Why grow the church?

churchgrowthI find myself wondering again about why we would put emphasis and effort into growing the Church numerically, why we (those already in the Church) would make this a goal in our activities,

My puzzlement, of course, implies scepticism and I have to admit to feeling sceptical about this. Trying to grow the Church doesn’t seem natural to me.

I suspect my scepticism has two main causes:

  • my experience and research lead to me to believe that growth is more something that happens than something that is achieved;
  • I am totally unconvinced that a bigger church is “better” than a smaller church (although it is probably true that growing churches are in general “better” than shrinking churches.

Growth is something that happens to us, not something we do

To take the first point first most of my church life has been within a single consistently growing congregation. As I went through my education for ministry and had the opportunity to observe a fair number of other churches (only one of which was experiencing growth) I came to the conclusion that the two examples of growth I saw had little or nothing to do with anyone deciding or acting to promote growth.

My home congregation had just got on with being the particular kind of church it was as best it could at a time and in a place where a lot of people were looking for a church of that kind. Over the years a steady trickle of people walked through our doors in search of something we were equipped to give or to be. We didn’t go looking for them, they came looking for us. This led to a gradual expansion and transformation of our congregation. Of course there were pitfalls to avoid and opportunities to seize along the way and it would be possible to rationalise that in retrospect as a plan but actually we just happened to be in the right place and time (this derived of course from the history of the church and from the minister we had but the point stands).

Similarly the church in which I undertook a training placement which grew did so not because of any plan or effort it made. It was simply the right church in the right place at a moment when a highly unusual circumstance led a group including a number of energetic and talented individuals to decide they needed a new ecclesial home. This sudden and unpredictable influx breathed new life into the congregation at precisely the moment when a new and singularly appropriate minister arrived. None of this could have been planned and worked for.

Then I read what I regard as the very important book Church Growth in Britain: 1980 to the present edited by David Goodhew. In it is demonstrated fairly satisfactorily, I think, that not only is the Church not declining in numbers globally it is not declining in numbers in Britain. The shrinking of the historic denominations is being balanced by growth in new forms of Church, primarily independent or in new denominations and concentrated in big cities, above all in London, and among migrants (including internal migrants).

The reason this is relevant is that the growth is overwhelmingly in urban areas experiencing inflows of population and is of churches with a set of common characteristics. In other words, like my home church, most growing churches are churches of the right kind in the right place and time.

Like living organisms churches grow when it is their time to grow and the conditions to support that growth is present, on the whole. Of course there will be exceptions but it remains the case that for a church to attract new members there have to be people who want or need what it has to offer, and it seems to me that if it has what those people want then they are likely to find it.

(All this amounts to something like the traditional Calvinist doctrine of election. If you’re meant to be in the Church God will put you there.)

Does size matter?

Going back to Calvin it is clear that he (like Luther and anyone who accepts the idea of predestination) would be deeply uneasy about efforts to bring more people into the Church. Either they are elect (in which case God will guide them) or not (in which case their presence will be a corruption of the Church). This difficulty is expressed in the somewhat awkward distinction between the visible and the invisible Church.

What this invites us to reflect upon is what the implicit view of the Church’s purpose might be that would lead one to make its growth a primary objective of its communal activity. Some options include:

  • the salvation of individual souls through the inculcation of faith or belief in Christ
  • the transformation of the world towards God’s intended state through social action
  • the preservation of the institution itself as a vital part of God’s providential work in the world

I confess myself unconvinced that any of these provide a justification for prioritising growth.

Individual salvation as the result of evangelistic activity

Many will see this, I’m sure, as obviously correct and immediately justifying an emphasis on growth, and I can certainly see their point. I am not, nonetheless convinced. This for two reasons:

  1. I do not believe that the salvation of individuals is actually the heart of the gospel
  2. If it were then those individuals, not the Church as an institution, would have to be at the heart of what we do – Church growth, if it happened, would surely be a by-product of the work of evangelism rather than its core

When Jesus began his ministry it was with the proclamation of the Kingdom, not with an appeal for individual belief. That the Kingdom was at hand was the primary news and the response of individuals to it was to follow. Among the New Testament writers we find an urgent drive to bring new people into the community only really in Paul, and even there it seems to be extension into new areas that he cares about rather than expansion where the Church already exists. All the epistles are concerned primarily with the quality of Church life, not the quantity of people included.

God’s plan of salvation in the NT is focused on the whole of creation, not on individual human beings, although the individuals have the responsibility to respond and to position themselves with regard to it. The work is not yet complete, the full realisation of the Kingdom is yet to come, but it will come. The world will be made anew and all will be changed utterly.

Too often the Christian message of resurrection into a cosmos made new becomes one of escape from this world into another existing alongside it. The idea that this world is static and unchanging, a vale of tears from which we are released into an eternal heavenly domain is not one that finds support in the Scriptures. We are to expect and anticipate the remaking of this world, a remaking that will touch and transform all parts of it.

At that time the Church, as a separate and distinct institution, will cease to exist as all comes under the direct rule of God. The Church does not save, only God in Christ does.

