Divide & multiply

At a time when churches are reported to be in decline, the theme of growing churches is obviously of major importance for Christians.

‘Growing churches: reach, build, send’ was the title of a conference sponsored by the South East Gospel Partnership (in affiliation with Affinity) at St. Helen’s, Bishopsgate, London, on February 3.

Discouragement in seeking to spread the gospel was addressed first of all by Andy Gemmill of Beeston Evangelical Church, Nottingham, kicking off the day with an excellent exposition of the parable of the sower and accompanying parables in Mark 4. We learned that, despite discouraging appearances, with 75% of the seed ‘wasted’ and the slow progress of any growth, nevertheless God is in control and he will bring a great harvest through the whole ministry of Jesus.

Then we got down to the main business of the day. In this country to speak at the Cambridge University CU mission, Phillip Jensen, Dean of St. Andrew’s Cathedral in Sydney, Australia, took three sessions to speak on how to see churches grow.

Principled pragmatism

His approach was that of ‘principled pragmatism’. There are ways to bring greater numbers into the church but which do not bring people to Christ. Many ‘church growth’ ideas are along this line and to be avoided. The sine qua non of the church is the prayerful preaching of the word of God and so the word of God must provide the principles or parameters within which we are to operate. Within this framework we are to use our God-given ability to think, in order to see our way forward for the church.

Much of what he had to say was based on the experience of the Anglican churches in Sydney, where there are 270 churches, of which 230 are evangelical and Calvinistic and therefore preaching the same basic message. Many of these churches are growing, while others are not. Therefore Sydney provides us with the opportunity to study (given the same biblical gospel) what other factors are crucial for growing churches.

Many good churches labour and see little growth while others of the same basic sort see more. Why is that?

Here, Jensen explained that actually there can be many very different growth dynamics. He mentioned one suburb of Sydney which saw much new housing in the 1960s. At that time the church there expanded markedly. Now, many of those people who moved there 40 years ago have seen their families grow up and leave and are getting into old age. The growth of the church has now stopped. So the growth dynamic which God can use can be as simple as an expansion in an area’s population. On the other hand, it can be to do with something like a very likeable or gifted pastor/preacher. Again, with many Chinese and Korean people moving into Sydney, Chinese and Korean congregations have been planted and grown. Here language and shared culture obviously play a part. (There is a question here about fostering the unity of the church across ethnic divides, but that was not addressed.)

Church life-cycle

Having emphasised that the New Testament speaks a great deal about growth in holiness (the quality of the church) it nevertheless also speaks about numbers. God is glorified in both kinds of growth.

So we were introduced to a church life cycle diagram. There are two axes. The vertical axis shows numbers of people in the church. The horizontal axis represents time. The life cycle varies from between 25 and 40 years. Taking the preaching of the gospel as a given, often churches grow, then plateau, then decline — so we have a flat topped curve. Across this curve is then drawn a horizontal line V, which indicates a viability threshold — in other words, the point at which a church plant becomes self-sustaining (under God) and can ‘pay its own way’. This line cuts the curve and then we can identify five different kinds of churches. The A churches, or plants, which are those which are growing but are not yet viable. Above them are the B churches which are growing and viable. But then things can start to go wrong. The C-type church is the church which has now plateaued-out. It is self-sustaining but no longer growing. Very often what happens after this is that the church begins to decline — this is the D church. When it declines further it will become an E church whose numbers are falling and is no longer viable.

This surely got everyone present at the conference thinking to themselves, ‘Which kind of church are we?’

What to do?

Jensen went through the different types of churches and suggested from his experience and research what would be needed to give churches a good chance to grow. A great deal of excellent advice was given; here are some notes.

* A-type church The great need of this type of church is obviously resources. Apart from prayer they need people who are committed to the work and finance. Here is probably the place to fit in another forceful emphasis which Phillip Jensen made and that is the need for churches to train people. The aim is to produce not just ‘members’ who sit and fill the pews, but gospel partners trained in skills needed in churches and self-starters, in that they will seek to exercise that ministry for the good of the local church wherever they go.

* B-type church Although the B church is viable, since it is a growing, dynamic church, it will still be a church whose greatest need is resources. This is because it will be expanding all its ministries and also seeking to open up new opportunities. Therefore, it is unlikely that its books will balance. Normally a deficit from one year will have to be paid off in the next. ‘Never make an accountant the treasurer of a B-type church. Rather you need a businessman who understands that the only way to make money is to spend money.’ The experience of this church will generally be painful since it is always on the stretch and there is never quite enough. It will take risks for the cause of Christ. Some of those risks will pay off, others will not. This adds to both the excitement and the pain.

When it comes to leadership what kind of leader(s) do A and B type churches need? They need leaders who are scavengers — people who are godly but always on the look out for resources.

* C-type church Because the experience of the B-type church is painful, there will be a ‘natural’ pressure to look for ways to take the pressure off. When this is allowed to happen the church begins to plateau. This is the C-type church. Its ethos is comfortable. It is viable. It has enough resources. It is pleasant. But it is content not to grow. Often they hoard money, resources and gifted people. These churches are the bad boys of evangelicalism. The only way for a B-type church to avoid becoming a C-type church is for it to continuously and consciously fight against the tendency to be comfortable.

‘This church does not need resources it needs reformation’, said Jensen. It needs a leader who is a reformer — one who is a man of vision and a clever politician. It is rare for a C-type church to get out of its malaise by changing its pastor. If it changes its pastor, research shows that only in one in ten cases will that cause the church to take off. In another one in ten it will send the church into decline. But in eight out of ten cases the new leader will bring a slight temporary growth before the church settles back into its status quo. The best way out of this (according to Jensen) is to split the church and send out members to plant a new congregation. The loss in numbers from the original congregation will soon be made up and sending out gifted people will encourage others who have not been using their gifts to step into responsible roles. This can bring new life and vision to the church.

* D-type church The D-type church is in denial. It is beginning to fail but can still keep itself going and does not want to change. It has resources but does not use them. Looking at the geometry of the downward slope, where the D-type church is, in order to change from a downward to an upward incline the angle of change is much greater. This reflects the great need of the D-type church. It needs not just reforming but reinventing. Old ways need to go, new ways need to come. The style of leader required in a D-type church to turn it around (and not simply manage decline like the bishops of the Church of England!) is a person Jensen described, in rugby parlance, as ‘a prop-forward with hobnail boots’. It needs a man who knows where he is going to take the church and will be absolutely resolute and thick-skinned, because he will face much opposition from within the congregation.

* E-type church Having sunk so low the E-type church is no longer viable, so needs resources. But, being just about to touch rock bottom, often the E-type church will be easier than a D-type to turn around because the people know that they need to change. Thus they will be more open to reinvention.

There were many other wise and useful comments given. For example, long-term pastorates tend to see more overall growth. Research also shows that for the first five years in the ministry ministers tend to be enthusiastic and positive. Then in years six through ten they can tend to be negative about their work, before becoming positive again. Thus, years six to ten are not the time to give up or change churches. After the sessions there were a number of questions. It was a most helpful day for everyone.

John Benton

© Evangelicals Now - March 2007
Please consider supporting this ministry by subscribing.