Skip to main content

Health over Growth

Having grown up in a Fundamentalist (not fightin' fundy), Baptist (not big "B) church for most of my life, I have always believed that mega churches use unscriptural methods in order to grow. I have heard all the arguments used, normally consisting of casual dress (normally meaning women wear pants and the men don't wear ties...) and "contemporary" music. While broadbrushing the category is unwise, I would have to say that many complaints against the methodology of most mega churches is legit.

What troubles me, however, is not the big churches. What troubles me is that the "good" churches (generally smaller by comparison) condemn the mega church, but yet they buy into the same pragmatic thinking used by the liberals. I think it boils down to the simple truth that people, in general, are concerned and impressed by numbers. Society persuades us to believe that "small" is inferior to "BIG." Being small, by comparison, means that you are not as effective in methodology and execution as the "BIG."

A couple of quotes relating growth to the church:
  • "Numbers are important, because numbers represent people."
  • "The result of growth is not necessarily bad, but the goal of growth leads to pragmatism and compromise."
I would contend that the goal of the church should be health, not growth. (And for those of you that think I just made an egregious error by not stating that the goal should be the glory of God, I am including that idea in the word health.) Now do not misunderstand, health often leads to growth. Growth cannot be made to be wrong in and of itself. The 1st century church grew by leaps and bounds. However, the goal of a church cannot be growth. This reasoning makes me conclude that people should not write books relating the Church to a business. The goal of business is growth and gain. (sorry for the alliteration) The goal of the church is the glory of God through means of worship, evangelism, discipleship, fellowship, and ministry.

A church may have to become healthy before it begins to grow. It goes against all human logic to not experience "success" when we are doing things "correctly." This would have to go back to our definition of "success." When glorifying God as mentioned above is the goal, men do not count people on Sunday morning so that they can report on how bad the pastor is. This is man-centered, anti-Biblical thinking. I would tend to think that one reason a church may not be growing is because of the ones who are more concerned with attendance rather than worship.

For some good reading on this topic, check out Mark Dever's "9 Marks of a Healthy Church." (see the Solid Ground sidebar to go to 9Marks Ministries.

Popular posts from this blog

USA v. Ghana: Line-up & Prediction

This is the most interesting game of the tournament as far as what is at stake. The USA need a win by at least 3 goals if the Czech and Italians were to tie. If Italy were to beat the Czech, all the USA would need is a win. Here is my "best-bet" line-up: GK - Keller D - Bocanegra, Gooch (yc), Cherundolo MF - Beasley, Reyna (yc), Dempsey, O'Brien, Donovan F - McBride, E. Johnson Notes: - 3 in the back will force play outside; Dempsey (RWM) and Beasley (LWM) are fast enough to play both ways - Midfield control will be the most crucial factor to a multi-goal win. We will not counter-attack well with the speed of the Ghana side. Also, if we don't control the midfield, Michael Essien will. - I think McBride and Johnson are the best bet up front. McBride receives the ball well. Johnson's size, quickness, and skill will serve us well. - A big question is who will play Def. MF. With no Mastroeni, we resort to either Dempsey or O'Brien in a 3-5-2 formation. SUBS: - Con...

Don't be 'Joe Fan'

The response from Wednesday's USA last minute thriller versus Algeria felt like the crest of a crescendo that had been swelling since 2000 or so, or maybe even 1996 at the outset of MLS. My favorite US Soccer fan type is 'Joe Fan' who only watches soccer for 1 month out of every four years. He knows general soccer lingo. He even knows the favorites to win the tournament. None of these, though, is his calling card. You'll know Joe Fan by this very one thing -- as the World Cup is discussed among him, he'll whip out his anti-USA soccer spiel that he's been working on all week, or worse -- the one he heard from Michael Wilbon on PTI the previous afternoon. Most Joe Fan-types have these things in common: They think soccer is boring because there isn't much scoring. Soccer isn't even as big as hockey in the US, so it must not matter much. He thinks that since the USA isn't a top 10 favorite to win the World Cup, they must not be any good. He sees the USA ...

Favre Talking Points

I was a closet Green Bay fan in high school, mainly because of some big-time Packer fans in my church. Granted, it was easy to pull for them, since they weren't rivals with America's Team -- that's right! What intrigues me the most is that three teams took different approaches to Brett Favre, and I believe they would've have been mistaken to respond differently. Packers were criticized (as was Favre) for not letting Favre come back. I'm sure there are still some detractors that would say Favre would've won more games than Rodgers (6). What's interesting is that Aaron Rodgers QB stats (other than wins) were better than Favre's. The point is that, the Packers weren't going to win the NFC last season, with or without #4. They could be a Super Bowl team in 2-3 years. The Packers made a great move by parting with Favre. It couldn't have happened better for them. Jets are a bit more troublesome to parse apart. The only thing that makes them look foolis...