Personally, I think it all boils down to what drives the growth. Are we trying to lift up Christ or the church? It's easy to get side-tracked. If expansion takes place out of an overflow of Him, it will accomplish that which He has determined. If it occurs out of our own ambitions (and we do yet wrestle with such sins), then dealing with the outcome will still require returning to the overflow. After all, if He doesn't build it, the Bible says the labor is in vain.............

Church growth isn’t simply a matter of filling pews. To hear some people talk about it, that's where the emphasis lies. Church growth experts often focus on bigger buildings, larger budgets, and growing membership rosters. I suggest to you that the filling pews is not the priority, at least from God’s point-of-view.

Church growth involves growth of the "ekklesia". This is people whom God has called out of the world into a relationship with Himself through the gospel of Jesus Christ. That’s what “ekklesia” is–it's not church buildings or chruch programs.

Too often our view of “church” is to think of it as a mini-kingdom of sorts, with each of us having ownership of our little part. The reality is the "ekklsia" is not our church, your church, my church…this is Christ’s church!

When we think of the church we need to think of the body of Christ—the body which Jesus gave His life’s blood for. And, when we talk about growth it's important to note that the thing God always emphasizes—that which is always a priority with God—is spiritual maturity.

This is the growth of members of the body of Christ into the likeness of Jesus. That which God is most concerned about is the growth that takes place in the hearts and lives of individuals who compose the body of people called from the world through the gospel.

Agreed. I get nervous about growth at my church because I just like that small church feel. (Grass is always greener...) But that is just selfish on my part. If the Lord is bringing them in, then I say WELCOME!

Good comment Bill...I think that the point you made about each little bit of kingdom is true... The Social Gospel has underminded the true gospel which is to look forward to His coming... The social gospel 's agenda is to build a kingdom here on earth, which is not Christ's kingdom at all. It's man's!!

The real problem is this: attendance increases at weekend services is not growth, its called "getting fat"!

Real church growth is better understood as multiplication. That is what the Acts church did. They did not see how many suburbanites of the Roman Empire they could accumulate, so they could build bigger buildings and have larger capital campaigns. On the contrary, they gave themselves over to the community by meeting each others needs and bearing witness to the resurrected Christ.

Being a Fuller Seminary student, the church growth topic is mentioned quite a bit, as McGavran and Wagner were some of the founing guru's of this theory.

Church growth in the sense of a Willow or Saddleback has become the bench marker for success in our "consumer Christian culture." That is very sad. It's as if something grows big, we assume Jesus must be blessing it, right? Not so! Corporations grow big, associations grow big, but it is not because they follow Jesus and live as his church.

The point is, we must begin to unleash the people of God to do ministry out in the world and actually become the church. Then we won't be passive attenders of a performance put on by wannabe corporate executives who have made a mockery out of the Christ's bride.

1) Wow - Warren has a method for detecting who is really Christian. 80% actually got saved at his Church - no doubt about it. Presumably he has developed an excellent pastoral relationship with them all. This is the big problem with Warren - he throws around statistics, without giving details about the methodology used to gather them.
2) Of the 20% -how many people is that exactly?- how many left small struggling Churches, and what effect did that have on those Churches?
3) Why are large Churches desirable? I know of no Scriptural arguments that lead to such a conclusion.
4) Why not form lots of smaller Churches instead? Granted the wage packages won't be as big, but elders will get to know their Church members, and members will be forced to develop their gifts. Is that any less desirable than a large Church?
5) The purpose of the Church is to be Christs body, not to grow in numbers. Some sow, some reap - God gives the increase. It is entirely possible to labour in love, work in faith, and endure in hope, and yet see no souls added to the kingdom in your ministry. Our Lord told the disciples that they would be rejected in many areas.
6) Where in the New Testament are Churches advised to use growth as a sign of their Spiritual health? Acts 2 uses the 3000 to boast about the Spirit's work. It is not a comment on the Apostle's spirituality.
7) American churches worship at the shrine of success - success that can be empirically defined and measured.
8) I'm not a Pastor, and I worship at a church growing in numbers, so this isn't said out of petty jealousy. The ideology of Church Growth is a terrible and destructive mistake.

