Why do churches grow? Examine critically the theories of Donald A.

McGavran
Introduction

The term, Church Growth was used by McGavran, D. A. who had served in India from 1 !" to 1 ## as a missionary. In his mission fie$d he %uestioned himse$f why some churches &rew and some churches didn't( To find the answer, he e)amined the *rocess of conversion of *eo*$e in India. Throu&h this, +e found severa$ ,ey *rinci*$es for the &rowth of churches. They inc$ude *eo*$e movement, homo&eneous unit, rece*tivity, and socio$o&ica$ *rinci*$e. Those *rinci*$es have been critici-ed by the traditiona$ theo$o&ies of missio$o&y such as Mission .tation A**roach and Individua$ Conversion. They have a$so been critici-ed for $ac, of the /ib$ica$ and theo$o&ica$ foundation. In this, the ma0or issue in Church Growth is whether or not its *rinci*$es come from the /ib$e and whether or not they are contrary to the /ib$e. They tend to $ead into a methodo$o&ica$ orientation for the &rowth of church rather than a theo$o&ica$ orientation by em*hasi-in& numero$atry of statistics. .uch a criticism on the ,ey *rinci*$es wi$$ be discussed. In this easy, the va$ues of the *rinci*$es wi$$ a$so be assessed.

Evaluation of Princi les of !hurch Growth

1hy do churches &row( 2or this %uestion, McGavran su&&ests some em*irica$ e)*eriences for the &row of churches in his boo,, Understanding Church Growth3 the de&ree of rece*tivity, understandin& what facts have brou&ht men to Christ, anthro*o$o&ica$ understandin& to discover why certain churches have &rowth and others have not, statistics of socio$o&ica$ method to ,now the &rowth histories of s*ecific churches, and homo&eneous unit &rowth. Church Growth schoo$ has faced the /ib$ica$ and theo$o&ica$ criticism, because of its $ac, of the /ib$ica$ and theo$o&ica$ foundation. The /ib$ica$ bac,&round of Church

Growth schoo$ is at $ar&e on the covenant of God with +is *eo*$e, the &reat commission from Matthew !43145!6, and the *arab$es of 7esus of the 8in&dom. It em*hasi-es the %uantitative &rowth of churches. .uch a &rowth can be investi&ated throu&h statistics of socio$o&ica$ method. This socio$o&ica$ method in Church Growth $eads to evan&e$istic strate&ies for church *$antin&. It is usefu$ to he$* to deve$o* such strate&ies for the &rowth of churches. +owever, it tends to be more interested in understandin& cu$ture rather than in bui$din& God's 8in&dom. Gibbs 9. mentioned that sometimes church &rowth has been re*resented as the tota$ity of mission, 1 because it has a *riority of evan&e$ism for church *$antin&. Arthur 2. Grasser su**orts McGavran D. A. +e said, In Dr. McGavran we have missio$o&ist, not a theo$o&ian in the traditiona$ sense. +is a$$5consumin& interest is the /ib$ica$ *riority that describes as the center of the church's tas,. The center is the *roc$amation of the Gos*e$, the &atherin& of converts into e)istin& con&re&ations, the mu$ti*$yin& of new con&re&ations.! In contrary to this, Gibbs, 9. critici-ed that McGavran does not ma,e c$ear the re$ationshi* he sees between the Church and the 8in&dom:...Church *$antin& becomes synonymous with 8in&dom bui$din& ". In terms of 7esus' *arab$es re$ated with God's 8in&dom, the term ;church' is not mentioned in those *arab$es. They are about the nature of the 8in&dom. 2or this, 1i$bert <. .hen, warns dan&ers in Church Growth. In the first *$ace, it tends to em*hasi-e the *enu$timate rather than the u$timate. .econd, it *roduces myo*ia in vision and discernment.= Church Growth schoo$ has a *riority in ma,in& disci*$es throu&h evan&e$ism. McGavran *ointed out that in understandin& Church Growth much is said about disci*$in& as a first sta&e and it is differentiated from a second sta&e of ethica$ chan&e and dedication to Christ, the &oa$s of the second sta&e of *erfectin& #. In this, Guter D. >. critici-ed McGavran. +e said, McGavran demonstrates a reductionist understandin& of the Gos*e$3 the distinction he ma,es between disci*$in& and *erfectin& ? 1o$f&an&
1
!

