One fall nearly two decades ago, I joined several dozen fellow first-year students at Fuller Seminary in a required class on evangelism. We were a varied lot, but we shared an earnestness of faith and a loyalty to the church.
One day, a guest teacher joined us, a bona fide “church growth consultant,” we were told, although many of us were unfamiliar with the term. He brought an easel with graphs, reams of statistics, and-fatally-glib talk about special banquets for “key players.”
Without knowing it, he quickly turned off many of us by what we considered pat plans and manipulative schemes. We who knew what the church was supposed to be (after all, we were seminarians!) considered his methods crass and his motivations suspect. Preach the gospel, we thought, and all this other stuff will be unnecessary. It was all we could do to remain polite through his promotional song and dance.
For the next several years, that experience colored my opinion of church growth. It was something those odd fellows with goatees and calculators in the School of World Mission were fooling with. Heaven forbid that it invade the School of Theology!
Later, as a pastor returning to seminary for D.Min. classes, I decided to enroll in a church growth course, mainly to be a better-informed opponent. But I emerged from the intensive classes with a grudging appreciation for church growth theory and a great fondness for its main popularizer, Peter Wagner. I also sported a new electronic calculator (but no goatee).
My continuing study of church growth eventually formed the basis for my ministry as pastor of a “rurban” church (a church growth term) and even my first LEADERSHIP article. This pastor, who at first glance disdained church growth, later embraced it and enjoyed its influence.
So I’m biased. But am I alone in that bias? What exactly has been the history of the attitudes toward the theory Donald McGavran first made public to American pastors in his still-in-print Understanding Church Growth (Eerdmans, 1970)? How widely has it been accepted and utilized?
A Brief History
The church growth movement is not some radical idea generated in America and peddled to the rest of the world. It arose first in India in 1936, a product of the observations of McGavran, a third-generation missionary. Nearly twenty years later, he wrote The Bridges of God, and then in 1959 published How Churches Grow.
Even the term church growth is credited to McGavran, who coined it to escape some of the negative baggage of evangelism. Ironically, McGavran actually quit using the term church growth a couple of years before he died in 1990, for it, too, had become a loaded term. Instead, he switched to effective evangelism.
While the church growth movement generated debate in missions circles in the early years, only a few stateside pastors signed on. It wasn’t until the early 1970s that its domestic application became the subject of books and studies. People such as former missionary to Latin America Peter Wagner began to popularize it in books and seminary classes. About the same time, Win Arn left an Evangelical Covenant Church office to package McGavran’s insights into books, films, and seminars through his Institute for American Church Growth.
Others on Fuller Seminary’s School of World Missions faculty joined in. Missiologist Arthur Glasser and missionary anthropologist Alan Tippett wrote about the theology of church growth, while Charles Kraft and Paul Hiebert added insights from the social sciences.
From outside Fuller, Baptist Elmer Towns began studying large and growing churches. Pastor and consultant Carl George joined the Charles E. Fuller Institute for Evangelism and Church Growth, where he expanded its programs to help churches grow. Respected church consultant Lyle Schaller, while not becoming a church growth devotee per se, lent much credibility to the movement. Help came even from an unexpected source, when a National Council of Churches staff member, Dean M. Kelley, published the unsettling Why Conservative Churches Are Growing, which resulted in pushing formerly reluctant pastors into the arms of church growth advocates.
By the mid 1970s, church growth was a hot topic. People were polarized. Words ranging from support to caution to bitter opposition came from many quarters-Eternity magazine and The Christian Century, scholarly missiological journals and denominational organs, platform speakers and seminary podiums and Christian publishers.
By 1975, however, the United Presbyterian Church had already established a Committee on Church Growth, so the theory was making its way into the mainline denominations. Before long, a confirmed church growth advocate, George G. Hunter III, became secretary for evangelism for the United Methodist Church.
Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, church growth has been thoroughly debated, broadly disseminated, and, some would say, lamentably diluted by parties from all sides.
The term church growth belongs now to a number of schools of thought, each adding its own spin to the meaning. Like Scotch Tape, it has gone generic.
