Several years ago, in the “Wild West” days of Baptist blogging, I read a comment made by a prominent blogger, the pastor of a large church, disdaining the viewpoints of several others bloggers who pastored much smaller churches. Because their churches were smaller than his, their opinions evidently carried less weight than his did. It was strange to see those words on the screen, but they represent a prevalent opinion in the Baptist world – that numbers are an obvious measure of God’s blessings. We Baptists tend to be a “bigger is better” bunch. Our denomination is dominated by those who have built megachurches with mega-buildings and mega-budgets. In recent years, the SBC has sounded alarms because our decades of numerical progress at first flattened out and then became a statistical decline.
But is that fair? Can statistical analysis tell us whether the blessing of God is on a church or not? Should the fact that a high percentage of our churches are plateaued or declined and that multiple thousands of SBC churches baptized on one last year be cause for concern? Can we measure the pleasure of God on a church numerically?
What does the Bible say about this? I believe that there are two key perspectives we need to see as we examine numbers and the pleasure of God on our churches.
Biblical Perspectives
Israel and God’s Blessing
It is always a tricky thing to translate promises to Israel in the Old Testament into the New Testament era. But I do believe that the way that God worked in Israel reveals something of his character and his ways. In Deuteronomy 28, God defined the blessings that would come on Israel for their obedience to the will of God and the curses (painful consequences) that would come on them when they sinned. In fact, starting in verse 15, the chapter is something of a prophetic history of Israel as they embraced sin and suffered the consequences. But look at the promise of blessing given to Israel in verses 9-14.
The LORD will establish you as a people holy to himself, as he has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in his ways. And all the peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they shall be afraid of you. And the LORD will make you abound in prosperity, in the fruit of your womb and in the fruit of your livestock and in the fruit of your ground, within the land that the LORD swore to your fathers to give you. The LORD will open to you his good treasury, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season and to bless all the work of your hands. And you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow. And the LORD will make you the head and not the tail, and you shall only go up and not down, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you today, being careful to do them, and if you do not turn aside from any of the words that I command you today, to the right hand or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.
The fact that purveyors of the prosperity heresy twist these verses ought not discourage us from seeing the truth that is in them. When God’s people were walking in obedience there were certain blessings that would abound to them.
- They would know prosperity as God opened his “treasury” to them and blessed them.
- The “fruit of their womb” would be blessed – a clear reference to numerical increase.
- They would be the “head and not the tail” and would “only go up and not down.”
While we reject the notion that serving God automatically guarantees us health, wealth and the fulfillment of all our human dreams and desires, it is clear that Israel, walking in obedience to God would see a numerical increase as well as other blessings. It is not in the purview of this article to deal with all the ramifications of this ticklish point. I only want to make one observation here – that when God’s people (Israel) walked in obedience to him they were promised statistical increase. As the rest of the passage makes clear, statistical decrease is a product of disobedience and sin (Dt 28:19-24).
This point, also made in Leviticus 26, is buttressed by the fourth book of the Bible, entitled “Numbers.” In that book, there was a census of the people of Israel in the Sinai desert and the total of men 20 years old and older was 603,550 (Numbers 1:46). Then, Numbers recounts the unfaithfulness of the Israelites during the wilderness wanderings. At the end of these years of unfaithfulness, after the Sinai generation had died out and been replaced, there was another census taken. This one shows a count of 601,730 (Numbers 26:51). Israel had been on a 40 year “plateau” and had even declined a little. The numbers are evidence of the displeasure of God.
Again, I’m only making a simple observation – that Israel plateaued for 40 years as a result of sin and disobedience, as God had promised in Leviticus 26 and would later reiterate in Deuteronomy 28. At the very least, we have to admit that in the Old Testament era, Israel’s numbers were, in fact, a measure of the blessing of God.
Jesus and His Disciples
On the other hand, by pretty much every human measure we use, Jesus was a horrible failure as a leader. We know that at one time he had thousands of people following him. Once, he fed a crowd measured at 5000 men (heads of household). How many total were there? No one knows. But it is safe to say that Jesus was, at that time, a “mega-Messiah.” Crowds following him everywhere, he was the happening guy on the religious scene in Israel. But Jesus demonstrated a confusing disdain for this kind of popularity. In John 2:23-25, Jesus showed that he was not going to play to the crowds or trust in their adulation of him.
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.
Great numbers “believed” in Jesus but he was not interested in gathering a crowd but in developing disciples.
The turning point in Jesus’ ministry came in John 6. Jesus fed the 5000 and walked on water and his popularity was unmatched. But he began preaching some hard truths about commitment and raising the bar of discipleship. Luke 9 tells us that after the feeding of the 5000, Jesus began to teach about his death and laid down this unpalatable truth.
If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily and follow me. (Luke 9:23)
The crowd loved the show that Jesus had put on, they enjoyed the food and all those healings, but they had no desire to take up any cross or to lay down their lives for anyone. Jesus was their ticket to greatness and when he started talking about them dying for him, about them eating his flesh and drinking his blood, they wanted nothing more to do with him. John 6:66 (appropriately numbered verse?) says this:
After this, many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
Jesus was looking for commitment, not crowds and though he had some outstanding numbers, he gave them up to remain faithful to his calling and the truth he was sent to proclaim. By the time of Jesus’ death there were only about 120 disciples (and they all ran away in fear!). Think about this: if a pastor of a church of 20,000 people drove away everyone but 120 people in a year or two, would he be considered for a raise? Jesus, by his harsh demands of total commitment, even death to self, drove away the vast majority of those who followed him.
What is the lesson here? It would be dangerous to read numbers as an absolute measure of the blessing of God. By numerical standards, Jesus failed, but none of us would call him a failure, would we?
