Friday, June 06, 2008

Rich Tatum Nails the "Reveal" Study

Rich Tatum blew me away with his discussion of what Willow Creek’s ‘Reveal’ study really tells us. I agree entirely with his analysis: "The main takeaway is this: numeric growth does not equal spiritual growth." He goes on to write,
If we’re honest about it, the idea that numeric growth reveals a church’s health and its members’ own spiritual health has infected the American church for decades. The idea is captured in this syllogism:
Healthy organisms grow
Churches are like organisms
Therefore, healthy churches grow
But what this logical three-step logical tango fails to take into account is that healthy organisms stop growing when they reach maturity and a size appropriate to their nature. In fact, an organism’s failure to experience a growth plateau is one evidence of sickness.
By contrast, Rich asserts that
the chief problem with most (if not all) of the churches I’ve attended has been a failure to encourage, challenge, and provide for spiritual transformation and discipleship in individual believers within a transformed community.
He couldn't be more right. Rich moves on to an analysis of cultural shifts that have affected the church, both in terms of the assumptions that people bring to churches and the assumptions that church leaders bring to the direction and content of their leading. I strongly urge you to read the original article to follow Rich's points to their conclusions.

For my own part, I can't help reflecting on troubling church issues that are symptomatic of what Rich is talking about. Large churches that grew, to a significant extent, by abandoning the neighborhoods they were planted in and the people their founders were trying to reach. Small churches whose pastors worried more about the lack of numerical growth in their congregations than about actually discipling and developing the people God had given them to minister to. Pastors being more interested in presiding over an ever-increasing corporate entity than in nurturing the lives of those under their care. An anti-intellectualism that boils down to contempt for any spiritual and theological development other than learning how to get the next convert. An emphasis on conversions to the exclusion of what Jesus actually said that the Great Commission was: making disciples. A devaluation of those spiritual gifts which are not directly tied to the ultimate goal of numerical growth, and by extension, a devaluation of believers who have those types of gifts. A focus on "revival" as the ultimate goal of the church, as opposed to seeing seasons of revival as only one part of the ongoing processes that God uses to develop his people.

This is why the problems in the "Reveal" study are not limited to Willow Creek or other megachurches. They infect churches of all sizes. A disconcerting shallowness pervades Christian culture, in nearly every expression. Churches and denominations are largely one-dimensional: worship without theology, theology without experience, experience without reflection, reflection without action, action without worship. We choose our favorite flavor and point the finger at everyone else as lacking. We are not in the process of becoming whole, rounded, deep, substantive people who actually have an answer for the equally shallow and one-dimensional world around us. Rather than offering a real difference, we either accommodate or react to that culture, and either way, we're just as ersatz and vapid as the culture we're responding to. One way or another, we're being conformed to the world, rather than being transformed by the renewing of our minds. And that includes those who react the most strongly against that world: they're just a mirror image. Accommodate or repudiate: we're being defined by our surroundings. And that's not good.

The Bible presents a completely different view of life. One would think that Christians would be interested in discovering what it is. One would hope that Christian leaders would be enthusiastic about facilitating that discovery in others. If only.

7 comments:

  1. Wow, thanks, Keith, for your expansive and complimentary words! And your further reflection on the issues really resonates with me.

    How I wish I could find a church that is unintentially Pentecostal while being intentionally Biblical, where immersion in the Word is the focus of the pulpit, the community, and the believers, where worship is a spiritual discipline, not an event to pass the time and be entertained by, where Fellowship occurs in the context of real relationships, not merely scheduled events. I want a simple church where the proclamation of the transforming word and relational mentoring occurs on multiple dimensions, where programs and events take second chair to the growth of the community.

    I'm not bitter. But I'm exactly that "dissatisfied" believer the Reveal study has found.

    Peace,

    Rich
    BlogRodent

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for stopping by, Rich, and thanks for the original post.

    To some degree, I see the problem as something of an "outcomes based" ecclesiology: we try whatever we think will create the outcome we believe to be desirable, rather than simply doing the things God tells us to do in His Word, and leaving the results up to Him. I wrote more about that issue here.

    With regard to the type of church you yearn for, I think sometimes we need to look for one that has the elements we cannot control (e.g., biblical preaching) and then within that context work toward true community and fellowship on our own, rather than expecting the church to have it ready-made for us. If we get together with other believers within the church for some true fellowship and relationship-building, it doesn't matter whether the church (corporate entity) organized it; it only matters that the church (we who form the body) is carrying it out.

    I also see a parallel between church and television news. The news has gotten increasingly "softer" (more puff pieces, less time devoted to actual reporting) as each station or network tries to get a larger market share; the net effect is that the overall quality of all TV news outlets decreases, which drives people who actually care about the news away from that medium entirely. It seems to me that in its quest for "relevance," the church has largely become irrelevant, because the types of answers that were supposed to be offered there can no longer be found.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rich writes:

    "How I wish I could find a church that is unintentially Pentecostal while being intentionally Biblical, where immersion in the Word is the focus of the pulpit, the community, and the believers, where worship is a spiritual discipline, not an event to pass the time and be entertained by, where Fellowship occurs in the context of real relationships, not merely scheduled events. I want a simple church where the proclamation of the transforming word and relational mentoring occurs on multiple dimensions, where programs and events take second chair to the growth of the community."

    Sounds like you're preaching my sermon from last Sunday. If only a sermon could call such things into being.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Keith,

    This is a dead shot. I could not agree more. Ken Hemphill, who was former President of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary penned a little book while he was Pastor at First Baptist Church, Norfolk, VA entitled "The Bonsai Theory of Church Growth."

    The title is a give-a-way. Hemphill raised Bonsai trees for a hobby and used the characteristics of the Bonsai to illustrate churches growing to the size that fits their DNA, etc--a very similar idea to Tatum's maxim: "healthy organisms stop growing when they reach maturity and a size appropriate to their nature."

    Both are excellent insights.

    Grace, Keith. With that, I am...

    Peter

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the kind comment, Peter. It seems to me that Rich's maxim mostly serves as a rebuttal to the health=growth analogy. It is, of course, possible that biological organisms may grow only up to a certain point, while churches are to grow indefinitely; but to make that case, one would have to get outside the church=organism analogy and actually argue the point biblically.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi. Just found your blog at Dawn's. You have many. Is this the real/main one?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi dmarks! Welcome.

    A perceptive question! Let's just say that, at present, this is my only public blog. That may all change around the 24th - my second blogiversary.

    Hope you check it out then.

    Keith

    ReplyDelete