Aren't we weary of the emphasis on numbers ... there's so much more joy and eternal significance when we look at the heart ...

The numbers can be interesting and need to be acknowledged, but they sure do pale in comparison to hearing and seeing what Christ has does in the life of one who has sought Him and who has been found by Him.

When talking about church growth, I notice that the emphasis has been placed on 'local' church growth as opposed to growth of the 'global' church. If a church is effecting growth of the larger body of Christ by evangelism and sending of missionaries, I believe that church is successfull even if its local numbers are not huge.

Graham,
You bring some good critiques, especially making a distinction between growing and being a large church. Growth can be decentralized, happening with missions, church plants, etc.

However, I think it's a reach to say that in the Acts passage that the Lord added 3000 to their number, but they weren't necessarily living in the Spirit. Clearly, the early church was being obedient to God and was filled with the Spirit's power.

Sam Andress said, "It is entirely possible to labour in love, work in faith, and endure in hope, and yet see no souls added to the kingdom in your ministry." Well, I'd like to challenge that. People tend to hit what they aim for, and not hit what they don't aim for.

Christ said, "Herein is my Father glorified that you bear much fruit." And "You have not chosen me but I have chosen you and ordained you that you should go and bear much fruit, so shall you be my disciples." And "If any branch does not bear fruit, it will be cut down and thrown into..."

He apparently intends us to bear fruit.

For the record, Chris, I did not say what you quoted. Did you pull from another comment and mistake it for mine?

But as to your comment. What does it mean to bear fruit? Does that mean grow in numbers? We always have to ask what Jesus had in mind, given the context.
We cannot assume that Jesus equates quantity of souls with bearing fruit.

Jesus also told his disciples that if they follow him the world would hate them!

Chris said, "people tend to hit what they aim for and not hit what they aim for."

Do you mean to say that ministers that are working in churches that are declining are not faithfully serving God to the best of their abilities, that they are not aiming for the prize?

Interesting comments. I especially like Sam Andress's challenge that some large churches may be just fat.

About bearing fruit for Jesus, I have always assumed Paul wrote Galations 5:22-26 to explain Jesus' comments in John 15.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control . . ."

Interesting that I had forgotten the end of the paragraph. Paul writes, "Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other."

Always a good reminder as we post comments on each other's blogs.

Does anyone else see in all these comments the either/or nature of American evangelicalism? Social gospel or returning Savior? Numbers or "quality." I really wonder if we have a scope that even comes close to the one Jesus holds for the church. Someone read Ephesians please. Growth isn't about numbers? Someone fill me in. I agree its not the only marker but health brings growth in every organism God has created. By the way, the "social" part of the gospel doesn't compete with any other part. It is part and parcel of the entire message. Does anyone out there pray the Lord's prayer? do you ask for His will to be done on earth or not? There very definitely is an earthly aspect of His kingdom. Jesus came HERE for a reason. May we all GROW in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and please don't pit Christ against His church. We are His body.

I recently accepted a call to a 50 year old church that has been declining in numbers for quite some time. This church would not show up on anyone's radar screen as having good potential for "church growth".

Do I hope that God will give this church growth? YES! But I would prefer that our Lord not take away from other congregations to grow our congregation. That means we have lots of work to do. Will I toss out our Lutheran tradition and model our congregation on those traditions that "grow"? NO, because that would demonstrate a lack of integrity. I cannot "do" Baptist or "non-denominational" community church as well as they can. I can do evangelical catholic very well and with integrity, which is what I shall do, by God's grace and strength.

When "church growth" becomes a template or one-size-fits-all, it lacks integrity and is, indeed, the road to hell. I have learned much from the insights of the CGM regarding things like parking lots, restrooms, and welcome packets. Beyond that, no thanks.