The Evidence in Acts
The story, though, does not end with the death and resurrection of Jesus. It continues in Acts as the Spirit of God birthed the church of Jesus Christ and released it into the world. The early chapters of Acts show the challenges the nascent church faced and how they overcame them. Every possible problem a church could have was marshaled against them and they continued to advance and grow. Several verses indicate this growth and many even attach numbers to the report.
Acts 2:42-46 describes both the early church and, I believe, the church as it is meant to be. The passage ends with this simple statement in verse 47.
And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
It seems a fair postulate to say that when the church is what the church should be, God does what he does – he saves the lost! That is why Jesus came. It is God’s heart to glorify himself by saving and transforming sinners. A healthy church ought to see growth and the salvation of the lost.
In Acts 4:4, Luke reports:
But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.
And again, in Acts 5:14 we find this:
And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women
Here are a few others
And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus. Acts 5:42
And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith. Acts 6:7
Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word. Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ. And the crowds with one accord paid attention to what was being said by Philip when they heard him and saw the signs that he did. For unclean spirits, crying out with a loud voice, came out of many who had them, and many who were paralyzed or lame were healed. So there was much joy in that city. Acts 8:4–8
But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ. Acts 9:22
So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied. Acts 9:31
And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. Acts 11:21
In Acts 13, Paul embarked on the first of his missionary journeys and the gospel that had spread in Jerusalem and in Judea and Samaria began to find its way around the world. Wherever Paul went, the gospel had its effect and sinners were saved.
Of course, interpreting Acts can be tricky. Are the events of Acts anomalous to the early days of the church, or do they provide a template for us to accurately interpret and follow? As I believe the latter I also believe there is a key principle revealed here.
Healthy churches grow as souls are saved.
The Epistles
I would point out one more verse in this context, a warning from Paul – one of the last things he ever wrote. In 2 Timothy 4:1-4, Paul says:
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
He charges Timothy to be relentless in the proclamation of truth, even to the unpopular practice of proclaiming God’s Word to “reprove, rebuke and exhort.” I guess Paul didn’t get the memo about always being “positive and encouraging!” But then, Paul warns that a time is coming when sound doctrine will not be tolerated even in the church of Jesus Christ. Instead, people will gather around themselves teachers who will tell them what they want to hear instead of the hard truths from God that they need to hear.
The unmistakable conclusion here is that you can gather a crowd without honoring Christ. You can grow big by compromise. Not all churches that grow do it by compromise, but growth can be both a measure of the health of a church and an indication of the sickness of tickling ears instead of teaching truth.
Conclusions
I would make the following propositions for your consideration, based on this lengthy but still cursory examination of God’s Word.
1) A healthy church grows.
The conclusion I take away from the book of Acts is that a church that is doing what it ought to be doing will see the activity of God in its midst. The lost will be saved and lives will be transformed. The gospel is still the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes – the Cross is still open for business. I would set no quotas or numerical limits, but if a church is healthy, it ought to be seeing salvations and spiritual growth.
We had some dear friends who became concerned when their youngest son did not grow properly. They knew that it was natural for him to grow and that his lack of growth was a sign that something was wrong. They took him to the doctor who dealt with the condition. Last time I saw this “little boy” he was a 6’1″. Once they dealt with the condition that was hindering his growth he became what he was supposed to be.
I believe that growth is the natural state of the healthy church and therefore a lack of real growth ought to be a cause for concern and appropriate action.
2) It is dangerous to assume that numbers are a sign of God’s pleasure.
I watched a video of the pastor of the largest church in America (I think – one of them anyway) being interviewed on a national talk show. He refused to call sin sin and refused to say that Jesus Christ was the only way to salvation. My conclusion, having watched him deny Christ and deny truth on national TV, is that the growth his church has experienced has come largely from his tendency to scratch itching ears rather than to proclaim the truth of God. The gospel never goes on clearance and we cannot lower the cost without compromising the truth.
T.W. Hunt in his powerful study, “The Mind of Christ” talked about the human tendency to manufacture fleshly imitations of every Christian virtue. This tendency is also evident in “church growth.” When our churches (or our denomination) is not spiritually healthy and it is evident in our numbers, we sometimes try to address the numbers instead of addressing the underlying issues. We need not look for ways to build our numbers, but instead look for ways to return to the place from which we have fallen (Revelation 2:5).
In a recent post (Doug Hibbard’s excellent “Does It Work?”), CB Scott left a comment. He said,
What I think at this present time is due to a major degree of involvement and observation over a long period of time. I think that a spititual “Great Awakening” among the many beauracies of “all” SBC life with true repentance must take place. If that does not happen, I think Frank L. is right. We don’t have 40-50 years.
I think CB is onto something. Perhaps we have been looking for strategic, programmatic and organizational solutions when the real issue is spiritual.
3) It is dangerous to ignore a lack of numerical increase.
If a church is not growing, not seeing souls saved, not seeing the power of the Spirit released in its midst, it would be utter folly to simply ignore that and say, “The results are up to God.” Of course they are. But God is still saving the lost and changing lives and if he is not doing it in your congregation, that should be cause for concern.
In the last few years here at Southern Hills, I have not observed the kind of numerical and spiritual growth that I think is evidence of a healthy church. We have a lot of good things in our favor and I have told the people that. But I also have told them publicly that we ought to be concerned that our baptistery is used as infrequently as it is. I’m not going to lower the bar and give a discounted gospel to increase numbers. It is my job to preach the gospel clearly and God’s job to draw sinners and save them. But when we are not seeing the kind of response that I believe should mark a healthy church, it would be ministerial malpractice for me to simply ignore that and move on.
