words, rather than slicing off the spiritual and 

putting it into its own category, spiritual metrics help 

graft spiritual dimensions back into situations where 

they are absent and nurture and deepen those spiritual 

dimensions where they are already present.  

Spiritual metrics do this, or can do this, in two 

ways. First, intentionally including spiritual metrics 

forces everyone involved in planning, implementing, 

monitoring, and evaluating to wrestle with exactly how 

what they are doing is spiritual, thereby deepening the 

awareness and understanding of the presence of God in 

all they do. Second, it requires us to think and pray 

about what increasing levels of spiritual maturity might 

look like, and how best to pursue those outcomes as 

part and parcel of our programs and projects. It is 

important to remember that spiritual maturity has to do, 

as we saw above, with the deepening of relationships of 

people with God, with themselves, with each other, and 

with creation in the context of God’s lordship and will 

for all of these; therefore spiritual metrics will consider 

what people understand and believe and how they act 

and feel, in terms of their thoughts, words, deeds, and 

emotions towards God, each other, and creation as they 

engage with the economic, the political, and all the 

other important areas of life. The key question then 

becomes how to integrate planning for and evaluation 

of the spiritual side of things into our programs and 

projects. Let me offer a few thoughts. 

 

Making it Concrete:  Some Examples 
First, I suspect we have all seen what “secularized” 

development programs look like, both in secular 

development organizations, but truth be told, also in 

Christian ones.  To wit, agricultural projects become 

solely about increasing crop yields; health projects 

become solely about increasing physical and 

psychosocial wellbeing; education projects become 

solely about increasing educational attainment; 

microfinance programs become solely about increasing 

income; WASH projects become solely about how 

many wells are drilled, water projects established, 

latrines built; advocacy and empowerment projects 

become solely about increasing the power and leverage 

of the oppressed and the opportunities and rights they 

can obtain. In all of these, the spiritual dimension 

disappears, or at the very least is severely truncated, 

sliced off from the planning, implementation, and 

evaluation of these projects.  

What would it look like to use spiritual metrics to 

encourage spirituality to be reincorporated and 

nurtured into these programs and projects?  As I have 

said elsewhere (Bronkema 2024), the best way starts 

with discussions around planning rather than with 

discussions about measurement, because planning for 

spiritual impact forces us to be intentional about 

incorporating the spiritual in our activities. I am 

skeptical of using universal spiritual outcome indicators 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 

   

Bronkema, Spiritual Metrics as a Bulwark Against Secularization: Reflections…  3  

 

precisely for that reason: not only do they generally not 

fit the particular contextual needs, but also truncate the 

collective organizational and participatory process of 

discussing how the spiritual is and should be manifested 

in all that is done, which in and of itself creates that 

bulwark against secularization that I mentioned above. 

As a result, I recommend a three-step process for 

spiritual metrics: first, organizations and the people they 

work with should think and pray about what spiritual 

outcomes they hope to achieve along with the material 

ones; second, they must ensure that activities are 

actually geared toward bringing these about; and third, 

only after engaging in steps one and two, they should 

decide what the appropriate measurement indicators 

should be. Of course, this can and should be an iterative 

process, incorporating insights from the 

implementation experience in a cycle of 

action/prayerful reflection/action. In my experience, 

this approach seems to bear the best fruit. Also, it is 

always good to start on a small scale.  

 

Concluding Thoughts 
Jayakumar’s warning against slicing off the spiritual 

to measure it is a good reminder of the overall dangers 

of secularization. But this assumes the spiritual 

dimension is already front and center in people’s 

minds, thoughts, and plans as they carry out their 

projects. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. In 

fact, most reports seem to indicate the despiritualizing 

presence and process is extremely powerful in our 

programs. As a result, it is absolutely essential to tackle 

this head on. Being intentional about integrating 

spiritual metrics into our planning, implementation, 

monitoring, and evaluation processes holds great 

promise to enable us to do that well. 

 

References 

 
Bronkema, David. 2024 (January 18). Measuring 

Social and Spiritual Impact: Three Simple 

Questions to Ask to Set Yourself Up for Success. 

Ardent Mentoring. 

https://www.ardentmentoring.org/post/measuring-

social-and-spiritual-impact-three-simple-questions-

to-ask-to-set-yourself-up-for-success.  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David Bronkema is a professor at Eastern University in 

the PhD in Organizational Leadership program and an 

editor of this journal. Before coming to Eastern in 2006, 

he worked in the field of international development for 

13 years, and enjoys the continuing process of working 

with and learning from colleagues directly involved in 

that work. 

 

 
 

https://www.ardentmentoring.org/post/measuring-social-and-spiritual-impact-three-simple-questions-to-ask-to-set-yourself-up-for-success
https://www.ardentmentoring.org/post/measuring-social-and-spiritual-impact-three-simple-questions-to-ask-to-set-yourself-up-for-success
https://www.ardentmentoring.org/post/measuring-social-and-spiritual-impact-three-simple-questions-to-ask-to-set-yourself-up-for-success

