Church Growth is a movement within Evangelical Christianity which emphasizes missionary work combined with sociological awareness of the target population. The “seeker sensitive” label for this approach characterizes the would-be converts as “seekers”. (Wikipedia)
The 1980′s saw the explosion of the “church growth” movement, which was led by people like Elmer Towns and churches like Willow Creek and Saddleback Church. It has been criticized as being shallow theologically, program-driven, pragmatic, and demographically targeted. Churches identify who their target audience is, then seek to design a service and programs to reach that target. It has proven “successful”, if viewed through the lens of attendance. However, some “seeker” churches have recently made changes to their programs that will hopefully facilitate deeper discipleship.
I think that we are now seeing the next generation of Church Growth. CG2.0 still have the same characteristics of the first gen of Church Growth, but there seems to be an even greater focus on cultural contextualization, even to the point of crassness. Whether it’s Perry Noble publically using censored profanity to refer to “reformed guys” or Granger Community Church’s recent I’m Not Buying It series, these churches are pushing the envelope, and not in a good way. It sure doesn’t seem like it’s a new way of presenting the Gospel, but a way of “getting eyeballs”, of being noticed. Many of these “Shock Churches” are growing, but they seem to be clustered in the South and Midwest, locations that I would consider more churched than other parts of the country. Is the growth simply transfers from other churches? I have no clue. But I do have a hard time seeing churches like these reaching people in places that are less familiar with the Gospel, like NYC or Miami.
Will Church Growth 2.0 go the way of 1.0, eventually realizing that giving people what they want isn’t what God calls the church to do? That church will be messy because it is lived out in community with sinners like us? That we are called to be different, in but not of? I pray yes, and sooner rather than later.
From David Fairchild, who planted Kaleo a church-planting movement in San Diego.
- Church planting is often an exercise in idolatry.
Our love for Jesus has to be more intense and powerful than the love for the idea of our church plant.
- The Church is not a stage to showcase our gifts.
If we’re willing to simply wash the feet of the disciples and serve the Bride of Jesus, we’ll ensure that we keep Jesus in the spotlight and not ourselves. The church doesn’t exist for me to be made much of. The Church exists to make much of Jesus.
- Never forget that it is Jesus that will build His Church.
In Matthew 16:18 Jesus says to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” There is much controversy about what role Jesus was giving Peter and how this has played out historically through Apostolic succession. But this often misses the point. Even if Jesus was saying that Peter is the first Apostle, it is still Jesus that is the one who promises to build His church. Though He may use Peter (a miracle in itself), it is Jesus who builds and it is Jesus who gives victory against the gates of hell, not Peter. Not Paul. Not James. Not Augustine. Not Luther. Not Calvin. Not Spurgeon. Not Piper. And most certainly not you or me.
- Be more about what you are and less about what you’re not.
If Jesus is building His church and the church exists beyond our local church, than I should be very careful tearing anything down for I might be fighting against His work. Our posture in criticism should always be characterized by humility. If we’re honest we should confess how far we still are from being a perfect gathering of perfect people.
- A missional leader should desire influence, not control.
If we want neat and tidy churches, we’ll tend towards control. But missional churches are never neat or tidy. Instead they are messy and often unkempt because they allow growth to occur organically as they push the missional agenda to the fringes.
- Plant churches that grow planters organically.
Anyone looking to plant a church should be willing to get involved in an existing (and recent) church plant to learn what it looks like. This means we may plant fewer churches, but if we train longer (specifically church plant training) we’ll end up with a larger movement because we won’t have as many failures.
- We believe in sola Scriptura, no sola pastora
We should fight with all our might to ensure that our people realize we are a team of leaders. This will effectively displace the guru mentality that assumes all problem are solved and solutions given only by one leader.
But this requires…
- We are all living for the same mission and vision together.
If our agendas are divided then we’ll find our mission stagnated. This doesn’t mean a homogenous expression of mission, it simply means we agree with the foundational truths of Gospel-Community-Mission.
- We have to be willing to lead in community not above it.
The days of pastors acting as a CEO and giving orders from the top down should be well behind us. The truth is we all tend towards telling others what they should do before we’re actually doing it ourselves. Community and mission are two ways of being that every planter and leader must be willing to demonstrate. If not, reproducibility and discipleship simply will not happen.
- Seek outside counsel from leaders who have gone before you.
Be willing to submit your thoughts, ideas, and decisions to your community as well as seeking the counsel of older men and women that have loved Jesus longer than yourself and share similar values.