Mega Implications
Still thinking about the mega church article and the questions it brings to my mind.
As Greg pointed out quite a few of us understand the contributing factors of a church going the other way! But what makes a church in this climate and culture of TODAY have success for the kingdom?
What contributing factors propel a church of 100 to a church of 1000 plus?
Let’s rule out right from the start two things:
- That God is not behind the growth. (Let’s take the biblical view that says God gives the increase and heed the warning of giving the devil credit for the work of God)
- Smaller is better because smaller is faithful. (Let’s take the biblical view that God wants all people to be saved and adds saved people to a local church)
Have you heard of any Church of Christ that has gone from 100 to 1000 plus without sheep shuffling?
In other words has there been a Church of Christ plant in the same time frame as these other churches that has achieved the same results?
And . . .
What makes us think that restoration movement stopped?
I mean if we trace our roots through the reformation movement which led to the restoration movement do we seriously believe that they got it right in the early 1800′s and the movement stopped?
What if the community church movement is the evolution (and I use that in a good sense) of the restoration movement?
What if the community church movement is the current stream of authentic New Testament flavored Christ living?
From where I sit it appears that the stream we’ve camped in is not flowing and nothing is going to change (for the better, for the kingdom) until we immerse ourselves into a living stream.
I had to chuckle at the tone of the article. I can just see Jane Goodall in the bushes nearby observing these strange creatures who, who put their arms up in the air, and get “caught up” in a song, or are clapping and swaying. What strange creatures indeed! Methings the reporter needs to get out more.
To address your questions: I don’t see CofC’s replicating this as long as we continue to think of ourselves in terms of a 19th century “Restoration Movement.” Whether a mega-church model is the right measurement is a separate question, but we’ve hitched ourselves to an old institutional wagon when it comes to living out who is my neighbor.
zman yes I agree that whether or not the mega church model is the right measurement is a separate question. Clearly there are smaller or mid size churches that are being effective for the kingdom and probably some larger ones that are not. I would even imagine there are some house churches out there making a huge impact for the kingdom. Wrestling more with the thought of why one church draws people and another does not.
Thank you for being willing to address this both on your blog and through the study of Galatians in class. Stagnant is never healthly nor is it honoring to God. We need to become relevant again, or we will not reach others for the Kingdom. This is something we all need pour our hearts out to God about and ask for Him to work in us as believers and as a church.
Part of the problem I see in coCs is the eldership. Most of those guys, as good of men as they are, are pretty much stuck in the institutional model and they are very comfortable there. To actually be shepherds and LEAD the congregation where they would not go on their own (which is basically the picture of a shepherd and his flock of sheep) requires for more faith and involvement than I’ve seen most elderships want to expend.
Anyone who believes in what is sometimes referred to as the “Great Pit (God was with us in the 1st Century, the great pit / no one in the club / God comes back on the scene in 1800′s America) Theory of Church History is in the great pit of denial. God has always and will continue to use people whether they be in or out of our small and declining fellowship.
There is hope (and God) out there if one / one’s church is willing to discover that there are other islands out there, in fact, many more of them than just our little island. God is good, all the time.
RDW -
I guess we could come up with all sorts of reasons: leadership, minister personality, worship style, offering what people “want,” location, etc. I personally believe its what others have touched on above: leadership & institutional/structural barriers for a typical CoC.
I heard an interesting tidbit the other day from a former Pepperdine prof. that is somewhat related, particularly to cwinwc’s point. The Anabaptists were very similar in their call to restore the NT way a couple centuries before Campbell/Stone, CoC, et. al. Their progeny today are Amish, Brethren & Mennonite traditions. CoC based their call to restoration more on structure, hence the emphasis on the Book of Acts. Anabaptists based their call to restoration more on personal piety, thus their emphasis on the gospels and today on pacifism & peace movements.
Neither one seems to be growing (by a numbers measurement) so perhaps the moral of the story is a call to NT restoration is the wrong emphasis.
Optimistic response: These are exciting times because it challenges us to change and rethink how we serve God and our fellow human beings.
Pessimistic response: These are discouraging times because it challenges us to change and rethink how we serve God and our fellow human beings.