church growth - paint by numbers

The following is a response to a spoken message by Tony Rainbow of Victory Church (Adelaide, Australia) to the people of Fusion City Church (Palmerston, Canberra - Australia)

audio link

introduction

Tony began by stating how there were about 120 believers gathered in one place after Christ's ascension (Acts 1:13-15). It was to these people Peter stood and spoke.

Please note this is the only scripture Tony uses during his entire message.

However, rather than putting this into the context of Jesus having asked them to stay in the city until they received the gift of the Spirit, Tony spoke of the significance of the number 120 in relation to human group dynamics:

• Ignores the broader church by prioritising the local
• Had it all together relationally
• Were all at everything which was connected with Jesus' training
• Relationships were like a family
• The leadership style was casual and collaborative
• Communication was informal and face to face
• There was an ease in how they gathered
• Everyone knew each other by name

But are these statements interpreted upon the bible itself or assumptions about small group dynamics?   For instance, where in the bible is proof that this or any other group knew the names of all their companions?  Indeed, was the group fluid, did people come and go?  Did anyone ever disagree on matters about God?

Instead, Tony suggests that these group characteristics, while being "the most awesome thing that could ever happen." But the problem comes when we "set this as the goal, we set a ceiling to the growth of the church, because that style of church only works with a certain number of people."

But why?  This assumption occurs when it is presumed people intended to continue gathering in groups of this size.  Why?  Because, the argument being made is to correlate church growth today with a particular gathering 2000+ years ago.

Where in this gathering is the evidence to suggest anyone intended to continue gathering in this way? What about other gathered people in the bible? Where during Jesus' life did he ever model this?

Why do people today find it necessary to justify church growth in terms of the number of people gathered?

bad logic

Arguments that try to build upon faulty assumptions tend to have personal agendas or opinions behind them. Why? Because the conclusion was considered before the evidence was sought.  Consequently, proof tends to be biased to justify seeing what we want to see.  Worse is when the bible is quoted in order to not only support the argument but actually pose it as God's idea in the first place.  The logic is: because scripture is "Holy Spirit inspired", "God's word", etc, then an argument no matter how flawed, given enough quotes, must be true.

This has occurred here with Tony.

Rarely do we allow God's word to speak for itself.

terra nullus

A further assumption being made by Tony is churches today are local in nature.  That is, a church is defined by the people who gather for services in a particular location. Yes, local churches today often have attendances of 80-150 people. However, what we forgot or ignore is local churches do not start, let alone grow, in a state of terra nullus. We falsely assume the territory our local church occupies or entered (planted) was not previously inhabited.

Was your church the first in the area you live?

And, if it was indeed a pioneer: was God there beforehand, or did God only start working in the lives of people when your church was established?

Sometimes it is a challenge to remember that your local church is but one of many, even within a few street blocks. And regionally, one among many many more.  No local church is an island unto itself.  As such, the church to which you belong is not 30, 80, or 120, but could actually be populated by many thousands.

misdirection

Tony: "Who wants the church ... to grow?  Most people want the church to grow but get stuck at a certain number.”

Tony: Churches get stuck at 150 or less because this is “about the most number of people a person can connect with.  Thus people naturally feel displaced once their group reaches 50-150 people.”

This argument continues to push the idea that church growth is about the number of people who attend a service or the number of people who choose to be members a local church.

How does God consider growth?  Is it about numbers or about invisible things like character?

If there are 100 people in a room singing hymns and listening to a message from the pulpit, how many claim to know God?  How many does God know?  Indeed, does God know anyone who is not in attendance?  Does he know them if they never attend a local church anywhere?  Is that enough?

Furthermore, if the church is indeed more than the local, how do comments like the one Tony raises, redirect how we view the importance of God dwelling among his people?

Finally, I put it to you feeling uncomfortable (displaced) is natural whenever we interact with another person.  The size of the group is irrelevant.  What matters is how you treat each person as they come.  Group size never dictates your relationship.

For a moment revisit Tony's conclusions about group dynamics in a personal way:

• Are all the relationships you have with people in your church fully healthy?
• Do you attend everything your church offers?  Do you need to?
• Do people in your church treat you like family?
• Is the leadership style of your church casual?  Does it seek guidance of other members?
• Do you communicate with people informally and face-to-face?
• Is interacting with people in your church effortless?
• Do you know everyone in your local church by name?

What does it mean if your church has less than 150 people and the answer to any of these questions 'no'? At the very least it means that group size does not determine our behaviour and attitudes.

What does help shape our behaviour and attitudes?

size culture preference

Tony: "Size in numbers is connected with a size culture needing to be broken,”

Tony: “The main problem to growth is size culture preference,”

Tony: “Bigger change is needed (when) shifting from one size to another within the same denomination (than it is to shift between) denominations of the same size.”

When read in isolation, each of these statements is accurate.  We need to become free to be God’s people no matter how big or small the group of people gathered is.  Unfortunately, this is not the context Tony is suggesting, as shown below.