Having pastored a small church in a small town, I am convinced that the mega-churches do draw many people who might ordinarily stay within their own community. Smaller churches face an uphill battle in drawing new families because they lack the resources to build "family life" centers and "youth recreation" centers that most all of the larger churches have. Young people want to go where they can be entertained and the parents, for the most part, follow the kids. I know of people who drive seventy miles or more, in order to attend a mega-church in our area. In that drive, they pass right by dozens of communities with small, struggling churches who could desperately use their gifts; churches that wish to serve their local community but lack the people and resources to make a difference. To me, it makes much more sense to plant or support good churches in outlying areas, than to continue to build monstrous congregations in one location.

Numbers are fun and indicate what's going on, but never tell the whole story.

My dad pastors a 100-year-old church in the middle of a dying farming community at the end of the highway spur. In a year he's baptized 12 into a congregation of 40. I spent last year at a church of 35 that ministered to our neighborhood and added 40 teenagers in spite of a 1500-member church being 3 miles away, one of 40 or so within a 15 minute drive.

Small churches thrive when they act like authentic bodies of Christ. They care for people and provide spiritual answers to everyday questions. Social gospel, if done right, is merely an outgrowth of our faith and a method to put us in contact with those who need to know our Jesus.

Nathan,
I wasn't saying that the 3000 did not live in the Spirits power. Acts 2 is giving us the history of the Spirit's work - the 3000 is evidence of the Spirit's power. I am complaining that some people want to use this passage to support a theology of CHurch Growth - to argue that when we, the Evangelists, are living in the Spirit the Church will grow in large numbers. Acts 2 says nothing of the kind. It is rooting the history of the Church in the power of the Spirit, not the methodology of the Apostles.

Does anyone have a vision for maturity? It seems to me that going on to maturity is where our eyes should be refocussed. Yes, church growth is vital but too often that's where it stops. New converts are encouraged to plug into the program but because many leaders have no real vision for maturity, or what it looks like, so converts are left paddling in the shallows and never really grow up. Surely growing up is what it is about or have we been so put off by the past misapplication of the word discipleship that we have lost its real significance and meaning in today's fast food consumer junkie world where image is continually triumphing over substance? Our commission is still to make disciples.
Quality may encourage quantity, although quality costs and being a Christian was never about having an easy life, and quantity is the potential for quality but only if there is the will and vision of leadership for maturity. We need both but we need to recapture what it means to be mature and be prepared to risk the journey then others will be encouraged to follow.

Michael Parker's comment struck a chord with me. He talks about the people on their way to mega-churches who drive "by dozens of communities with small, struggling churches who could desperately use their gifts."

My family recently left a mega-church and moved to a church 1/10 its size.

I loved our old church, but finding a place to serve there was a constant struggle. We used to joke that only Grammy winners could help lead worship.

At our new church, God is letting us serve and worship him in ways we never imagined. My wife even joined the choir! Now she sings with a new joy and confidence.

Even more exciting is the drama ministry in our new church. Because of our small size, we can't adopt the mega-church attitude toward drama. Steven Pederson opens his otherwise fantastic book, Drama Ministry, with a dangerous assertion. He says the only thing worse than no drama at church is bad drama at church. Now, I understand what he means, but that attitude ultimately excludes many people from serving in large churches. Some ministers at our old church (but not all!) seemed to think: "We only offer God lambs without blemish. If you aren't winning awards, you aren't good enough to serve around here."

I'm not saying everyone should leave the large churches—or even that all large churches make it difficult to serve. Certainly Willow Creek and Saddle Back (and many other mega-churches) are doing God's work in a powerful way.

But as for me, I'll never super-size my Sundays again.

CHURCH MULTIPLICATION IS THE WAY TO GO!

Why is that my "small group" (a title craftily given out by mega-churches) actually is more of a church gathering according to the Scriptures than the performer/audience event people seem to attend each Sunday morning?

I guess the assumption is that all 20,000 people of a Mega-Church are going out and individually being the church in there "sphere of influence". Can someone show me the Scripture where Jesus sends out individuals to do the work of ministry by themselves?

Unless I am blind and stupid, which are quite possible, God always forms communities, even back to the tribes of Israel. They for certain did not have a concept of individual salvation, nor did the earliest church. Salvation was understood as God's cosmic reign of redemption which Jesus following communities were included, along with the whole creation.

