At first thought I was shocked by this. After considering and contemplating how few really take such a commitment to be transformed by God I think this is really accurate, maybe even overstated. What it means is that our efforts need to go to the places where those who acknowledge their state of desperation in life and their sole should be where we really need to focus. Christ himself served those in society- have we lost our way in this regard?
There are two sides to this, our openness to God's work of transformation and obedience to God's call, and then the question of receptivity. I believe God is always working in people's lives (ours and others), our responsibility is to get with God so we can discern where God would have us focus our efforts. To be fair, if God calls us into a season of sowing then we humbly obey and rejoice in our partnership with the Lord.
“For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.”” (John 4:37–38, ESV)
I'd never heard of "growth through conversation" as a concept, and I was curious to see if it means what it sounds like. Sure enough, good ole AI confirmed, it "refers to the strategy of fostering church growth by actively engaging people in meaningful conversations about their faith, life experiences, and spiritual needs, essentially using personal connection and dialogue to attract and retain new members while deepening existing relationships within the church community."
So now I'm curious about their sample size and methodology for their 3-5% church effectiveness and 1-in-20 success rate. Is it because only 1 of every 20 listen and respond (as their conclusion seems to imply), or could it be because 19 of 20 current members don't engage in "conversation?"
Great thoughts! I believe the early church would have been "grow-through-conversions" churches. I've thought about the 20:1 ratio and I think it's a question of receptivity. By definition these churches are focusing on evangelism so it's safe to assume the congregation is getting behind evangelism. I think the question we should be pondering is, "why is receptivity to the gospel so low?"
At first thought I was shocked by this. After considering and contemplating how few really take such a commitment to be transformed by God I think this is really accurate, maybe even overstated. What it means is that our efforts need to go to the places where those who acknowledge their state of desperation in life and their sole should be where we really need to focus. Christ himself served those in society- have we lost our way in this regard?
There are two sides to this, our openness to God's work of transformation and obedience to God's call, and then the question of receptivity. I believe God is always working in people's lives (ours and others), our responsibility is to get with God so we can discern where God would have us focus our efforts. To be fair, if God calls us into a season of sowing then we humbly obey and rejoice in our partnership with the Lord.
“For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.”” (John 4:37–38, ESV)
I'd never heard of "growth through conversation" as a concept, and I was curious to see if it means what it sounds like. Sure enough, good ole AI confirmed, it "refers to the strategy of fostering church growth by actively engaging people in meaningful conversations about their faith, life experiences, and spiritual needs, essentially using personal connection and dialogue to attract and retain new members while deepening existing relationships within the church community."
So now I'm curious about their sample size and methodology for their 3-5% church effectiveness and 1-in-20 success rate. Is it because only 1 of every 20 listen and respond (as their conclusion seems to imply), or could it be because 19 of 20 current members don't engage in "conversation?"
Great thoughts! I believe the early church would have been "grow-through-conversions" churches. I've thought about the 20:1 ratio and I think it's a question of receptivity. By definition these churches are focusing on evangelism so it's safe to assume the congregation is getting behind evangelism. I think the question we should be pondering is, "why is receptivity to the gospel so low?"