A blowhard of a blogger has recently borne false witness and scurrilously misrepresented and rubbished Richard for saying that that “although I’d rather see a full church than an empty one, we really do have to give up the notion that the church with the most members is the one that’s transmitting the gospel most effectively.” And someone on this blog recently reminded me, after I referred to Jesus emptying the church in Nazareth in Luke 4:16-28, that “a text out of context is a pretext“, and suggested that, on the subject of church size and growth, we look to the “whole counsel of God” in scripture. That’s a good idea. So let’s turn to Lesslie Newbign on the subject - Newbigin being one of the truly great missiologists of the twentieth century.
“Anyone who knows Jesus as Lord and Savior will rejoice when men [sic] come to know him … This is something which surely cannot be gainsaid. And when we turn to the story of the first days of the church as we have it in the Acts of the Apostles, we find a lively interest in numerical growth….
“But when one has given due weight to this obvious delight in the numerical growth of the church, one must also observe that the rest of the New Testament furnishes little evidence of interest in numerical growth. In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus does not give the impression of being interested in large numbers…. It is indeed interesting that Luke, who shows such evident delight in recording the multiplication of believers after Pentecost, also records several sayings of Jesus which suggest that the coming of God’s kingdom does not at all depend on the number of those who expect it and pray for it…. The emphasis falls upon the faithfulness of the disciples rather than upon their numbers.
“Neither does a study of the Epistles seem to disclose any interest in numerical growth. We do not find Paul concerning himself with the size of the churches, or with questions about their growth. His primary concern is with their faithfulness, with the integrity of their witness…. There is deep concern for the integrity of the Christian witness, but there is no evidence of anxiety about or enthusiasm for rapid numerical growth. In no sense does the triumph of God’s reign depend upon the growth of the church.
“In the Johannine Gospel and letters there is a persistent concern about the world … But there is nowhere any suggestion that the salvation of the world depends upon the growth of the church.
“Reviewing, then, the teaching of the New Testament, one would have to say that … there is no evidence that the numerical growth of the church is a matter of primary concern. There is no shred of evidence in Paul’s letters to suggest that he judged the churches by the measure of their success in rapid numerical growth, nor is there anything comparable to the strident cries of some contemporary evangelists that the salvation of the world depends upon the multiplication of believers….
“If we turn from the New Testament to the later pages of church history, …. we have to ask whether the church is most faithful in its witness to the crucified and risen Jesus and most recognizable as the community which ‘bears about in the body the dying of Jesus’ when it is chiefly concerned with its own self-aggrandizement. When numerical growth is taken as the criterion of judgment on the church, we are transported with alarming ease into the world of the military campaign or the commercial sales drive.”
Lesslie Newbigin, The Open Secret (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 139-42.
Comments, of course, are welcome, but some folk might remember Mark Twain’s famous advice that it might be better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Bishop Alan Wilson 11.19.08 at 9:28 am
Apart from noting the fabulous term “blowhard of a blogger” for a future edition of the OED, thanks for this corrective. We live in a great age of targets and counting, in education, in healthcare, in Church. That’s fine, as long as we interpret the data as part of the whole picture, and look for quality behind the quantities. Figures often steal the show because they seem so precise, compared to feelings. Anyone who’s ever seen how CofE attendance stats, at least, are collected on the ground, will realise how profoundly quirky and imprecise the origins of these seemingly precise figures can be.
Richard 11.19.08 at 10:16 am
I’ve been involved in collecting Methodist statistics for a few years. Quirky and imprecise is putting it mildly!
Kim gave me a dilemma with this post, referring as it does to a post I didn’t want to link to. But I’ve put the link in for fairness. And with gritted teeth.
dh 11.19.08 at 3:25 pm
Kim, I tend to have an inbetween view of numbers and what you are saying. I believe numbers are important but at the same time they are not the most important thing. Having people accept Christ as their Savior and then living for Him fully is always the most important. However, to suggest as you imply that numbers are NEVER important or should not have ANY focus is to me an overreaction just as much as those who focus solely on numbers and not the people of Faith like you described. To me numbers and what you decribed as important do not have to be in contradiction. If we are true to us as Believers we do want what Jesus wants which is “as many receive to become children of God”.
While it is true God’s Kingdom will come irregardless of the numbers, it still is a matter of how many will be part of fully in that Kingdom or not. AS Christians we want as many people to be part of that Kingdom. I would hope.
Bene D 11.19.08 at 9:44 pm
Grit teeth come with blowhard bloggers Richard.
Thanks Kim, I would have come out and asked if you hadn’t linked - David isn’t going to stop and some of us aren’t going to stop cringing every time he goes after Richard. Seriously, thanks.
And Richard, I’m really sorry, I hate this behavior. I’d hoped he’d moved on. Silly me.
Fat Prophet 11.20.08 at 7:31 am
The collecting of attendance statistics in British Methodism is one of those things I really wonder about for a number of reasons. 1. Why do we do it in October? It seems a very strange time of the year to me unless of course there is a view that everybody is back from Summer holidays etc. 2. Why do we do it at all? What does it prove except that on a certain number of Sundays there were a certain number of people in attendance.? 3. Does it give an accurate picture of any sort? Only in respect of those four Sundays when it happens - it could actually be the worst period of the year for attendance for all sorts of reasons including the October half term. 4. Would it make more sense to count at every service? Perhaps this might be difficult in some of the bigger churches but would hopefully give a more realistic picture of what was going on in terms of church attendance. 5. Should we do it twice a year say in the spring and the autumn? Again this may give a better reflection.
Just a few thoughts which I am not necessarily expecting answer to but food for thought all the same.
Olive Morgan 11.20.08 at 9:08 am
I agree with you, Fat Prophet. I’ve been watching the October count for so many years and each year i think, ‘Oh no! Our congregation is not up toits normal strength! It’s a time of year when a numbe rof our older members go away on holiday, choosing a time when holiday resorts are less crowded and some would add ‘and there are no noisy children’. Twice a year would give a better picture.
dh 11.20.08 at 2:37 pm
Bene, was your comments directed to me? What did I say that was so offensive? I don’t believe I said anything attacking or harsh. I should move on? Isn’t part of a great blog is to get and to listen to multiple views on a subject? Doesn’t that give more life to a blog? Unless you are closed minded and don’t want to hear at all an opposing opinion. I might disagree with some who comment but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear or that I don’t care about their opinion. Wow, If my response was taken as offensive or that I need to move on then someone is too easily offended because any rational human could read what I said and would know that I wasn’t offensive or harsh in my previous comment.
dh 11.20.08 at 2:41 pm
Sorry, I understand it wasn\’t directed toward me. So sorry for the misunderstanding. It would be nice if in the comment that people would address with name who a person is addressing.