By LeRoy Lawson
Immediately following my last commencement as president of Hope International University in May 2003, our Great Adventure began. My wife, Joy, and I had traded our house for a motor home and our car for a pickup truck (we needed it to haul my Harley) to embark on a seven-month tour of America that subsequently stretched to 20 months””we couldn”t cram everything we wanted to see into the shorter period.
What an experience it was. Sandwiched between all-too-frequent unscheduled stops for repairs and maintenance were days packed with magnificent vistas, historical interest sites, and visits with cherished friends. This is a marvelous country. We enjoyed ourselves so much that when the time came to settle down we almost turned around to take a second run at it.
The trip also afforded us an opportunity to visit churches across the land. For the most part, we liked what we saw.
This is a report that frankly, when I entered the ministry in the late 1950s, I never expected to read, let alone to write. The amazing vitality of our movement today is far different from our dispirited, disorganized, and unfocused condition in those days. Then the branches of the Restoration Movement were mired in mutual animosities, more dedicated to proving our righteousness than to accomplishing our mission. It was not a good time.
That I have lived long enough to see the independent Christian churches in a remarkable revival has been surprising””and very gratifying. Here”s what we”ve seen.
An Incredible Explosion of Megachurches
In our home state of Oregon, the largest independent Christian church in the late “50s was Central Christian Church of Portland, which boasted an astonishing attendance of more than 500 people. I hoped that someday I could preach for so many people. In the whole nation we may have had a half-dozen churches with a thousand or more people meeting each week. That was it.
Today we can”t keep up with the exact number of megachurches (1,000 or more in attendance), but the latest count has topped 100. Joy and I visited several of them. They were warm, vibrant, creative, worshipful, and evangelistically successful. They were proof that scriptural truth does not have to be sacrificed for growth. To the contrary, these churches are serious about building on a biblical foundation but doing so in a winsome, not pugilistic, manner.
Multiplying of Church Plants
The megachurches alone do not account for our expansion, though. We have observed what church growth experts have long claimed, that most growth comes through new groups. All over America fledgling congregations are growing at a pace I couldn”t have imagined 40 years ago. Several churches less than 10 years old have an attendance in excess of a thousand.
The congregation seven others and I started in 1959 had reached almost 200 members when I left six years later, and we thought we were doing pretty well. We were, by the standards of the “60s. But today”s church planters know far more about the dynamics of starting from scratch than we knew back then.
Quiet Stability of Smaller Churches
We have learned not to overlook the more traditional small and midsized churches, also. The heart of American Christianity is still found in congregations of less than 500, where believers meet regularly to enjoy one another”s company and to worship God with steady faith. Strong Christian churches can be found all over the country, especially in the Midwest. They are so numerous we take them for granted. We shouldn”t. They continue to raise up most of our ministers and missionaries. They are indispensable assets to their communities and sources of real spiritual succor to their people.
Unanticipated Development of Educational Institutions
Forty years ago I was part-time candidate secretary for Christian Missionary Fellowship. It was part of my job to visit our college campuses, seeking to assist young men and women who felt called to mission service. These schools were tiny, financially embarrassed institutions with uncertain futures. They had dreams and zeal, but little else. They were the hope for our future, though, preparing leaders for churches that had become leery of graduates from liberal seminaries and were hungering for strong, Bible-based preaching and teaching. Much of the credit for today”s growth goes to those struggling colleges.
But what a difference today. Who would have thought in that far-off day that schools like Milligan College, Emmanuel School of Religion, Cincinnati Christian University, Lincoln Christian College and Seminary, Ozark Christian College, Hope International University (it was Pacific Christian College in those days), William Jessup University (the former San Jose Bible College), Manhattan Christian College, and others would have developed the well-rounded curriculum, the varied educational delivery systems, the expanded campuses, and the technological sophistication that is theirs today? These are joined by many smaller colleges that are likewise maturing into substantial institutions.
