Church Growth Movement

If Christians are not sitting in the same building, under the same teaching, bound by the same covenant, then they are divided. If they are divided by distance, then they must have separate congregations. If they are divided by essential doctrines, then it can't be avoided. But if they are divided by fashions or economic class, then that is a sign of carnality.

 

Thank you. :thumbs:

 

See my response to Oldtimer. You may want to revise your comments thereafter.

 

I agree that there is nothing wrong with outreach to particular groups of people. Here in the UK, we have gospel outreach to prisoners, to men and women in the armed forces, to people who work on the railway ("railroad" to Americans ), to fishermen, and many more.

But that is quite different to saying that we should deliberately set out to have a church whose members are all prisoners, or all railway workers, or all cowboys. To do so would seem to me to go against the scriptural teaching that Christians are all one in Christ. Paul wrote to the Church in Galatia:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28
​

If we were really to have separate churches for cowboys, bikers, and the rest, we would surely have expected that verse to have said:

There is a difference between Jew and Greek, between slave and free, and between male and female; you need to set up a separate church for each group.
​

​

 

I have nothing against a cowboy church----or a biker church---or a beach church

BUT I can grant you this-----any preacher worth his calling--can go in and preach the genuine word of God---and two types of people will emerge from any of those groups--just like any other "normal" church

1. Those who find themselves as true disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ who can honestly say to Him-----"Behold, Lord!!! We have left ALL to follow Thee!!"-----that word "ALL" is inclusive-----meaning that Quarterhorse he brought in on that fancy horse trailer---or that brand spankin' new Harley Davidson "Roadstar"----or whatever else

If it came down to forsaking that Quarterhorse or that Harley----would they do it???----of course he's not---thats why he joined the bike church in the first place---thats why he joined the Cowboy church in the first place--because he can't do without either one of um!!!

2. Those who find themselves backed into the corner by the Lord Jesus Himself just like the rich young ruler when Jesus told him----Go---sell everything you have--give your money to the poor--and come follow me----and they go out just like that RYR---sorrrowful---because they can't let go of the "Cowboy" scene---or they couldn't let go of the Harley

I guarantee you----if I started going to one of those churches---and I got myself involved in the "inner circle"---whether it be the inner circle of the cowboy church or the inner circle of the bike church---or whatever---If I got involved in the inner circle---I would discover that that inner circle is just like the inner circle of any other church-----there would be some in that circle who gripe because so and so came to the cowboy meeting and had a horse with a "sag" in the middle---or one of um thought they should all have look alike saddles---but little Cowboy Johnny came in to church and instead of a saddle ----- he chose to ride bare back just like Crazy Horse and his group of happy go lucky Sioux Braves trottin' off to greet Custer

I guarantee you---if I started a biker church---and started inviting a bunch of bikers to come---and I got it going along pretty good---that somewhere down the line somebody in that humble group will get their feathers ruffled because somebody came in on a Moped when it was quiet obvious that everybody else was riding Harleys----and the Moped man now feels left out because his "bike" just can't keep up with the Harleys on interstate "Christian" rides---and now the lead rider is all upset because the rest of the group has to wait up for the Moped------

Know what I mean???

Human beings are gonna be human beings---sad fallen state of affairs we've been carrying around since Adam-----it doesn't matter if you wear a Stetson hat that now smells just like that Brille Cream you wear or a John Deere cap that smells like the Dairy Parlor

Biker "Christian" clubs face the same peer pressure as any other NORMAL church will------you let my bike get a few thousand miles on it---let it get worn down and I have to put it in the shop a time or two---and then you let one of my buddies come riding in on a brand spankin' new one---and I know that I can't afford a new one because I don't make near as much money as my friend there----and no matter how humble I look on the outside----PRIDE and ENVY is eating me up on the inside!!!

I can go on and on---but I'll stop here and pick it up another time!!

 

I agree... What the entire CGM seeks to do is to target "unreached people groups." As far as the average congregation is not reaching "cowboys," "bikers," "off-roaders," or perhaps we think rather in terms of ethnicity and language, "blacks," "Koreans," "Hispanics," etc., these targeted efforts seek to communicate the never-changing gospel in a language and culture that the unreached groups can hear.

Further, we would likely find that the supposed division that we expect to be there often is not. Biker or Cowboy church, as well as ethnic church, need not be divided in spirit or in fellowship, only in cultural expression and meeting place. But again, that harkens back to our doctrine of ecclesiology. Is it Christ's Church -- all the redeemed -- or is it this congregation against or set apart from that, each and only being the true church. I find the separation of congregations by external means because of this flawed doctrine of ecclesiology to be a sad expression of the truths that Christ actually gave us when He said, "I will build MY church..."