If God is not drawing sinners and saving them at my church, it is a safe bet that the problem is more likely to be with me or the church than it is to be with God!
So, now, let me answer the question I posed as directly as I can. Can we measure the pleasure of God statistically? Yes…and no.
The normal state of a healthy church is to grow as God uses them to redeem the lost and transform lives. We should never seek numbers, because that path can lead to the dark side. But we should also never ignore the lack of numbers, which is likely a sign that there is something in the church that is quenching the Spirit.
That’s my theory. What say you?
This is somewhere between a blog post and a booklet. Sorry for the length, but I felt like even at this length, it was still woefully incomplete.
I don’t have a clue, brother. What I do know is that I’ve searched for some kind of evidence of God’s movement, His blessing, His using, our churches. And I just haven’t found one yet. We’ll have 3 or 4 couple join the church and get told God moved in a mighty way, but nothing changes. We have revivals where everybody has a good time, but nothing changes. We have lots of people at the altar, but lives don’t seem to change. And our numbers, too, nave been on a plateau for about 12 years.
I just don’t know, and I sure wish I did.
Sometimes, we are like starving people who get a rice cake and call it a feast!
I really like this statement Dave. I mean I don’t like it….but I think it’s a great metaphor or simile (I never can tell the difference).
I think it an apt description of many of the so-called “revivals” that have popped up around the land in recent years.
Mike: I had a member of my first church, the janitor, who had been shot down by the enemy in the Pacific. He was on a life raft for about three months. He was finally rescued, and a short while later they gave him chicken for dinner. He said, “I ate three bites, and I was full.” His stomach had shrunk.
One must not forget the infamous Jeremiah People’s (musical theater arm of the Continental Singers) comment on the subject:
Numbers, numbers, numbers that’s the name of the game
Keep ’em pouring through the door no matter why they came
Building your enrollment is the only road to fame
You know the biggest and the best, they really are the same!
Sorry to not add more…that’s just what I can remember.
Priceless.
Dave, I really enjoyed this post. I stopped about half-way and took a short nap.
I think your conclusion is the solution. Very good balance.
“I stopped about half-way and took a short nap.”
Har har hardy har.
I think it was Jim Cymbala who referred to the new “ABC’s” of church growth: Attendance, Buildings & Collections.
Dave,
I was going to post something, but after reading your blog I’m too tired.
Another comedian.
Wonderful post Dave! I agree with all of it. Maybe we disagree on this, but I feel like we still have a ways to go to in Conservative Evangelical Christianity to purge our system of Church Growth thinking. In my study of church history the cultural shift ;P in American Christianity to depend on revivals and easy to replicate gospel presentations (4 spiritual laws, Romans Road, etc.) was itself a compromise on the Biblical cost of discipleship. Until our proclamations of the Gospel include the expectation the Holy Spirit can actually produce in a believer the kind of fruit discussed in Matthew 5, 1 Corinthians 13 and Galatians 5:22-26 among others and this proclamation is exemplified by believers who model ALL of these fruits, I don’t think the world will feel compelled to believe. If the Church today will not become as radically different from the culture it lives in as the Christians were to first century Jews and gentiles there can not begin the process of growth. The culture around us in some ways is capable of acting like a refining fire through their apathy. Until the deadweight of cultural Christianity is removed from our churches they will decline and disappear until that faithful remnant is left.
Maybe the numbers are growing more than we recognize. In an era of the mobile devices and the internet the method of information decimation is changing. What we need to do is change as a church in bringing that community together and bring the community into the house of worship. As a pastor what have you done to bring your internet flock into a house of worship that may or may not be your house of worship?
Sometimes the church needs to recognize the change in the congregational makeup and change the invitation a bit. You may no longer just be inviting people to join you down the street to worship. You may need to start inviting people to walk their neighborhood and help them find a scripture based church with living people 1000’s of miles away from you.
Worship and congregational family is important. You see the numbers of downloads of your sermons, many pastors do not recognize that not all these downloads are from 1000’s of miles away and think it is just someone who missed the Sunday service or someone who thought their preaching was so great they needed to hear it one more time.
A friend of mine is a High school teacher and he mentioned to me how times have changed when students are walking to the next class. When we were in school we talked to our friends and goofed around. Todays students walk while texting not talking or goofing around. How is your church reaching out to this change of society?
Noah probably preached warnings of the pending Flood for 100 years. “Baptized” seven souls, all family.
Moral of the story?
Not one among us has ever saved a single soul.
No, God save souls. But I think too often we use this as cover for the failings of our churches.
“It’s not my fault – only God can save a soul.”
Of course that is right. But God saves souls and desires to use us in that process. A church that is not seeing God do what he does should be asking itself some tough questions, not blaming God as if “we were faithful” but God just didn’t do his job.
Hi Dave,
So what of Noah? I think we could all agree that Noah was faithful…as was Jeremiah. Neither of them would have made the cut in the current SBC numbers craze. Surely we would not say of their ministries that God was “not doing His job.”
When we have asked (and answered) the tough questions, yet we are still not seeing “numbers,” what then?
If God is not currently saving “bunches” in my ministry, what is my responsibility? This is the only answer I can find:
I just returned from the MS Baptist Convention where, yet again, we had Dr. Hankins’ “Sinner’s Prayer” resolution offered and adopted. I’m sure we will see a sharp jump in “baptisms” numbers in our state in the coming year. Never mind that 2/3 of them won’t darken the door of the house of worship on Sunday…hey, we got ’em “baptized” ’cause they repeated the “Sinners Prayer.”
By what means does God save souls?
I not only think this is the best answer, I think it is the only answer.
