The Problem with Churches

I am passionate about Church. I am at times, however, not too fond of church. During nearly two decades in the ministry, I have been frequently frustrated by churches, have been beaten up by a couple, and have even been dismissed from one. But I have also found my faith in a church, been called to ministry there, had my calling renewed in another, and developed some of my most precious friendships in churches. My experience is not all that different from other ministers or even laypersons. We love God and His people, but we struggle sometimes because we know our churches are not all that they were intended to be. Sometimes we feel powerless to make them so.

In recent years there has been a spate of literature attempting to define exactly what makes a church spiritually mature (to use a biblical phrase) or healthy (to use the current buzzword). Most of these studies have adopted a behavioral approach, seeking to identify certain behaviors that “healthy” churches have in common. There is a certain logical circuitousness about this approach, as the authors or investigators have usually first identified certain congregations they have subjectively regarded as healthy, have analyzed them, and then have extrapolated from their behavior objective standards for all churches. This approach is thus dependent upon the original subjective selection process, which doubtless reflects the biases of the investigators themselves.

Despite that methodological flaw, there is a value to this approach. Defining what makes a church healthy is difficult, but like the Supreme Court’s definition of obscenity, we know it when we see it. And these churches do seem to have some things in common, although the lists of those essential characteristics differ from study to study. The Natural Church Development philosophy emphasizes eight factors, Dann Spader’s healthy church philosophy recognizes six, and there are critics of both. Quantifying and labeling are difficult.

Yet there is a need to identify what the corporate world calls “best practices.” Perhaps the evangelical community needs to create something akin to the Malcolm Balbridge award, given to a very select few corporations that display the highest standards of quality. Part of the frustration among the passionate and prophetic in many churches is a complacency, a willingness to settle for what is good, rather than attempting to achieve what is better. Identification of best practices, recognition of quality churches, models of healthy ministry—these would help to stretch the imagination, to stir the juices, to instigate a healthy discontent among the brethren. This would be good for us.