1. God's Pattern for Church Growth (Part 1 of 2)

1987: I was sitting in a missions course entitled Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. It was, and I imagine still is, a true learning experience with much good material. It was during this class that I learned of C. Peter Wagner and others who were pushing "principles for church growth." As I sat and listened at that time, I liked some of what I heard - but other parts concerned me. I didn't think much of it at the time, but I remember thinking of several problems that could arise around such ideas.

They have.

2002: As I sit here typing this, the "Church Growth Movement" is in full swing. Today, the principles spawned by Donald McGavran and popularized by C. Peter Wagner are praised by an odd assortment of strange bedfellows: Paul Cho, Robert Schuller, Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, and others. Some "church growthers" are men of God who want to see people touched for the Kingdom, while others are wolves in sheep's clothing who distort the Gospel.

And that is part of the problem.

What are we communicating about the Gospel when we endorse "principles" that virtually *anyone* can use effectively? When Paul Cho claims that the same spiritual "force" "tapped into" by Buddhists should be accessed by Christians -- should we still look to him to learn about "church growth"? When Robert Schuller reduces sin to "negative thinking," speaks of Muslims as spiritual brothers, tells a Unity School of Christianity (a cult) audience that they understand his message "better than evangelicals," preaches a "gospel" that sounds like rehashed Napolean Hill teachings -- should we flock to the Crystal Cathedral in order to learn some "church growth principles"? If the answer is yes, then perhaps we should also be looking to the Mormons; after all, they are one of the fastest growing "Christian" churches in America!

While the Bible urges us to contend for the faith (Jude 3), certain segments of the Church Growth Movement subvert Christian obedience to that command. The Apostles warned about false teachers who would "draw many" -- but much of what goes on today drools over the "many" and ignores the false teaching! One has to wonder if the Apostles ever learned "church growth principles" from heretical teachers.

Somehow I doubt it very seriously.

There are other problems as well. Even those "church growthers" whom I have some respect for inevitably seem to water things down.

For instance, materials from one large church actually make the point that "the Bible never asks us to share our faith." While this is technically true, it is equally true for any number of things that the Bible nevertheless TEACHES us to do. God asks us to preach the Gospel, and "believing the Gospel" is synonymous with "obedience to the faith" (cf. Rom. 1:5). We are told to "stand fast in the faith" (1 Cor. 16:13). Paul certainly shared the Faith (Gal. 1:23). The Faith is none other than "the faith of the gospel" (Phil'p. 1:27). Continuing "in the faith" is equal to not being "moved away from the hope of the gospel" (Col. 1:23).

Of course we must "share our faith" -- the Faith is Jesus Christ and all that He has taught us. In Acts, we consistently witness the early Christians "sharing their faith." To point out that the three words "share your faith" do not appear in our Bibles is nonsensical and can serve no valid purpose since the Bible quite clearly identifies "the Faith" with the Gospel itself. Such claims appear to be attempts, whether purposeful or accidental, to strip content from the Gospel.

Another large church teaches that "good apologetics" has nothing to do with providing answers. This is a bit ridiculous since the Greek word apologia, which is where the English term "apologetics" comes from, carries with it that very meaning! Yet "apologetics," according to this particular group, actually means psychoanalyzing the questioner to find the "real" reason "behind" their question. Too bad Paul didn't realize this on Mars Hill (cf. Acts 17) -- he surely would have had more converts that day! What was he thinking? Instead of engaging those philosophers with real answers, he should have discerned that they simply suffered from "loneliness" and a "lack of peace."

A rather popular perspective today is to present Jesus as the Super-Fixer for life's problems. Are you lonely? "Try Jesus." Depressed? "Try Jesus." Poor? "Try Jesus." Sometimes the problem of human sinfulness is never even mentioned. Jesus becomes a sort of Heavenly Psychiatrist who offers a "free trial" -- just try Jesus and, if you're not disappointed, you can sign on permanently.

This is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, such a "gospel" works in any context. For instance, singer Tina Turner was a battered wife, depressed and miserable. Did she "try Jesus"? No. Instead, she "tried Buddha." Today she sells Buddhism on the same ticket that some of the church-growthers are urging us to sell Jesus on!

Such false distinctions and erroneous reasoning are designed to make the Task more palatable for believers and the Message more palatable to unbelievers. This is done, probably unintentionately, by using a form of double-speak like the examples cited above.

There are many other problems that are mixed in with the good in the Church Growth Movement. But by far the most serious issue concerns the idea of "church growth" itself.

Chuck Colson recently commented that churches are expected "to deliver a certain thing ... which is church growth, church success, and -- to put that in worldly terms -- to get more people in the door. They don't ask if it's a good church, whether they are discipling and equipping people, how many ministries they have in the community, or whether or not they're evangelizing. The first question is, 'How big is it?'"