The social Gospel

Should we, then, see the growth of the Church as instrumental in this universal plan of salvation? I think not. Going back to the New Testament again I see no support for the idea of the Church as a centre of social change. The care that is urged on Christians is always care for one another, in the epistles, The Church is a community called out of the world and into Christ, a community bound together by bonds of love that do not extent beyond its boundaries.

I do not advocate a strict return to this idea of the relationship between Church and world (particularly stark and shocking in John’s letters which I have been reading with one of my Bible study groups) but we do need to recover a stronger sense of our separateness, so powerful a part of the URC’s Congregational history but now largely lost as we’ve forgotten our real differences with the established churches.

Our long history of political engagement, originally driven specifically by our own interests as a church body, has swamped our trust in God’s providential care. The salvation of the world is not a human and definitely not an ecclesial task, It is God’s and God’s alone.

The preservation of the institution

This would probably be the strongest argument to prioritise growth, if it were needed, but it’s not. The Church catholic is actually in rude health. It continues to grow strongly in the world as a whole, despite the decline of some old denominations. If the URC were to cease to exist this would not be a material blow to the overall strength of the Church. This does not mean that I don’t care about the future of my denomination, just that its preservation should not be the sole or main concern of anybody.

For each of us who has been called into the Church God has a purpose and a will. Each of us and each of our communities needs to work at discerning that will. For some it will be evangelisation, the proclamation of the Gospel to those who have not yet heard it. For others it will be study, for others again the expression of God’s love for the world in acts of care and compassion, or the building up of those in the Church by the explanation and exploration of what it means to be a disciple. There will be as many vocations as there are Christians. I am unconvinced, though, that growing the Church will be essential for any,

Advertisements
4 comments
  1. Elliot Vernon said:

    Nick, good article, which as usual I agree with – but I am slightly uneasy about this: ‘Going back to Calvin it is clear that he (like Luther and anyone who accepts the idea of predestination) would be deeply uneasy about efforts to bring more people into the Church. Either they are elect (in which case God will guide them) or not (in which case their presence will be a corruption of the Church).’

    You seems to be in danger here of characterising Calvin (or any predestinarian) as a Hyper-Calvinist – the view that God will guide the saints to the Church and that evangelisation was unnecessary, even undesirable – this is a view that Calvin didn’t hold. For Calvin the elect are brought to the Church through divine grace (after all that is the essence of the monergistic position), but the means of that grace is the indiscriminate preaching of the Word through the means of the ministry. For Calvin, the divine decree of election is a mystery and the number of the elect are not known to human wisdom (for example, the elect may not be, as so many seem to think, a small minority), so the means God has defined for the gathering of the flock is the indiscriminate preaching of the Gospel. As Calvin said in his commentary on Romans 10:15 the gospel ‘does not fall from the clouds like rain but is brought by the hands of men to where God has sent it’. Likewise in the commentary on John 3:16 Calvin makes it clear that the gospel is to be universally proclaimed, which is why John ‘has employed the universal term ‘whosoever’, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favour of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ’. The Reformed/Calvinist tradition was therefore very focused on bringing people to church – but it was never growth for growth’s sake, in the manner of a saleman’s office record.

    • Thanks, Elliot, You are, of course, quite right, to point out the danger of identifying Calvin, whose thought is subtle and thorough, with the too neat formulations of scholastic Calvinism.

      I am fully in favour of the widest proclamation of the gospel and was probably guilty in this piece of overstating my case but I remain convinced that making church growth a conscious and even primary “objective” is true neither to Calvin nor to the Reformed tradition.

      Yours is a helpful reminder that like every danger rejection of it can lead to mistaken over-corrections, like making smallness itself a virtue or turning away from the World.

  2. Another thought provoking post as ever, Nick. My own take would be that Church growth is the fruit of following Christ centred living and using our gifts in serving Christ. Our plan should be to encourage one another in our walk(s) with Christ, rather that a numerical growth target. However, having said this, we also (particularly those of us with leadership giftings and responsibilities/callings) have to ensure that our Churches are conducive to growth. By this I mean prayerfully evaluating our ministries, outreaches and service opportunities, ensuring that we are welcoming fellowships without unnecessary barriers.

    I have seen situations of over-planning, with an obsession for structure and programmes and a sense of satisfaction only from numbers. However, I have also seen the other extreme of neglecting any planning, organising and the effect can be hurt people and the overlooking of individuals and their needs also.

    Perhaps it is a question if balance? I did once hear a moving defence from Bill Hybels at Willow Creek who was fielding a complaint that they appeared obsessed with numbers and growth. He acknowledged the concern but also said that for him each number was a person, someone’s brother, sister, aunt, uncle, mother, father, friend, neighbour… And this is why he cared passionately about bringing new lives into the Church community – that as many across the world would know God’s love.

    • I’d agree with all of that. What concerns me is a sense one sometimes gets in denominations and congregations that have experience a decrease in terms of membership or participation that the preservation of the existing institution is in itself a priority. It seems to me that mission needs to have a sense of how it serves God’s purpose rather than that of a human organisation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: