The current debate over the perceived generational divide in the SBC brings forth a variety of conclusions. The emerging church has its roots in Leadership Network Symposiums to reach Generation X. Much morphing has transformed this movement into a polyglot of expressions. Yet one of the unexamined assumptions of the generational emphasis is the pragmatic idea that serves as the underpinning of its practice: the church growth movement outlined by Donald McGavran in his book, The Bridges of God. This movement evolved into various expressions, but many that embrace its philosophy believe it is the only valid way to fulfill the Great Commission. Scores of books and studies analyze the effectiveness of this movement and the risk of this short article is oversimplification. Three basic principles underscore the church growth mantra. The first is God wants unevangelized people evangelized. Lost people matter to God. The second essential rationale of the church growth movement theorizes that valid scientific research can reveal the obstacles to growth and the causes of growth and research can be conducted to enhance effective ministry. Much of ministry in SBC Life has this basic premise at heart. The third idea is to formulate strategies based on the conduction of this research. Church plants and plans result from such strategies. In fact, some may think this article is a Quixotic attempt at tilting at windmills. Such a pragmatic argument is anticipated.
Without splitting hairs and engendering debate on the dichotomy that often emerges in what Eugene Peterson calls the Great Omission of the Great Commission: making disciples, I want to challenge a couple of assumptions that form the foundation of the philosophy known as the church growth movement. One is the incessant need by some to somehow study cultures or even generations to target that age group with a worship style or church expression that results in the development of a congregation that is mainly composed of a particular age group. One point of such emphases is at times to disparage the existing form of the church at large and send out flyers insisting this isn’t your Grandma’s church. The unintended consequence (or perhaps anticipated) is a church that is ‘targeted’ at youngsters while devaluing the contributions of older adults (and perhaps a direct contradiction of the imperative of Titus 2). Proponents of this approach suggest: it works so don’t curse what God is blessing. Success in numbers is trumpeted to suggest the validity of the practice as culturally relevant. Critics are charged with not wanting church growth or a parochial mindset. The unanticipated consequence, if not clearly articulated and examined, is the downplaying of biblical distinctives such as the admonition that the dividing walls have fallen as in Galatians 3:28 (no Jew or Greek, male or female, in Christ Jesus). The temptation with such a strategy is to fit the gospel into the culture by adopting and adapting methodology in a capitulation to the extant culture. Today it may be alcohol. Tomorrow it could be peyote.
The danger in such a dynamic is the reduction of the church to a pragmatic tool. Van Gelder has suggested we use “church” as a noun rather than as an adjective. Perhaps the obstacle that needs to be removed for us to ‘be’ the church rather than just ‘do’ church is to realize that God will build His church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Reformulating biblical language to make it user-friendly often dumbs down our worship and leads to biblical illiteracy. If you can learn to order at Starbucks you can sure learn the biblical meaning of propitiation. Downplaying biblical distinctives as not to offend the crowd is at best a misunderstanding of the imperative to preach the whole counsel of God. Embracing research without the understanding that real church growth is necessarily ‘supernatural’ engenders man-centered and pragmatic tendencies. Trumpeting God’s grace while dismissing God’s wrath creates an unbalanced gospel. It’s like killing all the coyotes to save the cute rabbits. There are new plants and churches that are faithfully strategizing and supernaturally multiplying. May God add to their number! Above all may the church be the church to the glory of God.
Titles are so passé.
It was written in the original. Chapters and titles added later
Well done, Joe…Nice comeback on the title :-)
Sola Gratia!
It seems you’ve created a dichotomy here between understanding church growth based on social-scientific research and understanding church growth as necessarily supernatural. Are the two approaches not compatible? Is there anything wrong with adopting a church growth strategy based on empirical research/sociological theory?
Touché, Joe.
I really like this article. If I were answering Aaron, I would say that social-scientific research has its place, and that its place is to be secondary.
For example, social-scientific research can tell us that our churches are racially segregated. It can tell us that our churches are age-segregated. It can tell us that our churches are socio-economically segregated. The primary source of God’s Word tells us that these are sinful and wrongful conditions. The first of these wrongful conditions was caused by racism in God’s people long ago. The second was caused by the misuse of the tools that Joe mentions in this article. The third, like the first, is another long-standing malady of our churches that has been reinforced and not at all alleviated by the McGavran approach.
Perhaps some of the gleanings of social-scientific research might be means used by God to prompt us to repent of our failures and to solve some of these problems, but I do not believe that these methods are, in and of themselves, essentially any part of the solution. The solution, in my opinion, is the supernatural action of the Holy Spirit to knit us together.
Embracing research without the understanding that real church growth is necessarily ‘supernatural’ engenders man-centered and pragmatic tendencies.
Brother Joe,
Jonah was someone tied to selfish social-scientific research (self-inflicted) and serves as a good object lesson for pursuing simple obedience instead.
If we are eager to depend upon social-science for capturing the great commission then we don’t understand the power of the gospel, and we are easily convinced that healthcare is best administrated through the corridors of government. Same logic applies.
Thanks for the post,…
Blessings,
Chris
All:
My concern is the embrace of a particular philosophy of ministry without examining the unintended consequences. In valid social-science research there are ‘qualifications’ about making unexamined assumptions about the research at hand. Research can be both valid and unbiblical. Too often in the church we embrace the latest research without examining theological assumptions. The article is a case in point. It is not a false dichotomy but a needed corrective – in my opinion.
I love this line: “If you can learn to order at Starbucks you can sure learn the biblical meaning of propitiation.”
Very good post.
Thanks Les
Joe,
I have always preferred God’s plan than any other. In fact, when I have tried to do man’s, nothing much occurs. Then all of sudden, God starts moving and I look to see that it is the simple obedience to do His Will that is resulting in His blessings.
Nice job here!
Unfortunately most churches aren’t growing because pastors are just flat out lazy. That filters its way down to the laity. The reason most pastors criticize studying culture is because they are again, lazy.
I don’t think there is a blanket condemnation of studying cultures, and I’m sure you are the exception to the rule (Adam) in your final sentence