While surfing the other day, I came across this post by Mike Ayers over at Thinklings that really made me think about some things. He raises some great points.

As one who teaches pastors and those considering ministry, I often have students ask, “What is the best model of doing church?” They go on to inquire about the emerging church model, the emergent church, and/or the cell church. “What is G12?” they say, or “Is the seeker model still viable?”Such statements flow from the presumption that the question of how to do church is the most important consideration of all.

This strikes me as indicative of the current trend in churches to assume a business mentality. After all, we as the church are charged with marketing the ultimate product, right? At least that’s the way it sometimes comes across. Unfortunately this line of thinking leads to an unhealthy interest in church numbers, a point that Mike is quick to point out.

In ministry, growth almost unequivocally means more in numbers. In fact, we really don’t have to clarify what we mean when we say the word growth. It’s now assumed to mean numeric increase. Thus, in a wholesale way we’ve come to measure success very much like the world. The conclusion is that because a church has grown numerically it is effective at reaching lost people- which of course may or may not be true. Also, just because a church has many people and programs does not mean that it is making disciples. Activity does not equal productivity and growing good church attendees does not necessarily equate to developing authentic disciples of Jesus. In fact, some might argue that in the Western world these are polar opposites. [emphasis mine]

Unfortunately, I see a lot of places where this attitude is affecting the church. Somewhere along the way we have lost touch with the history of the church and have decided that it’s better to re-invent ourselves - complete with bigger, better, more “inviting” church campuses, video displays, and worship experiences (complete with professionally light stages and fog machines), and even more exciting baptisms! In an attempt to “better reach the world,” a large part of the church has sold out it’s “set-apart” status.

So if the primary goal is gaining more people who attend church (and let’s face it- that is the goal for most pastors) then how to get them there would logically be front and center. But that focus misses the most important consideration of all and I believe pastors dismiss this more critical matter way too quickly. Instead of how, the first consideration should be why… Why are we doing this thing called church?

I love that he says the first consideration should be why. If there is no foundation, it is exceedingly difficult (but probably not impossible!) to back track and lay one anew. [I find myself in exactly this position with my local church body.] I believe when a local body begins with answering the questions “Who do we serve?” and “Why?” they have laid for themselves a solid foundation. They will become known by how they answer these questions. As their ministry grows and/or changes, the answers to these questions should not. As opportunities come along, the leaders of the church will have these answers to fall back on. How they first answered these questions will hold them firmly under the authority of the One upon which they have laid their foundation, instead of being blown by the ever-shifting breezes which sway the world to and fro.