The church growth movement has made itself felt in the local church. And now that the movement has reached the age of maturity-21-the LEADERSHlP editors wondered how readers today feel about church growth beliefs and methodology.
So in the spring of 1991, LEADERSHIP commissioned a study to determine pastors’ opinions of church growth. A sample of 500 LEADERSHIP subscribers was chosen at random by computer and sent questionnaires. Of that number, 173 responded, giving a 36 percent response rate-sufficient to make the findings statistically significant.
When the CTi research department tabulated the results, here’s what we discovered.
Awareness of Church Growth
Most pastors (86 percent) have heard of church growth, and half have been aware of it for more than ten years. (See Graph 1.) Only about one in seven heard the term first when reading the survey. Who are these people who hadn’t yet met our 21-year-old?
Education appears to make a difference. Of those who have a master’s degree, only 10 percent had not heard of church growth. Of those with no master’s degree, twice as many (20 percent) were in the dark.
Another factor is age: only 7 percent of those 35 to 44 were unfamiliar with the concept, whereas 20 percent (nearly three times as many) of those 45 and older and 27 percent (almost four times the number) of pastors under 35 had not. Obviously, it’s the baby-boomers who have been exposed to church growth the most.
Graph 2 shows how respondents first heard of church growth in a significant way.
Favor Is Increasing
Most respondents like church growth, and the general regard for it is improving.
Specifically, when asked to rate their overall impression of church growth on a scale of one to ten, two-thirds ranked it between seven and ten. Three-quarters marked it positive (six or higher). Conversely, only 14 percent ranked their impression of church growth negatively in the one-to-four range.
On the average, respondents currently award church growth a ranking of 6.87 (out of 10).
These impressions have been warming over time. When compared with first impressions of church growth, pastors are currently more favorable. (See Graph 3.)
More than twice as many (19 percent compared to 9 percent) held strongly negative first impressions (marking a 1, 2, or 3) as compared to present feelings. And only 40 percent had an original strongly positive impression (8 to 10 on the scale), compared to 46 percent now. The average first impression was 6.26-still positive, but lower than the present 6.87.
When asked whether their impressions had changed over time, nearly half (45 percent) said they now hold more positive impressions, while a little more than a quarter (28 percent) have more negative impressions, and just over a quarter (27 percent) haven’t changed their impressions of church growth. (See Graph 4.)
Some changed their rating of church growth by several positions. One-sixth (17 percent) rated it today significantly more positive (at least four points higher) than their original impression. Less than half as many (8 percent) gave it significantly lower marks, cutting at least four points from their original estimation.
We wondered if those who like church growth might be from larger churches that have found success in its methods. When we ran a statistical test of regard for church growth compared to church size and the church’s recent growth or decline, we found no significant factors. In other words, those who liked church growth weren’t necessarily in large or growing churches. Like or dislike of church growth spread nearly equally among churches of all sizes and growth patterns.
Some statistical quirks did appear, however. For instance, not one church with a decline in attendance during the last two years gave church growth a rating lower than a 6! Even those “losing” the numbers game were positive toward church growth. And small churches with between fifty and one hundred in attendance were also nearly as positive, since their lowest (and also least frequent) rating was a 5. The few megachurches with attendance over two thousand rated church growth in the 8 and 9 range exclusively.
The love for church growth obviously isn’t universal, but the trend has been to embrace it.
The Methodology? Not Bad
What are the responses to the specific elements of classic church growth theory? Most appear to be at ease with many of its habits. For instance, when asked to respond to the statement, Church growth methods should not be used no matter how well they appear to work, respondents disagreed by a ratio of 21 to 1 (84 percent disagreed; 4 percent agreed).
Most appear to believe that church growth methodology has some validity. In other words it’s something that can be used; it’s not anathema anymore.
Respondents also consider church growth methods effective enough to be worth using. Some 87 percent agreed with the comment Church growth efforts can be successful, depending on the church people and community involved. Only 9 percent disagreed.
And when the idea was approached from the opposite side, nearly two-thirds (64 percent) disagreed with the statement Church growth methods don’t work very well in most situations. Only 4 percent agreed. Respondents have obviously been convinced that as a methodology, church growth works.