Here we have to decide if "the church" is all of the redeemed in Christ or if it is only a local body. If we see the church as all of Christ's redeemed then we will have no problems with an unreached people group congregation that sits right in the midst of another WASP congregation, and in fact we might intentionally start just such a congregation in our own facilities!

It always surprises me when we get all excited about missions as long as missions is defined as "reaching cultures and languages overseas," but we will not do likewise in our own backyard, or we will not do that if the persons we are trying to reach just happen to like western wear, leather, camo, etc.

That says that our image of the gospel is more about propagating our own CULTURE than it is about seeing the "panta ta ethnos" coming to know the Lord.

 

My response is "just because YOU have not seen it does not mean that it is not happening."

I happen to be a proponent of CGM -- not because that is the only way that church is expressed, but merely because "healthy churches grow." I also happen to be a Calvinist and one who holds very highly the Word of God and the practices advocated or commanded in Scripture. I break your mold, and so do the others who hold similar views as I, which are many many men of God!

Any of us can offer a singular expression of church gone wrong -- the Jerry Springer of congregations -- and those expressions run to all sorts of groups calling themselves "church." I've seen the IFB congregations (and I'm using the term generically) that are in fact MORE segregated than any CGM congregation. I've seen culturally irrellevant congregations that are segregated just because no one else in their community is still stuck in 1954. So, your argument just does not make.

 

Fashions and economic class? I will only add that your desire to malign the heart & intent of others because they do not conform to your church lifestyle is not of God.

 

Let's work this out ecclesiologically.

Let's say we live in a town of 25,000 people inside the incorporated town limits with another 15,000 just beyond. Are you saying that only one church should exist for that entire town?

What then would be the distinction between essential doctrines in Southern Baptist church, United Methodist church, Evangelical Free church, Independent Christian church, American Baptist church, Christian Missionary Alliance church, Missionary Baptist church, etc?

Finally, what covenant binds all believers together in one regional church?

 

Very well said! It's regrettable that the CGM has rendered some people unable to discern between a Church and a mission field.

 

If I have maligned the heart & intent of others, please provide the reference so I may be informed of my sin. But for the record, we all know what the road to Hell is paved with. Or do we?

 

I'm not saying any of that. There may be a multitude of churches in a given area for reasons that God may ordain as beneficial to His people. What I am saying is that multiple divisions for reasons of fashion or class distinction is carnal.

But alas! The Church follows the world, and in case you haven't noticed, the world is also breaking up into societal enclaves. Anarchy and despotism is in our future. What greater measure of glory is God bringing about through all of this? Maybe he is choking us with the quail of violence to teach us to be satisfied with peace.

 

Well it is what you said. You said Christians (there is no limiting article in your post) aren't in one building, under one teacher, bound by one covenant than they are divided.

My point is that it is impossible to work this out ecclesiologically with any degree of reasonability since all Christians will never meet together until the eschaton. I don't think your line of argumentation works in your first post.

Here you've created some nuance, but still I don't see churches of class distinction or fashion trends rising up over other fellowships. As I said before we need a great diversity of churches to reach a great diversity of people. We need different approaches because people are different. That's okay. I don't see it condemned in Scripture. Walk into any of these (as I call them) boutique churches and you'll be welcomed. While their appeal is to a segment, their embrace is to all.

 

As long as a church "grows" (in numbers), then everything it does is justified in its own eyes. So there's no point in arguing the case. David Lamb (post #45) said it best and I'll leave it at that.

 

I know that your big deal is discipleship, and that we've had these conversations before, but you seem to blast everyone who does not do things the way that you think is correct even when they are demonstrating that they are in fact successful in a biblical manner.

For instance, our church in Louisville did not (DO/DID NOT) have a dedicated "discipleship" program of any sort. Yet they have over 80% congregational participation in the ministry of the church, which is the true picture of discipleship in the Scriptures. They lay out a task and people do it, including selling their homes so they can move to a new neighborhood so as to bring the gospel to that area! They place a call to give and people give. They place a call to study and people study. They place a call to train potential pastors and potential pastors come, eager for training. And, so it goes. What goes on at that church would be unrecognizable to you and yet we have other communities handing us checks so that we come to their neighborhood and start new church work. That is because they see the fruits of our efforts -- which are not enclosed by the walls of the church or taken up by a lot of book studies within the church.

