Donald McGavran and the Church Growth Movement

Posted By Guest on Feb 3, 2014 | 5 comments

by Matthew McAffee and Barry Raper

One of the major developments in the church of the twentieth century has been the rise of the modern church growth movement. The key figure of this movement was Donald McGavran, considered by most authorities to be its founding father. The inception of this movement has been tied directly to McGavran’s seminal work, The Bridges of God (1955) [1]. This work arose out of his experiences on the mission field of India, raising questions about what he perceived to be a lack of growth among its churches. His nearly two decades of mission work there led him to research these questions more intently. Eventually, he published his results in the form of this book that became the seedbed for the church growth movement to follow [2].

The church growth movement is a multifaceted phenomenon. Later generations of church growth practitioners sought to bring these principles to bear upon the American church and evangelical global missions. The explosive growth of suburban megachurches throughout the 80s and 90s is arguably another offshoot of its effect. In short, the persistence of his influence throughout the second half of twentieth century ministry is remarkable. C. Peter Wagner suggests four reasons for his success as a mover and shaker: (1) written correspondence with church leaders, (2) prolific publications, (3) personal speaking engagements, and (4) education (primarily through Fuller Seminary and its Church Growth Studies) [3].

We cannot expect to offer an exhaustive treatment of the contours and nuances of the man and his movement in our limited discussion here. Rather, our concern is to highlight three principles central to McGavran and his followers. In doing so, we intend to assess briefly their theological fidelity.

Numerical Accountability

As a key principle, McGavaran emphasized the accountability of numerical growth. Thom Rainer describes McGavran’s concern to take Jesus’ command to make disciples seriously, stating, “it was not enough to sow seed and wait for God to produce results” [4]. McGavran’s numerical accountability indeed provided tangible means for evaluating whether a particular church was “growing,” but it also sowed the seeds of an unhealthy recourse to pragmatism. McGavran himself explains that the task of church growth is to ascertain which methods God has blessed, and those He has not—those yielding numerical growth and those that do not.

Urging us to discard ineffective methodologies, he affirms, “As to methods, we are fiercely pragmatic” [5]. Wagner calls for a “consecrated pragmatism” in obedience to the gospel mandate to win people to Christ. He suggests that the source for one’s church growth method is threefold: cultural, historical, and theological. Wagner promotes this approach as a “soft” scientific method involving the mining of sociological data gathered by closely observing churches and their contexts [6]. The practitioner must determine why some churches grow and others decline [7].

Numerical growth involves a high level of complexity—different modes, strategies, and methods. Yet McGavran promises, “if any church will study church growth, read about it, talk about it, and pray about it, that church will grow” [8]. Or, on the negative side, he cautions, “Without clear-cut, aggressive plans for the growth of the church, there will be no growth. The church doesn’t grow by carrying on good youth meetings, a good Sunday School, good preaching or a good choir unless these are inspired by a desire to see persons become disciples of Jesus Christ and responsible members of His church” [9].

We likewise affirm that actual disciple-making is central to Jesus’ commission (Mt. 28:19). At the same time, however, we’re not willing to go so far as to suggest that faithfulness in this area will always yield numerical increase. Scripture demonstrates a nuanced picture of church ministry, sometimes resulting in more disciples (e.g., Acts 2:41, 47), and sometimes not (e.g., Jn. 6:66). It is also easy to lose sight of the fact that disciple-making is a spiritual work that defies measurability. And this is one of the major problems with McGavran’s “method”—it reduces disciple-making to a formula in the toolbox of the church growth practitioner.

Receptivity

Also important to McGavran was the principle of receptivity. This principle involved identifying elements of the population generally open to the gospel. The mandate for ascertaining receptive population groups is a matter of stewardship: “We study receptivity not as an exercise in anthropology but for its application to the complex process of church growth. We want to be good stewards of the opportunities that God has given us for the extension of the Church” [10]. According to the principle of receptivity, the missional imperative is to discern which members of the population (e.g., social classes, urbanized peasants, minorities, tribes, castes, tongues, occupational groups, etc.) are increasingly responsive to the gospel through sociological analysis [11].

Furthermore, this sociological principle then becomes a hermeneutical one, as the early church narratives from the book of Acts are analyzed through this lens of receptivity. In what kinds of historical/sociological settings were people most responsive to the gospel? How can these signs be observable in other contexts? Gaining knowledge of receptivity affords a unique opportunity to maximize the gospel’s effectiveness, according to McGavran. He emphasizes that “today’s paramount task, opportunity, and imperative is to multiply churches in the increasing numbers of receptive peoples of all six continents” [12].

