Growing a Church
Dear Steve,
You
asked me for my thoughts on how to make a fellowship grow. I submit the
following as from someone who has had very little experience, and who knows
very little about the matter.
First of all I like
to ask the questions “What is church for?” As I see it there are basically only
two answers:
1.
Church
is for believers. When believers meet they all understand the ‘special’ words
they use, such as redemption and propitiation, and when they celebrate
communion they know the symbolical nature of the emblems. Their meetings are
eclectic and specific, and the common understanding
they have makes them as exclusive as a brain-surgeon’s conference.
2.
Church
is for reaching into the community and winning the lost to Christ. The main
reason Christians exist is firstly to become like Jesus, and secondly to draw
other people to Jesus. This means that they should lay
aside all their theological terms and meet the unsaved in their own limited
understanding. No strange words, no peculiar costumes, and as many familiar
things as possible, without sinning of course. For example Jesus met people in
their own homes, and talked to them over the meal.
In the world there
are and always have been hundreds of different kinds of fellowship. This is
good, because it shows that God can live in the hearts of people from all
cultures. These different people have always expressed their Christianity in their
own forms of art, music and so on, and in each generation they have managed to
win a new harvest of believers – otherwise the church would have died out long
ago. Some Christian fellowships are loud, and noisy, while others are very
quiet. Some like to dress up, others dress down. Some concentrate on worship
and do a lot of singing, while others prefer prayers.
Every fellowship
tends to attract people of a certain range of personality. The old adage of
‘birds of a feather flock together’ is clearly seen. For example the Brethren
tend to attract men because Brethren services (as far as I know tend to be
objective, theological and unemotional, whereas Pentecostal churches are
usually predominantly filled with women, and the services are correspondingly
emotional. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with this – it is
normal and natural for like to attract like. In the world exactly the same
thing happens.
Returning to the
question, I would like to look very briefly at the first category of fellowship.
The ‘Christians only’ church.
Looking at the style of the
1.
Doctrine.
They listened to and studied the teaching of the apostles
2.
Fellowship.
This means people with a common interest met to share their common interest
with each other.
3.
Meals.
“breaking of bread’ can mean either communion or
simply a meal.
4.
Prayers.
For each other and for the people outside the Church.
These first
Christians also showed great generosity towards each other, and became a
wonderful example of a sharing, caring community. As the apostles went about
performing signs and wonders the unsaved, who saw this
phenomenon, were drawn into the Church and God’s Building increased.
The ‘reaching the lost’ church.
This kind of
church, I think, should be completely different in form and service to the
above. It should be focused on winning the lost. It has no time or place for
ceremonies, special clothes, church building furniture
and so on. Its main aim is to communicate to the lost, and it must strip away
anything and everything which might be a stumbling block to getting the message
across – without sinning of course.
Many years ago I was
part of an interesting experiment. I helped organize a ‘Family Service’ in a
dwindling fellowship. I do not want to be critical of the fine and
well-motivated people who were part of this fellowship, but it is difficult to
describe what happened without some part of what follows being reflected back
at them. I pray they will forgive me if they find the following offensive.
The building was
large, and almost empty. Week by week, year by year the same service was held.
The men spoke with faith and the Word was ministered. Many devote and sincere
Christians came and went over the years. The youth group disappeared. The
Sunday school closed. Still the men spoke with conviction and sincerity at the
meetings. People came by invitation, and never returned. The devotion and
determination of the leaders was outstanding – even exemplary, but still the
numbers dwindled. Prayer meetings failed to stem the tide, and invitations fell
on deaf ears.
It was at about
this time that I attended, and for more than two years contributed to the
fellowship, helping with graphics, Sunday school and various outreaches. I
spent a lot of time thinking about the situation, and suggested various ideas,
all of which were either ignored or rejected very quickly by the leadership.
Finally one of my
ideas was considered. I went to the building early in the mornings and prayed
over all the seats. I designed invitations, and helped wherever I could. At
last the ‘Family Service’ was launched.
It was an amazing
Sunday. Instead of the one or two cars parked outside, there were cars bumper
to bumper along both sides of the road. People were streaming in, and soon the
building was packed to the doors. The leadership was amazed and joyful. The visitors
were happy.
