Am I franchising churches or making disciples?

I asked myself this question today. (by the way, if you're not up for what may be a long, theological and cultural analysis, with a bit of confession thrown in, you might want to skip this one!)

Here's the deal; I began my second church plant in Vancouver, Washington a little over three years ago. The first time I did this, the church grew numerically and within five years had several hundred people attending weekly. That church is now more than ten years old and has an established and basically positive presence in the community...along with its share of skeletons, scandals and schisms.

In the sequel to this story, I laid out a vision for a healthy, vibrant, Christian community that would be just as dynamic (and just as big) as the last one. This last sentence reveals, in hindsight, the exact assumption I was making three years ago. If I did the same things I did before (maybe do them better) I could expect the same results and church number 2 would be a new-and-improved version of church number 1.

You know what happens when you "ass-u-me..."

After more than three years of doing essentially the same things as before, the present reality of church number 2 is this: five couples and 22 kids. No buildings, budgets, programs, staff or strategies to acquire such assets (or should I call these liabilities?). During this time, dozens of people have come, stayed for a while and left. Every departure has left its mark on those who remained. These were (and still are) friends whom we love. And without exception, the reason given for leaving centers on one issue; the church could not provide what they were looking for. It wasn't about theology, it wasn't about the character of the people or the spiritual maturity of the leadership. It wasn't even about the stated mission and vision of the church. The common denominator always came down to "we need something that your church can't provide."

None of these needs were bad or wrong; whether it was children's ministry, men's groups, women's groups, dynamic worship times etc. And they had a point; we couldn't provide these things. But what I'm coming to realize is that these things may be more of a hindrance than a help when it comes to enabling a community to become the kind of church Jesus envisioned.

In the introduction to his new book, "The Great Omission," Dallas Willard makes this statement:

"So the greatest issue facing the world today, with all its heartbreaking needs, is whether those who, by profession or culture, are identified as 'Christians' will become disciples - students, apprentices, practitioners - of Jesus Christ, steadily learning from him how to live the life of the Kingdom of the Heavens into every corner of human existence."

The need, Willard suggests, is not so much for more and better churches as much as it is for those who profess to be followers of Jesus to ACTUALLY follow Jesus...in everything...in every way. The need is not for spiritual leaders to create and market spiritual goods and services, so that those who are out "shopping" for them will come to their churches.

The real need is to become (and make) disciples.

There is a difference.

The problem I see is the assumption that numerical growth and sophisticated structure is the same thing as true Kingdom effectiveness. We confuse attendance with adherence; if lots of people are coming, it must be working! What happens next is predictable. Numerical growth creates a buzz, people start talking about what's happening at Church X. The pastor at Church X starts speaking and writing about their growth. Church X launches their own version of Church Growth seminars and resources and begins to "sell" their product to the larger Christian community. The unspoken assumption here is that if we "do" church the way Church X does it, we too will be successful. A generation ago, it was Willow Creek, then Saddleback. Now its multi-site video venues or "TV Church."

To varying degrees, these methods are successful in replicating the numerical growth of the Motherchurch, but I question their level of success in producing maturing disciples. Its harsh, I know. But don't you think, if these methods really got at what Jesus told us to do, we would see a much more positive impact on our culture? If people like George Barna (read "Revolution") are even half-right, the church-as-we-know-it is in trouble.

My hunch is that this trouble started when we started franchising church structure and style and lost sight of what it means to truly make disciples. Again, Willard shines an uncomfortable light on this issue; "The word 'disciple' occurs 269 times in the NT. 'Christian' is found three times...The NT is a book about disciples, by disciples and for disciples of Jesus Christ."

I've spent more than 20 years in large, franchise-oriented, churches. They are filled with Godly people whom I love, but there is much confusion about what this call to discipleship means in a practical sense. And I blame myself for contributing to this confusion. When I think about the sheer amount of time I've spent building, repairing and maintaining a system known as "church." and then compare that to time spent learning how to live moment-by-moment as a follower of Jesus (and teaching others to do the same)

I am ashamed.

I've spent more time franchising church than making disciples!

In order to make a living these days, I'm a part of a company that is aggressively trying to build franchises across the country. Its probably for this reason that I'm seeing more clearly the difference between disciplemaking and franchising. Consider the following comparisons;

Franchising is about capturing an ever larger market share in which to sell your product or service. Disciplemaking is about life-change or transformation.

The bottom line for the franchise is money. The goal of disciplemaking is expanding the presence of Jesus in the world through the lives of His followers.

The best franchises are built on proven methods and practices; a linear plan that promises success. If you do X and then Y the result will be Z. You can walk into a Starbucks in Seattle or Selma and it looks the same. Disciplemaking is also about growth, but that growth is systemic and slower. It is organic and not mechanistic; more like gestation than an assembly line.

Franchises require a rigid infrastructure with policies and procedures that are tested and trusted. Disciplemaking requires long-term relational connections that are flawed and messy.

Franchises thrive in a "sales culture" where there is a never-ending drive to make a profit. Disciplemaking thrives in a transformational culture that accepts slower and more obscure growth; the character of a maturing disciple may not be readily observable in the short-term.

In a franchise, money validates everything. If revenue is up, you can rightly judge the franchise a success. In disciplemaking, fruitfulness validates everything; an increasing manifestation of love, joy, peace etc. in the lives of individuals equals success.


All of this leaves me asking the question I posed at the beginning of this post; am I franchising churches or making disciples? The answer will probably not come easy.