Measuring Growth

I talked to a friend of mine last night about house/organic churches. He is in a house church himself currently. A part of our conversation that stuck out to me was when we talked about church growth. My friend believed, as do many of the current proponents of organic church, that if your church is not growing or multiplying (new churches) than the church is dead.

I think there are a few problems with this line of thinking. First of all, according to this logic, mega-churches are the most spiritually alive churches today which we know is almost the opposite of the truth. Just because a church is growing in numbers, it doesn't really tell us anything about the true growth of that church other than the fact the people like to go there.

Secondly, and more importantly, is that this line of thinking puts us right back into the traditional-church line of thinking that has put the current church in the state it's in already. People that think this way are still thinking about each church as its own entity rather than being part of the global body of believers that comprise the Church. If the global Church body isn't growing (if new people aren't coming to know Christ as their personal savior) than our individual organic/house churches can't grow. It's just not possible. Instead all we end up doing is swapping people from church to church. There is never any true growth; popular churches at the time only "steal" believers from other churches and the cycle continues.

Our churches cannot be thought of or used as our primary ministry tools. Actually they aren't meant to be ministry tools at all. Each church is a place for believers to congregate and have fellowship with each other, which has already been discussed in this blog. Our ministry to the unsaved needs to happen in our everyday lives outside of the church. Our churches are a place for them to grow after that.

I think the common analogy that the organic church proponents use when talking about church growth is that if an organic creature such as a plant doesn't continue to grow and/or reproduce then that creature is dead. This is a bit of a contrived example because not all organisms need to continuously grow or reproduce to be considered alive. Instead, think of the organic church more as like a cell (as in biology) rather than an independent organism. Each cell makes up a greater organism (perhaps a plant) that is the global Church body and we're all connected/related to each other. Each cell needs to continue to replenish and repair itself to be considered alive. Growth in the cell is not always necessarily a good thing. Especially not if it is simply taking resources from other cells to promote its own growth.

In summary, I'd like to say that I do agree with the fact that the Church body needs to continue to grow. I also believe that each organic church needs to grow as well. But measuring growth simply by numbers is inaccurate at best. There is so much that is ignored when we measure growth in this way. Somehow you would have to taken into account the relationships between each individual and God to truly measure the growth of each church. I'm not sure right now at this point how growth is to be best measured. I need some time to think about this one. I know Jason has had some thoughts on this subject as well, so maybe I'll ask him to share some of those thoughts on here.

Expanding on the "Why House Churches?" question

To really get to my answer to this question, I need to explain some things I've come to believe about the current, more institutional, structure of church. I believe that the existing structure, as it stands in most organized churches, is flawed. Like it or not, the current structure encourages and promotes passivity.

Services are a passive experience, no matter what time of day they are. The church body assembles and is led in a time of worship. While there is participation in this worship time, it is the responsibility of the worship leader to take the church body into the presence of God. Once they "arrive" the speaker proceeds to share the Word of God with the church for that week. Upon completion, most churches typically ask the body to actively offer their tithes to the church. Later in the week, a smaller committee assembles and determines how best to utilize these tithes. Small groups, or home groups, are often setup with a specific leader who takes as his/her responsibility the burden of preparing a lesson and leading the group through a study of some sort.

Commonly quoted statistics are that 20% of the church does 80% of the work. In other words, 80% of the church is passive. They are waiting for somebody else to take responsibility for their spiritual journey. They are waiting for their pastor to share the Word of God for the week in his sermon rather than engaging and actively pursuing the Word on their own. They are waiting for the church committee to decide what mission to support instead of actively throwing themselves into a heartbreaking environment and getting their hands dirty.

Granted, the church didn't set out to become this. It wasn't on purpose, it is just the by-product of the existing structure. Pastors are encouraged to increase numbers through passionate speeches and sophisticated programs. They are rewarded, both in prestige and monetarily, for doing so. That is why I have become excited about the home church structure. You can't be passive. It's almost impossible, just based on the way it is structured. If you don't engage the Word, it's your fault - not the pastor's. If you are not supporting a mission that you are passionate about, it's your fault - not the committee's. If you are not growing spiritually, it's your fault. The structure of a house church surrounds you with people who help hold you accountable to actively engaging what God is doing in and through your life.

Frankly, I don't care if it is a house church or a small group inside a larger church or even a huge mega-church as long as everyone is 100% engaged and actively involved in pursuit of God and his mission. From what I have seen, the house church is best equipped to encourage total commitment on every front of one's spiritual life. Doesn't mean it's the only way to do this, but structurally it is the easiest.

Why house churches?

A question I'm often asked by friends and family is why do I choose to attend a four person house church instead of joining a well established traditional church and starting my own program to carry out the ideas I have and therefore have a bigger impact? Well the short answer is that that type of thinking makes me cringe for some reason...but here is a more thought-out explanation of why I think the house church works:

• Financial Flexibility. As a church that meets in a house (or other alternative locations such as coffee shops) we don't have to pay for a building. We also don't have to pay a full-time pastor. The impact that our tithe/giving money can make under this structure is at least 10 times greater.


• Deeper Learning Experience. Often times when we meet, we will listen to a podcast from a well known national or local speaker. One of my favorite things about doing this is that we can pause and discuss in greater detail at any point. There are times when I'm listening to a certain speaker and I'm bored (to be honest), but then someone else will pause the podcast and make a profound point about what had just been said that I never would've thought of on my own and it totally changes my perspective. I think we miss out on moments like this in a traditional Sunday morning service where everyone quietly listens to one speaker.


