How big is your church?
Friday, March 23, 2007
Church growth strategies are based on the notion that there is something redemptive about the numerical size of a congregation.
The error of church growth strategy is teleological. That is, it aims at an improper end. Church growth talks about discipleship and mission, but it puts these in the service of increasing the size of a congregation. Its logic is ground in the belief that large congregations, by virtue of their success in attracting worshipers, must be faithful churches.
I believe the church's fixation on church growth is related to our culture's fascination with megachurches. Americans are impressed by size. Ask any Texan. So when we see a Saddleback, or a Willow Creek, we think there must be something great going on there.
Don't get me wrong - I have no doubt that there is powerful ministry that happens everyday in megachurches. But their "success" causes the whole church to believe that its success is dependent on becoming the next megachurch. So we have a whole lot of pastors and congregations who spend all their time trying to increase membership, as if getting 1000 people in worship on Sunday will hasten Jesus' return.
My reading of Wesley lately has convinced me that he would be scathingly critical of church growth strategy. He was interested in bringing people into saving relationships with God, which can only happen in the context of a Christian community that is focused on disciplined participation in the means of grace. That really has nothing to do with size. It has to do with the right intention, followed by right belief and practice.
The other day I came across a quote in Wesley's "Thoughts Upon Methodism," where he distingushed between the essentials of Methodism (holiness of heart and life) and the circumstantials (the disciplined practice that nurtures such holiness).
He writes, "The essence of [Methodism] is holiness of heart and life; the circumstantials all point to this. And as long as they are joined together in the people called Methodists, no weapon formed against them shall prosper. But if even the circumstantial parts are despised, the essential will soon be lost. And if ever the essential parts should evaporate, what remains will be dung and dross."
Clearly, for Wesley the power of the Methodist approach to Christian faith is bound up in practices that allow people to experience the saving grace of Christ. That has every bit to do with the quality of a community, and nothing to do with its size.
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 12:28 PM
7 Comments:
I agree wholeheartedly.
Totally, Andrew. Rather than try to GROW the Church, Wesley would tell us to BE the Church. BEING the Church is much harder, but well worth it.
Matthew 18:20 helps me understand that capacity crowds aren't the main thing. But take care Andrew lest you inadvertently speak from both sides of the mouth. Are you not hoping for a turnout to the May Gathering?
A few observations:
1. The bible includes lots of numbers. Acts in particular seems to think church growth is a good thing.
2. Not all growth is good. Cancer is a form of growth gone crazy.
3. We UMs are faced with too many churches that have failed to even win or keep their own children, let alone outsiders. The feeling that we need to do SOMETHING is legitimate.
4. You're right: We americans tend to opt for the quick and the simple. While this might work fine in many areas, it doesn't appear to be a recipe for healthy discipleship.
As always, my thanks to all for your comments. Clark, you are right that I hope the Gathering in May has a big turnout. But I think that is different than making achieving a certain attendance level the goal of the event. Like you said, Matthew 18:20 is a pretty good passage to determine how many are needed for the church to be present. I think the problem with churches is that we have made numbers an "end in themselves" rather than a means to an end. So our ministry strategies become oriented toward growing the church rather than making disciples.
Richard, I take your comments in concert with Clark's. I think you're right - growth is a good thing and should be hoped for (and worked toward, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit). But the key is that it is a desire for growth for the right reasons and under faithful circumstances. I think it would be far preferable to have a congregation of 50 committed disciples who are serious about practicing their faith and walking the difficult way of salvation than 500 nominal Christians who show up because the preacher tells funny stories and the service is entertaining.
Good post, Andrew.
As a former UMC pastor and now the pastor/teacher of an independent faith community that would probably be considered small - ? i dunno? - i can honestly say that it's wonderful not to have a growth plan or strategy. we give the gift of this community away. those who are attracted to it will come. that doesn't mean we're not intentional about sharing it - we are - we want all of the world to experience this. seriously. but that's not about numbers for us. a focus on numbers make people sick, particularly americans. it already has. it continues to.
rock on.
Andrew,
I recently had a blog-fight with a church growth disciple in my own denomination (Free Methodist for those who don't know). He wouldn't claim that he was just another church growth groupie, peddling a strategy, but I call it like I see em. He was arguing that the words of Jesus, "The fields are ripe for the harvest," mean that we MUST harvest the field or else we are being a disobedient church. Translation: without numerical growth, we're disobeying Jesus.
My response was that we can present the gospel till we're blue in the face but my neighbor ultimately has the freedom to accept or reject the gospel.
How would you respond to these sorts of (mis)readings of Scripture?
Post a Comment
<< Home