What are the iniquities of the church growth movement that make it inadequate for today? If you listen to the critiques, I believe you’ll find that the answer lies in not what the movement taught per se, but in the questions that the movement was trying to solve. As Donald McGavran and his followers developed church growth methodology, it seems that they were doing important kingdom work, given their set of problems and presuppositions. Their problems started by trying to understand dramatic variations in evangelism effectiveness on the mission fields of India and ended with trying to reverse declining church attendance in North America. Their presuppositions were bound within Christendom; they worked when Christianity was a viable, latent force within Western culture. They were not dealing with the postmodern shift that we face today. Rather, they were trying to figure out better evangelism methodology within the paradigm of accepted Christianity. Keep in mind that McGavran’s earliest thinking was chiseled from his missionary work in India as early as the 1920s. Approximately 50 years after McGavran’s influence began, it became clear that change was imminent. One of the most significant events in identifying the shift to a post-Christian era came in 1983 with publication of Bishop Newbigin’s The Other Side of 1984: Questions for the Church.1 This short monograph recognized the changes that were occurring and initiated conversation about the future of the church.
Now if the set of problems and presuppositions change (to new ones we are now facing), does this make the conclusions of the church growth era wrong? No, it just makes them less applicable. For example, do I rag on my grandfather if he can’t figure out how to wind up his quartz watch? Of course not. Instead, I gently tell him that the darn watch doesn’t need to wind up anymore.
People often make bullet lists of positive and negative contributions of the church growth movement, but I propose a critique that I hope is as useful as it is simple. First, let’s salute Donald McGavran as a man who labored for the gospel before the dawn of the post-Christian era. Dare I say that this missionary had some brilliant observations? Second, let’s identify the real problem more clearly.
Church Growth vs. Growth IdolatryMuch of the bad rap for church growth stems from the concern over a preoccupation with numbers. The idea is that too much focus on quantity—getting people through the doors of the church—dilutes some other emphasis on quality (however the church chooses to definite it, for example as spiritual growth or theological depth). But does an inordinate focus on church attendance come from the growth principles themselves, or from something deeper within the leader’s heart? Is it possible that the real culprit is not the movement per se but a "growth idolatry" lurking in the leader’s life? Growth idolatry is the unconscious belief, on the soul level, that things are not OK with me if my church is not growing. I have struggled with this sin, and I know many other leaders do too.