Again, there is a degree of biblical warrant for this principle. For example, Jesus instructs His disciples to leave the unreceptive town and to shake the dust from their feet as a testimony against it (Mk. 5:11). Similar patterns can be seen in Paul’s ministry (e.g., Acts 14:19-20). Yet, the gospel usually faces opposition. In fact, we might even say that this is one of the major threads running throughout the entire book of Acts: the gospel continued to advance despite opposition. An overemphasis on receptivity short circuits the confrontational nature of Christ’s inaugurated kingdom and its affront to the principalities and powers of this world.

Homogeneous Unit

Perhaps one of the hallmark principles associated with McGavran has been the homogeneity principle. McGavran observed, “people become Christian fastest when least change of race or clan is involved” [13]. This kernel of sociological insight became the homogeneous unit principle, and it has been highly influential in the disciplines of church growth and missiology. In a later study, McGavran applies this principle more directly to local church ministry:

It takes no great acumen to see that when marked differences of color, stature, income, cleanliness, and education are present, men understand the Gospel better when expounded by their own kind of people. They prefer to join churches whose members look, talk, and act like themselves [14].

The specific way this principle is applied to the North American context is that its increasing ethnic diversity requires that tens of thousands of new churches be planted. But the hundreds of homogeneous units represented in the U.S. alone “are not going to become members of these English speaking congregations, no matter how much evangelizing we do” [15]. Rather, what McGavran envisions here is not the planting of new churches in general, “but new Arabic churches, new Mandarin-speaking Chinese churches, new churches to fit the hundred thousand Jamaican and Trinidadian blacks who have recently come to the United States, new churches to fit the tens of thousands of recent immigrants from Italy now found in most Canadian cities” [16]. In other words, this church planting effort must fall along ethnic (and even socio-economic) lines if it is to be successful. The result of such effort will be the multiplication of ethnically distinct congregations.

 To be fair, McGavran is not necessarily stating that the homogeneous principle is the way things should be, but acknowledges the way things are. This approach fits within his overall concern for demonstrable numerical growth and the maximization of the mandate to make disciples. The acknowledgment of this principle in the formation of our evangelistic strategies will maximize numerical growth. The problem, however, is that the New Testament’s thrust is never the acceptance of the way things are, but the way things ought to be. Or, to state it differently, the gospel transforms societal norms by bringing together ethically and socio-economically distinct people into the single body of Christ.

And we should not envision this goal in terms of multiple, monolithic, local congregations. As impossible as it may seem humanly speaking, each local congregation is a composite representation of the gospel’s ability to unify disparate (and sometimes hostile) people groups. If we are not careful, the homogeneous admission may hinder our ability to follow Paul’s example in becoming “all things to all men” (1 Cor. 9:22). It can become shortsighted of Paul’s concern for the Colossian church to put on the new self, “a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all” (Col. 3:11).

Summary and Conclusions

In his discussion of the rehabilitation of Bill Hybels’ Willow Creek model of church ministry, Aaron James points out the significance of McGavran’s thought for the American megachurch movement:

Though their historical relationship with the church growth movement as founded by Donald McGavran is in question, megachurches do display this self-conscious emphasis on increasing the numerical size of the church. Furthermore, the shape that these churches take is directly related to the way in which they conceive of their ability to grow. Hence, whatever the genealogical relationship, megachurches do borrow from the movement. Furthermore, their self-conscious use of growth techniques is one important marker of difference between a megachurch and, for instance, a large Roman Catholic congregation [17].

It is clear that McGavran figured prominently in the psyche of several prominent megachurch pastors. A case in point is the pastor of Saddleback Community Church, Rick Warren, well-known for his books, The Purpose Driven Church and The Purpose Driven Life. In the early pages of the former, Warren confesses, “The day I read the McGavran article, I felt God directing me to invest the rest of my life discovering the principles—biblical, cultural, and leadership principles—that produce healthy, growing churches” [18]. Articulated in this way, Warren has bought in to McGavran’s conception of the accountability of numerical growth.

It is important that we understand the complexities of the contexts in which we have been called to serve. North American evangelicalism has been greatly impacted by the life and work of Donald McGavran. Many of us have inherited some aspect or another of his legacy to varying degrees, even if we are unfamiliar with him by name. Perhaps the greatest aspect of his legacy is at the same time one of his greatest pitfalls. His noble desire to foster numerical growth in church ministry has led to an overly pragmatic/methodologically driven view of ministry.

