In at least three critical points, Church Growth doctrine is dangerously in error and plainly contradicts the Lutheran understanding of law and gospel. First, the mission goal of the CGM is something different than the mission Christ has given His church. Secondly, the standards by which the church is measured are of this world rather than of the Word. Thirdly, and most importantly, the means employed for building the church are human rather than divine. These are major structural flaws that cannot be corrected by merely deleting a few Baptist clich‚s here and adding a few Lutheran ones there.

A. THE MISSION GOAL

What is the mission goal of the church as defined in Church Growth literature? It is stated in the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 28, "to make disciples of all nations". C. Peter Wagner calls this "the biblical rallying point" of the Movement. Obviously there can be no objection to the bare words used to state the goal since they are spoken by the Lord Himself. But do the Church Growth advocates understand these words in the same sense Christ spoke them?

By "disciples of Christ" the CGM means "responsible church members" with the emphasis on "responsible". Wagner writes, "The fruit the Church Growth Movement has selected as the validating criterion for discipleship is responsible church membership." Though Wagner acknowledges that this is only a FRUIT of faith, it does become, for all practical purposes, the mission goal of the Movement. Since faith itself cannot be measured and evaluated, it is considered appropriate and necessary to substitute one of its fruits.

How does this compare with the Bible's understanding of the term? By "disciples of Christ" the Bible means believers in Christ. Every single believer is a disciple of Christ even if he or she has not yet achieved the standards necessary to qualify for the title, "responsible church member". No unbeliever is a disciple of Christ, even if he has become a SUPER- responsible church member, has learned to say, "Lord, Lord", and "prophecies in Christ's name."

The Great Commission focuses upon the HEART of man. One becomes a disciple through conversion of the heart from unbelief to faith. Faith, then, produces works of love by its own inherent power. Does it make a difference that the CGM substitutes a behavioral goal for faith itself? Francis Pieper, in his classic CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS, says it makes a great PRACTICAL difference:

"Since man by nature is inclined to imagine that mere outward affiliation with the church secures his salvation, the great practical importance of ever defining the church as the communion of believers or saints, and not as an institution, an outward polity, is manifest." (Pieper, Vol. 3, pg. 400)

We might adapt Pieper's words to apply to our present situation:

Since man by nature is inclined to believe that growth in mere outward affiliation with the church constitutes church growth, the great practical importance of ever defining the church, etc..

The problem with the CGM definition is that good behavior can be produced by artificial means. People can be changed or reformed by all kinds of sociological and psychological techniques or incentives. The religious cults amply prove this point. It is no wonder that the CGM is so indifferent to doctrine. Their real goal can be achieved without the pure Gospel or without the Spirit. That is why they are able to predict the results of their labors and to set numerical goals. They do not have to wait upon an unpredictable Spirit to work faith where and when He wills in those who hear the Gospel. Responsible church members can be gathered by simply "finding a need and filling it", "satisfying belonging needs", or making church "fun and exciting."

True Lutherans do not lose sight of the real goal: faith in Christ. We cannot measure it. We cannot see it, nor do we claim to. This humbles us. It makes us realize how helpless we are. We know that only the Holy Spirit gathers the Church. Only God can call a sinner out of darkness into light. Only God can resurrect a soul. This realization keeps us humble and firmly bound to use the God-ordained means of grace: the Gospel and Sacraments. Through these the Spirit issues His invitation, creates faith and gathers the Church WHERE AND WHEN HE WILLS. By keeping our focus on the true goal, we are not distracted or enticed by worldly methods to make "responsible church members."

B. THE STANDARDS

The standards of measurement used by Church Growth practitioners is a second serious problem with the Movement. Church Growth leaders have developed a detailed and extensive list of sociological variables by which a congregation's "health" can be evaluated. They use the analogy of a physician who evaluates a patient's health by taking his temperature, blood pressure and pulse rate. The standards of evaluation used by the CGM are perfectly consistent with its goal--organizational, sociological growth.

Church Growth leaders rely heavily on objective statistical data to evaluate the success or failure of a congregation's ministry. Growth in numbers, if it is of the right kind, i.e., conversion growth as opposed to transfer or biological growth, is always good. Non-growth or decline in numbers seems to be always bad. There is nothing in the system that allows for the possibility that "conversion" growth is not NECESSARILY healthy or that decline in numbers may sometimes be a necessary and healthy spiritual dynamic.