So…come Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday evening…I will be found preaching the Word…with every ounce of strength and ability God gives me.
Preach the Word. Weep, pray, labor, preach.
If God saves souls, give Him glory.
If God does not save souls…GIVE HIM GLORY.
Noah? “””” Neither of them would have made the cut in the current SBC numbers craze.”””””
The whole world was saved through Noah’s ministry!
I’d say that ranks pretty much near the top.
Neither one of them were church pastors either. Jeremiah was told beforehand that no one would listen to him. And Noah, well let’s face it, even if some would have been inclined to listen to him there is just so much room on the ark.
I think your conclusion is correct: the “normal” state of a healthy church is to grow. So I wonder if my specific situation is a normal case. Only Noah’s family was saved during the Flood. Jeremiah saw no lasting converts (please correct me if I’m wrong on that). So even if we are faithful, we may not see results.
Granted, we will never do things perfectly as churches, so there is always room to become more healthy. How do we know we are a “healthy” church versus an unhealthy one? Is it more of a spectrum rather a “yes” or “no”? How do we know whether it’s our fault for our lack of growth due to unfaithfulness, or simply God’s decision? Or if we really are planting lots of seeds and the harvest is just around the corner?
I think I’m rambling more than anything, but I just get depressed as well about a lack of results, even though I trust God to give them if it’s His will, and wonder if we’re doing something wrong (or not doing something right), even though we’re generally a “healthy” church.
Yeah, there is no quota or numerical benchmark by which we judge. And I don’t think we should ever use the lack of numbers to judge others. My point is that as a pastor, when I see a lack of conversions it causes me to reevaluate what we are doing and ask God if there is something we are doing that puts the light under basket.
Excellent comments, David. The issue is one about quality first and then quantitty. I once preached a revival in the church in which I grew up. The pastor emeritus took me for trip down to Memphis, Tn. (perhaps 150-80 miles from Nimmons, Ark. There we visited the Bellevue Baptist Church, and Bro. George Washington Gray told me that percentage wise, he baptized as many as Dr. R.G. Lee did at Bellevue (taking into account the people available for prospects, etc. It was a sobering thought. I shall never forget some years later I was reading William Warren Sweet’s description of the Baptist Farmer Preacher (their equivalent of the Methodist Circuit Rider) in his Story of Religion in America, and I had a stunning experience. For a brief bit, I thought I was reading a description of Bro. Gray. A sobering and stirring experience. Faithfulness and fidelity are the qualities that God wants….not like the two preachers I mentioned in another blog who got into a fist fight over who had the most converts.
Dave, I really like this post and the balance with which you present in the struggle to discern numerical growth. I recently joined a mega-church and my short-term experience has been a blessing. (I may write about it soon.)
Could it also be the case that God is pruning a congregation for a time in order to grow them spiritually? Even if the answer to that question is ‘yes’ that time would pass and numerical growth would likely occur.
Obviously, since metaphors of seed and harvest are used in the Bible, we should recognize that there are times of planting, times of nurturing and then a harvest.
But if the seed stays in the ground month after month, year after year, we have to wonder what the problem is!
In Matthew 16:18 Jesus says, “I will build my church”. In Acts 2:47b it says, “the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Even though God desires our prayer and obedience prior to numerical outcomes I think it is more God’s pleasure in Himself for the outcomes whether we pray or are obedient. In fact, our prayer and obedience is, too, the outcome of God’s good pleasure. It is not of works lest any man should boast. This is a mystery to me that we must be obedient, but it is not us, it is Christ working in us.
Galatians 2:20 says, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”
With that, it cannot be about anything we do but about how far removed from the results we are so that God is the only one to be seen. I cannot stand up and say it is all of God either, He has to be the most obvious factor in the silence. Anything less has too many human fingerprints on it.
A local pastor had an event and 31 kids were baptized; in a blow-up pool outside. Their baptistry was just fine but they chose a public baptism. Word got out and the pastor was called to several different churches to talk about how they got 31 kids saved. A “love” offering was taken for the pastor after his speech. I don’t understand that. That tells me the state of some of our churches today. We want numbers and there has to be a method somewhere that works when God isn’t working. I think a large number of churches think that way. We do not appease God to move, we praise Him regardless. Acts 2:47a, “Praising God, and having favour with all the people.”
To truly understand Baptists and numbers perhaps we should drop altogether the spiritual aspects of the issue and look at the principle of reward and incentive, ubiquituous to our and other societies and to all fields.
In Baptist life there is a reward for generating greater numbers – prestige, accolades, larger churches, greater compensation, perhaps denominational leadership and position. The coin-of-the-realm in church life is growth not the dreaded plateau or decline. Seldom do pastors get rewarded for the lack thereof (although I was once offered a trophy by a deacon because my actions led to the leaving of a group of people from the church).
Associations, state conventions, SBC entities, and the SBC as a whole value greater, not lesser numbers and this often changes behavior sometimes in undesirable ways.
Interestingly, actions of NAMB have incentivized the lowering of some numbers and that leading to financial rewards. I’m writing on that later this week probably.
Forgive the long comment but take the honesty in church membership push as an example. There is simply no incentive to reduce church membership rolls. It may be a reasonable and sensible thing to do but there is no reward at the local church or any other level for having done so.
Dave Miller proves once again that he may be way too sensible for an SBC VP. Good thoughts.
…this from an SBC numbers junkie.