Gibbs, 9., I believe in Church Growth, >ondonm +odder @ .tou&hton, 1 41, * !! Ibid., * !? " Gibbs, 9., I believe in Church Growth, >ondonm +odder @ .tou&hton, 1 41, * #! = .hen,, 1. <.A9dB, Exploring Church Growth, Grand <a*ids, 9erdmans, 1 4", ** !1=5C # McGavran D. A., The Bridge of God, >ondon, 1or$d Dominion Dress, 1 ?1, * 1# ? Guter, D. >., Evangelism and the Debate over Church Growth in Interpretation, A*ri$, 1

=, * 1=4

Tri$$in& a$so critici-ed McGavran by *ointin& the fact that the centra$ conce*t of the &reat commission AMatthew !43145!6B, to ma,e disci*$es, defines Matthew's understandin& of the church. /oth ba*ti-in& and teachin& are subordinate to this tas, C. Disci*$eshi* ba*ti-in& and teachin& for *erfection shou$d not be in se*arate *rocess for the Church. McGavran's dua$ism for bui$din& churches $eads to the se*aration of ro$e of mission and the Church. +e added that McGavran insisted that mission society shou$d focus on evan&e$ism and the church on *erfectin& 4. .uch a dua$ism tends to be indifferent in ethica$ concern. 1hi$e Church Growth has been critici-ed for the /ib$ica$ and theo$o&ica$ scantiness, the ,ey *rinci*$es for the &rowth of church inc$udin& *eo*$e movement, homo&eneous unit, rece*tivity, and socio$o&ica$ *rinci*$e have a$so been critici-ed. In terms of *eo*$e movement, McGavran defined it $i,e this3 A *eo*$e movement is not a mass movement:.It resu$ts from the 0oint decision of a number of individua$s. +e described the term as mu$ti5individua$ and mutua$$y interde*endent. Accordin& to him, Deo*$e movements are im*ortant both %uantitative$y and %ua$itative$y. +e e)*$ained the conce*t as a tribe, a caste, or any homo&eneous unit where marria&e and intimate $ife ta,e *$ace on$y within the society 16. +e su&&ested some /ib$ica$ evidences to e)*$ain that, in the E$d Testament, God ca$$ed the +ebrew *eo*$e and disci*$ined their twe$ve tribes as *eo*$es and, in Few Testament, Matthew !431 instructs Christians to disci*$e the tribes.11 Gibbs su**orts McGavran. Deo*$e become Christians as a wave of decisions of Christ swee*s throu&h the &rou* mind, invo$vin& many individua$ decisions but far more than mere$y their sum.1! McGavran wor,ed with the *eo*$e conce*t as an e)tension of the fami$y. /ib$ica$$y the conce*t *eo*$e im*$ies those who are not God's *eo*$e, Israe$. Therefore, Church Growth has $ess theo$o&ica$ ,now$ed&e by usin& the term *eo*$e main$y on$y as an ethnica$ meanin&. There is another *rob$em in co$$ective conversion. There is a doubt about authenticity in such a conversion.
C 4

Ibid., * 1= Ibid., * 41 McGavran, D. A., Understanding Church Growth Grand !apids 9erdmans, 1 C", * ! C 16 Ibid., * ! ? 11 Ibid., * "6# 1! Gibbs, 9., I believe in Church Growth, >ondonm +odder @ .tou&hton, 1 41, ** 11C54

"

There is another ,ey *rinci*$e for the &rowth of churches on socio$o&ica$ foundation. McGavran insists that the numerica$ a**roach is essentia$ to understandin& church &rowth.1" Accordin& to Gibbs, the socio$o&ica$ method of data5&atherin& he$*s to be aware of &enera$ trends, to eva$uate their si&nificance, to a$$ocate resources to res*onsive areas, and to draw u* $on&5term *$ans for resistant areas. 1= .uch a numerica$ a**roach for the &rowth of churches tends to consider numbers as *rimary concern. The socio$o&ica$ a**roach $eads to human ,now$ed&e for bui$din& churches. Therefore, it ca$$s for *ractica$ strate&y rather than theo$o&ica$ understandin& for the &rowth of churches. Conn mentioned that it ca$$s for a fierce *ra&matism as we$$ as *ra&matic strate&y1#. Er$ando 9. Costas has a severe criticism on it. The numerica$ by itse$f becomes ecc$esiastica$ obesityG the or&anic is confused with bureaucracyG the conce*tua$ de&enerates into a theoretica$ abstractionG and the diacona$ is reduced to a chea* socia$ activism:. The four dimensions $ac, theo$o&ica$ inte&rity if they are not motivated and saturated by the *resence of the .*irit.1? McGavran said, Men $i,e to become Christians without crossin& racia$, $in&uistic, or c$ass barriers.1C +is statement im*$ies the conce*t of homo&eneous unit. Accordin& to him, it is sim*$y a section of society in which a$$ the members have some characteristics in common. The unit can be a country, a city, a cu$ture, a $an&ua&e, tribe or caste, and its meanin& de*ends on the conte)t in which it is used.14 2rom the /ib$ica$ evidence of Ga$. "3!4 he insists that nothin& in the /ib$e, for instance, re%uires that in becomin& a Christian a be$iever must cross $in&uistic, racia$ and c$ass barriers1 . In this, McGavran mentions an e)ce*tion about this *rinci*$e. Deo*$e in cities have $ess homo&eneous units and more hetero&eneous units. The &reat contribution of Church Growth strate&y has been to ma,e us a$$ aware of *eo*$ehood and its human diversity as a too$ in wor$d
1" 1=

