The Relevancy Of Church Growth

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.

The church growth movement, on the other hand, regards itself as exceedingly sound in regard to theology.  It believes that its church growth is being advocated on unassailable biblical grounds.  It assumes that church growth will be carried out chiefly by those who are born-again 

Deeper Thoughts On Oikos Evangelism

Dr. Thom Wolf

I first met Thom Wolf when I was working with Dr. Win Arn at the Institute for American Church Growth. Dr. Thom was the pastor of the Church on Brady an exciting church in East Los Angeles where he served 25 years as the Senior Pastor. The church today has become Mosaic one of the bright lights in contemporary American church life.

Seeing Thom’s ministry as this racially diverse and conflicted community in East Los Angeles was transformed by the gospel using this simple “oikos” principle was amazingly remarkable. So great was the impact of this church on the community in this the most unlikely of circumstances both he and it were featured in the film "...and THEY SAID IT COULDN'T BE DONE!"

Thom continues his ministry by continuing to develop leaders who will change their world as Thom has done with his. 


Dr. Thom Wolf is international president and professor of global studies of University Institute, New Delhi, India, an Asia-based learning group in, servicing South and East Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. He is an International Fellow of Canyon Institute of Advanced Studies, Phoenix. Arizona

OIKOS EVANGELISM

THE BIBLICAL PATTERN

By Dr. Thomas A. Wolf

Several fundamental insights from contemporary anthropology help us understand more clearly the biblical pattern of evangelism that flowed so freely, fearlessly and forcefully through the early church across the Mediterranean world.

Peter B. Hammond

Peter B. Hammond, professor of anthropology, Indiana University, observes; "in most cultures the social systems of greatest importance are based on kinship. Human beings everywhere are born into some sort of family. And almost always this family is important in giving them-literally and figuratively-a start in life: producing them, feeding, clothing, protecting, and educating them, and eventually establishing for them a 'place' in society...In most cultures the kin group plays an even more important role [than in America], lasting throughout life as the principal source of the individual's emotional, economic, social-and frequently supernatural-support, and providing the basis for community organization."

David G. Mandelbaum

David G. Mandelbaum, professor of anthropology. University of California, summarizes his findings: "Whatever diversity there may be among social groupings the world over, there are at least two types which are found in every human society. The family is one of them—In every land, among every people; the child is ordinarily raised and nurtured within a family. The other type of group universal to humanity...is the local community. Just as no person normally lives all his life alone, devoid of any family, so does no family normally live entirely alone, apart from any local group...of neighbors."² Mandelbaum goes on to point out a third group-the clan-which is also a cultural universal, if one allows for its evolution in the contemporary Western setting. The clan has developed into "...the social units which are extensions of the local group...voluntary associations based on common interests...ranging from trade unions and medical associations to bridge clubs and parent-teacher associations. Each of these groupings is held together by a common interest, an interest arising from mutual participation in the same trades, the mutual enjoyment of a game, or mutual problems in relation to a set of children."

The three universal units of societies worldwide, according to anthropological research, are social systems based on

Dr. Thom Wolf

1) Common kinship,

2) Common community and

3) Common interests.

Now let us go one step further. Since this trinity of social systems is a part of present-day human life, would we be so surprised to discover the same central characteristics in the human matrix of social life in the times of the New Testament? In fact, that is exactly what we find. For this phenomenon is not only transcultural, it is trans-historical, reaching across centuries.

The apostolic church used the interlocking social systems of common

kinship/community/interest as the backbone for communicating the Gospel. The basic thrust of the New Testament evangelism was not individual evangelism, it was not mass evangelism; and it was definitely not child evangelism. The normative pattern of evangelism in the early church was OIKOS EVANGELISM.

"Oikos Evangelism" What is it? Oikos is the Greek word most often translated house or household evangelism. But be careful. Don't just assume you know what those words mean. Of course, we know their basic meaning in English. But what was their original connotation?

Under the old Attic law, oikos was the whole estate, while oikia was the physical dwelling only. However, that precise distinction was lost in later Greek. In the New Testament there are several places where oikia actually means the inhabitants of a house (Mt. 12.25; Jn 4.53; I Cor. 16.15; Phil. 4.22)

Oikos means a house. Specifically, it means an inhabited house in contrast to domos, the mere building itself. Thus, one can understand the significance of a house being a dwelling. Oikos was sometimes used to specify a certain kind of inhabited building such as a temple, a palace, or even a grave. ²

It was common in Egypt to call a temple the oikos of the deity. The papyri refer to "the oikos of Ammon" in the main temple of Hephaestus. The anthropological literature records the basic animistic practice of consecrating an image or shrine to a spirit and inviting the spirit to come and indwell the shrine. Such is the significance of Micah's oikos/shrine for the spirits during the times of the Judges (Judges 17.5)

The oikos of the Lord of Israel was the chosen place for His presence (Judges 18.31; 2Sam. 12.20), though there was continual clarification that the Lord of all the earth does not dwell in buildings made by man (Is. 66.1 -2; I Kings 8:12-21, 27-30; Jer. 7.1 -11; Acts 7:46-50).

Jesus spoke of His Father's oikos, sometimes meaning the earthly temple (Jn. 2.16) and sometimes the heavenly dwelling (Jn. 14.2). Spiritually, the body becomes the real oikos/dwelling place of God (I Cor. 3.16; 2 Cor. 6.16). Even demons will claim men's bodies as an oikos to inhabit when conditions are appropriate (Mt. 12:44; Lk. 11:24) I Timothy 3.15 makes it clear that the Oikos of God "is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."

