Reflections: Is Church Growth Relevant Today
The Church Growth movement definitley had a zenith of popularity from the mid 70's through the early 90's. It seemed to be replaced by the "how to do it" seminars by the larger churches, the death of some of the pioneers and other cultural factors.
In spite of the fact that church growth was not on everyone's front burner it was still being practiced. Principles are principles and the growing churches were still applying the principles in their ministry even though they called them something different.
People like Nelson Searcy, Gary McIntosh, George Hunter, Bill Easum, Chad Thibideaux are taking the principles and giving them a new hearing to great success.
Church Growth is not a fad as McGavran points out because it has a deep theological and Biblical foundations. God is still in the business of reaching lost people with the greatest message of all.
With 94% of churches not keeping up with even the growth in population and either plateaued or in decline it is very possible the principles neglected are the principles needed.
IDEOLOGICAL/THEOLOGICAL
CONCERNS
The Final Lectures
Dr. Donald McGavran
The church
growth movement thrives in a very complex world. Indeed, it advocates effective evangelism in
a world where many others are advocating other useful and necessary courses of
action. This has often produced vigorous
attacks on the idea of church growth.
Today’s lecture will devote attention to two of the main fields of
action.
First, we
shall take up ideological concerns and church growth.
Today’s world has shrunk into a very small place. In fewer hours than it used to take to travel from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C., it is now possible to travel from Philadelphia to Singapore, Zambia, or Argentina. One world has come into being. The concept of many equal nations is rapidly pushing out the concept of civilized and savage peoples. If the population of east Africa is suffering from an enormous famine, it ought not to be so. If 4,000 or 5,000 are killed in Mexico City by a great earthquake, this is something which should lead all nations of the world to pour resources into Mexico. This is certainly not the world in which David Livingstone and William Carey lived. Hundreds of thousands of students from Asia and Africa flood into Europe and America, and almost equal numbers of European and American students travel in other countries as part of their education. The tidal wave of secularism which has swept Western countries is inclined in a patronizing fashion to grant that all religions have some truth in them, but the idea of world evangelization is held to be fanatically Christian.
As Christians look out on this kind of a world, they too, are powerfully moved toward rectifying the physical conditions which produce famine, illiteracy and disease. They, too, feel a great urge to wipe out injustice and oppression. Although the media speak very little about the tremendous oppressions carried out by Marxist governments scattered throughout the world, they focus enormous attention on South Africa. Government after government brings pressure on the South African government to change its ways. Enthusiasts for social justice exclaim, “Of what use is it to make men and women Christian if they are being treated unfairly by powerful members of their populations?” Here in North America also the need for Christians to take vigorous action against the terrible oppressions suffered by blacks and the moderate oppressions suffered by minorities claims a great deal of attention.
What does
the church growth movement say to this other notable Christian movement? It says three things: First, it rejoices that justice is beginning
to roll down like the waters and that a mighty stream of righteousness is
beginning to be felt in many parts of the world. Second, the church growth movement maintains
that this concern that all segments of society, the 100,000 or more people
groups, be treated fairly is basically a Christian concern. When the population of the world has become
more Christian, it will hear Almighty God’s command to treat other men fairly
and to obey that command more faithfully.
It is useless to expect that non-Christians will be as interested as
Christians in treating all men as God’s children. If we really want humanity, mercy, justice
and righteousness to spread throughout the earth, we can take no more effective
action than to multiply congregations of the redeemed in every segment of
society. No one will act more justly
toward is fellow men than those men and women who live in Christ and whose
lives are guided by the Holy Spirit.
Third,
consequently, the church growth movement maintains that while the Church ought
certainly to carry out other activities, such as worship, the instruction of
Christian children, the feeding of the poor, and the mitigation of justice and
cruelty, for example, it must devote a much larger share of its resources, its
prayers and its manpower to proclaiming the gospel, finding the lost, and
bringing them home to the Father’s house.
Only so will the Kingdom of God really come on earth.
It is important to remember that the Kingdom of God is one in which the King—Lord Jesus—is recognized. Where the King is not recognized, the Kingdom of God cannot exist.
Another
ideational concept which has attracted enormous attention among many
denominations is that of structural unity.
The Lord Jesus said, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell will
not prevail against it.” He did not say
“churches.” The Church of Jesus Christ
is, therefore, structurally one. It has
one name, one set of bishops or administrators, one organization, one leader,
and one theology. The structural unity
of the Church has become a very powerful influence in the world of today.
One thinks immediately of COCU, Churches of Christ Uniting. When it was first launched, it held that the appealing idea that six or seven of the largest denominations would unite, thus forming one great church with at least 35 million members. Structural unity is held to be more economical. The resulting church is held to be much more powerful. It will, it is argued, be able to do God’s will much more effectively than a church which consists of many denominations. This concept of one structurally united church has become the main drive in the lives of many Christians and many congregations. Whether they win others to Christ or not, they are going to unite. Two weak churches are going to become one strong church. The United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, and the United Presbyterian Church are three notable illustrations of this movement. In India, where this movement has been greatly promoted by the Episcopalian Church, two great united churches have resulted—the Church of North India and the Church of South India. Both of these believe in apostolic succession, i.e., the historical episcopate, and both are ardent Episcopal Churches.
What does the church growth movement say to this other great movement in today’s denominations? It says two things. First, it grants that in many circumstances structural unity does produce a more efficient and ecumenical organization. It also notes that in many cases the structurally united church is much less concerned with world evangelization that it was in the days before the several denominations united. It calls attention to the diminishing effectiveness of united churches in all outreach. They are so concerned with maintaining internal unity that their outreach efforts are sadly diminished.
Second, the church growth movement would maintain that no evidence indicates that a structurally united church is more effective evangelistically than one church made up of many somewhat different denominations. It would hold that each denomination is a different branch. This one has 15 leaves on it, that one has 1500. This one bears white grapes, that one bears purple grapes. As long as each branch is firmly rooted in the vine, as long as each branch believes on Jesus Christ as God and one Savior and the Bible as the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God, what it holds in regard to baptism or the amount of organization needed or other aspects of church organization and opinion can be tolerated. This branch, like the Anglican Church, may indeed believe in apostolic succession. That branch, like the Southern Baptists, may not. The body of Christ, the Church, has many parts as dissimilar as hands and head. Yet they are all parts of the body.
Furthermore, the church growth movement would say where structural unity advances the church, by all means promote it. But never substitute it for the work which is so clearly commanded by God—namely, effective evangelism. Structural unity is like many other good causes. They should be carried out, but none of them should ever be substituted for matheteusate panta ta ethne. None should be substituted for finding the lost and bringing them back to the Father’s house.
The second important concept dealt with in this lecture is the theological considerations which affect the church growth movement. It is vitally important to realize that the church growth movement has often been criticized on theological grounds. Such criticism has come from both the right and the left. Those on the right have maintained that it paid far too little attention to correct doctrine, infilling of the Holy Spirit, prayer, revival, and the active Christian life. Critics from the left maintained that church growth seemed to be unaware of the physical hunger in the world, the rank injustice which permeates all society, and the terrible oppressions which have kept whole races in an illiterate and scarcely human condition. Critics of the left have maintained that church growth theology—if it had any—was concerned with mere numbers.
No comments:
Post a Comment