Why Local Churches Hinder Real Church Growth
by David S. Lim, Ph.D.
Global Christianity has unwittingly fallen into a trap, which is historically known as “the Babylonian captivity of the church.” Thinking that this will result in better church growth, Christian leaders have been promoting “the local church is the base for ministry and/or world evangelization.” By “local church” is meant a congregation that seeks to have a full-time pastor (and a pastoral staff as it grows bigger) and her own sanctuary (ideally bought and owned rather than rented), in order to attract and maintain an ever-increasing attendance in her weekly Sunday worship services.
Though this looks appealing (and not many have seriously questioned this tradition), it has been a self-defeating (and historically, quite self-destructive) trap: for the maintenance mode of local churches have almost always killed (often sooner than later) the mission mode of the (whole) church! A lot of Christian resources become absorbed into the maintenance of church activities (e.g., evangelistic rallies, Sunday Schools, youth camps, mission conferences, building projects, etc. etc.) for nominal believers who offer to God (often hypocritically!) what are conveniently “extras” from the “abundant blessings” that He provides in their middle class “comfort zones”! Usually only a pittance (ever calculated the percentage of church budgets that really go into missions?) are actually spent to help reach out to non-church members! In secular terms, this is NOT cost-effective! Or in spiritual terms, it is poor stewardship! Why?
May I suggest that there are at least three ways by which local church structures become hindrances to church growth: they stunt quality growth, quantity growth and long-term growth!
1. They hinder quality growth. In spite the zeal and fervency affirmed in the songs, prayers and sermons of worship services, they actually nurture nominalism (or worse, hypocrisy)! Disciples are made in small groups, not big meetings. Yet most (if not all) local churches would emphasize congregational assemblies rather than cell groups. The best proof is: where do they look to count their weekly church attendance? Such emphasis is perhaps inevitable, because of the hierarchical (perhaps undeniably elitist) and clerical model of church in the minds of most Christians nowadays and ever since the Edict of Milan (in AD 313 when Constantine enforced Christianity in the Roman Empire) when the bishops introduced the diocesan and parish structures to the church!
Thereby almost inevitably, most church activities (including the central “Sunday worship services”) have helped keep Christians immature spiritually. They are kept perennially as “spiritual babies” who are dependent on pastors, church buildings and church programs to “feel spiritual” or even just to “be in God’s presence.” Almost all “lay-people,” even after 40-50 years in faith, would still need to be visited or counseled or prayed for/blessed (by “pastors” usually), still self-centered, and needing to be served (instead of being equipped to minister to others, cf. Eph. 4:11-16). A majority would hesitate to lead in public prayers or to do personal evangelism! Instead of spiritual empowerment, they experience spiritual disempowerment! In short, local churches normally produce “nominal (or baby) Christians,” not “committed disciples”!
2. They hinder quantity growth. Moreover, local churches stunt the amount and the rate of numerical increase of the church! We have mentioned above how they waste a lot of resources in maintenance, mostly on more costly ways to keep the members happy, if not “spoiled.” In fact, to attract more people to Christ, they create more “come structures” (read: church programs that almost always has to border on entertainment; how else are they going to be seeker-friendly, given the competition “out there” in the world?), rather than more “go structures” (read: more secular-looking programs NOT held in church buildings)! [In my view, the best “go structure” is to “make disciples” through informal “friendship evangelism” and bringing converts and interested parties to “come and see” the (informal!) body-life of one’s cell group/house church (a la Ac. 2:42-47).
And instead of “total church mobilization” to evangelize their community and the ends of the earth, local churches elicit low commitment from their members (besides weekly church attendance and giving their offerings), hence the need to constantly cajole people to be more active in church. Meanwhile, they enhance the role of “full-timers” (pastors and missionaries) to be the key players in doing evangelism and missions! “Reaching out to the lost” becomes the job of specialist, and not of the whole body! No wonder the rate of growth of local churches decreases as they (often slowly) increase in size! How tragic! Should we not be longing for a more “spontaneous expansion of the church” involving the whole church to reach the whole world? Hardly any local church has been able to sustain rapid quantity church growth for ten years – with the only exception that they were able to institutionalize a strong cell multiplication program whereby every member is encouraged (or required!) to be member of a small group. Yet how many have been able to maintain and sustain such structure beyond twenty years?
