A Theological Critique Of Church Growth Worship

Especially influential in the last generation of American church life has been the school of evangelistic strategies sometimes known by the term church growth strategies. In recent years, such strategies have increasingly shaped the worship of churches in many worship traditions. This article examines church growth worship from a theological perspective, evaluating both its strengths and weaknesses in light of both the history of Christian worship and present trends.

In the beginning of Understanding Church Growth, marketed as the "?foundational church growth text,?" Donald McGavran says, "?Those interested in liturgy find that church growth may say very little about their concerns?" (Understanding Church Growth, 3d ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 8). Indeed, McGavran, the father of the church growth movement, seems to show a liturgical conservatism in this book whenever he speaks of certain Christian ways of worshiping, which converts increasingly adopt. But these are only passing references. For the most part this book confirms McGavran's suggestion that church growth theory has little to say about liturgical concerns. How wrong McGavran has proved to be! In the twenty plus years since church growth practition-ers began to apply their theory to American churches, an explosion of interest in worship has occurred. Today an avalanche of books, seminars, newsletters, and video tapes greet the inquirer who wishes to explore how church growth evangelism relates to liturgy. Readily available are materials to explain how to increase the number of worship services, how to customize these services to meet the needs of a target audience, and even how to develop a new kind of service, the seekers' service, which is aimed specifically at the unchurched. In fact, church growth material has grown increasingly aggressive in talking about proper worship forms. Existing worship forms are frequently portrayed as being the main obstacle to evangelism and church growth. In light of the increasing influence that church growth theory is having on American worship, a closer look is appropriate. After defining the phenomenon, this article will investigate its benefits while raising appropriate questions. The goal is to provide a reappraisal of church growth worship which can distill its contributions yet avoid its pitfalls. A Definition of Church Growth Worship Although the term church growth worship is not used in the literature of the movement, such a phenomenon does exist. Church growth worship is made up of two discernable elements—one old and one new—that define this approach to worship. The "?old?" aspect of this worship is a spirit of pragmatism that sees worship as a tool to achieve some explicit human end, usually moving people to some action or experience. Commonly this pragmatism includes considering all external elements of worship as open to change in order to achieve the desired goal. In this approach, "?the test for worship is its effectiveness?" (James F. White, Protestant Worship: Traditions in Transition [Westminster/John Knox Press, 1989], 177). This "?old?" aspect is not really that old: it was created in the American frontier early in the nineteenth century. It continues in the church growth approach to worship. Specifically, the church growth approach to worship continues pragmatism's disdain for tradition. To do things the old way just because they are traditional is anathema for liturgical pragmatists. The desired goal is the all-important thing and to this greater concern everything is subservient. Sometimes this pragmatism will even call into question a liturgical biblicism, a common Protestant approach which tries to conform worship practices to biblical models. And so church growth worship has little need for liturgical tradition and liturgical biblicism. Instead a freedom is promoted to do whatever it takes to achieve the desired goal. The "?new?" aspect to church growth worship is to define the desired goal of worship in numerical terms. Quantitative results have become the goal for the liturgical pragmatist. Often great emphasis is given to this standard. As one book notes, "?authorities on church growth suggest that worship attendance is the most realistic evaluation of spiritual health for a church?" (Joe A. Hardin and Ralph W. Mohney, Vision 2000: Planning for Ministry into the Next Century [Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 1991], 60). With this conviction, material on church growth worship characteristically will describe different things that can be done in order to stimulate attendance. Church growth worship is characterized therefore by these two basic elements: (1) an underlying sense of pragmatism that sees liturgical particulars as having to contribute to the desired goal for worship and (2) a defining of this goal as increased numbers in attendance. Frequently, combining these two can lead to new images for the church, for instance, portraying the church as a business. In this new conceptual framework, explicit marketing terms explain how churches should approach worship. Prospective attendees are worship "?shoppers.?" The church must tap into their consumer mentality and offer a variety of choices in worship. And the church must "?package?" its message appropriately in order for the gospel to be heard (cf. Timothy Wright, A Community of Joy: How to Create Contemporary Worship [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994].) While this business terminology is not necessarily found in all discussions of church growth worship, this language does reveal the two main characteristics of this approach. These characteristics, a pragmatic framework and a concern for increased numbers, define the phenomenon which can be called church sgrowth worship. Helpful Contributions The most important of church growth's contributions is to recognize a connection between worship and evangelism. This connection has been too easily lost in other concerns. For example, worship was often relegated to aesthetics. Worship was an art form to be grouped together with other art forms. Liturgists were to discuss matters with musicians and other artists. The goal for worship was beauty. Too often the standard was whether the worship was as inspiring as a Mozart aria might be. In contrast the church growth movement calls the church back