In any case some of the CG congregations have made a tremendous impact in the church life of other congregations and in the missions effort around the world. Take Rick Warren and Saddleback Church for instance, easily reviled because he is so little understood, yet he has influenced a great number of other pastors and churches -- and yes, disciples -- to better study their Word, to DO what Christ said to do, and to plant and grow new churches across the land and around the world. Church on Brady is another example. They remain small in number because they are one of the largest mission SENDING congregations in North America. I can go on and on about this, all about churches that have embraced CG as a means to deal with the culture in a missional sense while holding fast to the Scriptures of God at the same time.

They would all tell you -- to a man -- that without God and God's Word no church growth movement would amount to a thing.

So, I propose doing a few diagnostic questions about your own congregation...

1. Do you have a climate-controlled building? Is it heated and air-conditioned?
2. Do you have adequate parking to hold the number of people that turn out for worship on a regular basis?
3. Do you have seating enough to hold 80% capacity at all times and some room to grow if the congregation exceeds that number?
4. Do you teach or preach in such a way as to be recognizable to the people who attend your church?
5. Do you sing music in your services of worship that the people attending that worship appreciate and are in tune with, stylistically?
6. Does your church apply any outside advertisement, list themselves in the Yellow Pages, have a web site, etc.?
7. Have you ever looked to special materials or speakers that come from a larger congregation somewhere for a concert, evangelistic event, or conference of some sort?
8. Do you believe that "healthy congregations grow naturally?"
9. Do members of your church go into the community to do outreach?
10. Do you support planting and/or assisting other congregations?

I will be most interested to see your answers!

 

Is not every mission field a potential congregation? Or do you not support or believe in missions -- even if those missions are in your own backyard?

 

I would consider, let's say, "Georgia", a mission field. And I would consider "cowboy" a sub-culture of that field. I would not consider "cowboy" a mission field.

I believe that if God has called a man to a particular mission, then that man ought to go to that field as soon as possible if not immediately.

I would not consider my backyard a mission field, since there are no people living there (a little humor to break the tension).

The same could be said said of missions to "Jews". Missionaries go to Israel to "win the Jews to Christ". So, are Arabs welcome in a mission for "Jews"? How about Palastinian Christians? Are they welcome? How would they know if they are welcome and would they feel welcome? Just like the banker in the cowboy church - he might be invited, but would he "fit in"?

When is the last time a missionary went to Israel to witness to Israeli Arabs? If Christ died for all kinds of people, shouldn't the missionary to Israel be as concerned about the salvation of Arabs as for Jews? How then could you justify a "mission" to Jews only?

You see what I mean?

All of this division is destructive to the Church.

 

I see what you mean, but the Great Commission is not to "states" or "nations" but rather to "panta ta ethnae" -- people groups.

Ever note how Paul spoke differently to the panta ta enthnae that was Jewish versus the panta ta ethnae that was Gentile? He noted the difference between two different people groups that often lived in the same city. Because of that, I reject your concept of reaching "geographical land masses" and instead advocate that we go on mission to PEOPLE.

As far as "targeting" a people group, I'd say that virtually every congregation does that -- except that they don't realize that they do. Some congregations have succesfully broken the ethnicity, social strata, language, etc., barrier, but not all that many for all the talk in that direction.

In fact, I'd lay odds that in your community if I were to attend any of the congregations holding worship there that the congregations would be highly segregated by any or all of the above people group classifications. One MIGHT have a blend of different folks if there were more than 3-4 or more congregations in your area. I'd also lay odds that some older lady would slap the ball cap off of some bearded rangy looking fellow who just happened to pop in for service. I wish that I'd never seen that done, but alas, I've seen it done in 3 different churches now.

Finally, I cannot for the life of me grasp the concept that you are putting forward as true, i.e., that a missionary somewhere, even in your empty back yard, would REJECT someone outside of his or her target mission group just because they were not whom he or she was seeking. Sheesh, you make missionaries out to be some sort of weird slasher or something. They would be SO happy to welcome in that new person no matter their cultural distinctions!

I KNOW over 100 missionaries serving on the foreign field and probably another 100+ serving here in the states as church planters, church growth specialists, etc. I cannot think of a one that would not rejoice and join the angels in heaven in singing for the redemption of aother soul!

I wonder, from your remarks, just how many actual missionaries you know, and I also wonder what is their mission?