Thursday, February 22, 2007

 

Building The Church

Quotidian Grace posted a while back on what the church ought to be doing:
making disciples must be the first priority -- it is more important than worship, education, fellowship or denominational principles....not talking about increase in number of members...but making disciples out of those who were previously not Christians.
AMEN TO THAT! Then she makes a few points in support of that

I feel like I am missing something. Why does "small" equate to "ineffective"? If the goal is to make disciples, not increase numbers, why would size be mandatory for effectiveness? Secondly, why so much staff? If the model is disciple building, why not build slowly through making disciples that make disciples?

There is a serious fault in the model as it appears to be presented here. It seems like as we advance in discipleship, we advance onto staffing. If we do the job well, won't we eventually run out of people to fill the pews, and thus the collection plate?

I agree with the goals as stated here, but when it comes to the how's it strikes me we are trying to serve two masters. We are trying to feed the institutional beast while doing the "real" ministry. I continue to be bothered by this. The institution is tool, not product. Size frankly shouldn't matter. There was nothing big about the first century church and yet it changed the world. Size can and may happen, but I do not see where it is necessary for effectiveness.

Christ said:

Matt 6:24a - No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other.
There is but a single product the church is there to make and that is disciples. The only tool that is necessary to do so is one other disciple. Everything else is periphery.

Related Tags: , , ,

|

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Feed

Blogotional

eXTReMe Tracker

Blogarama - The Blog Directory