Good thoughts, things I’ve pondered before as well. I can think of one reason to reduce membership rolls, though, and that is cooperative program giving per resident member. In my state, not only are total cooperative program dollars published (and higher numbers of course exalted), but also giving per resident member. So even though my small church is a giving church, it doesn’t appear to be so on paper since we have over a hundred “members” whom I have never met and who thefire give nothing, lowering the giving per member significanty. Pruning the rolls to more accurately reflect our membership would allow me to boost my ego by having our church name listed among the top givers to the cooperative program. Granted, not a huge incentive, but just enough of one that perhaps we should rethink this aspect of numbers as well.
The incentive for focusing on numbers is so you know how many able-bodied men and boys are available for waging war isn’t it??
I’m a child of the end of the church envelope and check mark accounting. I’m also the son of a man who taught churches how to prepare for growth via paying attention to the “system” of growth the Super Spiral advocated. Because I’m a natural systems analyst, I can tell you there is a mass balance kind of approach that can be used successfully to look out for fundamental growth limiters like parking space and worship seating. To some extent you definitely can prevent growth that the Lord of the Harvest has prepared for your church.
And to some extent via faithfulness you can create the condition for the Father to take pleasure in your service and that very well could include an increase in numbers. And our pride will be difficult to resist and I’ll point out the “numbers board” wasn’t just a common feature of Baptist churches in the 50s, 60s, and 70s but was fairly ubiquitous especially in the rural south pretty much as a measure of constancy.
The key is to “do the math”. Every number represents a soul. Every soul guided into a lasting relationship with Jesus Christ represents one more person who Satan doesn’t get for eternity. We are sly as snakes and gentle as lambs to pursue each one for the sake of the invisible Kingdom.
As the old saying might ought to go, with or without tracking the numbers, it all adds UPWARDS.
Dave,
Apples to oranges.
Individual congregations to the whole Body or the whole nation of Israel.
I think the comparisons are bad.
Consider this passage you quoted:
So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied. Acts 9:31
Notice it was not one individual congregation but all of them throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria.
Why then do you apply that widespread historical truth as a principle to a local individualized congregation?
Could it be possible that my church reaps the seeds planted and watered by others?
And some other church reaps some of what we plant and water?
God calls us to faithfulness.
Can we measure that numerically?
I don’t think so.
Salvation is not about our faithfulness.
No one is saved by their own faithfulness.
God saves others despite our unfaithfulness.
Think not?
Are you [or is your church] 100% faithful?
If not, how faithful must you [or your church] be to qualify for God’s blessing of numerical increase?
“Could it be possible that my church reaps the seeds planted and watered by others?
And some other church reaps some of what we plant and water?”
yes,
not only ‘could it be’, but it has always been so for two thousand years
I think the bond of the Holy Spirit within the communion of saints is not comprehended by some Christian people . . . maybe time it was
If a church is not seeing salvation, transformation and maturation it should take a serious look at itself. I think that sometimes we use the “we are only called to be faithful” meme to gloss over our failures.
Dave,
You said,
“In the last few years here at Southern Hills, I have not observed the kind of numerical and spiritual growth that I think is evidence of a healthy church.”
But you focus seemed to be on numbers growth as the rest of that paragraph bore out and the next one which said:
“If God is not drawing sinners and saving them at my church, it is a safe bet that the problem is more likely to be with me or the church than it is to be with God!”
But the Great Commission is not just about baptizing. And our role in this world is not just about numbers. Consider…
So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”
But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
A disciple is a convert who is being taught so that they too can be a witness for Jesus.
But not every witness for Jesus makes a convert. Some witness may be for judgment purposes and to proclaim the Kingship of Jesus and Him as Lord over all.
Spiritual growth is not only in converts or new baptisms but also in the teaching of the disciples and in maintaining a witness for the King.
My concern is that we ignore signs of trouble in the church.
Again, if you read the article carefully, I said some of the same things you said. But I think we need to be careful of only taking one side of this.
So why did you completely skip over Jesus’ ministry and conclude based on the book of Acts alone that a healthy church grows? Is it possible a “healthy” church is given numerical increase and decrease as God sees fit for his glory? What of the abundant reminders both by Jesus and the epistle writers of the promised sufferings of the church…were Smyrna and Philadelphia “healthy churches,” in spite of their ‘little’ power (Rev 3:8)?
Your comment demonstrates that you did not read the article. Read it and then we will talk.
Sorry. I did read the article – you equate God working with an increase in numbers when you state “a church that is doing what it ought to be doing will see the activity of God in its midst.” This is largely the case in the book of Acts but I am not sure that is the case in the rest of the New Testament.
I agree with your 3rd conclusion.
How do we connect the parable of talent with faithfulness and growth? Each man was given a job based on the master’s wisdom, and two produce different levels of growth but both were faithful.
But there is always a harvest, right?
yes, always . . .
“So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:
it shall not return unto Me void,
but it shall accomplish that which I please,
and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
(Isaiah 55:11)
True! Of one nature or another.
I am amazed that people can and do use the Bible to justify anything or everything.
There is NO way to fulfill the Great Commission without growing in numbers. Discipleship starts with a convert
Frank l.
Yes it does. But i assume that there is a flock already in his church. Thus without teaching those already there all that Jesus has shown us, the Great Commission is not completed. thus there is no way to fufill the Great Commission w/o maturing the converts already there.
Likewise, the Great Commission is not necessarily fulfilled by individual congregations, but as by the church as a whole. So while one congregation is growing, another might be providing the Body with other services.
One congregation can not fulfill the Great Commission.
“””””One congregation can not fulfill the Great Commission.”””””
The Great Commission wasn’t given to “The Church.” It was a mandate for every individual disciple of Jesus Christ.
If a church has disciples, it should be growing more disciples, beginning with Step 1: converts.
Aside from your suspect logic, I don’t agree with your theology.
