David Anguish
Various analysts have pointed out that American churches of Christ became more involved in missions and experienced a high growth rate in the two decades immediately following World War II. The analysts also pointed out that both mission involvement and numerical growth had slowed markedly by the late 70's. The alarm sounded in light of that decline caused us to look more seriously at church growth, a theme which was also under consideration in various denominations. We borrowed freely from ideas we saw working for others. Some would say too freely.
A by-product of the emphasis on church growth has been the manner in which we approach Scripture and ministry. To various degrees, the pragmatic spirit of the age has permeated our churches. In some cases, there is little attempt to ground growth methods in the New Testament. Some hold up the Bible as the source of knowledge needed for salvation, but believe it has little relevance for determining the techniques used to entice people to the Lord. The danger of this approach - realized too often - is that a group of church members who were enticed by various techniques separated from the word of God are kept interested only by similar techniques.
In other cases, attempts are made to give pragmatism a Scriptural sanction. The New Testament, particularly Acts, has been read with a view toward finding the godly methods which caused the early church to grow. That such methods exist is beyond dispute. But whether they were as prominent or as thought out by early believers as some think is at best questionable.
Among New Testament writings, the book of Acts is of greatest use in exploring growth in the earliest church (though whether it is of greater value for understanding missions than local church growth deserves more study). But what we find there is not primarily the techniques which receive such prominence in church growth literature. The reason for their growth is more fundamental than even the simplest methods check list.
There are at least eighteen uses of phrases like "the word of God" or the "word of the Lord" in Acts. Another six passages refer to "the word" in a way that can only mean God's word. The excitement sensed in reading through Luke's crisp account of those early days is tied to the presence of the word (Acts 4:31; 13:44). Things such as benevolent services, though important and proper, were nevertheless secondary to "the ministry of the word" (Acts 6:1, 4). The attraction of converts is not attributed to promises of better family life, a place to belong, or any other "felt needs"; it certainly was not tied to the looks or size of church buildings which did not even exist. No, "those who were scattered went about preaching the word" (Acts 8:3, NASB; cf. 11:19). All manner of growth - whether numerical or spiritual (a distinction we make that Luke didn't) - is attributed to the presence of the word of the Lord (Acts 6:7; 12:24; 13:49; 19:10, 20).
It is possible for a church to show dramatic increases in numbers for a variety of reasons which have nothing to do with the teaching of the word. Based on Acts, we are right to question whether such increases are properly defined as church growth (a people professing an interest in restoring the New Testament church ought to at least ask this question). To them, the word mattered because it was the Lord's. It was neither absorbed by its members, nor assumed by its leaders; it was taught. Significantly, Luke does not speak in terms of the church's growth, but says repeatedly that "the word of the Lord was growing mightily and prevailing" (Acts 19:20; cf. 6:7; 12:24; 13:49). We conclude that real church growth happens no other way.