How long have I said this? How many times have I written about the very issue of mainstream Christian churches not producing disciples, only increasing numbers? I tell ya. I should write a book on this stuff. Turns out that Willow Creek, arguably one of the most influential churches in the world, has “repented” and admitted that adding more programs and getting more participants does not lead to spiritual maturity. What it does result in is more participants, higher numbers (both in terms of more people and more money.)
Greg Hawkins, the executive pastor at Willow Creek, has admitted that increased participation is how the church (not just Willow Creek, but other churches too) measure success:
“Participation is a big deal. We believe the more people participating in these sets of activities, with higher levels of frequency, it will produce disciples of Christ … I know it might sound crazy but that
9 Comments
You had me up until \”Folks, …\” While I agree that you don\’t need big budgets and mega-churche buildings to make disciples, don\’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Leaders of local churches (small \”c\”) need to be 1) gripped by the Gospel and 2) be reminded continually that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church (big \”C\”).
I just find it hard to find any good reason to have a church building. Or to have full time ministers. The Body of Christ doesn\’t need those two things.
Ben, this is a fantastic post! Our church is actually talking about this very subject. Some radical things are going to be happening. I know what you are saying about the church building, and programs. Our main gaol should be to make disciples who in turn make disciples, that is the commission Christ gave us. This is done through relationships not through church buildings or church programs. While those things can help, they are nothing without the relationship. Our church is going to be experimenting with the idea of house churches, a small setting where relationships can be formed and questions can be asked. There are many more benefits of a house church… you know what, you just inspired a new post.
Ben, I don\’t think I can effectively say how much I agree with you. It amazes me how difficult it is for most people to comprehend that the church (both big \”C\” and little \”c\”) has nothing at all to do with a building.
My church currently meets in a high school auditorium, and has put a major focus on small groups that meet in people\’s homes once a week. We have one full time pastor and a full time administrator. That\’s it for paid staff (too much, in my opinion). I personally will be a strong voice of dissent if the subject of more full time staff and/or a building come up.
I personally can\’t understand how either will help lead people to Christ… in my opinion, without getting into too much argumentative detail, I think it\’s just the opposite. Both turn the focus inward towards the existing church and towards growing the membership in numbers (and $$), and turn the focus away from spreading the Word and bringing people to Christ.
Hey, if all we\’re talking about here is fostering house-to-house fellowship, showing members that the church extends beyond the property line, reminding folks that it\’s the Lord who builds the house and not men, and focusing on the church\’s calling of making disciples; then I can agree with that.
But to say that we don\’t need full time ministers or dedicated buildings* (see footnote) AT ALL goes a little far for me and seems to undervalue the benefits of both 1) vocational pastor/staff and 2) having dedicated spaces for fellowship. My main concern is that could communicate to people that they can do it on their own, w/o the help of the church body. Maybe Ben and Nick are thinking house church, but the next guy is going, \”I can worship God better in nature … by camping every weekend.\” That\’s just not Biblical.
@justin: I don\’t want to get argumentative, either … I am very aware that the church (both c/C\’s) is not \”the building,\” which is why I said that brokeness and being gripped by the gospel are so important. If the leaders of God\’s people are moved by the Spirit and not their own motivations and fears, then the church building and programs will be in the right framework.
Along these same lines I also think we need to be careful about pointing the finger at the traditional church \”institution\” rather than focusing on the sinful people who make it up. Moving to a house church model is also an institution of sinful people.
BTW, I\’m not trying to defend Willow Creek or mega-churches here. I do have very strong opinions on church size, ministry focus, etc…but those are somewhat off-topic.
* There is a church out in San Diego (Harbor…something) that is multi-site and meets in rented spaces like theatres, schools, etc. They are maybe 1500+ members with sites of around 150. It\’s not house church, but it is a different way of doing church that focuses more on the people and less on the location. Our presbytery is exploring this option as we look to the communities where we think the Lord is leading us to plant churches.
I tend to agree more with Scott and Justin. I do think some sort of structure for weekly corporate gathering is necessary, as are capable leaders who can teach and well … lead.
There is biblical precedent for corporate gatherings. In Acts (the favorite proof-text for people who want to only meet in homes) the early church meet in homes and in the temple courtyard corporately. The early church distanced from the temple courtyard meet in synagogues until it was no longer possible to do so (by then, though there were churches being planted). So, I disagree with the whole \”we need no buildings or leaders\” shtick. Speaking of which, there are many, many precedents for Biblical leadership too. Preachers, ministers, evangelists, teachers, etc., are all outlined in the Scriptures. Many of these outline are charactered by some pretty serious prerequisites for leadership. So, I think its safe to say that leadership and a corporate gathering are Biblical precepts.
Just because these things have been done poorly doesn\’t mean we should do away with the whole idea. Besides, given our weekly work schedules and family responsibilities, if the Church quite Sunday … there would be no Church. Well, there might be a small one, but it would be sick beyond belief.
I agree shawn, there is a need for pastors and church buildings. When I say house church it is not a replacement nor is it a program. It is an extension of the existing church. It\’s main goal is reaching the community, being outward not inward. Does that make sense?
Yep, makes perfect sense. I have much difficulty with the way the offices of church, pastor, and leader have been held and done over the years, but I still think there is great hope in those offices. They just need to be de-bloated, so to speak. To get rid of them completely is to react to emphatically in the opposite direction. The truth is somewhere in the middle, as usual.
The middle is a tricky place.
OK, I did overreact. I would like to redact that last section of my post and insert this:
\”I need to restate that last part as it\’s getting me in trouble
. I don\’t think that we should burn down all the churches in the world. I don\’t think every full time paid minister is useless. I do, however, think that too many times people look to the church for their discipleship and/or spiritual maturity. The fact of the matter is these things can only be obtained through relationships, prayer, Bible study and life experience as you walk through life with other believers. So when I say that \”churches can cause more harm than good\” I really only mean to say that too often a church can be a crutch. If anything it should be an enabler to help people build relationships with each other.\”
Does that make more sense?