The service went
along the lines I had suggested, which comprised a series of items by
Christians. For example, two people used glove-puppets to tell a story, one
woman held a ‘lollies for answers’ quiz, I told a
flashcard story, two people sang a duet, a man played some Classical music on
the piano, another man played a solo on his flute. It was funny and marvelous,
and everyone enjoyed the whole service, which was opened with a short prayer
and closed with the same. Then followed the meal. Some
women, who had been preparing drinks and food in the kitchen, pulled the
curtains aside and the whole service ended with a wonderful time of talking. On
their way out many people asked when the next ‘Family Service’ was going to be
held.
The following
Sunday the leadership reverted back to the tried and true order of service, and
the building was empty again.
A second ‘Family
Service’ was held a few weeks later, with the same results, but no further
‘Family Services’ were held.
Today the building
remains almost empty and the last few (wonderful, Spirit-filled, devoted)
members are trying to devise a method of keeping the fellowship from dying
altogether.
……………………………….
The reason why
unbelievers are not attracted to church is much the same as why most people are
not attracted to attend brain-surgery conferences.
……………………………….
At this point one
might be tempted to lay down some sort of formula for building a church, but
that would be a formula for failure, because every fellowship has to be
different. God has not created us to be identical clones, so it is impossible
to gather a group of people together and get identical results, even if their
interests are much the same. We are all unique individuals, and praise God for
that!
What I would like to do is simply suggest a
formula which may or may not work for another fellowship. It is entirely up to
you what you do with it. You may like to adapt it, or bend it into a new shape.
Reach the lost
services.
The ‘reach the lost’
church service begins with the ‘image’ it must portray to the public. If you must
use a building rather than meet in homes (as the
The service itself
must not be ‘worldly’ in the sense of having crude language or casual
references to God or His Son. Begin with a short prayer of thanks, but keep the
wording accessible to the unbelievers.
There is always plenty of talent in every
fellowship, but quite often this talent lies undiscovered because the ‘order of
service’ ensures that only the ‘pastor’ and a few others are allowed to speak.
The
Some Christians
have amazing gifts, but they rarely get to exercise them in the fellowship
because they are forced to sit and listen. Sometimes a moment is given to
members to pray, but rarely is there an opportunity to contribute much more.
But what happens
when all the members of a fellowship are expected to contribute something?
Firstly they spend the week thinking about it, and secondly they prepare for
it. They come to church fired up and excited because they have something to
give. If it is from the Word, then they have done some independent study, which
is great. If it is some other contribution then they have been practicing it,
which means they have been polishing their talents. And what does the whole
fellowship gain? A wonderful series of entertaining and
edifying items. And what do visitors gain? A totally
enjoyable experience, which they will probably want to return to again some
time.
To win the lost
Christians must meet them at their level. Unsaved children do not understand
theology, but they do understand jokes, sweets, food, games, crafts, videos and
so on. Unsaved adults are much the same. They understand music, fun, puppets,
pictures, songs, dances and other creative and entertaining things.
There are some
Christians who feel that ‘church’ should not be entertaining. To these
well-meaning saints I suggest that they gather other like-minded people about
them and have their own services the way they want them, but please don’t
invite me. I think they are partly correct, but their view probably comes from
their desire to preserve the sober, serious side of Christianity intact. (This
is a good motivation but how will the unsaved be reached if Christians form
‘holy huddles’?) They may fear that if Christians laugh too much they may slide
into worldliness and forget to follow Jesus. I doubt it. God created laughter
and gave it to Mankind as a gift. Perhaps it is time for the Church to take
back the gift and use it the right way?
Returning for a
moment to the
There is nothing
like a meal together to help people to unwind and communicate, yet the one
thing which Christians need when they meet has been removed. Visitors come in,
sit down, and just as they try to converse the service begins. They wait till
the end and leave politely, perhaps shaking hands briefly with some smiling person
near the door, returning to the street without spending any quality time with
anyone. What a huge difference it would make if visitors came, were
entertained, and then spent another hour talking to someone – with a cup of tea
and a biscuit? They might think that Christians were, after all, not such a
strange crowd after all.
