By Brent Rood

The emerging church movement is not as new as it used to be. As with every movement, it has reached a point in its trajectory where as it matures, the ideals of the movement have given way to the reality of the movement. Theory birthed practice. The ideal was that good substance should replace good management. Gospel-centered preaching, authentic and transparent relationships, and incarnational ministry should replace synthetic programs, simplistic and linear discipleship processes, and cold task- driven business models. The emerging church set out to accomplish this and in many ways it has, but as the movement is maturing there is a large wave of disillusionment. On one hand, we are seeing the gospel restored to the pulpit. We are seeing true conversions taking place instead of simply growth transfer. We are reaching the messy people that the church as a whole has not reached. On the other hand, many of our churches are struggling to stay afloat. Most are fighting unsuccessfully to break growth barriers, to develop a lucid vision, or to create functional structures, supporting that vision. We are not achieving our goals of making disciples who make disciples, and truly multiplying ourselves to the point where we can actually plant other churches. Could we have possibly thrown out the baby with the bathwater? Although we may, with Bill Hybels, lament the lack of substance in the Willow Creek model, we cannot argue with some of his results - thousands of people influenced, hundreds of books and resources developed, organized and structured models of discipleship that can be duplicated. These results and others have been the product of a model that is weighted on management. Being of a prophetic gifting, I do not have the answers, but I do have questions that I feel need to be raised as we are looking at where we are at this point in the emerging church movement.

Are substance and size antithetical concepts? If substance is what we want, then why do we complain about a lack of growth and organizational structure? If going back to the early church is what we are really seeking, is the early church model one in which substantive churches were at the same time large? Often we look to early portions of Acts and see thousands converted in one sermon, but we overlook the multiple churches like Galatia, Ephesus, and Corinth which were struggling and small. Have we imposed numerical success to these churches that didn’t actually exist? Are we trying to have our American cake and eat it too by attempting to have substance and size at the same time? (Sure, there are those pillar emerging churches able to accomplish both, but this seems to be the exception and not the rule.) Or is there really a way that substantive ministry and exceptional management can work together? I think it is possible that the entrepreneurial spirit of church planting has attracted primarily prophets and priests, but not kings.

Whatever conclusions we land on in these areas, needs to speak into how we train church planters. At the very least, we should be realizing that good organization and business models are not Satan incarnate, and that kings should have a place at the table.

What do you think?