Church: What constitutes success?
November 28th, 2005My pastor touched on a topic in his sermon yesterday that I wanted to toss out. What constitutes success for a church? Or, what does a successful church look like?
In the Southern Baptist Convention today, I think the answer that most people hold is obvious — a church that’s baptizing a lot of people is a successful church. But is that enough? Baptisms, after all, aren’t proof that someone is genuinely converted. I know a lot of people who have been baptized but who show no evidence that they are regenerate. And too many times, I think baptism gives people a false assurance of their salvation. But in the SBC, we like to dunk ‘em and count ‘em, and that’s the gauge many use to determine a church’s success.
What about discipleship and the spiritual growth of members? That’s certainly one component, but is it enough for people in a church to be growing as Christians if the church isn’t seeing any conversions? And how can you truly determine how much people are growing in their faith?
What about doctrinal integrity? That’s surely important. But I know a lot of churches where the pastor is a faithful preacher and teacher of God’s word, and yet that doctrinal/theological emphasis hasn’t translated into members who grow in their faith, or into a church that’s seeing converts.
So, let me throw it out there: What does a successful church look like?
Something i’ve learned while interning with a youth pastor in Orlando over the past three summers is that a church can have the best programs, the best message, and the most fun activities, but it’s still up to the people, and God through those people, to respond to them.
It’s a fairly certain the church that has the “fun” and “light” activities and messages will see the major growth and converts. The reason for this is that it makes people feel good, and instead of conviction, they get a “God is your genie, here to grant your wishes” message. From every study that I have seen and every personal experience I have had, the deeper the level of spiritual commitment a church engages in, the less conversions they will see.
The exception to this rule is what I believe is the ideal model of the church. The church, as a building, and those that it employs, were not necessarily created to convert people. That is the job of the body of of Christ (the congregation, and those that work at the church on an individual basis). It is in this that i condemn myself as well, but the church has lost the idea of witnessing. The job of the church is the spiritual preperation of those already converted to Christ, so that they can grow in their faith and convert others. Instead of this approach you usually find either a church that does nothing but conversion sermons every sunday or a church that never does conversion sermons. The first church fails because they don’t nurture the Christians once they have converted, and the second one fails because it never brings new life into the fold.
I know i didn’t touch on all the topics you brought up, but I’m sick so it will have to do. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving Mr. Ellsworth, and I hope to see you tomorrow.
I really don’t like the term “success” as it relates to a church. It has the conotation of a tangable, results-centered orientation. Personally, I like the term effective, relevant, perhaps even functional. I know I ‘m splitting hairs here but I think we too often strive for something that we can look back on and brag about, attendance figures, baptisms, whatever. Can you imagine asking Moses, leading God’s people through the desert if he thought they were a successful nation? How about Elijah cowering in that desert cave. Or how about Jesus on the cross with the disciples scattered. Perhaps we need to think in terms of what we are really after. Are we looking for God’s will? What happens when God wills that we follow the way of the cross, the way of humiliation and servanthood. I find it difficult to use a word which the world tosses around so much and apply it to the church. Am I missing something here?
I think you’re reading too much into my usage of the term “success,” Joel. It simply means what you’ve said — if a church is effective and relevant, I’d consider it to be successful. I know what you’re getting at, but one way Merriam-Webster defines “succeeding” is attaining a desired object or end. Regardless of the connotation, I think that’s what we’re talking about — a church achieving its desired object or end.
You guys make some good points. I think (in my humble opinion) the goal of the church is to promote life change, so a successful church is a church where life change is happening. This can be in various forms, conversion, a new christian growing closer to God, a Christian “veteran” going deeper etc. This is perhaps harder to measure than, say, baptism, but i think there are ways. Conversions, # of people in ministry, # of people in small groups etc. all give a hint to the success. The hard part is that ultimately only God can change a heart. However, there is certainly a part He asks us to play in that process.
As a footnote, I’d like to add that I think we have made conversion too much of a “point”, rather than a road (i.e journey if you prefer). I think it is much more of a process than we have made it. Sure the whole “new creation” change and decision still applies, but moving a sinner closer to repentance is still valuable even if he/she has not yet made a decision.
Too often these days, “success” in ministry would be defined by the so-called “mega-churches,” who claim tens of thousands of members and multi-million dollar campuses and buildings; the remodeling of Houston’s former Compaq center by Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church being the latest example. In this example, the “church” is seen by the non-Christian world as an organization, rather than the proper definition of the church as all those around the world who are genuine followers of Jesus Christ.
The thoughts previously expressed all have merit. I especially am taken with Tim’s phrase, “a church achieving its desired object or end.” We as followers of Christ are commanded to go and make disciples; not just the pastor or hired staff. There are so many
church organizations whose members believe that the pastor is responsible to perform all aspects of ministry….”after all, that’s why we hired him.”
Followers of Christ must realize, and take responsibility for, the commands of Christ in regards to ministering to people. Each one has something to offer.
Great discussion topic, Tim.
Tranformation
Success in God’s eyes is obedience to Him - period. Whether that obedience results in thousands saved as with Peter at Pentecost or the rejection of God by everyone to whom the message is preached as in Jeremiah’s case it’s still success in God’s eyes. Counting noses, wet or otherwise, is not the Biblical measure of success.
Bob: I agree that “success” is often associated with the mega-churches, and I wish we could get away from that. There are a lot of mega-churches that I would consider to be failures for one reason or another.
Good word, Larry. Success will be determined on what the Bible calls “that Day.” Until then, we struggle to know that we are where we ought to be. Ultimately, success is fullfiling our purpose to glorify God. How to measure that is difficult, especially in churches. I highly recommend Kent and Barbara Hughes’s book Liberating Ministry from the Success Syndrome. It’s important that we clearly distinguish what God holds us responsible for: obedience to his commands, and what He alone can do: build his church.
On one extreme you have the pure pragmatists that measure success by counting their holy trinity: buildings, budgets, and baptisms. What they call success is too often shallow Christianity that is attractive to lost, unregenerate people. On the other extreme you have the hyper-Calvinists who seem to take pride in their tiny churches that rarely see anyone but their own children come to Christ. What they call faithfulness is too often laziness and disobedience to the Great Commission. May God have mercy on us all to protect us from either extreme and help us discover the Biblical balance.
Nick makes a great point
“a successful church is a church where life change is happening”
One connotation of the word success is the idea of having arrived at your destination or having achieved your goal. The church is an organism that is always changing, always becoming.
I think its worthwhile to read the messages to the churches in Revelation chapers 2 and 3. You see different definitions of “success” based on what the churches are going through. To the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia, Jesus says “Hold on to what you have.” Normally we wouldn’t define “holding on” as the model of success. To Thyatira and Pergamum, he says “repent.” I wonder how many of us would define success as an abundance of repentance? The most disturbing message to me is the one to the church at Sardis. “You have a reputation for being alive, but you are dead.” I wonder how many of our “alive” churches, Jesus would call dead?
Hmmmm.
Instead of “success” maybe we should use the term “faithful” as in….
… faithful to Christ
… in proclaiming the gospel and the whole counsel of God’s Word
… in pursuing obedience and holiness
… in participation in the local body in love, service, community, etc