………………………..
I think Christians
ought to sit down and take a hard look at what their ‘church’ is doing, and
then compare it with the general principles in the Word. Instead of accepting
what the ‘pastor’, or ‘tradition’ says, why not check
out the Scriptures and see if there might be an alternative?
If you really want
to reach the lost, why not make as many changes as possible in order to do
that, rather than expect the lost to politely conform to your traditional
methods?
Someone challenged
me many years ago on this point, by asking “What is your main motivation in
getting someone saved? Is it so that you can add another person to your Sunday
service?”
I hate to say it
but I think that may be one of the reasons why some churches try to reach the
lost. They want to swell the ranks in the pews. How dreadful! The traditional
church, centred in a building, with its furniture and
robes and books and paraphernalia is all Manmade. It has some of the essence of
the
Try this
thought-experiment. Imagine going to your long-standing traditional church
building just down the street, and suggest to the minister that he paint the
building white with flowers and butterflies all over the outside walls, and
then place a big sign over the door: “Kid’s Church, open Saturdays from 1p.m.
to 3p.m.” Can you guess his reaction? (I may be wrong but I think) he would
probably prefer to keep things just the way they are than set out on a radical
new path in order to reach the lost children in his community.
It is because of
the ‘we’ve-always-done-things-this-way’ attitude that many churches are dying.
The traditions, and habits, and security of repetition, are strong impediments
to change, and perhaps many services are so unchallenging and comforting that
they lull those who attend into a sleep of acceptance. As one brought up in the
Presbyterian church, where the minister always ordered
the service and all I ever did was sing hymns and watch the time, I know the
sense of futility and boredom which comes on those who seem to be merely
spectators. The only bright moment I remember was my chance to read something
to the other children at Sunday school, but then, looking at the Word, there is
no warrant for separating the children from the adults. If the church is a
Family, then the Family should fellowship together – but that is exactly the
problem. The Family of God has been taken hostage by tradition and formalism,
and robbed of its common meal together.
No wonder people
are leaving it in droves.
There is a fear,
and it is quite justified, among some Christians that if the church entertains
people too much, it might forget its Great Commission and slip into aimless
worldliness. However, my view is that entertainment is a gift from God, and it
is the world which has twisted and abused it.
Take humour for example. While there is no specific verse which
tells us to laugh, there are many which imply that “a merry heart does good like a medicine” (Prov.15:13, 15:15, 17:22, Ecc.9:7).
It is the same with other gifts, such as music, dance and the whole gamut of
the Arts. God intended these gifts to be used properly, morally and for our
pleasure, but sinful people have abused them and used them for evil.
Christians, above
all people in the world, really should be (collectively) the most creative and
entertaining people! We (the Church) should be able to redeem all the gifts of
God and present them in a sanctified and lively way – but instead our
fellowships are so often reduced to a narrow band of singing and sometimes
musical performance. Where, in the church, are the actors, poets, painters and
dancers? Where are the humourists? Where are the
craftsmen and craftswomen? Where are all the wonderful gifts which should be
present at the meetings?
As I said at the
beginning of this article, the question comes back to two lines of thought: are
we trying to build a ‘Christians only’ fellowship, or do we want to become a
‘reach the lost’ fellowship? How we answer the question will determine the sort
of fellowship we will be. And it is no good trying to combine the two, because that
creates a service too ’worldly’ for Christians, and too ‘Christian’ for the
unsaved. It has to be one or the other, not both at the same time.
To grow a church we
have to put the unsaved first, and all our theology has to come second. We have
to meet the unsaved at their level before we can pull them up to ours. Jesus
demonstrated this by walking the streets and eating with publicans and sinners.
He didn’t try to lure people into the synagogues because all that would have
done was produce synagogue-attendees. In the same way, it is far better for
people to become Christians and never attend ‘church’ than for them to
regularly attend ‘church’ and never become Christians.
Which
is why I think we have to make some radical changes and focus on winning the
lost to Jesus, rather than filling pews.