to a fundamental work, proclaiming the salvation of God in Christ. And in this call the movement correctly reminds the church that worship and evangelism are interrelated aspects of this central task. Thus the movement helpfully suggests that the goals in worship and evangelism not be divorced. In this way the movement provides its second contribution: reconsidering whether current worship properly fits contemporary culture or is out of step with the new ways in which American culture expresses itself. This concern is not foreign to liturgical specialists, who call the process through which worship becomes an unique expression of a particular culture by the name of inculturation. The church growth movement thus serves to remind the contemporary church not to become too complacent but to reconsider, for example, whether nineteenth-century gospel songs can still serve to express adequately twentieth-century faith. In particular, some church growth churches have made significant inroads in understanding what it means to attend a public, communal meeting today. Surely people's experiences of going to a public place like a mall do affect what they experience when they go to a church to attend worship. Other church growth advocates have helpful insights into the diversity of subcultures that exist within a larger racial or ethnic group. Rightly do they caution when they warn about worship where one size fits all. To remind the church of the goal and obligation of inculturation is the second contribution of the movement. This concern for proper inculturation can create another benefit: providing a different set of criteria, other than the personal tastes of the worship planners, to make worship decisions. Even the best-intentioned planners can lapse into designing worship services which actually reflect their faith more than the congregation's. Often the result is worship designed to benefit the congregation by offering them something of substance but which is so foreign to the congregation that it cannot legitimately be called the common worship act of the church community. A church growth emphasis in worship would seem to be able to avoid this error by emphasizing culturally appropriate worship. Questions and Shortcomings Despite these positive contributions, church growth worship can have some negative consequences for American churches. Most of these problems come from its one-dimensional understanding of the church. Ecclesiological Confusion. The specific theological difficulty is a confusion between the goal for the church and the goal of the church. The goal for the church in this world, evangelism, is made synonymous with the eschatological goal of the church as the community of redeemed humanity. Much church growth material seems to imply that the church fulfills itself as God's eschatological people when it is evangelizing with numerical success. A vision of a people redeemed by God, reconciled to God and to each other, pursuing justice, mercy, and other concerns of the kingdom (that is, a vision of the goal of the church) is often forgotten in the desire to achieve evangelism as the present goal for the church. And since worship, in the biblical vision, is the primary "?work?" of God's people in the eschaton, a second confusion then occurs between evangelism and worship. At best worship is considered the same thing as evangelism; at worst, worship is made subject to evangelism. What is not allowed is to recognize worship as a distinctive eschatological activity in which the church reveals its unique relationship to the kingdom of God. Thus the lack of reflection about worship's deeper nature is a symptom of a more fundamental flaw in the church growth material, a failure to define adequately the relationship of the church to the kingdom of God. Because the centrality of the church is so important in the church growth material, this lack of clarity is surprising. On the one hand the material is specific about the importance of the church. Responsible membership in the church is considered a mark of conversion and salvation. The numerical increase of the church is a desirable goal to which limited resources should be shifted. Increased worship attendance is seen as an indication of a congregation's spiritual health. But the question not answered with respect to these goals is: Why are these things desirable goals in themselves? The question would seem to cry out for some deep connection of the church to the kingdom, specifically, an understanding of the church as a manifestation of the kingdom of God. Outside of some positive connection between the two, this ecclesiocentrism is dangerous because it can make advancement of the church an end in itself. The danger is to incorrectly promote pragmatic success itself as the sole mark of the church. Unrestrained Pragmatism. Indeed this danger is perceived by those within the movement. For example, a recent study of church growth ecclesiology notes the narrow—but common—connection made between the church and the kingdom: the church is an instrument for proclamation of the kingdom (Charles van Engen, The Growth of the True Church [Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1981], 344). While this dimension of the relationship is true, it does not adequately describe the full relationship between the church and the kingdom. Without a more adequate description, as this same study notes, a "?vicious circle?" can be created in which "?the true Church exists, apparently, to grow the Church which exists to grow more Church?" (Van Engen 479). The danger is in seeing numerical success as validating any means used to achieve growth. Without the balance of a vision of the church as the eschatological community, this self-justifying pragmatism seems to recognize no limits. Even those things are negotiable which would seem fundamental to expressing the eschatological nature of the church, including certain traditional aspects of worship. For example, one book suggests decreasing or increasing the frequency of Communion depending upon what will increase attendance (Lyle Schaller, 44 Ways to Increase Church Attendance [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1988), 75). Theoretically, one presumes, Communion should be eliminated entirely if doing so achieved greater numbers. And, theoretically, other traditional aspects of worship, like reading the Scripture and preaching, could