There is a definite preoccupation with numerical success in today's evangelicalism. Looking at Acts 2 and the count of "3,000" does not settle the issue. Here's why. The Holy Spirit gave an inspired account of all who became believers after Peter's sermon. In contrast, what we do is count people based on some outward act -- walking an aisle, praying "the prayer," membership, and so forth. We cannot know if such individuals are truly saved or not. Worse yet, I really think that sometimes we don't care -- as long as we've snagged them in our net.

There is also an overdependance on methodology. Don't get me wrong -- there is nothing wrong with researching demographics and trying new things. But do we really understand the growth of the local church when we believe that simply "finding the right method" will do the trick? We bring in Christian rappers, jugglers, clowns, acrobats ... and "whatever works" we hang on to. It's called pragmatism, and it is a horrible philosophy. Pragmatism knows no bounds, and will go as far as need be until something "works." It's a dangerous playground, pragmatism. By the time something does "work," the pragmatist is so elated that all discernment is thrown out the window.

Recently, Os Guinness has observed that "trendiness" in the name of "relevance" has subverted the Gospel. Yet even Christian statistician George Barna has discovered that trendiness isn't having the effect that some would have us believe it is. To echo the late Francis Schaeffer (see book review below), what is needed is not merely "relevance," but revolution.

There is an underdependance on God. I wish that anyone who reads this -- whatever your opinion, from whatever denomination you call home -- would write to me and explain when Christians stopped believing that God's Word possesses power? This is taught explicitly in scripture time and time again, yet we act as if it's not true. And what about the priority of prayer? No, not simply "prayer," but the priority of prayer?

Who grows the Church? That is the fundamental question. Dr. Dan Reiland, himself a church-growther, came to some sobering realizations. Here are the three things that his own experience and God taught him:

+ We have a whole lot less control over what happens in the local church than we think we do. God is in control.

+ Our best wisdom and natural power pales compared to God's wisdom and supernatural power.

+ God is calling us to a greater dependency upon Him to build His church (from "Pray for Your Church").

Amen.

I pray that churches all over evangelicalism will recover the power inherent in scripture, a realization that usually manifests itself in expositional preaching. That words like "theology" and "doctrine" will cease to scare people and we will once again think about God as He has revealed we should. That entertaining jingles with no substance will cease to be regarded as worship, and be replaced with repentance and tears. That it will no longer be necessary for us to draw people in because we are all willing to go out and win others. That we will begin to realize that our new tradition - pragmatism - is no better, and far more dangerous, than the stuffy traditions we left behind. That we will add the knowledge of the Holy to our zeal, and power to our form of godliness.

Yeah, I know ... it's a tall order. But our God is a big God. A friend of mine has the vision of uniting the best of the Church Growth Movement with the best of the "Word churches." I pray daily that God will grant him success and that it will be contagious.

NEXT ISSUE: PART 2 -- "Church Growth" Isn't All Bad ...

2. Quotation Worth Consideration

"Here is a key to great earnestness in preaching. If you really believe that 'those who endure to the end will be saved' (Mark 13:13), and that not only the first act of faith but all subsequent acts of persevering faith are sustained by the Spirit through the Word of God, then virtually every sermon is a 'salvation sermon' and the souls of the saints are being saved every Sunday. There is not an earnest sermon for evangelism when the souls of the lost are at stake, and then a less serious and less critical message for the saints to simply add a few stars in their crown. Rather every sermon is crucial and critical in sustaining the faith of the saints and so bringing them safely to glory." -- John Piper ("Thoughts on Earnestness in Preaching," unpublished teaching notes, 3/15/99) -- from "Expositor's Quote of the Week".

* Francis Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the 20th Century (Crossway, 1994; paperback, 180 pp.) -

If you are looking for some solid church growth advice based squarely on the pattern found in scripture, this book is a must read. The significance of this is enormous. You see, this book was written in 1972 -- 30 years ago. But make no mistake. The title of this book could easily be "The Church at the Beginning of the 21st Century" with very little change in content. Schaeffer was way ahead of his time.

Schaeffer was advocating many changes in evangelical churches long before the modern "Church Growth Movement." He discusses these using the model of "form" and "freedom." FORM designates the Apostolic pattern for the local church that cannot change, drawn heavily from the book of Acts. FREEDOM designates those elements that can change (and should, depending on the cultural situation); again, Schaeffer cites examples of this from Acts. For instance, Schaeffer would applaud the many services being held on Friday or Saturday nights. He would also applaud the idea of small group Bible studies held nightly in member's homes.

The main difference between Schaeffer's approach and the modern Church Growth approach concerns the motive. Schaeffer was not concerned so much with numerical success. Instead, his vision was to see the local church functioning as God designed it to -- living in community by the law of love (something many modern churches are still not doing). The lost, according to Scaeffer, would then recognize this love (which he called "the mark of the Christian") -- simply because Jesus Himself said that they would (John 13:35).