In a broader sense, oikos referred to one's entire estate, people and property forming one family, a household, as the usage of oikos applied to the church would imply in Israel, the oikos included not only wife and children, but also servants and resident aliens. Thus, the command of Deuteronomy 12.7, "You shall eat before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household", is explained by 12.12, "You shall rejoice before the Lord your God, you and your sons and daughters, your menservants and your maidservants." (See also Deut. 14.26)

Dr. Thom Wolf

This same concept of oikos was just as basic in Graeco-Roman society and thought. Acts 10 has a casually given, though faithful, definition of oikos. It says that "Cornelius feared God with all his oikos/household" (10.2). An angel of God instructed Cornelius to send for Peter, saying "He will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your oikos" (11.14) When Peter arrived, "Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his kinsmen and close friends " (10:24,27).

An oikos is a social system composed of those relate to each other through common ties and tasks. The New Testament oikos included members of the nuclear family, but extended to dependents, slaves and employees. Oikos members often lived together, but always sensed a close association with each other. And note this carefully, the oikos constituted the basic social unit by which the early church grew, spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ, the risen Lord.

Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church,3 confirms that "the (oikos) family understood in this broad way, as consisting of blood relations, slaves, clients and friends, was one of the bastions of Graeco-Roman society. Christian missionaries made a deliberate point of gaining whatever households they could as lighthouses, so to speak, from which the Gospel could illuminate the surrounding darkness. [We are, then,] quite right in stressing the centrality of the loikosi household to Christian advance."

Michael Green

By thus cleaning the lenses of our socio-historical spectacles, we can see what an Oikos meant to the early church. An oikos was the fundamental and natural unit of society, and consisted of one's sphere of influence-his family, friends, and associates. And equally important, the early church spread through oikoses-circles of influence and association. With only a moment of reflection, we begin to realize a significant difference of thrust, tone, and tenor between much contemporary evangelism and early church outreach. The first church does not appear to have had a fanfare of mass campaigns for evangelism. They would have considered it foolishness to organize camel caravans for growth, bringing kids to Timothy's Children's Church with the promise of Bithynia Burgers after the services. (Tell me now; can you honestly imagine Silas and Titus as camel captains vying for the grand prize going to the camel team averaging the most children at the 1st Ecclesia of Ephesus??) But, joy of joys, the early church was not encumbered with the wholly unnatural (unnatural then and unnatural now) experience of forced evangelism; going reluctantly, flinchingly and embarrassingly door to door to encounter people they did not know, to explain a message which the first time often did not make sense, to an audience totally uninterested or unfriendly.

As Michael Green reminds us, an oikos for the New Testament church consisted of "blood relations, slaves, clients, and friends. Christian missionaries made a deliberate point of gaining whatever loikos] households they could as lighthouses, so to speak, from which the gospel could illuminate the surrounding darkness." ⁴  An oikos corresponds to what contemporary anthropologists define as the three universal social systems of common kinship, common community, and common interests.

OIKOS EVANGELISM is the God-given and God-ordained means for naturally sharing our supernatural message. The early church spread through oikos evangelism-evangelizing family members who saw the old sinner become the new saint; sharing with the neighbor who questioned how such a difference had come over his old friend, and reaching the guys in the local trade union or the oikos that played tennis together.

It is here, also, that we catch an eye-burning hint of the key to oikos evangelism:

Life transformation. If oikos evangelism is God's key to the natural and rapid spread of the Good News, the life transformation is the key to oikos penetration and persuasion. Life transformation. Maybe that is why some adults are forced into evangelizing only children. Could it be that the children do not yet see what the adult peer groups so clearly perceive-that one has become religious without becoming radiant? And could this also be a clue to why, all too often, the persons who are so gung-ho on doorbell evangelism seem.-.er, uh, well, not to offend anyone, they just seem a little strange? Now, don't get me wrong. They are sincere, unquestionably so. And they are enthusiastic, embarrassingly so. And yet, so help me, I've met a lot of them, and well...Could it be that some of us in the contemporary church who are so bold to evangelize "out there" fall fruitless "right here" in our own oikos? In the early church, it was the restoration of balance, the restitution of wrongs, and the fragrance of an enchanting new life that drew so many to the fledgling oikos of God.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, you and your oikos." (Acts 16:31) That is the apostolic answer to .the question, "What must I do to be saved."

The spread of the faith is included in the reception of the faith. Oikos evangelism is God's natural means to spread the Good News, for everyone who has ever, or will ever receive Christ. And the key that opens every oikos is life transformation through the indwelling of the living God.

FOOTNOTES

1. Hammond, Peter. Cultural & Social Anthropology: Selected Readings. 1964:145-46. MacMillan: New York. 
 
2. Mandelbaum, David. "Social Groupings" in Hammond M Cultural & Social Anthropology (see above). 

3. Green, Michael. Evangelism in The Early Church. 1970:210. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids
4. (For additional 
Comments see pp. 207-223.)

California State Christian University

Have you ever wondered why so many pastors are frustrated and disillusioned in ministry and end up dropping out of ministry. A study showed that the majority of dropouts occurred because of character rather than competence.

Traditional theological education has focused on the competency arm of the leader while often given slight or no attention to the character of the leader.

This insight is part of the core philosophy of CSCU. Each quarter each student is part of a class that focuses solely on the development of their character so that the objective of having Godly competent leaders who can change their worlds for Christ can be achieved.

Let me invite you to visit our website www.cscu.edu .While there take a look at a couple of our classes from Dr. Dale Salico and Dr. Kirk Mackie. There is also a video that shows you why CSCU is different and worth exploring for your ministry development needs.