Junk Food

We all know an exclusive diet of Big Macs isn’t just a bad idea—it’s more like suicide. But it’s even worse to gobble down the half-eaten burgers and cold rubbery fries you find under the back seat of your car. Repulsive, right? But Christians are doing the very same thing.

It wasn’t that long ago that Bill Hybels stood in front of his church—Willow Creek, one of the early pioneers of church growth theory—with his mea culpa. (I’d link to the video of Hybels saying, “We made a mistake,” but they’ve apparently pulled it from their website. But here’s a link to an early newsflash.) After decades of practicing church growth principles, Hybels said, “Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back, it wasn't helping people that much.” Yeah, kinda like fast food.

Today’s church-growth gurus have repackaged the same church-growth theories in cool-sounding, ministry buzzwords like incarnational, missional, and attractional. After a few bites, it becomes apparent that it’s nothing more than half-eaten burgers and cold fries. And it’s not a meal that gets better with age.

One of the more distasteful aspects of the contemporary version of church growth is the franchising, the brand propagation. Cookie-cutter churches are popping up everywhere, powered by church-growth principles, launched with shrewd marketing strategies, legitimized by impressive stats, and stamped with the brand of the celebrity leader and his church franchise. In some cases, you’ll even find the evangelical version of a PlayPlace and a clown. It’s a pattern that works, established by corporate, coming to a church near you.   Keep Reading >>>

You Might Be a Pragmatist

I’d imagine most of us on the conservative end of evangelicalism—whether you’re part of the YRR crowd or the OBR (Old, Boring, Reformed) crowd—we understand the wrongheadedness of church growth methodology. It’s easy to see how men like the early pioneers of church growth (Donald McGavran, C. Peter Wagner, Robert Schuller) and their most famous disciples (Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen) got it wrong.

The theology of the Bible teaches us God is absolutely sovereign over salvation; He alone predestines, calls justifies, and glorifies fallen sinners who are dead in trespasses and sin. Christ is the sovereign head of the church who receives the elect bride from His Father; He alone directs, equips, and grows the church according to the will of the Father. The Holy Spirit is the executor of the Father’s will, drawing the elect to Jesus Christ; He alone regenerates the sinner, seals the elect, and empowers the church for growth and service.

We don’t deny the human element, even as we affirm monergism and divine initiative. God uses means and we’re part of the means He uses to do His work, right? As Paul said, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.” And it’s important to see that the apostolic pattern of planting and watering were not according to a pragmatic, “the end justifies the means” approach. Paul, Apollos, and every other exemplary minister of the apostolic age did ministry according to the means God prescribed (i.e., Eph. 4:11-16) and not according to what seemed reasonable to the culture (i.e., 1 Cor. 2:1-5).

The end goal, as well as the means employed to achieve that end, are important to God. So, when we use pragmatic-oriented church growth principles to plant and water, we go against the grain, planting and watering according to the pattern of the flesh rather than the power of the Spirit. That’s wrong. We, along with Paul, want the faith of those who hear us to rest, not “in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:5).    Keep Reading...

IMAGE