Awareness of the Church”s Responsibility in the Community
The Externally Focused Church was coauthored by Rick Rusaw, senior pastor of LifeBridge Christian Church in Longmont, Colorado. The book grew out of the multiple community services LifeBridge offers, but its message is representative of a new emphasis found in many Christian churches in America. Taking literally Jesus” injunction to his disciples to be light and salt and a city set on a hill, these churches boldly seek ways to transform their communities.
Contrary to the usual charge that large churches care only about numbers, these congregations are discovering new ways to use their numbers to make a difference where they live. More than one church, for example, has replaced traditional Christmas musicals in favor of seasonal and ongoing outreach programs for the poor, the homeless, the migrants, and dispossessed persons within their service area. They have learned that a program doesn”t have to be “theirs” to be effective, so they volunteer their strengths to other humanitarian and service agencies. Announcement times in their worship services are used to marshal their members to work outside the church walls.
As a result, their towns and cities are taking notice and, true to Jesus” teaching, by losing themselves in service these disciples of Jesus are finding themselves.
More Missionaries, and Growing Churches Abroad
At the same time they are impacting their communities, Christian churches have not slackened in missionary zeal. Because of our nondenominational nonstructure, it is impossible for us to get a complete statistical reading of our worldwide membership, but it now seems evident that members of our movement outside the United States outnumber those of us inside. Decades of investing in the worldwide mission of the church has paid large dividends. Vigorous Christian churches can now be found all over the world.
Not content with this growth, however, American Christian churches are generously sending more missionaries and mission dollars abroad than ever. And they are doing it more responsibly. There was a day, a reactionary day, when we were so leery of organizations that we almost became sectarian in our insistence on “direct support” missions, afraid of mission organizations as agents of liberalism. Fortunately, we have moved past that all-or-nothing approach; we now understand that we can fulfill the Great Commission through a variety of means and a diversity of agencies. As a result, instead of exhausting ourselves in our domestic civil war, we spend our energy going into “all the world” as we have been commanded.
Our American congregations are catching a vision of a bigger world. Young people are building homes for the poor of Mexico and other Latin American countries; their parents and their parents” peers are serving as tentmakers, short-term workers, business and professional entrepreneurs working in legitimate businesses as a means of spreading the good news and yes, as more traditional career missionaries. And the world is better because they are.
Occasionally we learned of churches that have curtailed their investment in long-term missionaries and have decided only to support their own members as they take short mission trips abroad. Fortunately, few churches are this shortsighted. The majority understand that only long-term investment by long-term workers can effectively bring change to persons and societies.
Changing Architecture
One thing is certain: you can”t tell a church by its cover! Some dynamic congregations still predictably meet on corners in white buildings with tall steeples, but they are being joined by Christian gatherings in strip malls, schoolhouses, industrial parks, in funeral parlors and community centers, in RV parks and imitation Disneylands, and other unusual settings.
New church architecture varies as well. We worshiped in some neoclassical or neo-Gothic buildings; they beautifully conjured up memories of the days when churches looked like churches. We have only a few of these, though, and they are mostly found in more conservative areas of the country. In the South and West, where so much growth is occurring, the new structures emphasize function over fanciness and flexibility over aesthetics.
Who would have thought we would be finding food courts and coffee bars in church buildings? Or fully equipped gymnasiums and bookstores? Or services guided by worship bands and microphoned vocalists and sermons punctuated by PowerPoint and video clips””and that the new buildings would be constructed to accommodate these innovations?
Some longtime members complain about these churches that don”t look like churches, but then how would churches that look like churches to us have looked in the first centuries of the church”s life? Or the first 18 centuries, for that matter?
I have been pleased to be a part of a new building program in every church where I have been senior minister. But I also have had to admit that, if we were doing it over today, all of the buildings would look very different from the ones we built back then, and “back then” wasn”t very long ago. Different times require different architecture.