McGavran, D. A., Understanding Church Growth Grand !apids 9erdmans, 1 C", * 4" Gibbs, 9., I believe in Church Growth, >ondonm +odder @ .tou&hton, 1 41, ** 1"C51=1 1# Conn, +. M.A9dB, Theological "erspectives on Church Growth, Few 7ersey, Dresbyterian and <eformed, 1 CC, * 4= 1? .hen,, 1. <.A9dB, Exploring Church Growth, Grand <a*ids, 9erdmans, 1 4", * 16? 1C McGavran, D. A., Understanding Church Growth Grand !apids 9erdmans, 1 C", * 1 4 14 Ibid., ** 4#5? 1 Ibid., * !61

evane$i-ation. Conn5McGavran's continued burden is to he$* us to see the diversity of the church manifest in homo&eneous units, the *arts which ma,eu* the who$e. !6 2rom this *rinci*$e, he conc$udes that the &reat obstac$es to conversion are socia$, but theo$o&ica$!1. It is a *rob$em to him to sim*$ify various *henomena of conversion. 2or this, Conn said, The heart of homo&eneity is so$idarity in re$i&ious e)*ression, even under the secu$ari-in& wear and tear of history and diver&ent cu$tura$ *atterns. There is an intertwinin& of the re$i&ious and socia$ as*ects of the cu$tura$ unit.!! Gibbs assessed va$ues of the *rinci*$e3 1B It hei&htens the Church's awareness of the unreached &rou*s within a nation, country, or $oca$ districtG !B It a$so he$*s con&re&ations understand why they are findin& it so difficu$t to reach ;resistant areas' for which they fee$ a res*onsibi$ityG "B It a$so he$*s to sensiti-e the Church to the dan&ers of cu$tura$ im*eria$ism.!" +owever, Gibbs mentioned dan&ers in overem*hasi-in& homo&eneous unit conce*t3 .ome critics $oo, on it as a device for ma)imi-in& the numerica$ &rowth of the Church whi$st minimi-in& the socia$5conte)t cha$$en&e of the Gos*e$G The FT is nowhere e)*$icit about the homo&eneity of the churches foundedG Churches in a$$ a&es have &rown in a variety of ways and cannot be $imited to a homo&eneous strait50ac,etG An over5*reoccu*ation with homo&eneity and cu$tura$ identity to the e)c$usion of cross5cu$tura$ *ers*ective can 0ust as we$$ inhibit as stimu$ate &rowth.!= C. <ene Dadi$$a insists that the *rinci*$e may be true that men $i,e to be Christians without crossin& racia$, $in&uistic or c$ass barriers, but that is irre$evant. Membershi* in the body of Christ is not a %uestion of $i,es or dis$i,es, but %uestion of incor*oration into a new humanity under the $ordshi* of Christ:. The unifier is 7esus Christ and the unifyin& *rinci*$e is the ;Gos*e$'.!# Dadi$$a is a&ainst the *rinci*$e by su&&estin& the fo$$owin&3 in the ear$y church the Gos*e$ was *roc$aimed to a$$ *eo*$eG the brea,in&
!6 !1

.hen,, 1. <.A9dB, Exploring Church Growth, Grand <a*ids, 9erdmans, 1 4", ** 445 Ibid., * 1 1 !! .hen,, 1. <.A9dB, Exploring Church Growth, Grand <a*ids, 9erdmans, 1 4", ** 4C54 !" Gibbs, 9., I believe in Church Growth, >ondonm +odder @ .tou&hton, 1 41, ** 11 51!6 != Ibid., ** 1!?54 !# .hen,, 1. <.A9dB, Exploring Church Growth, Grand <a*ids, 9erdmans, 1 4", * !4C