The congregation is evaluated by the same standards we may use to measure a business. Church Growth advocates are, in fact, beginning to speak with a great deal of candor about their dependence on marketing principles. Under this model the Church becomes a religious business, the community a market, the evangelism methods marketing strategies, church attendees customers or consumers, and the pastor a manager or CEO of the enterprise. This language is, however, so crass and offensive to the pious believer, who is still of the opinion that there is something sacred and mysterious in the gathering of the Church, that the secular language is usually sanitized by equivalent "Christian" jargon. Whatever language is spoken, the standards and methods are clearly borrowed from the world marketplace.

Does the use of worldly standards to measure the Church matter? In my original article I cautioned that these standards measure only the outward organization, not the Kingdom of God. They therefore may give a false reading. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, Christians do not always organize themselves into efficient, effective, smooth-running, slick institutions. On the other hand, non-Christians often DO just that! Before we use these standards to measure and evaluate the Church today, we should test them on the Church we see in Scripture. Jesus conducted an intensive three-year missionary campaign which resulted in 120 believers gathered on Pentecost Day, ten days after His ascension. Considering that most of these would be considered "transfers" since they were not gathered from the unchurched, His "success" was minimal by worldly standards. Moreover, the leadership of this little flock was not well-trained in marketing strategies or worldly leadership techniques. Of course, Jesus did not help matters by chasing away a large crowd of potential converts by His stubborn refusal to yield on doctrine. (John 6). And He didn't help the chances to grow by entering into public controversy with the religious leaders of Israel. Furthermore, He most certainly could have used His miracles to greater advantage to win converts. By worldly standards, Jesus' ministry does not fare well. Neither do the ministries of the prophets of the Old Testament, who either did not know how, or refused to ride the wave of the popular culture of their day. By the same token, these worldly standards would probably approve and applaud the efficient and well-organized cult of the Pharisees, as well as the popular false prophets of the Old Testament. These standards must also approve false prophets of the New Testament described in II Timothy 4:3, for people with "itching ears" will gather in masses around them, we are told. It should be obvious from Scripture that these standards are completely insufficient when measuring spiritual things. That is why St. Paul refused to allow his ministry to be judged by them, or even to use them to judge himself. (I Cor. 4:3) He waits for the Lord to judge, for when He comes, He will bring to light hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsel of the hearts; "and THEN shall every man have praise of God," he says. (I Cor 4:5)

The danger of using these standards is far more serious, however, than the problem of giving false readings. If worldly standards are trusted and used in the Church, they will lead to a persecution of the Gospel itself. Why? Because that which is prized and treasured by the world is abomination with God, and that which God approves and exalts is despised by the world. (Luke 16:5) The wisdom of the world is foolishness with God and the wisdom of God is foolishness to the world. (I Cor. 1:18-19) When Peter, for example, was under the influence of divine revelation, he could see and confess Jesus as the Son of the Living God. (Matt 16:16) A moment later, thinking the things of men, he condemned the message of the cross. (Matt. 16:22-23)

The world's standards will not only attribute great value to worthless things--a perennial problem with the CGM--but more importantly, these standards will cause us to despise the most precious things of God, like "the cross". Even ardent Lutheran supporters of CGM have admitted that a "theology of glory" permeates the Church Growth system. They insist, however, that Church Growth can be Lutheranized by simply plugging in our theology of the cross. I see only now how impossible this is. Church Growth standards of judgment and the message of the cross are not compatible. They mix like water and oil. When Church Growth standards are embraced they will lead naturally and inevitably to a theology of glory, and when a theology of the cross is whole-heartedly embraced it will lead one to forsake and renounce the standards of the CGM. A marriage between the standards of the CGM and the theology of the cross is a fiction sustained only by language.

When the worldly standards of the CGM are embraced and trusted by a church body, there will be a migration of that body from a theology of the cross to a theology of glory. I do not mean to imply that Lutheran Church Growth advocates intend this to happen. Nor do I mean to say that the change will happen instantaneously. It will more likely be a slow drift, but the stream flows in only one direction. At first orthodox doctrine and practice will be firmly maintained side by side with CGM methods and techniques, but the subtle underlying tension of the spiritual incongruity between theology and method, or between "substance" and "style", as it is termed today, will force movement to restore congruity. As if moved by centrifugal force, theology will drift to the periphery of the system and the unstated presuppositions of the CGM will occupy the center. This is exactly what is happening now in the evangelical world. David F. Wells, professor of history at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary has recently written an excellent book entitled, NO PLACE FOR TRUTH. His thesis is that modernism has taken over center stage in the evangelical realm; but by "modernism" he does NOT mean liberalism. Modernism has many facets, not all of them blatantly antagonistic to the historical tenets of Christianity. The modernism of which he speaks is eroding the will of the Church to CONFESS what she believes. Faith is increasingly limited to the private, subjective domain of the individual Christian life. Consequently, systematic theology as a discipline, though not attacked or denied, has simply become irrelevant in the Church's life, for the Church is now occupied with stimulating the religious EXPERIENCE of individuals.

