Evaluating the Church Growth Movement: 5 Views

"Evaluating the Church Growth Movement" is a book from the "Counterpoint" series by Zondervan where different views are articulated on a particular issue by one of the major proponents of each perspective and then those holding differing views have the opportunity to refute or disagree. With this book there are five differing views of church growth that are presented: Effective Evangelism View by Elmer Towns, the Gospel and Our Culture Network View by Craig Van Gelder, the Centrist View by Charles Van Engen, the Reformist View by Gailyn Van Rheenan, and the Renewal View by Howard Synder. List strengths of book. I believe there are many things to like about this book. Each of the presenters (except one that I will discuss under the weaknesses) offered very thoughtful insight on their perspective, as well as helpful debate with each response. I like the fact that each view is presented by someone who is a proponent of that view, rather than having someone else tell you what the other group believes. This approach is a much more "honest" way of presenting differing perspective. I also believe the responses added much to understanding each view. I thought each perspective was theologically grounded and at the same time a healthy concern for the importance of the cultural context was present. A very beneficial historical perspective was given on the overall topic of church growth. It was helpful to better understand the roots of the church growth movement and how different individuals play significant roles. List weaknesses of book. There were two major weaknesses of the book. First, most of the views, if not all, seemed to be a bit pushed. In other words, it seemed the editor had to come up with these somewhat arbitrary views of church growth. I do certainly believe there are those who are for and against the traditional church growth perspective, but to say there are five different views seem arbitrary. Secondly, the Centrist View by Charles Van Engen was very muddled and confusing. It was certainly the least helpful of each of the views presented. Additionally I thought the title of Van Rheenan's view (Reformist) was not a very good title, it should have been called something like the Complementary View.