Central to our calling is the proclamation of truth, not the promulgation of methods. In fact, it seems that Paul’s words to the Corinthians regarding their own penchant for the rhetoricians of their own day should caution us: “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of proclamation to save those who believe” (1 Cor. 1:21) [19]. After all, the gospel, not its methodological presentation, is the power of God for salvation to those who believe (Rom. 1:16).

As David Wells puts it, “Gospel truth, biblically speaking, is not a formula, not simply a relationship, not just about spirituality. It is about the triune God acting in this world redemptively, in the course of time, in the fabric of history, and bringing all of this to its climax in Christ” [20]. The triune God has broken into our world with His plan of reconciling humanity to Himself, and this plan involves new creation. As new creatures, we are united together in Christ as the one new man and the dividing walls of our own homogeneity have been broken down (Eph. 2:14-16).

_______________________________________

[1] C. Peter Wagner, Church Growth and the Whole Gospel: A Biblical Mandate (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981), x-xii.

[2] Thom S. Rainer, The Book of Church Growth: History, Theology, and Principles (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993), 33-34.

[3] Wagner, “The Church Growth Movement after Thirty Years,” in Church Growth: State of the Art, ed. Wagner (Tyndale House, 1986), 23-24.

[4] Ibid., 35.

[5] Wagner, Church Growth, 72, citing McGavran’s unpublished address, “For Such a Time as This,” delivered at Fuller Seminary School of World Mission, 1970.

[6] Ibid., 75-77.

[7] Rainer, The Book of Church Growth, 21; citing Wagner.

[8] McGavran with Win Arn, How to Grow a Church: Conversations about Church Growth (Glendale, CA: G/L Publications, 1973), 15.

[9] Ibid., 169-70.

[10] Wayne Weld and McGavran, Principles of Church Growth, 2d ed. (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1974), ch. 10, p. 11.

[11] McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 3d ed., rev. and ed. Wagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 40.

[12] Ibid.

[13] McGavran, The Bridges of God (New York: Friendship Press, 1955), 23.

[14] Ibid., Understanding Church Growth, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 227.

[15] McGavran and George G. Hunter III, Church Growth: Strategies That Work (Nashville: Abingdon, 1980), 111.

[16] Ibid., 113.

[17] “Rehabilitating Willow Creek: Megachurches, De Certeau, and the Tactics of Navigating Consumer Culture,” Christina Scholars Review 43 (2013): 23. We could also note the discussion of McGavran and Arn on the “Suburban Church” in How to Grow a Church, 153-67. In response to Arn’s description of the typical suburban church of the 1970s, McGavran states most prophetically, “They will grow even stronger in the future. Great megalopolises will develop from Chicago to Pittsburg, from Boston to Washington, from San Francisco to San Diego. As urbanized areas grow, there will be literally tens of thousands of opportunities for churches as you have described” (154). In what follows, McGavran outlines several principles that must be enacted for growth to occur: establish growth goals, small group involvement, leadership development, and outreach.

[18] Rick Warren, Purpose Driven Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 30.

[19] We are well-aware of the interpretive issues regarding the translation of the Greek phrase dia tēs mōrias tou kērugmatos, taken in one of two ways: (1) “through the foolishness of the message preached” or (2) “through the foolishness of preaching.” Perhaps the better way of rendering this expression is simply, “foolishness of proclamation,” since it is not simply a matter of the content being proclaimed, but the proclamation event (see A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 543). In Paul’s argument here, he wishes to distinguish the foolishness of the gospel proclamation event from the rhetorical craft of contemporary wise men or debaters (mentioned in v. 20).

[20] David F. Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 52.

_______________________________________

About the Authors:

Matthew McAffee serves on the Ministry/Biblical Studies faculty at Welch College. He is completing a doctorate in Northwest Semitics at the University of Chicago. He is also a graduate of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Welch College. He has ministered in Free Will Baptist churches in Virginia, Tennessee, Illinois, and Canada. He is married to Anna, with whom he has two daughters, Abigail (8) and Lydia (4), and one son, Samuel  (1).

Barry Raper serves as the Program Coordinator of Youth and Family Ministries at Welch College. He is the pastor at Bethel Free Will Baptist in Ashland City, Tennessee. He holds degrees from Welch College (B.A., Pastoral Studies) and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (M.Div., D.Min.). He is married to Amanda, and they have four children: Hannah, Tre, Emma, and Caroline.

The best way to stay up-to-date with HSF

SUBSCRIBE!

You have Successfully Subscribed!