He writes:

"It is not that the elements of the evangelical credo have vanished; they have not. The fact that they are professed, however, does not necessarily mean that the structure of the historic Protestant faith is still intact. The reason, quite simply, is that while these items of belief are professed, they are increasingly being removed from the center of evangelical life where they defined what that life was, and they are now being relegated to the periphery where their power to define what evangelical life should be is lost. This is not the sort of shift that typical polling will discover, for these items of belief are seldom denied or qualified, but that does not mean that the shift has not occurred. It is evangelical practice rather than evangelical profession that reveals the change.

To borrow a phrase from an ancient church father, the question may be asked, "What does Madison Avenue and Wall Street have to do with Jerusalem?" Whenever the Church has embraced and modeled herself by the standards of the world, she has lost her way. This was true when she patterned herself after Athens and embraced pagan philosophy. It happened when she embraced Rome and instituted a worldly government in the Church. It will happen also when she embraces corporate America.

B: THE MEANS

The means employed by the CGM to accomplish the Great Commission are consistent with its standards and goal. They are sociological techniques, methods and principles that have proven to be effective in "successful" churches. What are the vital principles that keep a church "going and growing"? A review of Church Growth literature reveals that they are pragmatic, organizational principles, many of which are patterned after the business model. The Church Growth way to keep a church going and growing is largely applied sociology, including an understanding of group dynamics. The growing church has a well organized infrastructure of cell groups and a careful procedure of incorporating new members into these cells. The growing church is keenly aware of saturation points in a group, even pinpointing the saturation point of worship attendance at eighty percent of seating capacity. Growing churches recognize and use the homogeneous unit principle, realizing that people enjoy being with those who have similar cultural backgrounds. Growing churches pay special attention to the convenience of the worshipper, providing adequate parking space and special parking for visitors. Growing churches recognize the importance of making a good first impression, focusing special attention on the first-time visitors. Church Growth theory recommends certain leadership styles as an important ingredient to church growth. Growing churches carefully analyze the demographics of their communities and target their efforts and message to particular groups and classes of people. All of this activity is helpful and very practical, but it is also primarily sociology.

While all of this is very practical, it is manifest that the Gospel itself is not a necessary item in a church's ministry. This is not at all to suggest that Church Growth leaders are not sincere Christians or that THEY suggest that the church can grow without the Gospel. The Gospel is a presupposition of the CGM. Certainly no Lutheran supporter of Church Growth would suggest the possibility of church growth without the Gospel.

The problem is, that if the Gospel were not imposed on the system by simple fiat, the system itself would never bear witness to is as a vital element. In other words, there are no statistical measurements in the Church Growth paradigm to bear witness that the Gospel is even A vital element, much less the ONE AND ONLY power for church growth. Pure scientific analysis will reveal that religious organizations can grow just as well with or without the Gospel so long as the proper techniques and methods are observed (that is, so long as they are marketed correctly). The Gospel is not part of the essence of the system. It is more like paint on the wall than studs holding up the building. The paint can be changed without destroying the integrity of the building. Only an arbitrary rule imposed as a presupposition prevents this from being done in the Church Growth system, particularly in the "Lutheran" version of it. Nothing in the system itself reveals that the Gospel is necessary or even important.

Church Growth teachers use the Bible to defend their methods and principles, but do not seem to use the Bible as a SOURCE of discovering the causes of church growth. For example, they are able to find passages to justify the use of numbers, the importance of cell groups, and the use of webs of relationships as natural bridges for the Gospel, but this is all very superficial. The Bible can be used to defend any man-made system in this way.

Church Growth leaders do not seem to notice or care that the Bible never DIRECTS the Church to employ sociological techniques to build the Church. Nothing even resembling Church Growth exhortations are found in Scripture AS EXHORTATIONS. What DO the Scriptures exhort the Church to do? The Bible unequivocally, persistently and emphatically asserts that the Church is built by the faithful teaching and preaching of pure doctrine and the administration of the Sacraments. It therefore exhorts us to be about THESE THINGS. Jesus teaches us in the Parable of the Sower that the Church grows through the SEED OF THE WORD. Furthermore, Jesus commands us to "go" and "make disciples," but does not leave us in doubt about how that is to be done. Disciples are made by "baptizing and teaching all things" Christ has commanded. (Mt. 28:20) The nations are gathered by the proclamation of "repentance and forgiveness of sins." (Luke 24:47) The Book of Acts has been commandeered by the CGM so that many are intimidated into believing that it teaches Church Growth doctrine. In reality, it teaches the centrality of the means of grace and does so quite emphatically! It was the word preached by Peter that "pricked the hearts" of the Pentecost audience. "They that gladly received his word were baptized; and the same day were added about 3,000 souls." (Acts 2:41) The prayer of the Church in Acts 4 is a prayer for boldness to preach the Word. The source of the Church's vitality and growth is revealed clearly in Acts 6:7: "And the Word of God increased: and the number of disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly."