3. They hinder long-term growth. And worst, local churches are structured in such a way that future growth (in quality and quantity), if any, will be stunted! The emphasis on big assemblies, magnificent buildings and super-gifted “full-timers” seems to fit into the less democratic (or more authoritarian) societies in Asia (or perhaps in most Christian subcultures). But in the long term, this breeds the “superstar complex” in the church leaders and “hero (bordering on demi-god, as in Korea) worship” among the members. Tragically, in the long term this results in the appointment or election of “lay leaders” (often called “trustees,” “elders” or “deacons”) who are chosen on the basis of their popularity – often due to their giftedness in public speaking (or singing) and/or in political savvy, including the use of wealth for self-promotion (perhaps often unintentionally), The almost inevitable rise of such populist leaders, especially as the church grows richer and becomes middle – or upper-class (known as “redemptive lift”), usually results in the degeneration of the quality of church leadership – often sooner than later. Normally the second generation of local church leaders (both clergy and lay) would be good bureaucrats (knowledgeable in maintenance management) rather than good entrepreneurs (who can provide visionary and creative leadership).
But more tragic, their concept of spirituality also often degenerates into “spiritual showmanship” (usually on stage, something which our Lord Jesus clearly denounced in Mt. 6:1-18), thereby placing non-functioning people (who are not doing actual disciple-making) in positions of authority, while the functioning ones (who are doing actual disciple-making) are busy taking care of the flock, often in their silent ways (even shying away from accepting administrative roles that entail a series of committee meetings). Thus, local churches produce spiritually immature (perhaps often quite hypocritical) leaders who hardly contribute to quality or quantitative church growth at all!
So, we are destined to have local churches that gradually become less and less effective in evangelism, discipleship and missions? Not necessarily, but it comes at great cost to our present local church structures. Are we willing to shift to a more decentralized (less hierarchical and less critical) paradigm of church? That is, to transform our local churches into house-church networks, where “small group meetings increase, while big assemblies decrease”? The challenge is to work for the multiplication of more small churches (each self-governing, self-supporting and self-propagating) rather than for the addition of more mega-churches. The key is to remember: “disciples are made in small groups, not in big meetings.”
The secret to maintain a long-standing revived state of the church is to keep strong small group structures, just as stretched for more than a hundred years at least twice in history: in the Moravian community in Hernnhut (with its “choirs”), and during the Wesleyan Awakening (with its “classes”). However, in both these cases, gradually “small group meetings decreased, while big worship services increased.” This is due, in my view, mainly to human weakness, as usual. Attendance in big meetings (where one can remain anonymous) require less commitment than participation in small groups (where one can hardly hide any secrets)! We tend towards “cheap grace” rather than “costly discipleship.” (Hence, under normal instances, mega-churches will grow at the expense and loss of small churches!)
Therefore, the ultimate challenge is: Are local churches willing to die, so that house churches can be born and flourish? Then and only then will there be the possibility of all converts growing into mature Christians who can be disciple-makers ( and be sent elsewhere as “tentmakers” to make more disciples). And church leaders will only be those who are true servants with proven pastoral gifts. Thereby, the whole church will be empowered to reach the whole world in the fastest way possible through this rapid church-planting movement or rapid disciple-making strategy done by house-church networks! Dare to change? By the mercies of God, and for His glorious kingdom, please do!
Addendum – Biblical basis of above treatise:
Perhaps it would be helpful to be reminded that there was no such thing as “local church” (with big Sunday worship services, in church buildings, led by clergymen) in the New Testament (NT). Any NT scholar and (early) church historian would affirm that the early church existed in the form of “house-church networks” during the Roman Empire. And this lasted for at least a couple of centuries, even if the “priesthood of every believer” and the “churchhood of every cell” began to be discredited in some circles at about A.D.100, like in 1 & 2 Clement, Didache, the Ignatian letters, and The Shepherd of Hermas. A typical NT church meeting is described in 1 Cor. 14:26, as an informal small gathering for mutual edification, where everyone participated by sharing according to their spiritual gifts. The formal paradigm shift to what is now known as “local church” occurred when Constantine made Christianity the official faith of the Empire in 313.
For feedback, pls. send email to: [cmiphil53@yahoo.com]