Excellence in Leadership
The quality of ministerial leadership at the helm of our movement today is a joy to behold. I have taught graduate students for more than a quarter of a century and have observed ministers for twice as long. There is no doubt about it. Today”s young leaders are doing an exemplary job.
They are a restless bunch, these youngsters. Not content to follow the lead of us elders, they strike out on new paths, experiment with new methods, obey what they trust are God-given visions””and are moving well beyond the accomplishments of my generation. In our travels Joy and I worshiped in several churches now led by my former students. I can”t tell you how proud we are of them. How I wish I had known in my younger years what they know, and could have done what they are doing.
Healthy Appreciation for the Variety Among Us
Above I mentioned the wide variety of building structures and worship styles. That in itself is something to be proud of. I am returning to the theme to underscore something else that has delighted us on our journey, and that is the widespread acceptance of this variety. We have learned””learned late, and sometimes begrudgingly, but learned nevertheless””that God does not define unity, which is such a vital scriptural standard, as conformity. There is no single, canonical corporate pattern of response to the gospel, no single, invariable form of church government, no single form of worship from which you dare not wander.
We should not have taken so long to catch on. It is in our Restoration Movement genes, this respect for freedom of expression in nonessentials””and certainly church architecture, styles of music, and uses of technology fall into that category.
Don”t misunderstand me. I am not saying we never heard any grumbling about “this modern music” nor any wondering about these churches that just don”t look like churches, nor any questions about people whose ways are not our ways. To grumble is human, unfortunately. However, we did sense a growing acceptance of, even a growing appreciation for, the diversity among us and a certain degree of satisfaction that our movement is big enough to encompass the differences.
Growing Closeness with the A Cappella Churches of Christ
Many years ago””clear back in the 1960s and early 1970s””I participated in a unity effort among churches of Christ, Christian churches, and Disciples of Christ. Our goal was to break down the walls dividing the three branches of our movement. We even incorporated ourselves as Fellowship, Inc. so that we could raise money to underwrite this serious unity effort. We held several meetings, including an important one at the estate of Mildred Phillips in Butler, Pennsylvania. Mrs. Phillips contributed generously to help this effort, believing with us that our three groups should work closely together since we were all rooted in the early 19th century Restoration Movement.
We met, we talked, we prayed, and we continued in our separate ways. Nothing directly came of the effort.
In more recent years similar conversations have been ongoing between Christian church and Church of God leaders. These have been beneficial and indicate a healthy desire on the part of some in both camps to cooperate more fully in the spread of the gospel. I have had the privilege of speaking for several Church of God gatherings and have been encouraged by the warm reception.
You can understand my joy, then, at the meetings currently taking place with some of the church of Christ leaders and the deliberate steps being taken to bring us closer together, including the merging of some Christian church and church of Christ congregations and the founding of other jointly sponsored ones. The prognosis for this movement within the movement is positive.
Outgrown Defensiveness and Anti-Intellectualism
Much of what I have been delineating in this article would not have been possible without the fundamental change of attitude that has been evolving. In the earlier years of my ministry, I was discouraged by our movement”s fearfulness. Having been stung by the liberalism of the early 1900s, we retreated into defensive anti-intellectualism. We didn”t want our preachers to be too highly educated, lest they lose their spiritual moorings. We didn”t want to associate with “the denominations,” lest we be led astray or branded by their heresies. We were afraid of creativity, of organization, of anything that looked like liberalism or acted like our social betters.
It took us a long time to outgrow these fears. But we are doing it. We seem to be more comfortably embracing the principles of our movement. We aren”t afraid others will talk us out of them or will laugh at our naïve adherence to the simple gospel. We aren”t even afraid of the reactionaries among us who would, if they could, call us back to how things were when they were “right.” We don”t waste so much time in futile arguments; we are too busy getting on with our evangelistic imperatives.
__________
Next Week: What still needs to change.
LeRoy Lawson is international consultant with Christian Missionary Fellowship, a member of the Publishing Committee, and a contributing editor to CHRISTIAN STANDARD.
0 Comments