The last few years, there have been countless church growth books, experts, seminars, perspectives, and theories presented. I would venture to say there are some that that GOOD some BAD and some INDIFFERENT. But, I have noticed that churches tend to organize themselves, their practices, traditions, and decisions around their core perspectives on who they really are. Often there is a diversity of perspectives which often cause divisions and conflicts.
As I see it, there are different perspectives that tend to drive church decisions and practices. Here are a few:
(1) We are to teach and impower the members “at church”, design worship, teachings, and practices around growing members, then encourage them to go into their world and share the gospel. This may mean we do some things differently than we have in the past, but not very different. The focus is on growing members and giving them what we determine are the “tools” to make them “good church members” first. We hope they will go and do. The emphasis is on “going into all the world” and “equipping the members for works of service”.
(2) We should design the church to be attractive to outsiders, design worship, programs, practices, and events to attract “visitors” in order to create opportunities to share the gospel with them (either “at church” or in follow up efforts). Our efforts are focused more on a spiritual emphasis than doctrinal (if you can separate the two). Some consider this “entertainment oriented” but we see is as “attracting the lost.” Motivating members to bring their friends to church, tell them how “cool” church can be, then following up on a more personal level to share the gospel with them. Often this includes identifying a church’s “target audience” and changing methods and styles in such a way that will “connect” well with that group. It emphasizes how things look when an “unbeliever comes into the assembly” and “becoming all things to all men that we might win some.”
(3) The church events are for the members so we should design worship, programs, and methods in such a way that is consistent with our traditions or otherwise characteristic of our church (or denomination). Keep things “the way we do them” and expect outsiders to be taught and accept those ways. The thinking is that we should not cater to the desires of the lost / world / outsiders, but should instead “bring them in” to our way of thinking and doing. There is a separation between the “Sunday” church and what that church does in the world the rest of the week. The comment is often that we should not “change the church to fit the world” but “change the world to fit the church”.
(4) Our primarily purpose is to keep the church open, pay the bills, keep members from leaving, and hopefully some people will hear the gospel from our efforts. That means we must make decisions that are the most popular with those who give the most money or are long-standing members. While it seems ungodly on the surface, we don’t think of it as such because we believe it is necessary to spreading the gospel. How else could we be evangelizing if we had to close our doors or we could no longer pay a preacher to do what we needed to be done? We want to grow, but if we are not here at all, growth cannot take place. We often emphasize the programs we currently have and the opportunities available to the lost if they want to come and be a part of the things we are doing. We often emphasize how friendly our church is to visitors. This emphasizes the existance of the specific congregation, location, building, and programs as necessary to do the work of God.
(5) I know there are some others – but these seem to be the underlying principles of most.
Among these, we might identify some elements of an “externally focused” perspective, an “internally focused” perspective, and a “mixed” perspective. There are elements of “go” and “come” and “becoming” and “existing” (among a few others).
Consider the following scriptures (perhaps you have others to share):
Ephesians 4:11-12 (NIV) 11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up
1 Corinthians 9:22 (NIV) 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.
Mark 16:15 (NIV) 15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.
1 Corinthians 14:16 (NIV) 16 If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?
Colossians 2:8 (NIV) 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Acts 8:4 (NIV) 4 Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.
1 Corinthians 1:10 (NIV) 10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.
Hebrews 10:24 (NIV) 24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds.
Given the perspectives of how we should “do church” which do you think is right? Which is most effective? Which focuses on the true mission of the church? How do we decide? What other scriptures may apply to this topic?
I think we design church around what we think our primarily mission is. If we believe we are here mostly to reach the lost, then we make decisions around that mission. If we believe we are here primarily to teach members and maintain the “purity” of the church, then our decisions are formed around that. If we believe our primarily mission is to “keep the church open” (maintain the local congregation / organization) then our decisions are made with that focus. I think all too often, the focus of many churches is to exist so we can keep exisiting. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