But individualism is easier to sell. It's kind of a bummer when we are assaulted with the reality that God's kingdom is, well, brought about by God, not us! And that the church is not our institution, it's God's movement to gather humanity together in the name of Jesus to partner in the ministry of God's reign.

Perhaps we need to reckon with the fact that:

CHURCH IS PEOPLE. Not buildings, captial campaigns, book signings, an emotional experience. Perhaps this is why people often confuse "religion" or "institutinoal church" with God and end up walking away from both?

Perhaps?

These are very interesting comments about church growth.
I believe that we should view church growth in the light of Christ’s requirements for the Kingdom, which include but not limited to;
i) We are saved by grace through faith not by works lest any man should boast.
ii) Faith without works is dead.
iii) Behold, I come quickly. My reward is with me, to repay to each man according to his work.
iv) When Christ separates the sheep from the goats at His second coming he doesn’t ask the parties how many people they brought to church, but tells them what they did to the people in their day to day interactions at home, hospitals, jails etc.
In short we should not be bothered about the numbers we bring to church, but by our efforts with the leadership of the Holy Spirit to speak to the numbers wherever they are. In any case “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a testimony to all nations; and then shall the end come.” Its God’s business to water the tree and reap. Ours is to sow. Continue sowing.

Micahel Parker and Mark Goodyear have said it all - Mega-Churches restrict the development of Spiritual gift, and damage small churches. Effectively, they destroy community.

Also, lets assume for the sake of argument that when the Church is healthy large numbers are always added to it. By what principle do we then go on to argue that all these people must attend the same Church, in the same building, under the same leadership?

Whoa,Whoa, here we go again Graham. "Mega-Churches are destroying community"??? One of my biggest pet peaves is hearing people criticizing large contemporary Mega-Churches. I am one of those people that stand before a large congregation and lead worship services. I grew up in a small rural church. I find benefits to both types...big and small. Our church has about 5000 members with a average weekly attendance of about 3000. Yes we have drama, media presentations and contemporary worship songs. My passion is to see unchurched people saved, Baptized, and plugged-in to a servatude environment. A lot of posts are those using assumptions that all big churches are watering down the ministry and gospel. I would not serve in a church that I dont see fruits of the spirit. Please do your homework before lumping us all into a false stereotype. I was given talents in music to serve and that is what drives me...not numbers. Passion for souls and spirit-lead services makes a good balance when it comes to meeting peoples spiritual needs.

jay

Sam's post reminds me of Luke 10, when Jesus sends out the 72 disciples. They go out two by two, not individually.

That's a great picture of small groups--if you can call two people a small group.

And isn't Jesus' response great? He says, "I saw Satan fall like lightening from heaven" (18). Then he dances with the joy of the Holy Spirit (21--check the Greek).

What an image! When the church moves out into the world, Jesus dances with joy.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't gather together regularly. We should! That doesn't mean our gatherings have to look the same. They don't! Some people prefer the beautiful polish and shine of mega-churches. Some people prefer the uglier, raw authenticity of smaller churches. But we are all God's people.

And like Sam said, CHURCH IS PEOPLE.

Jay
I'm sorry you took my comments so personally. I'm criticising the Church Growth movement as a whole, so no, I didn't have time to research your particular Church. I don't doubt that you use your gifts wisely and passionately,and I've no desire to stereo type anyone, (but if you keep on using phrases like "plugged-in to a servatude environment", I'm going to wonder if the stereotypes don't have some value).
Out of curiosity, how many people do you know in your Church? In a Church of 5000, how many get to lead services on a Sunday? Community requires knowing people Jay - not knowing someone who knows them. And you haven't answered my substantial point - what effect does attendence at your Church have on small Churches in your area?

To Graham and all who might be following the discussion:

Actually, you don't have to know EVERYONE. The fact is, that I don't think Jesus knew each one of His followers deeply too. Some followers just - well - followed. Members of big churches have a community too! They belong to one. Of course they'll know a lot of people in it, but probably not all of them. I don't think any students knows each and every one of his schoolmates too.

And not everyone needs to - or should - lead worship on Sundays. God designated Levites to be in charge of the worship right? So we can say that the church should have their group of modern Levites too.

I'll leave the third question to whom it was directed to. =]

For something more general:

I believe the focus of big churches is "SOULS" and not "NUMBERS". Of course numbers are good and easy to deal with, but it's not the key issue. Big churches want growth - but not by "eating up" members from small churches. The numbers will go up; but the number of souls saved? Well I don't think so. Unless the new members used to be just Christians by name then that's a different issue.

Also, the Jabez Prayer clearly tells us that God wants to bless us and wants to enlarge our territory. There's nothing wrong with big churches wanting to grow bigger. It's totally coherent with what God wants - assuming the focus and motivation is right. However something to note is this: When we pray for God to enlarge our territory we ARE NOT praying that God will help us extend our fences into our neighbour's territory! No! We are praying that God will help us conquer the land that currently still is under the Devil's foothold. And may God help us.

Go big churches. Go out and conquer. God allowed churches to grow big that these churches will become a big army. So go. Conquer. =]

The NT church grew because the Holy Spirit empowered every member to be a "witness" and through that "empowered" witness the Lord added daily to the church those who were being saved. "Church Growth," it appears to me, is an effort to synthetically replicate NT growth without the the grassroots empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Absence of natural (Spirit empowered) "growth" in the church is simply reflective of the compromised spiritual condition of the church in North America today. It seems to me that we get the cart-before-the-horse when we make size the issue when spiritual health is the greater issue. Healthy things always grow.

Jay and Philip
My reply to Jay was condescending, and I unreservedly apologise. I'll try to state my case as clearly as I can.
1) To the ancients a city could function as "a community of communities". A movement, or a denomination, or a local association of Churches could perform the same function. i imagine that a mega-church could excel as a comunity of communities.
2) However, the local Church, the sort of Church that Paul planted, seemed to function on a level closer to that of an extended family group.
3) The danger is that a Mega Church is simply too large to perform the function described in point 2.
4) Furthermore the leadership of a large Church does seem to be further removed from the needs of the congregation, compared to the leadership in a smaller Church.
5) Another danger is that only exceptional gift is recognised in a large congregation - a danger that smaller congregations don't face as often.
6) When mega churches open, smaller churches in the area often struggle. Anecdotal evidence or one or two counter examples do not erase this trend.

To Graham:
Points taken. I'm not too sure about the situation you might be facing, but the church I am in adopts a vision whereby everyone takes on a leadership position. Meaning even though the Senior Pastor may be "further removed from the needs of the congregation," other leaders are present to take care of that. And through that everyone is given an opportunity to exercise their spiritual gifts. And yes, we are a quite closely knitted family. We just put together a surprise birthday party for our Youth Pastor a few weeks ago.

I believe that mega-churches do not "open". You can't really "open" one. Mega-churches grow out of small churches. Small churches that grow big to the point of very big become mega-churches. =]

We're using the Prayer of Jabez to justify Church Growth? That is, it seems to me, the problem and illustrates it perfectly.

Does it ever occur to anyone that Jesus never talks about saving souls? That's right, he actually talks about discipleship, which has nothing to do with souls. It does on the other hand have everything to do with people who are "embodied" flesly beings following the "embodied" incarnate Christ.

Jesus' teachings were not aimed to "save souls" as if he was following the script of Plato. His were aimed at forming followers who were disciples, and thus they would form other human beings who are embodied, so they can live their lives in light of the example of Christ!

The way I see it, the mega-church thing will take care of itself, just like the American dream will in the same way it was with Rome and all imperialistic bodies throughout history.

God help us, guide us, renew us and empower us to see the reign and rule that is really in charge.

[Editor's note: Actually in Mark 16:16, Jesus does say, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved ..." And in Luke 7:50, he tells a woman "Your faith has saved you." And other verses where Jesus mentions people being "saved" include Luke 8:12 and 13:23, and John 5:34 and 10:9. So to put it more precisely, the question is "what does Jesus mean when he tells people they can be saved?"]

Does Jesus say anything about souls in any of those passages? No! Have you "Mr. Editor" ever understood yourself as a soul? Last time I checked, God created us "flesh" or soma sarx as Paul puts it in 1 Cor. 15.

Besides I was not arguing against salvation...of course as I Christ follower that is where hope comes into this world. However this hope is not soul saving, it is RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. Interestingly enough, Jesus did not become a soul, rather John's Gospel testifies that Jesus became flesh, no doubt a scandal to the Greek worldview.

But hey maybe your right...the great commission in Matthew is to go and save souls right? Or was it go and form disciples?

Thanks for the helpful (er...not so helpful) proof texts.

Making people disciples does involve saving souls. When you make disciples of the faith you have to first bring people to saving grace. Jesus said the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. And He prayed that the God of the harvest will send out harvesters to bring in the harvest. Jesus also told Peter to let down the nets for a wondrous catch. He fed 5,000 too and in another incident 3,000. All these are evidence that Jesus wanted the church to grow and grow. Yes, making disciples is key; but you have to bring them to saving grace before you can go into deeper discipleship.

The church growth movement - I believe - does NOT downplay the importance of discipleship. It just, well, wants to grow. I know of many mega-churches who place discipleship in a very important position and also make it the focus of the mission statement; and I belong to one of them.

And, discipleship has a lot - A LOT - to do about saving souls. If no souls are saved, who is there to be discipled? Who is there to disciple in the first place? =]

[And please do not argue about the usage of the term "body" or "soul" because it is clearly not the focus of the discussion.]

Sam,
I certainly think of myself as more than a soul - but not less. There is a part of me that is not physical - part of me that is embodied. In fact my thoughts, emotions, beliefs and the like are the part of me that makes me interesting.
The human will is in rebellion against God, so that is where salvation starts. It ends in Resurrection.
I'd be curious to see if you agree with these thoughts.

Phillip...thanks for pushing back. You do realize that "saving souls" is a very Western concept of human anthropology and therefore we have tended to make this our understanding of salvation in the Western church of which I am part. However, as far as I know, Jesus does not refer in any of his teachings on discipleship and belief, to the soul or "psyche" as it would be rendered in the Koine.

Graham, I would agree with you to an extent. Obviously this is a complex philosophical conversation, of which, I do however believe has serious ramifications as to how we understand ourselves, the church and God.

The Greeks and thus Americans have a partative (dividing up the human person) anthropology. Whereas the Hebraic worldview (and thus I believe the biblical) is "aspectual" meaning that as persons we are created as whole entities. Thus we have aspects to our whole, e.g. soul, spirit, or best put our "being."

My influence in thought have been most recently Nancey Murphy and the idea of non-reductive physicalism.

The question is: Can a person be saved and never be a disciple? A follower of Jesus? And why did Jesus need to "become flesh" if it is our soul that really matters? Why don't the Gospels talk about our souls escaping to heaven? They don't. Rather than speak of following Jesus, the embodied and bodily resurrected Christ.

Perhaps in churches of 10,000 plus or even 1,000 for that matter we have no choice but to reduce things to a 15 min sermon about meeting my needs, and saving my soul, via a prayer that can casually be recited without any reflection or continual committment...

Sam,
I was worried that Nancey Murphy would show up, along with some sweeping statements about the Greeks. (The Stoic's view of the person was much more subtle.)
Conceptually the person can be divided into parts - body and soul, or better still, physical and non-physical. I think that it would be fair to say that the whole person is more than the sum of the parts. So yes, God saves more than souls, but not less.
However, if we were not ensouled bodies, we would not be in rebellion, and would not need to be saved. 2 Cor 5v6-8, and Philippians 1:21-23 indicate an imperfect but happy state after death, when our non-physical aspects rest with Christ. When read with 2Co 12:2-3, it seems difficult to escape the conclusion that Paul was a dualist. It also seems that in the New Testament, the soul must be restored before the body is resurrected.