Frank L.: I think some of us do believe that the Great Commission was given to the church. The church, contrary to popular opinion was already in existence as Jesus indicated in Mt.18:15-17. In addition, He had celebrated the first communion with the first church organized and functioning on earth. Even the Landmarkers had something to say about the nature of the church; they just erred in leaving out the spiritual, universal aspect of it.
There were 500 witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, but only 120 showed up for the prayer meeting. Jesus had 12 disciples, but only one stood at the foot of the cross. When judgement falls on the American church, how many of its members will scramble? The Church within the church has always been few in number. I would rather be in a foxhole with His remnant, than a bunch of religious folks.
Dave –
With all due respect to you and the former generations (and many of the current as well) I believe that we Baptists generally proceed from a false assumption regarding church growth numbers:
— We always assume FIRST that our local congregation is the church —
I believe that the arrogance (not malicious, but present) in this statement is believing that if there aren’t baptisms in my congregation or local house of worship, that “the church” isn’t growing or is showing signs of not being healthy.
I have come to the conclusion that we SBC’ers have ecclesiology upside-down: we think local first when we should think universal.
Paul clearly teaches us that some are an eye, some a hand and some a foot. But, what is an eye without the head in which it sits? What is the foot without the hands to put on the shoes? We focus too much on how good we are at being a hand as opposed to how well the foot or the eye is doing RATHER than in deference to the other parts of the body.
I think we need to upend our ecclesiology to make it proper and biblical:
1. First comes the head – Jesus
2. Next comes THE BODY – the collective of those who are called by His name
3. Finally comes the parts – the individual congregations who are subject to the head
We should rejoice that the part of the body across town or in another country is growing and being used rather than covet that growth. We should be grateful for what He has given us and learn to recognize seasons. How can there be growth if there is no plowing and planting and watering?
If a local congregation is not “experiencing growth” it could be that the Lord has decided to leave that field fallow for a season so the congregation can grow in grace and knowledge: pour in theology and doctrine, verse memorization and small group studies, family building and fellowship opportunities. Obviously not to forsake outreach and evangelism; but, recognize that workers need rest from time to time:
Remember, even the Great Jeter can’t play all the bases at once, nor can he bat for every player; he needs rest and there are other players on the team.
As to your point about “signs of trouble in the church” I’d say that the only sign of trouble is when you quit preaching the word as it is written so you can scratch some itching ears. If your flock shrinks some due this preaching and teaching, then discern if it is pruning or if there is a wolf in amongst the sheep.
Again, I don’t completely disagree with what you are saying, but I think it often becomes an excuse for a failure to adequately obey the Great Commission. It can be a form of blaming God for our failures, as if we have been faithful to the task of evangelizing the lost, but God has not really done his part.
I will say it again, I think any church that is not seeing the salvation of the the lost, their transformation to become like Christ and their maturation into men and women of character ought to do some serious self-examination.
Let’s be careful to justify our failures by blaming God.
I agree that people create excuses for not obeying the Great Commission. But people who do not love him, church members or not, will not brag about him: we celebrate and tell others about the great things in our lives.
Maybe some congregations are not growing through evangelism because many of those members are not really believers
Many also are afraid of “screwing up” the Gospel or they don’t have a compelling testimony. Both issue are a legacy of SBC life when (and it is still often true) that ones spirituality or walk with Jesus is judged by how many people one has led to the Lord.
You said, “Maybe some congregations are not growing through evangelism because many of those members are not really believers.”
You are making my point there. I am not saying the pastor is always at fault, but that when there is a lack of spiritual activity, the pastor and church should examine themselves and figure out if they are quenching the spirit in some way.
Agreed. I’m just not fond of numbers having been under a pastor and around people who made decisions about church activities or events based solely on statistics:
– FATIH – I’m not a fan, but he stated that on doing the surveys, the more people we sign up on the Sunday school roles the better because statistically, 30% of the people on the role will attend church. Therefore, sign up everybody so we can increase attendance and giving.
– VBS – there was a discussion in which one person suggested that a church SHOULD do VBS even if it is financially or logistically difficult because statistically our of 50 kids, there are “always” 4-5 salvations as though God can be made to act because of statistics.
Greg,
You said, “””” I’m just not fond of numbers having been under a pastor and around people who made decisions about church activities or events based solely on statistics:””””
I am going out on a limb and say I believe you would agree that some people would use a similar argument that would amount to “throwing the baby out with the bath water.”
We can easily corrupt any good thing. I’d suppose you agree with that.
What people need to understand COMPLETELY is that everyone is already in the fast lane to Hell. Unless we are teaching false (prosperity, unitarianism, nestorianism, etc) even a partial telling of the Gospel is STILL the Gospel. If one does not respond, it is not because we destroyed the recitation and now that person is bound for Hell.
We cannot give someone a Disney Fast-Pass to Hell; everyone already has one.
True, as far as your go.
Dave,
I made this point: “””Let’s be careful to justify our failures by blaming God””” so many times in another thread you told me to get a “new horse to ride.”
Thanks for finding my horse.
Let me be clear, Frank. I am not taking one side or the other in that debate. I think you guys were talking past each other. I do not believe we can use arbitrary numerical quotas to establish God’s pleasure or blessing.
On the other hand, I think it is dangerous to excuse our failures by falling back on the “I’ve been faithful” mantra too easily. Yes, sometimes we are faithful and there is no response – at least for a time.
I am not saying that one who does not see response is necessarily sinful or failed. But the lack of numbers should at least provoke us to pray and seek God’s face and see if there is anything in us that would hinder God’s work.
Dave,
Since I agree with all you just wrote, how is it that I am talking “past anyone?”
The above quote I referenced is exactly the argument I was making — and I believe the same words — in the other thread.