What was Jesus’ focus?  Did he come for the whole world or was it dependent upon the number of people gathered, the church size?

Why did Jesus so often avoid crowds?

 be big or be small

The following is a list of differences between small and larger churches.  The argument posed was churches with large numbers of people (more than 150) need to do things differntly to smaller ones.  Hence, to grow, a church must change the way it does things.  In short, population size affects activity.  An additional conseuqence of this idea is that smaller congregations are inherently different.  But given churches, no matter their size have people in them, is this accurate?

1.  smaller churches are less complex than larger gatherings because as the group size increases…

• The less we will have in common with one another.

But, how does this match with what is written in Ephesians 4?

• Not everything can happen in one Sunday service anymore (e.g. prayer is shifted to prayer meetings, exploring the word to a bible school, discipleship into home groups).

But how could everything occur during a single church service anyway, regardless of its size? What about evangelism, or family, or helping neighbours, etc?  In other words, how does delegating what daily life to set times and facilitators help?  How could you for instance pray, understand God’s word, or disciple others at home, work, school, wherever you are during your week?

2.  smaller churches need less production effort than larger churches

• The more people involved, the more planning, lead time, etc is required to enable services and other activities to occur.  Events can no longer simply be thrown together as they are were with smaller gatherings.

To what extent are these events really necessary?  Are buildings, electronic audio devices, instruments, putting out chairs, etc essential to what God needs to do?  How do similar activities occur in parts of the world where money is non-existent?  Did Jesus live this way?  For Jesus, which came first, his mission or his method?

• Smaller churches don't value the importance of quality of their activities as much as larger churches.  For example, because they embrace people, they permit anyone to sing and play an instrument regardless of their ability. 

Good.  The day we prefer how good a song sounds over the willingness of people to worship God and embrace one another, will be a sad day indeed.  To worry whether visitors are “put-off” based upon singing ability says more about how people view us, than our desire to be in God's presence.  To believe singing ability affects whether people have a “poor” or good impression of the pastor's message, or will “attract people or not” is naive at best (1 Corinthians 2).

3.  the ministry roles of smaller churches are not as specialised as those of larger churches

• Small church ministries generalise what they do whereas larger churches specialise. 

Again, this is not a matter of scale.  God gives his gift for the entire church.  Hospitality, prophesy, teaching, etc are not dependent upon how many people are gathered but who needs to be equipped so they may do what God asks of them.  Why?  Because there are other people who either don’t know him or still need help to grow personally and as a community.

• Only one person who can bring leadership and direction to this church. Thus it is an indictment (strong wrongdoing) for this person to do tasks that others could do. 

Christ and Christ alone is the one and only leader and director of the church.  Placing a person as the sole hearer and interpreter of God's word is dangerous, arrogant, and controlling.  It encourages a false separation among God's people which may cause some to shirk their responsibility to speak with and listen to God directly, and others to not discern or question what they are told to believe and do.

4.  small groups of people do not experience changes to the same degree as bigger groups

• Because not everyone will agree on the course of action to be taken, power to decide
  needs to move away from the congregation (all people) to a leadership team (a few).  This will enable decisions to be made more quickly.
  

Yes, absolutely, there will be times when, maybe every time, when disagreement will occur.  But to justify this as the reason for concentrating this priveledge in the hands of a few has the potential to ignore insight.  At the very least sharing our differences, in a manner that is respectful of others, helps to bring us closer together.  If nothing else, it evidences the contempt and lack of trust some church leaders and pastors have for people.

To simply claim possession of the decision making for yourself is again dangerous, arrogant, and controlling.  Why? People are being asked to rely on Man rather than seek God, together.  The outcome, people are shaped in the image of the decision makers and not God.

So the next time you are invited to seek God about a decision, discern whether your consultation is genuinely being sought: are opposing views listened to and acted upon?  How is the decision to be made proposed: does it sound like they just want agreement on  something they have already decided on? Is there a personal agenda hidden among words that try to convince you that what is being presented is really God's vision?

• When people leave because of the changes, this proves the church is growing.

Why?  What if you are wrong and they were right?  Was consultation ever permitted?  Maybe people are leaving for totally unrelated reasons.  Are people who stay encouraged to speak with those who leave to find out why?

• There needs to be greater emphasis on vision and strength... churches need to do fewer things so they can do them well.  Likewise a church shouldn't try to do everything in the community, but try to do some things really well.  Both of these will depend upon the existing skill set and gift set.

While there is some truth in this, it ignores that regardless of the church size, there may never be every skill and gift available for what God is desiring to do.  It is not enough to limit what can be done based upon the resources available.  Doing this reveals a belief that we can do things in isolation and in our own strength.  Let us start by seeking God about what he is doing and how we need to grow and be equipped to accomplish it.  If this includes  cooperating with people outside our group, so be it.

conclusion

• What does God consider important when it comes to growth?
• Are we lending ourselves to a culture of self, preference, and prejudice?
• Should what we do be a by-product of the size of our church group or should what we do be a product of who we are in Christ?