Wow. If I were not a follower of Jesus and was reading these posts I'd choose another religion. We sure spend a lot of time criticizing each other rather than thanking God for the good work he is up to in churches of all sizes. God doesn't seem to have a problem with small churches because there are so many of them. Same with medium size churches and large churches. God is far more creative than to make one size for all people. Each size church serves the kingdom in a different way for different people. Regardless of church size, we're all about the same thing--following Jesus in the adventure of bringing grace to the world.

The question for all of us as leaders is this: Is my congregation following Jesus and his vision for our particular church? We can learn from churches of all sizes but ultimately what is God's call on my church and are we living it out?

Tim,

I think you summarized these posts quite well. I am so passionate about my faith that it may appear overbearing at times. We should not fall into the bickering that Apostle Paul talks about. We should be eager to get along with all people and opinions. Our souls are wrapped tightly in our human bodies and we are trying to insert human thoughts into our divine beliefs. Lets remember that Mega-Churches started out small and offers unchurched people a way to find God through unconventional ways. Small churches grow because God's Holy Spirit is working in lives. You can't just create a large church. You have to plant the seeds and only God can make it grow. Sorry for any bad feelings. God bless all churches.

jay

Okay, okay...LOVE WINS...but perhpas we do need to reflect more on the fact that it is the "mega" that is always in the lime light and most often is co-opted by the Fortune 500 commercialized mentality.

Jay,
It was my post you tackled, and I didn't find you overbearing at all. Writing on this weblog requires good faith - I have to trust that other writers are seeking the truth, and the furtherance of God's kingdom. I have to trust that they do not intend to be harsh or overbearing, but rather want to sift the wheat from the chaff in each others ideas. If I write something that needs to be hit hard, by all means hit it hard. Ideas need to be tested.

Tim,
A blog is a forum for throwing out your ideas, and allowing others to criticise them. It is a great way to test your asssumptions. You need to read the exchange between me and Philip with more care. Personally, I was forced to define my position more carefully - to understand exactly why I am opposed to mega churches. Jay and Philip haven't convinced me - but I do understand their convictions with more clarity.
We can learn from disagreement, because no one individual has a monopoly on the truth. Disagreement stops me from becoming complacent or arrogant about my beliefs.
The alternative is to go with your "whatever is happening a lot in the Church is right" thesis - which seems obviously false. Also, I think it's worth pointing out that you took time to criticise others in your post. You criticised others for criticising others. Just to compound the error, your targets weren't criticising others, they were criticising ideas. I think that a little more care and patience would be prudent.

Hey, folks,

I think passionate debate in the church is important and crucial. But calling into question someone's motives or critiquing an entire movement with little or no facts does a disservice to what it means to start from a position of grace rather than judgement.

I have been on both sides of this issue. I have been a pastor in a mega-church for over 20 years. We were passionate in our desire to reach people with the Gospel of Jesus. We rooted our mission and messages in the Bible and solid Lutheran theology. We had a strong missions emphasis reaching out into the community and world. And yet over and over again we were the targets of criticism by people who knew absolutely nothing about us--we were accused of being shallow, watering down the Gospel, being unLutheran, etc, and these people had never once worshipped at our church or read anything we had written. I read similar themes in these posts.

I have also been one of the critical ones, looking at other churches from the inside out and judging them when I knew absolutely nothing about them.

I remember when I was in seminary back in the 80's. We spent a lot of time ripping on Robert Schuller. Then I attended one of his conferences and discovered a man fully devoted to his faith and taking that faith to the world. I also discovered, behind the worship, a community of faith that was doing incredible things in the local community in the name of Jesus. It was the most transformational ministry event I'd been a part of and a humbling one as God reminded me not to judge the intentions and hearts of his leaders. (And he continually reminds me because it's so easy for me to be critical of other churches and pastors.)

Does that mean we should never critique methods, styles, etc? Of course not. The mega-church, like any church, makes mistakes, can go to extremes at times, and sometimes misses the point. I know. I've been there. But most of the mega-churches I know and most mega-church leaders I know are passionate about Jesus and about bringing grace to the world.

