Wow, talk about timing. Paul (the Apostle) has got me thinking about how we present the church to the world (my conclusion: we are ’selling’ the wrong thing) and then today I read a great article by another Paul: Paul Williams of the Orchard Group, a church planting organization.
He questions the same things that I’ve been wondering about in a two part article in the Christian Standard, dated Sep. 28th and Oct. 4th. Yes, those are in the future, I get the magazine about 2 weeks in advance. You can read the first article here.
Now, mind you, Paul is not some frustrated minister in a small, rural, dying church, he’s the head of a very successful church planting organization (so go ahead and put that attack card back in your deck, it won’t work here). He has seen enough of the modern church to know the circumstances and the trends out there.
I’ll post the next article when it comes online, but for now, read the first one and listen to what he’s saying. A church is not successful if it attracts a lot of people to a building or a meeting. It’s successful if it leads people to Christ. We don’t need more church corporations, we need more churches that lift up Jesus.
It is great to see you’re back in the blogging groove again. And, as usual, I’ll be back for more good thinking.
Roberto, mi amigo . . .
Any student of history knows “excesses” have a way of taking off like a roman candle, have their time in the sky and burn out. Forty years from now the Carver Policy Governance will have been replaced by something else, the few pastors who built churches and lacked the spiritual depth will have fallen by the wayside and most of those Carver-Mega Churches, so many people are concerned about, will be on their second . . . or sixth minister since the resignation/retirement/firing/death of the original guru . . .
or they will have withstood the test of time, perhaps.
So . . . even Knute Rockne figured out the ground game needed something new . . . the forward pass. Woody Hayes, bless his heart, kept “three yards and a cloud of dust” going into the 70’s and begrudgingly passed from time to time. Then comes Don Coryell and the Chargers with “Air Coryell” and then Bill Walsh turns everything upside down with the “West Coast Offense”.
I think the critics of the Carver-Mega Church idea are simply Woody Hays’ shaking their heads at “Air Coryell”. No?
Of course, my whole comment begs the questions: Does the New Testament Church have to follow the structure of the 1st century churches? Is the experience of organizing a church the same in the 21st century as it was in the 1st?
As always, you make me think. Gracias, pastor bondadoso.
Norm
Norm, thanks for the comment, good to hear from one who has ‘been in the trenches’ already with the church growth movement.
I don’t think the issue is one of methodology: direct mail vs. door to door, funding sources vs. loans, hiring from within vs. coaching services, etc.
The issue is one of spiritual health. Are we growing healthy churches with modern, effective means? If so, then praise the Lord. It’s not that important that we plant it this way or that way, but that we are planting God-honoring churches that preach the Gospel and disciple people to be like Jesus.
I think Paul is just wondering about the McChurches that apply a business model and hire a CEO to program a church to attract customers: have they lost their soul? If they are applying good sense to make a good church, then good. But if it’s just a business model, watch out.
I think he’s just asking the questions, not leveling a charge or making an accusation. Ultimately each church will have to ask that question honestly.
And, in the end, out-dated models can be just as unhealthy as the McChurch.
Wait till you read next week’s article!
Oh, and given the innovator that Paul is, I don’t think his reaction is just a “We’ve never done it that way!”
Mi Amigo,
I’m a Paul Williams fan too. I read his article in the CS every week, simply because he makes sense and makes me think . . . even when I disagree.
I don’t know how many years I’ve been reading him, but some issues he’s the only guy or gal that does make sense. That leads me to admit when he says something, I consider what he has to say.
Nonetheless, my questions from above (in the sense of the article above, not the heaven above) still remain. I shall await the second half of the article before I slather my words with mustard and eat them. OK?
Give my best to the Urchin.
Norm