The spread of the Church geographically is also attributed to the Word. In Acts 8:4, we are told that Christians were scattered everywhere "preaching the Word."

The Apostle Paul, the greatest missionary of the Church other than Jesus, tells us quite clearly and often what he considered to be the source of church growth. "I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes." (Rom 1:17) Again, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ." (Rom. 10:15) To the Colossians, Paul writes, "All over the world THIS GOSPEL is producing fruit and growing." (Col. 1:6) When Paul instructs Timothy to be a pastor and teacher of the Church, he mentions nothing about demographic studies, meeting felt needs, or marketing principles, things that Paul supposedly used to great advantage, but directs him instead to the Word. "Take heed to thyself and to the doctrine; continue in them, for in so doing thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee." (I Tim. 4:16) Again, "Preach the Word, be instant in season, out of season." (II Tim. 4:2)

These are just a few of the many statements of Scripture which clearly attribute growth of the Church to the Word. It appears that the Means of Grace "fanaticism" of Lutherans is deeply rooted in Scripture! With all this testimony, it is absolutely amazing that the CGM can be indifferent to doctrine, the very cause of church growth.

A. THE GOSPEL MINISTRY HAS BEEN SHAMEFULLY TRIVIALIZED THROUGH APPLICATION OF CHURCH GROWTH PRINCIPLES.

Living in the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex, I have a front row seat to observe experimental mission congregations considered on the cutting edge of the CGM. These congregations are thoroughly and uniquely "American" in the worst sense of the word. By that I mean that they have imbibed and integrated the American babyboomer culture into their identity. This is evident in their crass appeals to the lusts and whims of the fleshly mind. Precious little of any essential Christian substance remains in the image they present to the world. In fact, precious little if ANY substance is evident in their carefully crafted image. They APPEAR to be as superficial as the world we live in. I stress "appear" because the leaders have carefully designed the image they wish to project in order to attract the attention of the audience they want to reach. They want to give the impression that "we are just like you."

How far is the Church willing to go to dress in the culture of the world and to win the approval of the world? The FT. WORTH STAR TELEGRAM addressed this issue in two articles published in 1992, highlighting non-traditional churches. The journalists interviewed several area Church Growth pastors to find reasons for their phenomenal success. One pastor stressed the importance of short, relevant sermons that speak to the needs of the people today. Here is the STAR TELEGRAM'S description of one such sermon:

"One of his recent sermons had members buzzing because the topic, 'God created sex,' was announced in the church bulletin with a picture of a man and woman lying in a haystack in a suggestive posture. 'I hope they were married,' said Roberts, who often uses attention-getting tactics. During a sermon series on the Ten Commandments, he illustrated 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' by displaying a statue of the Greek goddess of love, Aphrodite. 'The congregation was roaring (with laughter),' said Roberts, who borrowed from Saturday Night Live by putting tape strips across the breasts of the goddess."- FT. WORTH STAR TELEGRAM, Oct. 11, 1992

Another non-traditional congregation studied by STAR TELEGRAM reporters was designed to reach the younger, questioning, yuppie generation. Church members were interviewed and gave reasons why they were drawn to this church. One was thrilled that in this church evolution and creation were reconciled. She did not have to sacrifice her intellect in order to believe the church's teachings. Though she had been out of the church for 18 years, she was ready to join this one because it had a "warm atmosphere" and a "common sense approach to the Scripture."

Yet another church in the Metro-plex promotes itself as a "Church for the 90's and the New Century." The pastor is called the "Vision Leader" and his assistant is billed openly as a "Marketing Consultant". The church is promoted as "relevant" and "fun".

The growing popularity of such non-traditional churches led one pastor interviewed in the STAR TELEGRAM article to say, "There is a tremendous spiritual hunger among unchurched people. They'd just been turned off by the traditional churches."