• Higher Accountability. If you like to blend in at church and slip out when the service is over, you will be uncomfortable in a house church. When we meet, everyone is expected to contribute in some manner. It can be anything from praying, reading a psalm, sharing an experience from the past week, teaching an insight, or sharing an idea not directly related to church (I Corinthians 14:26). This higher accountability has caused me to study the scriptures with a passion that I've never done before because I can't wait to share my ideas the next time we meet.


• Shared Responsibility. In a traditional church, we normally pay or designate an individual or small group to be in charge of things like visiting those in the hospital, bringing meals to the sick, etc. It never made sense to me why that isn't the responsibility of everyone in the church. Why do we have to name specific people to do that? If we all aren't doing that, then what is the point of a church anyway? If you were in the hospital for a week would you rather get a visit from a pastor who was paid to be there or from several individuals that you've shared dreams with, prayed with, and sat down for meals with?

Well, there are more than just four advantages to the house church model but these four are the main elements that make the house church attractive to me. It is important to note these four elements can be present in the traditional church but the traditional church model makes it hard for these elements to be common among all members of the church body.

You say you want a Revolution

I hate the Beatles and it caused me pain to write that title but it's catchy and related to the matter at hand. I hear the term "revolution" used all the time now by churches across America. Some churches even give themselves the name "Revolution Church" or just "Revolution". For example there is a church in New York City that caught my attention called "Revolution New York City" (there is also one in Atlanta and Charlotte if I'm not mistaken). The reason they caught my attention is because they have a big sign on their home page that reads "As Christians, we're sorry for being self-righteous, judgmental bastards". I thought - ok, I guess Christians have earned a bad reputation in the media and we have done things that I'm not proud of. But hating the traditional church and/or denouncing christianity does not constitute a revolution. Neither does podcasting your sermons, or being accepting of homosexuals.

So what DOES constitute a true revolution then? Well for starters, here is how Webster defines Revolution:
a: a sudden, radical, or complete change b: a fundamental change in political organization ; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed c: activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation d: a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm

Ah yes - a change of paradigm. That sums it up nicely. Taking a traditional church out of its physical building and restructuring it into a series of house churches is not a change of paradigm. Taking an existing church and opening the doors to a "rough crowd" is not a change of paradigm. They may be great ideas but they are not a revolution.

The revolution of today's church, which I feel has already begun on a small scale, has to start with the individual. When you think about all the great revolutions in history, both religious and political, they always have a small group or one individual that is full of so much passion for the cause that they will do anything for it and therefore make the revolution successful.

This is what I envision "the revolution" being:
Imagine a group of, let's say, 200 believers in your city that all get together because they want to experience authentic community and a deeper relationship with God. Now imagine if you could take that group and form a tightly knit community of niche-based churches - maybe a group of 20 are passionate about evangelism and they form a house church; another group of 15 want to focus their energy on serving the poor and they form another house church; another group are all in their early 20's and single, they form yet another house church; and so on. Now imagine if these groups could all get together as one large group every couple of weeks or so (aside from their normal house church meetings together) and share the experiences they have been through on their journey together! The relationships would run so deep. These niche based communities would allow each person's talents, passions, knowledge and ideas to be wonderfully weaved together into an organic and fully-alive church body! Now that is a change in paradigm! How exciting! This kind of stuff gets me fired up.

Strip away the non-essential

Sometimes, in order for certain things to be effective you need to strip away everything that is non-essential that surrounds the entity at hand. Take a top-notch athlete for example. In order to reach peak performance the athlete is going to cut out everything that is not relevant or does not allow the athlete to reach his/her physical potential.

In my case, I am talking about the traditional church as it stands today in American culture. There are many non-essential (but not necessarily "bad") elements surrounding the traditional church that are now starting to prevent it from being relevant in this ever changing society. Some of them include: a church building, a paid staff, a worship leader, kids programs, and outreach programs. I'm sure you can think of many others but these are a few that come to mind. When you strip away these non-essential elements, you are left with a church that very closely resembles the early church in the book of Acts.

So what are the essential elements that make up an effective church today? Well over the past year and a half I have come up with four essential elements that any church which desires to be relevant to today's culture need to pursue. The manner in how these elements are incorporated into a particular church are not important.

1. Relationships. A church should encourage strong and healthy relationships not just on Sunday mornings but it should enable and promote new friendships among the church body every day of the week. The church is not a building; it is us. We are the church. The church can only be as strong as the relationships that comprise it.
2. Encouragement. The Christian life is far from a guarantee of an easy life. In fact, it is the opposite most of the time. There will be times when we are depressed, burned out, and fatigued. The church should be a place that such a person can find unconditional encouragement in. This can be done through prayer, sympathy, or just having a good time together!
3. Affirmation. Sometimes we have crazy ideas or seemingly random events in our life that don't make sense to us (some more than others!). The church should be a place that offers insight and direction in these moments. For example, I may come to church on a particular day and tell everyone how I randomly ran in to a friend I haven't seen in years. Someone in the church body may speak up and say "well that's no coincidence dummy, remember that you've been praying you would have an opportunity to share the gospel with someone this week!" More generally speaking, affirmation could simply just be accountability between the members of the church body.
4. Service. "A church that serves together stays together". Ok that doesn't rhyme but it's still true. If you want to bring a whole new depth to your relationships with each other, find ways to serve in your community or even the world. The Apostle Paul tells us to "test our faith daily". I can't think of any better way to test our faith than to serve in ways we didn't think were possible.

"Wait a minute Dan!! Where is WORSHIP? How can you leave Worship off this list?!?!". Well, first of all, worshipping God is more than just singing songs to Him on Sunday. Secondly, I stand convinced that these four elements are, in their basic form, pure and true ways of worshipping God.

In your own life, evaluate what is essential for you to become the amazing spectacle of Christ-likeness that God intended for you and quit everything else. What other point is there in living?