I want to share a great quote from Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion
“Fix-the-church books almost always figure that declining church attendance … means the church has messed something up. Even though the new crop of church books decry the old church-growth models, they still operate with the same basic assumption: namely, that churches should be growing and something is wrong with the church that isn’t.
This assumption, however, is alien to the New Testament. Didn’t Jesus say tell us that “the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matt. 7:14)? Wasn’t the early church of Philadelphia commended by the Lord Jesus even though they were facing opposition and had “little power” (Rev. 3:7-13)? There is simply no biblical teaching to indicate that church size is the measure of success.
We’ve written before that ministry progress is not measured by numerical growth, but by the creation of disciples who make other disciples. But this post is exposing the double standard, those who would “have their cake and eat it, too.”
Authors like George Barna like to use statistics showing the decline in church attendance to damn the church, but then quickly defend the 5-person house church because “progress is not measured by numbers.” So if the institutional church is losing numbers, it is always because they are doing church wrong. But if organic churches are not growing, then it’s for some other reason. All I’m asking for here is fairness. Isn’t it possible that a particular church isn’t growing because it is rightly teaching Law and Gospel and people don’t like to hear it? Isn’t it possible that a particular organic church isn’t growing because of the home leader’s pride? It works both ways, which is why numbers are not a good indicator of spiritual maturity nor ministry progress, no matter what church model we’re discussing.
Agreed, the numbers game is not the best way to evaluate the efficacy of any church expression, yet they are still one way to measure the church’s significance. In Acts, the numbers seem quite important in communicating how Jesus’ Spirit was at work growing the church. Numbers are quite good at evaluating the growth of churches using the Christendom model. But they are difficult to apply to multi-generational movements where growth occurs exponentially.
I prefer your measurement system—the creation of disciples who disciple—even then, the institutional church can not measure up. If DeYoung & Kluck are using this argument to undermine “fix-the-church” practitioners or to prop up the church, as we have known it, they are deflecting the obvious shortcomings of Christendom. In empowering this strawman argument are we fanning the smoldering embers of the church when it needs to be ignited elsewhere?
Interesting points and question, Tim. I disagree with you that numbers are a way to measure a church’s significance. There are mosques with large numbers of attendees, but they have zero kingdom significance (other than being fellow sinners in need of God’s grace). Kingdom significance is a qualitative measurement, not a quantitative one.
The book of Acts certainly does mention numbers, and Luke’s goal was to accurately record early Christian history. Not to brag about how many converts one apostle had versus another. I think intent is important here. The book of Acts mentioning 3,000 baptisms in one day is a far cry from many of today’s preachers exclaiming “400 people got saved last week!” from a manipulate evangelism altar call. This is not to say that all preachers who announce numbers are wrong, once again intention is key.
The church will likely never measure up to any measurement system imposed on her that is quantitative. The metric of disciples who make other disciples does work because it is qualitative. Is this occurring or not? Yes or no? NOT: How many disciples are being made? If we ask “how many” it again becomes quantitative.
My goal here is not to excuse the Church’s shortcomings, but I must also be careful when critiquing Christ’s Bride for whom He died. I do so out of great love for Her, not to simply scold her. This post is simply asking for fairness. While many critique Her for not growing, they still operate under the very standard they accuse: a quantitative metric.
I’m simply asking that the Church’s success be judged based on quality, not on quantity. Changed lives, not just filled seats.
I completely agree that declining numbers do not necessarily imply decreasing effectiveness or health. They can also point to a situation where the church is refusing to give into the temptation to simply please the masses and fill the seats. A community that issues (and then supports) a call to whole-life discipleship is going to witness the exit of those who are seeking anonymous consumer Christianity. In such a scenario, decreasing numbers can signify a healthy pruning.
Likewise, increasing numbers does not necessarily mean increasing health or effectiveness. The opposite of the above scenario could lead to an increase in attendance due to a decrease in expectations of disciples.
However, we have to remember something very significant before dismissing numbers completely. Regardless of how the modern (or even premodern) church may have treated attendance, numbers represent individual people for whom God cares greatly. The invitation to the new Kingdom is appealing – particularly to those who have realized that the present kingdom leaves something to be desired. A church whose aim is to cultivate disciple-makers should be making disciples… which means there is an expectation of numerical growth. The lack of such growth can be the result of a number of factors (again, not all of which are bad). One factor, which we should be very concerned about avoiding, is complacency regarding the need to introduce others to the Way of Christ.