So, I can give your position a hardy “amen.”
Your ecclesiological argument has some flaws. I believe in the universal church (more than a lot of Baptists do), and I believe in the city-church concept (the church of Jesus Christ in Sioux City, for instance). But the vast majority of the times the word church is used, it refers to a local body of believers gathered to worship, receive the Word, and do those other necessary ecclesiological task.
In other words, while some may de-emphasize the universal church, I think you have overemphasized it well beyond what is biblically warranted.
I respectfully disagree with your linguistic assessment of the use of “church” in the NT. I think you and many if not most in the SBC bring a presupposition to translation that ekklesia must always or often be translated as “church.” I think that is a formula for mis-translation.
In its simplest use, ekklesia means “called out ones.” I think it would be wiser to read it that way first rather than “church.” It doesn’t diminish the local congregation (and neither do I by the way), it puts it in proper context: as PART of the body.
The way the BFM is written (and how most people operate) is: local congregation first.
… oh yeah, we are brothers and sisters with all other orthodox believers.
I think I mis-read your response… before I posted.
Dan has told me about the City-Church concept and I think that is a great approach. You can ask Dan for details… I think maybe I’m biased because of my experiences here in the desert.
Thanks for the interaction.
Greg: I spent years in a study of the use of ekklesia. I disagree with you that about the meaning of “the called out ones.” It means the called out ones assembled together. In short, the local assembly, ordinarily. Thus we find that perhaps 80-90% of the references to the ekklesia are references to a local assembly. Only in certain cases is there the glimpse of a much wider body, the universal church.
Dr W. –
I haven’t spent years studying ekklesia or Greek, but I have spent years studying multiple languages and have found that often the simplest translation is the most useful; especially when it comes to cultural idioms or abstract compound words like ekklesia, which is a compound word.
From what I’ve seen so far in Greek, it seems to share word-formation similarities with German (i.e. farfegnugen= the art of driving). I know there is the study of the word, it’s compound parts, and also it historical use in koine and high Greek going back to Sophocles and Homer.
I just think sometimes, especially in the halls of academia (a.k.a. seminary), when people have NOT studied multiple living languages, their study of a dead one can be colored more by presuppositions and a priori theology rather than letting their theology be shaped by what the words mean.
I’d very much like to study Greek and Hebrew in much more detail; I just haven’t gotten around to it yet.
Greg: I have studied five languages, beginning with Spanish, then koine Greek, one class in classical Greek (audited), German, French, and Hebrew. I am no linguist by a long shot, though I did do two years of research on the Greek of I Cors. 13, gathering some 2000 note cards. My grades in koine Greek were As and Bs, in Hebrew Bs and Cs, and I won’t tell how bad they were in the Euro languages mentioned above. However, in any case, it is the usage of the term ekklesia in the Greek of the biblical period that concerns us, and that can be established by a study of the passages in the Bible where it is used as well as in secular sources. One thing I would call your attention to is the institutional usage of the term, the governing assembly of a Greek city state, e.g., Corinth and Ephesus. The idea of assembled together in order to carry on the business of the state is very much to the fore in any consideration of its usage in those contexts. It is also noted for being the translation of qahal (I think that is the english equivalent transliterating the sound from the Hebrew) in the LXX. Chosen, called out, assembled together are terms which are descriptive of ekklesia, assembly being necessary for it to accomplish its purpose. Our Lord seems very clear in calling out the twelve (Mt. 10; then identified the church as the institution he was establishing (Mt.16), and indicated that it was in existence by telling the disciplers to take a case to the church, note: note the elders and/or deacons but the ekklesia.
I think some of the “dislocation” between the two views is kind of what my high school English teacher(s) taught me about the difference between the denotative meaning of a word and the connotative meaning. The denotative meaning is usually what we think of as the “dictionary definition”. That is often strongly informed by the etymology of the word including its earlier language contributions and “parts” such as prefixes and suffixes. The definition of “ekklesia” as called out ones falls more in this direction.
But I also have come to respect the fact that “ekklesia” implies gathering or assembly as well. This very likely is more of a connotative meaning and in my experience the connotative meaning is often related to the denotative meaning but is based on accumulated experience with the word.
An example, please, you say? Be happy to offer one that I’m aware of: the word “comfort”. It’s derived from French and its etymology is “with strength”. Arguably the use of comfort in the KJV is more towards a “dictionary definition” of “to strengthen another”. But the connotation (and now the dictionary definition because it’s been used this way for a LONG time) is more along the line of “to provide support, especially emotional support.”
The “provide support” is very similar to “strengthen”. But it’s not the SAME meaning. To provide strength to a man traditionally has included saying things like “buck up” or “keep your chin up” or even “quit whining”. It isn’t “okay, go ahead and have a good cry” which is more how we think of “comfort” today.
Specifically the use of ekklesia in the Septuagint and very specifically in Ecclesiastes very specifically has to do with speaking to an assembly (yes, even in the LXX title of the book that has been adopted for ALL modern translations.) Since that usage predates the biblical usage by quite a few years, I think it’s perfectly fair to assume that the primary meaning of ekklesia in the New Testament period is referring to an assembly or gathering. The root of the Hebrew word in the first verse of Ecclesiastes is, indeed qoph-he-lamed or qahal. The specific word is q’hlet and is probably best translated as “one who calls to assembly.”
The wiki article on the word uses the synonym “convoke”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qahal
The history of the word is sufficiently well defined–I’ll note I’m not a linguist nor an apt scholar of Greek but just based on what I’ve read–to reject the etymology as the primary meaning of ekklesia. But Southern Baptists have always gotten this right anyway: it’s the people, not the building, that make up the church. I think keeping that in mind in using ekklesia gives us the correct usage of the word without having to depend on how the gathering got gathered.