Among other things, Schaeffer points out the fact that church growth in Acts follows the establishment of the church in the faith, the importance of communion (always central to the services in the early Church), and the crucial aspect of doctrinal purity and instruction.

Nevertheless, Schaeffer is emphatic in his insistence that "the Holy Spirit is not old fashioned" and that churches must be careful to distinguish between what God has decreed and what was once simply a social norm that became man's tradition. For instance, God never said that every church service must occur on Sunday and Wednesday or at any certain time. God never gave a formal dress code or dictated which instruments could be used in worship. These are examples of freedoms that can - and must - be changed when the need arises.

If community demands that programs falling under "freedoms" change -- change them. If love for others, especially the lost, dictates that we offer a Thursday night service at 3:00am and show up barefooted -- we should.

If I were rich, I'd send a copy of this book to every pastor in America. If they are Church Growth advocates, they will find Schaeffer confirming many of the changes they have made. Yet they would also read a prophetic word concerning boundaries that may have been blurred by the promise of a "big church." If they despise "church-growthers," they will find a sharp rebuke and be urged to pursue community and the law of love even to the point of relinquishing long-held traditions of men.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER THIS BOOK.

"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." -- 1 John 5:13 (NKJV).

If I had a nickel for every time I've seen this verse trotted out to console some young Christian doubting their salvation, I'd be a wealthy man. In fact, an "easy believism" advocate recently quoted this to me in a debate about whether the Gospel requires repentance from sin and commitment to the Lordship of Christ.

Very seldom have I ever seen someone ask the natural follow up question: What exactly are the "these things" that John has written? My brother who was defending "easy believism" never responded to this question when I posed it.

I think I know why. John's "these things" are hard things, and most in our modern me-centered culture would walk away like the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18-23) if they bothered to read them.

Yet it stands to reason that if John wrote "these things" so that believers could "know" that they have eternal life, then any doubt surfacing upon reading "these things" is legitimate doubt. Yes, you read that correctly -- doubt about your salvation can actually be legitimate doubt. If John wrote "these things" so that the believer will experience assurance, the corollary is that some will experience doubt simply because they should. There is a flipside to the purpose of John in the above verse that is demanded by simple logic.

So, then, what do "these things" consist of? The simple answer is in one word: LOVE. But because our weak, sappy culture has mutilated, perverted, watered-down, prostituted and sugar-coated this word, it is necessary to be a bit more specific.

When God speaks of "love," He speaks of a motivating passion that underlies everything we do and produces those works that always accompany saving faith. Love without the works is worthless, as are the works without motivating love (cf. 1 Cor. 13). You can't love your brother or sister in Christ without genuinely caring about them, meeting their needs, supplying what lacks among them, forgiving their wrongs, and so forth.

James spends his entire epistle emphasizing this over and over. John does the same. Paul speaks of "faith working through love." Jesus Himself quite plainly taught that God's forgiveness is withheld for those who withold the same from their neighbor. Some Christians, especially those within my own denomination (Southern Baptists) may not like this, but I didn't write the book and there are no significant interpretive disputes over such passages -- they mean exactly what they say.

Recently, one of my college professors told of a pastor who walked up to his pulpit one Sunday morning and preached the following sermon: "You need to love one another." No, that wasn't his title -- it was the entire sermon. This pastor "preached" this same "sermon" for the next three Sundays! It took that long for the simple message to sink in. But when it did, the people were never the same -- that church began to be marked by forgiveness, reconciliation, restitution, and servanthood.

Our minds tend to rationalize what we do not want to know or accept. Christians tend to make John's rule of love so much more difficult than it really is. After all, John can't possibly mean what he writes, can he? "But we're under grace!," some will shout.

The truth expressed by John in his first epistle is really very simple: if you don't love your brothers and sisters in Christ, you don't love God. If you hate your brother, you're not saved. Pause right here and think about that. This, regardless of your feelings about it, is the teaching of the Bible. Sometimes I think we believers make scripture passages "difficult to interpret" simply because we don't like what they say.

Not long ago, I heard a minister on the radio say the following: "Think of the person you love the least ... that's how much you love Jesus." Do you get it? No matter how much you fancy yourself loving Christ, the fact is that you do not love Him anymore than the person you least love in life. This is the only possibility that scripture will allow.

So next time you read 1 John 5:13, remember this. Before you wipe your forehead with a sigh of relief, read the rest of John's letter. I dare you.

Then, having read the entire epistle, I dare you to do it. Love each other in real, tangible ways. Until you do, God is not interested in your singing or your raised hands. Until you do, you have no right to claim Christ as your Lord. If you are saved, you have no basis to believe that you are from scripture. And, perhaps worst of all, the world we are committed to reach will never believe it unless they see love existing in community among those of us who call ourselves "Christians."

Selah.