down of the barriers that se*arate *eo*$e in the wor$d was re&arded as an essentia$ as*ect of the Gos*e$G the church not on$y &rew, but it &rew across cu$tura$ barriersG and the Few Testament c$ear$y shows that the a*ost$es, whi$e re0ectin& assimi$ationist racism, never contem*$ated the *ossibi$ity of formin& homo&eneous unit churches that wou$d then e)*ress their unity in terms of interchurch re$ationshi*. 9ach church was meant to *ortray the oneness of its members re&ard$ess of their racia$, cu$tura$, or socia$ differences. +e conc$uded, If these are correct, it is %uite evident that the use of the homo&eneous unit *rinci*$e for church &rowth has no /ib$ica$ foundation.!? The rece*tivity and res*onsiveness are f$uctuatin& accordin& to new sett$ement, returned trave$ers, con%uest affects res*onsiveness, nationa$ism, freedom from contro$, and accu$turation. McGavran said, That rece*tivity determines mission method is obvious.!C At the &rou* $eve$, McGavran encoura&es the churches to concentrate their evan&e$istic endeavour on the rece*tive to win them whi$e they are sti$$ winnab$e. .udden chan&es in *o$itica$, economic and cu$tura$ *atterns can cause increases rece*tivity at $east for a $imited *eriod.!4 To assess the de&ree of rece*tivity, Church Growth schoo$ uses socio$o&ica$ and anthro*o$o&ica$ methods. Therefore, there is $ess em*hasis on God's soverei&nty and the ro$e of the .*irit. The *rinci*$e tends to i&nore the most needed for the Gos*e$ who is not rece*tive.

!onclusion
Church Growth introduced by McGavran em*hasi-es the %uantitative &rowth of churches. 2or this, it uses socio$o&ica$ methodo$o&y, es*ecia$$y statistics. .uch a socio$o&ica$ methodo$o&y $eads to bui$din& a narrow meanin& of mission and *riority of evan&e$ism for church *$antin&. .uch a evan&e$ism se*arates disci*$in& from the mission Adisci*$in&, ba*ti-in&, and teachin&B of the Church for the 8in&dom. In Church Growth, the conce*t of the 8in&dom of God is re*$aced by the Church. In addition, Church Growth has been critici-ed for $ac, of /ib$ica$ and theo$o&ica$ foundation. +owever, it
!?

Ibid., ** "6651 McGavran, D. A., Hnderstandin& Church Growth, Grand <a*ids, 9erdmans, 1 C", * !"! !4 Gibbs, 9., I believe in Church Growth, >ondonm +odder @ .tou&hton, 1 41, * !64
!C

he$*s churches to understand serious$y a diversity of human $ife. It $eads to faithfu$ness to God by showin& enthusiastic evan&e$ism to bui$d the Church. It he$*s to $oo, for a new understandin& on mission and evan&e$ism. It a$so $eads to the concernin& of strate&ic deve$o*ment for the &rowth of churches. +owever, the &rowth of churches dose not de*end on human endeavour, but is under God's hands. Therefore, the numerica$ &rowth must not be abso$uti-ed. 7ohn M. >. Ioun& said, Fumbers are not the on$y va$id measurement of church &rowth. The res*onse of churches to the tota$ covenant tas, of the evan&e$istic, ecc$esiastica$, and educationa$ sti*u$ations of Christ is a far more com*$ete /ib$ica$ criterion for eva$uation of church &rowth.! In terms of homo&eneous unit *rinci*$e, the fo$$owin& %uestion can be raised, Is it e)c$usive$y necessary to cross socia$ and cu$tura$ obstac$es to be become a Christian( The answer must be sou&ht theo$o&ica$$y and ethica$$y rather than socio$o&ica$$y and methodo$o&ica$$y. Church Growth schoo$ em*hasi-in& the ,ey *rinci*$es of *eo*$e movement, homo&eneous unit, rece*tivity, and socio$o&ica$ *rinci*$e shou$d not consider the %uantitative &rowth as a standard of success of churches.

"eference
1. Conn, +. M.A9dB, Theological "erspectives on Church Growth, Few 7ersey, Dresbyterian and <eformed, 1 CC !. Gibbs, 9., I believe in Church Growth, >ondon +odder @ .tou&hton, 1 41 ". Guter, D. >., Evangelism and the Debate over Church Growth in Interpretation, A*ri$, 1 =

=. McGavran, D. A., Understanding Church Growth Grand !apids 9erdmans, 1 C" #. .hen,, 1. <.A9dB, Exploring Church Growth, Grand <a*ids, 9erdmans, 1 4"
!

Conn, +. M.A9dB, Theological "erspectives on Church Growth, Few 7ersey, Dresbyterian and <eformed, 1 CC, * C!