I guess I'm pleading for discussions that start with grace, assume the best in others, and then get the facts before we critique.

There are some great points in this blog, but again, read it with the eyes of a non-church going person and ask yourself if you'd want to be a part of the Christian Church.

On the other hand, if they can see Christians having mature, meaningful, helpful conversations about our faith, I think they'd be intrigued.

Tim,
If I am factually mistaken, will you please show me where? If I have questioned your motives, or anyone elses, will you please show me where? As it happens I believe that mega-churches act out of the best of motives. I am also sure that God works through them. But God uses jars of clay - therefore all our methods should be open to critique, even if we find God's grace giving people wonderful experiences through them. I am sure God worked through Revivalism, and that many Revivalists walked closely with God - but I'm also sure that Revivalism is not the best form of evangelism.
Again you contradict yourself. You assume knowledge of the motives those who posted messages on this blog. You assume that those who critiqued Mega Churches have not experienced the Mega Church movement, or that they have no knowledge of it. You then tarred us all with the one brush and chastised us for being judgmental.
As it happens, if you want a mature debate, maybe those who post could present their arguments in clear logical points. Maybe they could do better than provide anecdotal evidence. Maybe they could apologise if they think they have said something that could be construed as offensive- like Jay did. Now there is an example of a mature Christian writing meaningful messages. If I read his posts I'd want to know more about Christians. His attitude is exemplary - would you agree with me on this point?

Graham, Tim, Phillip, and Sam. Hope all had a great 4th of July. I also hope that we all prayed this weekend for God to enlighten us and bring us closer together with the help of the Holy Spirit. Iron sharpens iron but 2 files only dull each others sharpness. It is good to exchange thoughts and open discussion is always a good way to bring out points that we may not have thought about on our own reasoning. Lets keep the big picture always in our mind and try to encourage each other so our faith only grows stronger. Great talking to you guys.

jay

It is quite interesting that contemporary Christian faith sees argument and passionate disagreement as "un-Christian." This is because throughout its history, the church has always struggled and debated, no doubt forcefully and passionately about what it means to be church and what it means to follow Jesus.

Seems the commercialized gospel in a pluralistic society such as ours (read Newbigin), does not have the ability to engage passionately.

Try reading Luther, Calvin, and others of the Reformation. Or wait, you may not want to, they use some harsh language. But inspite of that, these leaders, these reformers took the calling and purpose of the church extremely seriously in their day. We should be doing the same in ours. They did not just accept the status quo. And by the way Protestant means exactly that, Pro-test-ant.

Actually it was the ancient Jewish communities that first passionately debated the faith, with the hopes that the Spirit of Yhwh would guide them to obedience. They did this because they cared.

Perhaps, those of us who want to sit back and just affirm the way things are, or even worse do not think we must think about and respond to the calling of the church in our 21st century context really don't care?

Besides, in the Gospels, Jesus got really angry at the Temple economy that had been set up by the religious leaders of the day. So angry, he turned over their video/book/coffee bar in order to express how bankrupt that generation had become. They had been following their kingdom, not taking part in God's reign and rule!

Sam,

We must be careful not to mistake religious banter and discussion as being "unchurched". The way I see it, there is a fine line between good faith debate of the issues versus consistently trying to prove we know more than anyone else. There are people that will argue that the sky is not really blue just to prove they are more knowledgable than others. I prefer not to cast my pearls before swine. On the other hand, if we really get excited for Christ by challenging each others faith in a positive way, we all will benefit from the new ideas.

I beleive that we need to create a balance concerning church growth. On one hand, I beleive that the only job of the church is to save souls for Jesus Christ. it is our primary responsibility to help others to understand the many practical benefits of living our lives in according to the teachings and practices of Jesus Christ. However, in my limited work in the church, it has been frustrating to see so many pastors and church leaders that doctor up their numbers in order to push thier career along.
We need to have a passion for teaching people about the Gospel and not numbers.

The church growth movement appears to be an offshoot of the leadership movement in churches.
The leadership movement suggests that with proper leadership churches will grow numerically
and financially.

Mickie