If the missional church is truly committed to the vision of following God into the dark places and serving among the broken and hurting, then numbers will follow. We don’t count those numbers the way that others have done. We are more interested in shared life than anonymously sharing a meeting space. We sometimes say, “Count conversations rather than conversions.” But in the end, the goal is proclaim the kingdom, to begin living its reality and to anticipate its full arrival…and to do so in full view of others who we hope and pray will share in the celebration of this good news with us. Numbers are not unimportant or insignificant when seen in this light.
Good thoughts, Bret. You are right that numbers are important insofar as there are people who do not know Christ, so long as the “numbers game” isn’t being played or the sole effectiveness of a ministry being judged by numerical growth. My point here was to ask for fairness: don’t judge by a standard then excuse oneself from the same standard.
Dan,
You said in one of your comments: “Kingdom significance is a qualitative measurement, not a quantitative one.”
I would ammend that to say that, “Kingdom significance is a christological and scriptural measurement, not a qualitative or quantitative one.”
Our consciences are to remain captive to the Word of God and nothing else. One does not “make disciples” quantitatively or qualitatively. One makes disciples by pointing them to the Christ in all things in accordance with Holy Scripture.
This is somewhat semantics, Mike. I agree with you. I would simply say that this is a qualitative process. There is such a thing as good and poor quality teaching, which is half the discipleship equation (the other half is baptism).
I am not trying to argue semantics and it is certainly not my point to pick an arguement where none exists. I understand what you mean, but I have spent enough time in enough churches to know that “quality” is in the eye of the beholder. That is my issue… not so much that you are wrong (because you are right in this case), but that an insistience on mere “quality” over “quantity” leaves too much room for error.
It is not enough for someone to “have faith”. One must ask, “faith in what?” After all, many who “have faith” in their own righteousness before God are headed for hell. By the same token, it is not enough for a church to evaluate the success of a church based on the quality of its mission and the external evidence of changed lives. If that is enough, then the Mormons have achieved that standard through their quality-based religion. One must ask, “quality… but based on what?”
The answer to that must be “quality based on Christ and the Scriptures” in keeping with “teaching them everything that I [Christ] have commanded you”. I agree with your critiques that the quantitative evaluation of the church is outright wrong. We agree on this point. I just think that we must be very precise in what we present as the correct alternative.
This is where I think that large segments of the post-modern and missional movements get it wrong. They identify the error that you have identified, but they perscribe a quality that is judged by human standards rather than the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. Because of this, it is not enough to say quality. One must qualify what the quality is based on. I don’t think that such a thing is splitting hairs. Of course, you are entitled to disagree.
Actually Mike, now that you put it that way I can see it is not semantics. You are absolutely correct. Quality is useless if not based rightly on Christ and His Word. And yes, missional movements do get this wrong on occasion. Most of us imply this, but we need to spell it out more. Good points.
You don’t want masses but you do want “The Masses”, i.e. the poor/uneducated. You don’t want quantity(or do you-your Presiding Bishop Hansen seems proud to introduce himself as head of “the largest group of Lutherans in North America.”) You don’t want conversions-but you worry that once Ole and Lena have gone to their reward, you won’t have anybody to fund relief programs and keep the heat on.
You haven’t made up your minds. It is inevitable that you will continue to shrink. You once mistook growth as a sign that people approved of you; you now mistake shrinking as a sign that God approves of you. Delusional still.
Nixon, huh? We have no presiding bishop, missional Lutherans are not an organization nor are we part of any denomination, although individual members may be. Who is Bishop Hansen? Never heard of him/her….
And by the way, We do hope to see many people come to know Jesus (but our goal is to make quality disciples, not just to fill lots of seats). We do want conversions, and we don’t believe church has anything to do with buildings – so who cares if the heat stays on? We have homes….
As far as being delusional, I believe we’re being quite scriptural. We’re being missional followers of Jesus. Read more about what this means for us at http://missionallutherans.org/what-does-it-mean-to-be-missional
It appears you perhaps have us mistaken for someone else….