They also believe church growth aids evangelism, at least 79 percent do. This broad majority agreed (and 15 percent “strongly agreed”) that The use of church growth methods is an effective way of going about evangelism and outreach. Just 7 percent disagreed with the statement, and another 2 percent strongly disagreed-about one in ten when added together.
Respondents also were favorable (but not as strongly) toward the use of goals and statistics, something church growth has pushed with a passion. A total of 61 percent agreed that Attention should be placed on goal setting and statistical analysis in an effective church growth program (52 percent agreed; 9 percent strongly agreed). Twenty-two percent disagreed, and 17 percent had mixed or no feelings on the subject. Obviously an ample majority have resolved any qualms about goal setting and statistical analysis, but a significant number retain some lingering doubts.
Pastor’s Role? Vital
Respondents gave their strongest endorsement to this observation: The pastor has the essential leadership role in a church’s efforts to grow. Exactly half strongly agreed. Another 40 percent agreed. Just 6 percent disagreed, and only 1 percent strongly disagreed.
As one church observer said, “It looks like the era of the pastor-as-enabler is nearly over. When nine out of ten think the pastor’s leadership makes or breaks a church’s growth efforts, this is a far cry from the prevailing mood of a generation past, when the pastor’s job was mainly to understand and facilitate the process by which others accomplished the church’s work. Rightly upset with clericalism and empire building, pastors sometimes went the other direction toward not being aggressive and initiators.” The pendulum seems to have swung.
Church growth has built the conviction that, according to Peter Wagner in Your Church Can Grow, “The primary catalytic factor for growth in the local church is the pastor.”
That places a heavy weight on the pastor’s shoulders. Consider the implications.
If the church grows: It needs to keep growing, and any false move by the pastor can bring it to a halt. The pressure is on.
If the church fails to grow: “Why, it’s the pastor’s fault, since leadership is ‘primary.’ So, what’s wrong with our pastor?”
Any number of mitigating circumstances might lead to a plateau or decline, but the pastor usually bears the brunt of responsibility, at least in perception if not in reality.
The Lost? Mixed Feelings
At the heart of the original church growth theory is a passion for evangelism. Church growth remains lashed to the mast of the Great Commission to “go and make disciples of all nations.” Has that grand fervor infected all who embrace church growth?
Well, respondents don’t appear ready to jettison what Arthur Glasser has termed the cultural mandate to pursue singlemindedly the evangelistic mandate. When asked to respond to the statement Evangelistic efforts are more important than any social action a church could take, over half the respondents (53 percent) agreed, but a substantial group (37 percent) disagreed, and 10 percent straddled the fence.
This mild victory for what appears to be the church growth party line shows some desire for a full-orbed gospel rather than the salvation of souls to the exclusion of physical or community needs. Yes, evangelism is important-supremely important-but respondents seemed more than a little uneasy with the word any, as in “more important than any social action.”
Church growth theorists agree for the most part that the cultural mandate-love for the world and one’s neighbor-has importance along with evangelism. Missiologist Tetsunao Yamamori coined a term for how evangelism and social action ought to fit together: contextual symbiosis.
Symbiosis means that the two are partners, each separate but depending heavily on the other (like bees and flowers). And the context determines the exact relationship between the cultural mandate and the evangelistic mandate. If people are starving, give them food; if they are perishing spiritually, give them the Word. Respondents appear to agree, with a slight bias toward the Bread of Life.
Fully two-thirds agreed with the statement, The unchurched should be seen by the congregation as “lost sheep” (including 25 percent who “strongly agreed”). About one in five disagreed, and 3 percent disagreed strongly. That means nearly a quarter don’t like the concept of “lost sheep,” while two-thirds retain that biblical metaphor and see church growth as a search-and-rescue effort for some of God’s straying flock.
