Church Growth Movement.... Reconsidered???

Hmmm... how do I put this.

I know that the subject will certainly be intriguing to you all, and hopefully you're not thinking that I've gone completely crazy. I swear I'm not crazy, and I do still fiercely disagree with the church growth movement, but I have been doing some thinking prompted by some recent reading and since you are all my close friends and know my hatred for this movement I thought I would share them with you.

I have been thinking a lot lately (and by lately I mean mostly today, in fact the last 20 min... maybe 10min) and I have come to realize that I would describe myself, much like Wesley did with Calvinism, as a hair's-breadth from the Church Growth Movement.

Yes my friends, that is right, i am wIllingly describing myself as a hair's-breadth from being a Church Growth Guru. Crazy!

So here is why I have concluded it. I have been reading a lot of 1900's revivalist literature lately (recently one book, but in the past many others, Tozer is 1940s-50s late/post-revivalism so the "force is strong in me") and obviously I love it. I love the old school holiness preachers, they definitely rock my face off!!

One thing that many of the revivalists have in common is their strong emphasis on the moving of the Holy Spirit. They are constantly calling the church back to its dependence on the Holy Spirit. The argument is that "we are not seeing results" and thus we must not be depending on the Holy Spirit, we must not be filled with the Holy Spirit and we must be doing something wrong. I know that one could argue these premises but for the moment I think I will accept them, just because I think there is some truth in statements like that. The argument then follows that if we were filled with the Holy Spirit we would be seeing massive conversions and huge results like in the book of Acts (you probably can see where I'm going with this).

I like this logic, I truly do believe that if the church was working in the power of the Holy Spirit we would see more signs and wonders, but also we would see a great conviction of sin fall over the church and multitudes converted and filled with the Holy Spirit.

Well, the emphasis on fruit being the proof of the movement of the Holy Spirit seems logical but this is where we get into hot water. We must be careful to discern fruit, but it is truly hard. This is why i have come to think (as of today) that the Church Growth Movement Is mostly founded in 20th century revivalism. (McGavran, after all did develop the theory in the 1960's while working as a missionary in India. He would have undoubtedly been influenced by and have read the writing of many revivalists in his missional training.)

That is a horribly scary thought for me, because I always wanted to embrace one and reject the other. Now I am finding that I have to pick and choose carefully (which I knew, but didn't want to admit) about what is good. I think the revivalists have some points but I am willing to stop when they focus strictly on results (which is mostly why our revivalistic denominations Wesleyan, C&MA, etc insist on constant conversion and sanctification reports).

We must desire fruit, we must cry and plead with God for fruit, but we cannot focus on the fruit as the sole purpose. The biggest flaw I find with revivalistic literature is that there is no room for edifying the believers because their view is that the only desire we should have should be for the lost (hmmm sound familiar?). The argument here is "there is nothing that will deepen Christian experience, edify believers and build them up in the Faith so rapidly and thoroughly as seeing souls saved." (The Revival We Need - Oswald J. Smith - 1902) This sole focus also neglects having a sole focus that pursues intimacy with the Father.

I seem to have lost my train of thought... hmmm go figure, it is me after all. Now I have really lost my train of thought because Justin just called me and then I went and ate dinner. Hmmm.... let me think....

Ok, back again.

It seems to me that our focus should be on intamcy and edification because I feel evangelism will be a natural result and outcroping of that. Just as Eckles' chapel (Dr. Eckely for you non-religion majors) reminded us (and I was reminded by Eryn and Spear of this) that the movement of the Holy Spirit for God's people should be a predominantly outward movement. It only blows in on God's people so that they (and it) can blow out and reach the nations. This is the theme of Acts as stated in Acts 1 (witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth) which prefaces the recording of the Spirit's movement.

So I really don't know where I"m going with all this, except to say that these are some recent thoughts and I find it really iteresting how something that I despise is partially founded in something that I absolutely love.

But all this to say that I am still viemently opposed to the Church Growth Movement and still view myself as a Holiness preacher (in the line of Tozer... wheeew). I value revivalism but I now have another 5 pages or so to add to my church Growth movement paper. I guess there are dangers in everything, but oh well.

So thanks for reading my thoughts and fee free to comment and tell me how awesome I am for thinking theologically during summer break and applying things I've learned to my summer pleasure reading, or to tell me that I'm completely wrong and that I suck at life.

Oh... and as I was sitting here writing this email I realized just how awesome and unique I am. Although this isn't incrediblly deep theology, but either way it's still theology and I have been doing it while listening to hardcore rock music and rap music. I bet ya Luther and Wesley couldn't do that!!! And especially not Calvin and Bultmann!!!
I RULE!!! =)


Blessings to you all.
May you be drawn closer to the Father through the Son and the Power of the Holy Spirit each day!!!


Ben