be evaluated by the same criteria. In fact, one church in New Jersey has already developed a service which has eliminated sermons and sacraments in order to develop a popular, twenty-two-minute service (Associated Press article, February 12, 1994). However, if there is no preaching and no sacraments, should such meetings even be considered worship? Without theological criteria, how can one decide ultimately what is worship or, indeed, the church? Thus pragmatic criteria, emphasizing numerical success, are not by themselves adequate guidelines for thinking about worship but must be balanced by some theological reflection about worship. The first step is to admit that the church is more than just an instrument to proclaim the kingdom but also is a manifestation of the kingdom in some way. The second step is to recognize worship's unique role in this relationship, specifically, to see worship as how the kingdom is most fully revealed in the church. This theology is consistent with the Bible, which portrays heavenly life by emphasizing worship. Thus worship has eschatological priority among the church's activities because it most uniquely expresses what it means to be a community of redeemed humanity. Simply put, to worship means to achieve something of the goal of the church, to become the community redeemed by God's grace and responding in love to God. This understanding of worship's eschatological character points to certain defining elements for worship which is truly Christian and biblical. Worship that is true to the eschatological vision is God-centered and full of praise. Likewise worship should be full of remembrance of all that God has achieved in Christ. Worship that is biblical and eschatological is also communal, the common activity of the assembled church and not just of some who perform for the entertainment of others. And worship that is biblical emphasizes baptism and the Lord's Supper as key moments when the power of the kingdom most clearly intrudes into the present age. Specific Problems. This fundamental flaw in church growth ecclesiology, the inability to define adequately the relationship of the church to the kingdom, leads to several specific problems. The first of these problems is that church growth worship often is not "?catholic.?" When overly concerned with being attractive, worship may not properly represent the universal nature of the church. If a local church becomes mesmerized by making everything in its worship easily accessible, its worship may become too inculturated. This sort of worship never challenges or reminds the local church that it is called to be a local expression of the universal ("?catholic?") church. (Compare 1 Corinthians 1:2 where the local church is seen as a manifestation of the one church of God.) When this biblical approach is lost, the danger is for the local church to become too comfortable with merely expressing its own cultural distinctiveness, as some have noted with respect to church growth worship specifically (Frank C. Senn, The Witness of the Worshiping Community [New York: Paulist Press, 1993]) and with respect to church growth theory as a whole (Harvie M. Conn, "?Looking for a Method: Backgrounds and Suggestions,?" in Exploring Church Growth [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983]). Another specific charge against church growth worship is that sometimes its witness has ceased to be apostolic. An apostolic witness is, first of all, firmly rooted in the remembrance of the historical activity of God, particularly as accomplished in Christ's life, death, and resurrection. An apostolic witness is to proclaim that God's historical acts have both cosmic and individual implications. In contrast, because church growth worship is so focused on making its message relevant, it can tend toward packaging the gospel in such a way as to focus only on individual struggles and needs. The worship shopper must become convinced that the gospel is instantly gratifying and relevant in order to want to return. Unfortunately, to pursue this approach can easily diminish the gospel into individualistic, ahistorical psychodrama. Church growth worship advocates would respond that what is being changed is only the form for presenting the gospel and not the content itself (see Walter P. Kallestad, "?Entertainment Evangelism,?" The Lutheran 3 (May 23, 1990): 17). Thus church growth worship is only using communication methods that are entertaining, making the gospel directly relevant to solving the needs and concerns of contemporary listeners. However the response that only the form is being changed is incorrect. Form and content cannot be divorced from each other. To change form is to change content. To receive a beautiful card with handwritten expressions of love on a wedding anniversary is much different than walking by and seeing a note taped on the refrigerator which says, "?Another year, feelings still the same.?" Similarly, the gospel's call to repentance and confession of sin will be heard much differently if it is given in a "?fun?" way. The gospel will effectively lose its content if always forced into an entertaining package. Thus church growth worship has already changed the content by changing the form. Worship which seeks to be attractive as one of its basic characteristics is likely to become controlled by a desire to be of immediate service to the worship attendee. The danger is for worship to become human-centered rather than centered on God, thus leading to a subtle reimaging of God. Worship packaged to meet needs is likely to create a picture of God as a heavenly waiter, always eager to be of service when humans call. Such worship turns the traditional idea of who is being served in worship on its head. No longer does the church assemble to serve God in praise and thanksgiving; rather, the church assembles to be served by God. Such worship appears untrue to the biblical vision if it is too concerned with immediate effects—particularly emotional or psychological effects—on the worshipers. In the Bible the church praises God not so much because the worshipers find it beneficial but precisely because God is worthy of the worship. For example, the songs of the heavenly host proclaim "?You are worthy, our Lord and God?" and "?Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain?" to receive praise (Rev. 4:11; 5:12). This heavenly host does not sing, "?It makes us happy to praise you.?" The praise of God may indeed have that effect, along with others, on the individual worshiper. But that should not be the expressed aim of the worship service. The appropriate reason for the church to worship is the worthiness of God to receive praise for the mighty acts achieved in Jesus Christ. A worship service is sub-Christian and unbiblical if it devalues the praise of God and the declaration of God's acts of salvation as ends in themselves. Because church growth worship has another corner, convincing the worshiper that the worship is of benefit to them, church growth worship must be cautious to avoid being untrue to a biblical vision of worship. Two unrelated concerns finish this critique of church growth worship. The first confronts the presumption that lies behind how some present the necessity for church growth practices. Often the message is that anyone who wants to be considered evangelical should be adopting these methods wholeheartedly. This approach is false, as history shows. Prior to the development of nineteenth-century liturgical pragmatism, evangelicals always approached worship with additional factors that modified any desire for "?results.?" For example, John Wesley, one of the premier evangelists of the eighteenth century, always tempered his desire for vital worship with insights he gained from worship history. Wesley typically saw the tradition as providing the basic ideas and boundaries for recovering dynamic worship. Thus Wesley shows that a concern for worship tradition does not have to be at odds with successful evangelism. A final note concerns whether church growth churches will be able to maintain the same degree of change in worship that is presently advocated. Can the present high level of change be maintained as time passes? To believe that it can indicates a ritual naiveté. Any one way of Christian worship, like other forms of ritual behavior, is soon endowed with meaning beyond surface appearance. As this generation experiences God's grace in church growth worship and begin to associate this form of worship with an experience of God, a new tradition will be formed, which itself will resist change. This process is what happened to the Salvation Army in the previous century. Experiencing tremendous growth in evangelism, the Salvation Army created many new forms of worship to achieve these ends. Today, however, the Army no longer seeks the same level of adaptation that characterized its first generation. Indeed it cannot, for its group identity is closely tied to its own distinct rituals. Will the same thing occur with the radical changes advocated by the church growth movement? Will present innovations be considered quaint in a hundred years? Given that possibility, a faithful church best chooses its worship not by immediate success, but by what enables it to reveal itself as God's redeemed people, humbly acknowledging the God who is worthy of praise. Suggestions Several suggestions can be made for future direction to both church growth and liturgical "?types.?" Church growth advocates should learn to distinguish between worship and evangelism. Reducing worship to evangelism actually distorts the nature of worship and perverts its formative power on the church, one of its most important functions. Worship planners need to go beyond pragmatism and gain a touch of "?cosmic?" thinking. What must be revealed in worship is not merely our own small world but the presence of the kingdom of God in our world. The truths revealed must be cosmic ones, aiming at the heart of what it means to be human, to be creation, to be saved, to be the Savior, and to be the transcendent God. To reveal these deep truths will mean risking a worship that may be opaque to the unchurched, but that is a necessary risk. Otherwise worship cannot form the church by a vision of its eschatological goal and nature. Thus worship planners should pay special attention to certain elements that are key witnesses to the kingdom. For example, sacraments should be performed in such a way as to bring the focus on the deep mysteries of Christ's death and resurrection instead of on merely individualistic or sentimental dimensions. Calendars are another good area for witnessing to the kingdom. Paying attention to the traditional Christian feasts, instead of marking secular and cultural holidays, can be a way of proclaiming with Christ that "?the time has come—the kingdom of God is near?" (Mark 1:15). Similarly churches should not be afraid to have key symbols adorn its worship space. The worshiping church should be a distinctive people with beliefs and rituals that define and form the community. To distinguish between worship and evangelism should also mean a tightening of language concerning services designed for the unchurched and those for the churched. If a church has developed a seekers' service whose main aim is to evangelize, it should be honest enough not to call it worship. And this church should be intentional in trying to prepare people, once evangelized, to participate in a true worship service. (For an example, see Barbara Steward, ed. Willow Creek Community Church: Church Leader's Handbook [South Barrington, Ill., 1991].) The church's ministry to new converts should include training them to worship. Let evangelism lead to worship. Perhaps the contribution of the church growth material is in providing innovate ways of evangelizing, whether it is in becoming aware of simple ways to make a church setting more hospitable or in developing brand new types of services. Those interested in liturgy might do well to pay attention to these new forms of services, for they might help in avoiding a liturgical danger. As one liturgist has noted, a danger lurks in having a monolithic, ideal form for worship in that this one form may be unable to include appropriately the variety of people who gather for worship (Joseph Gelineau, The Liturgy Today and Tomorrow [New York: Paulist Press, 1978], 34ff). To accommodate this variety, perhaps more types of liturgical entrances and exits need to be provided. Some of the church growth ideas may be useful entrances and exits to provide the unchurched and the quasi-churched an appropriate place in the church. This possibility should not be overlooked since each week brings to the church people wanting to hear the gospel. It would be a shame, or worse, to miss the opportunity.