Greg –
I think you’re on to something. Though not all of us can get into learning multiple living languages, I think that learning to really listen to other people in one’s own native language can be quite a help: you learn how easy, common, and unsurprising mis-communication is; you learn to spot the subtle clues that tell you that differences between your own perspective and the speaker’s perspective are affecting your ability to hear what the speaker is actually trying to say, and you get a feel for how people actually communicate, instead of regarding language as a logic puzzle. All of this adds to reading Scripture, not only in the original languages, but even in translations.
David: The human mind does not like antinomies (J.I. Packer’s term) or paradoxes The church is both local, visible, congregational and universal, spiritual, and invisible. The apparent contradiction is meant to set up a tension int he human mind enabling and empowering the individual believer to be flexible, balanced, creative, constant, and magnetic. Peopl who experience the apparent contradiction’s tension as a liberating sense find a real relief in the doctrines where they have a grasp on both poles of a two-sided doctrine.
I wonder if the human mind not liking it is part of the point? As in we’re not supposed to feel that we’re up to rightly interpreting the Scripture on our own, without God?
Well, Duh!
I think this “tension” is a symptom of being of a Western philosophical mindset; Eastern philosophical thinkers generally have no such tension.
I wonder what “issues” that exist today would be absent if we could hear the scriptures with the same philosophical mindset that the original audience had.
Greg: I am simply describing a phenomenon of the human psychic. Normally, we do not like contrary or contradictory ideas, and, therefore, we jettison one or the other, keeping the one for which we have a predilection. However, there are instances, when both sides happen to be true and still convey that sense of incongruity which perplexes the mind, producing a tension in it. Such a tension can be experienced as a liberating force, one that enables the believer to be balanced, flexible, creative, constant, and magnetic. In counseling the idea is the theory of creative dissonance, developed by Dr. Paul Halmos in his work, The Faith of Counsellors, pub. back in the late 60s or early 70s by Shocken Books of New York. His theory dovetailed neatly with what I had found in my researches in church history and how doctrines affected human behavior.
Well, Greg, when we look at the local church in the NT, e.g., the church of Corinth, we find that they are so identified and designated as a church of the Lord Jesus Christ by no less than the Apostle Paul himself. That being the case it sort of follows that we may identify our local church as being a church of the Lord Jesus.
I think in fulfilling the Great Commission, we have to look at what really has to take place. It’s not in the programs, or commitees, or KBC, or even SBC. It has to begin with the individual. When the individuals heart is set on fire, only then can things begin to happen. When Christians are on fire, their heart opens up, then we can think evanglizing.
With this said more pressure is placed on the pastor to allow God to fire up his members.
I read a couple of posts that decry the SBC emphasis on numbers. I don’t disagree some take this way too far, but it seems to me that the problem with the SBC today, as opposed to yesterday (when we were much more vibrant) is a decrease in the emphasis on “numbers,” not an increase.
I remember (though not personally) “A Million More in Fifty-four,” or “Bold Mission thrust,” or “Action Campaigns,” and then the Sunday School Growth Spiral (the most ingenious tool ever developed in my opinion).
We haven’t had a consistent push for “numbers” in some time it seems to me. The problem may be “too little” concern for “numbers,” not too much.
Of course, let’s set aside the extreme views at each end of the number line.
One can be overly concerned about numbers, when one lies in preaching or witnessing in order to get people to respond to the message. I once told in a seminary class on evangelism about an evangelist who told a deliberate lie and got some people forward. One student in the class said, “Well, he got some forward, didn’t he.” As if that was all that mattered.
I would be surprised if the ones who say numbers are not a barometer are not familiar with all their church’s numbers. One rarely can fool themselves.
Dean,
“”””One rarely can fool themselves.””””
You point out an important aspect of shepherding–one has to know about the flock (statistics, characteristics, etc.).
I’m not so sure we can’t “regularly deceive ourselves.”
It’s not the quanity of diamonds that make one rich, It’s the quality of diamonds that make one rich. It’s much the same way with members of a church, you can have a quanity of folks that are pretty much worthless as far as reaching out to people, but if you have folks with quality you can get something done. Therefore numbers may not be what satisfies God.
Not every one that says Lord, Lord is going to enter in, but he that does the will of my Father.
Jess, nevertheless I bet you know how many were in Sunday school Sunday and how many you guys baptize. To say you don’t keep up with numbers follow them is hard to believe.
Quality! Qualtiy! Quality! followed by quantity, quantity, quantity.
Not against #’s per se except when we use them to bolster our pride, which I know I am guilty of getting caught up in. But I do have a thought. It seems to me that many see the GC as simply winning people to Christ or making disciples, of which that is one element.
But I see it as making disciples among ethnic groups (Nations). So when we count our numbers, should we be counting more than just baptisms? Should we not be counting how many ethnic groups, even in America, are reached with the gospel? The verses I relate this to are Rev 5:9, 7:9 ; Matt 24:14. Do not get me wrong, I am for us sharing and reaching everybody we can. It seems when we talk of the great commission, and we speak of counting, we miss that the target audience of the GC, IMO, is the ethnos ( nations). Therefore, should churches at least include that in their counts when speaking of fulfilling the GC?
Dean,
I have to say, that numbers is always on my mind, but making numbers count is also on my mind. I don’t just want to be part of a church, I want to be part of a Southern Baptist Church. I think there is a big difference.
Jess, Worldwide, He is saving even more than we know or suspect.
Could it be that TULIP has something to do with the numbers? Could it be God is not saving as many as he once did?