The "spirituality" of a hunger that is attracted to and can be satisfied by such banalities is at least open to question. We are being led to believe that it is only the outward "form" of traditional churches that turn off the unchurched today, and not the substance of Christianity itself. If the same substance is clothed in a different style, people will gobble it up! But what we are seeing here is NOT the conversion of the masses to the One and Only Savior, Jesus Christ and His Word. We are seeing the marketing and packaging of religion to please the superficial, selfish and rather silly American consumer. The dress is more like that of a prostitute than of the dignified "elect lady" of Scripture.

This is a trivialization of the Gospel ministry. Charles Colson has called such congregations "MacChurch". He writes,

"The church--the body of God's people--has little to do with slick marketing or fancy facilities. It has everything to do with the people and the Spirit of God in their midst."

B. THE SECOND TREND IS THAT THE PASTORAL OFFICE AND WORK HAVE BEEN REDEFINED, AND PRESSURES TO RETOOL SEMINARIES TO PORDUCE A NEW AND DIFFERENT PRODUCT HAVE INCREASED.

The CGM is dramatically influencing the way we in the LCMS perceive and evaluate the pastoral office and its work. The old view that the pastor is a divinely called servant of the Word who is to feed and care for the flock by "giving them their meat in due season," is being replaced by a new concept of the pastor as a professional manager of the religious organization.

Professor Wells also speaks of this revolution in the evangelical world:

"The new quest for contemporary practicality has transformed the nature of the Christian ministry", the work of the seminaries, and the inner workings in denominational headquarters, and in each case the transformation has sounded the death knell of theology. The Christian ministry has become a profession. In today's seminaries, Edward Farley observed, the 'theological student neither studies divinity nor obtains scholarly expertise in theological sciences, but trains for professional activities.' In other words, the old divinity has largely died, as has its importance for the Church, and so seminary training increasingly is about inculcating a kind of public demeanor and etiquette, along with know-how in the soul-caring business, to lay paths to successful careers for students. Seminary students are not blind to the fact that the big churches and the big salaries often go to those who are untheological or even anti-theological. They know what kind of training they need: they need to become managers who have the status of professionals, not scholars, thinkers, or theologians."

C. THE THIRD TREND WHICH CAUSES ALARM IS THE CORRUPTION OF THE CHURCH'S WORSHIP LIFE.

Perhaps the most evident influence of the CGM upon the LCMS is the growing animosity toward the ancient liturgy of the Church. The liturgy and hymnody of the Lutheran Church is considered an obstacle to growth. Uniformity in worship no longer characterizes our Synod. Each congregation on Sunday morning "does what is right in its own eyes."

We are told that this is only a change in "style" and has nothing to do with "substance", but many of the new worship forms we see are derived from a different substance than the old. Contemporary worship forms are generally extremely subjective, superficial and sentimental. They are often mere showy displays and performances designed to impress an audience that has come to be entertained and dazzled under the name of "inspiration" and "edification". If positive emotions have been sufficiently stimulated, the worship is a success. If not, the worship has been a failure. This is definitely not the same spirit that generated the old liturgy. This is far more than a change of "form".

D. FINALLY, A TREND WHICH CAUSES GREAT CONCERN IS THE THEOLOGICAL INDIFFERENCE AND PLURALISM PORMOTED BY THE CGM.

Though the CGM does theoretically acknowledge that there is a legitimate "offense" of the Gospel that cannot be removed, they do not define what constitutes the non-negotiables. Praise of such men as Robert Schuller, who denies the doctrine of sin, indicates that their definition of legitimate Gospel "offense" is far more narrow than our own. The CGM has consistently praised doctrinal diversity as a blessing for the Church. This attitude erodes the whole concept of confessionalism.

In our Synod we are seeing this erosion take place. The historic confessional practice of close communion is being condemned as a practice which will hinder church growth. In some places the Creeds are no longer regularly confessed in the worship of the church. The liturgy itself as a confession has fallen into disuse. Any doctrine or practice that irritates or offends the outsider will have to endure the withering fire of those who have made outward numerical growth the supreme goal of the ministry. Love for truth and desire for numerical growth often collide in church history. The CGM seems to have decided which side of the controversy it will take. Though they would never say it in such clear and bold language, practice shows that truth must yield to success in their paradigm.

Jesus, in the Parable of the Sower, speaks of the seed that falls on shallow soil. This seed springs up quickly, precisely BECAUSE the soil is shallow, but it is all leaf and no root and it quickly dies under the heat of the sun. The CGM glorifies a fast growing church without regard to its root system. The transition in the LCMS from a deeply rooted theology of the cross to a shallow theology of glory is a transplant from deep to shallow soil. There may be short-term temporal gains, but these will be offset by long- term spiritual losses. The LCMS may well be on the verge of selling its precious birthright for an appealing mess of porridge. From this, Good Lord, deliver us.