Homogeneous Units? Not Necessarily
The one place where respondents clearly departed from classic church growth dogma was their reaction to this statement: Evangelistic efforts should be directed mainly toward responsive people. Respondents split almost evenly: 5 percent strongly agree, 39 percent agree, 9 percent said don’t know/doesn’t apply, 39 percent disagree, and 8 percent strongly disagree. That means 47 percent would not endorse directing evangelistic efforts mainly toward people more apt to respond to the gospel, while 44 percent would.
It was a close race, but it seems respondents couldn’t quite face the idea of not at least trying to reach everybody, no matter what the odds.
Church growth theorists have been pragmatic: Send evangelistic resources where they can do the most good. If a church can reach a hundred new mothers a year but only spin its wheels with retirees, it should go after the new mothers. Respondents weren’t ready to say that so baldly, but neither were they overwhelming in their opposition. In fact, there was no majority on this opinion, only a plurality.
Perhaps this question brushed too closely against the great harbinger of debate: the homogeneous unit principle (HUP), which simply states, “People like to become Christians without crossing racial, linguistic, or class barriers.” To many, that sounds vaguely racist, separatist, or something equally distasteful. Isn’t the church, after all, the place where all God’s children got shoes?
It may be, but they’re not all penny loafers, and the penny loafers tend to find other penny loafers to join, rather than wingtips or Air Jordans.
That’s the tendency church growth people from McGavran on down have observed and have tried to use to keep the evangelism process as simple as possible. Use a penny loafer to evangelize a penny loafer. It works. An Air Jordan might intimidate and a wingtip confuse a penny loafer, but another penny loafer may well communicate.
In a theoretical sense, respondents bought that proposition, giving the statement Social and physical barriers to including the unchurched should be lowered an 85 percent rate of agreement (35 percent strongly agreeing). Only 7 percent disagreed.
The statement sounded egalitarian, but perhaps it put the HUP in sheep’s clothing since it states the essence of that principle. The sociological “barriers” that make evangelizing the unchurched difficult are things such as social classes, musical tastes, occupations, races, and mother tongues.
In church growth talk, to “lower the barriers” is to evangelize like with like as much as possible-not because it’s preferred socially, but because it’s more effective.
Perhaps the 85 percent acceptance rate might have been a little lower had people read the code words for the homogeneous unit principle in that statement.
While they’re uneasy with allowing the HUP to circumscribe evangelism, respondents appear to recognize how it works. In fact, 66 percent agreed with the descriptive statement, Effective church growth efforts attract and keep people who are similar. Nearly a quarter were undecided, and only 10 percent disagreed.
“It works,” those surveyed seem to say. “This is what happens, but it ought not be that way. We just can’t wrap our thinking around the HUP enough to get ourselves to direct our evangelistic efforts toward the greatest return if it means turning our backs to others. Everybody needs to hear, not just the responsive, so we’ll give them all a try, even if it’s less efficient with the kingdom’s resources.
Has Church Growth Been Effective?
There are several ways to assess the effectiveness of church growth. If you look at its effect in terms of Americans attending church, twenty-one years has made remarkably little difference. According to the Gallup Report, church attendance has remained stable at between 40 and 41 percent. Church growth churches and pastors haven’t exactly drained the sofas and beaches of their Sunday occupants.
Yet many churches are growing, and a crowd of them appear to be following the church growth lead. Is it possible that societal trends since 1970 would have seriously eroded the church were it not for the influence of church growth? Business people know that to retain sales levels in a down market is success. Could that be the case for churches?
About half of the respondents had fewer than 200 in attendance on a typical Sunday, a third averaged 200 to 500, and the remaining sixth counted 500 or more people on a Sunday.
Yet among all these churches, an average of thirty new believers began attending last year. (Even churches under 200 in average attendance gained an average of ten.) Churches with no new believers beginning to attend: 9 percent. Churches with over 100 new believers: 7 percent.
The respondents to this survey, who generally favor church growth, are also leading churches that generally are growing. Many exceptions exist, and some of those for good reason. But the gospel is being spread. The evangelistic mandate is at work. “Men and women who do not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ are being brought into fellowship with him and into responsible church membership,” to paraphrase a foundational definition of church growth.
Church growth has reached maturity at 21 and now appears to have found a significant ministry among many North American churches.
Copyright © 1991 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
