INTERSECT

Donald McGavran and the Church Growth Movement, Part 2

In the previous issue, Intersect highlighted numerical accountability as the first of three principles central to Donald McGavran, whose teachings gave rise to the modern church growth movement. In this column, we examine two other core principles, receptivity and homogeneity,
and consider the theological fidelity of each.

Receptivity

The principle of receptivity was important to McGavran. The principle identified elements of the population more or most open to the gospel. For McGavran, the mandate for ascertaining the receptive population groups is a matter of stewardship: “We study receptivity not as an exercise in anthropology but for its application to the complex process of church growth. We want to be good stewards of the opportunities that God has given us for the extension of the Church.” [1] The missional imperative is to discern through analysis which segments of the population are more responsive to the gospel.[2]

This sociological principle becomes a hermeneutical one, analyzing early church narratives in the book of Acts through the lens of receptivity. In what historical/sociological settings were people most responsive to the gospel? Can these signs be observable in other contexts? Understanding receptivity afforded a unique opportunity to maximize the gospel’s effectiveness, according to McGavran. He emphasized that “today’s paramount task, opportunity, and imperative is to multiply churches in the increasing numbers of receptive peoples of all six continents.” [3]

Again, the principle holds a degree of biblical warrant. For example, Jesus instructed His disciples to leave the unreceptive town and shake the dust from their feet as a testimony against it (Mark 5:11). Similar patterns also can be seen in Paul’s ministry (Acts 14:19-20). Yet, the gospel usually faces opposition. This is one of the major themes of the book of Acts: the gospel advanced despite opposition. An overemphasis on receptivity short circuits the confrontational nature of the gospel.

Homogeneity

Perhaps the hallmark principle associated with McGavran is homogeneity. McGavran observed, “people become Christian fastest when least change of race or clan is involved.” [4] This sociological insight became known as the homogeneous unit principle, and it has been highly influential in church growth and missiology. In a later study, McGavran applied this principle more directly to the local church, noting people prefer to join churches whose members look, talk, and act like themselves. [5]

In the increasingly diverse North American context, this principle requires tens of thousands of new churches be planted. But according to McGavran, without them, diverse groups “are not going to become members of these English-speaking congregations, no matter how much evangelizing we do.” [6] Instead, McGavran envisions “new Arabic churches, new Mandarin-speaking Chinese churches, new churches to fit the hundred thousand Jamaican and Trinidadian blacks who have recently come to the United States, new churches to fit the tens of thousands of recent immigrants from Italy now found in most Canadian cities.” [7] In other words, church planting must fall along ethnic, even socio-economic lines to be successful.

To be fair, McGavran was not necessarily stating the homogeneous principle is the way things should be, but rather acknowleding the way things are. This fits his overall concern for numerical growth and the maximization of the mandate to make disciples. The problem is that the New Testament never accepts the way things are, but pursues the way things ought to be. To state it differently, the gospel transforms societal norms by unifying ethnically and socio-economically distinct people into the single Body of Christ.

Each local congregation is a composite representation of the gospel’s ability to unify people. If we are not careful, the homogeneous unit principle may hinder our ability to follow Paul’s example of becoming “all things to all men” (1 Corinthians 9:22). It can overlook Paul’s admonition for the Colossian church to put on a new self in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free men, but one in which Christ is all and in all (Colossians 3:11).

Conclusions

We agree with McGavran that it is crucial to understand the complexities of the contexts into which we are called. And no one can deny North American evangelicalism has been greatly impacted by McGavran’s work. Yet, perhaps the greatest aspect of his legacy is also one of its greatest downfalls. His noble desire to foster numerical church growth led to an overly pragmatic and methodologically driven view of ministry.

We are called to the proclamation of truth, not the promulgation of methods. It seems Paul’s warning to the Corinthians against their desire for flowery rhetoric should caution us as well: “It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Corinthians 1:21). After all, the gospel—not its methodological presentation—is the power of God for salvation to those who believe (Romans 1:16).

As David Wells puts it, “Gospel truth, biblically speaking, is not a formula, not simply a relationship, not just about spirituality. It is about the triune God acting in this world redemptively, in the course of time, in the fabric of history, and bringing all of this to its climax in Christ.” [8]

This triune God has “broken into” our world with His plan for reconciling humanity to Himself, and this plan involves new creation. As new creatures, we are united in Christ as one new man and the dividing walls of our own homogeneity have been broken down (Ephesians 2:14-16).

About the Columnists: Dr. Matthew McAffee serves as provost and professor at Welch College. He has ministered in Free Will Baptist churches in Virginia, Tennessee, Illinois, and Canada.
Barry Raper serves as program coordinator for Ministry Studies at Welch College. He pastors Bethel FWB Church in Ashland City, Tennessee.