Manufactured Disciples: How Efficiency May Be Killing the Church

​Joey Oh, in his own words, is a man whose life belongs to a wife who is better than he deserves, two daughters who bring joy to his every waking moment, and a God whose grace made the first two possible. The rest of his time is divided between serving as the administrative pastor of the Loma Linda University Church, playing whatever sports will have him, learning and teaching about leadership, and rooting for the Washington Football Team. He is currently working on a D.Min from Fuller Seminary.
​
At the 1900 Paris World Fair, nineteenth-century Quaker Fredrick Winston Taylor introduced an innovation that would redefine how the world worked for the next century.[1] Taylor’s creation was not technological, though it would impact the field of technology. He did not uncover new knowledge, though his innovation would lead to new discoveries. What Taylor created was a new process—a revolutionary way of organizing and performing work. To put it simply, Taylor broke down complicated tasks into optimized steps that could be reproduced with little skill or effort. This process allowed him to create an interchangeable workforce, reducing labor costs while increasing productivity. Taylor founded his methodology on the belief that the best way to complete any job was to focus on efficiency.[2] He viewed human endeavors as machines whose effectiveness depended on tuning their parts precisely. So, he relentlessly committed himself to maximizing the efficiency of every aspect of his work. According to former Joint Special Operations Task Force commander General Stanley McChrystal, “This mind-set, applied to questions of human organization, precipitated the most influential doctrine in the history of management.”[3] Taylor’s principles of “scientific management” have impacted how we farm, fish, teach, construct, and even fight. It has influenced the organizational structure of warehouses and corporations. It has even affected the way we grow the church.
The Church Growth Movement, which peaked in the late 20th century, began with a desire to reach groups of people by utilizing the practical insights of social and behavioral sciences.[4] As this movement progressed, however, it focused more on process than on mission. Chair of Church, Mission, and Evangelism at Wheaton College Ed Stetzer writes, “Some in the Church Growth Movement lost their way when they became more driven by methodological mania than by a central focus on mission.”[5] Like other industries of their time, late-twentieth-century North American churches adopted Taylor’s scientific management approach. They reduced the discipleship process to efficient reproducible steps that generated guaranteed outcomes. Leaders began to organize churches like factories that manufactured disciples. They analyzed and standardized each step to create a singular process for forming disciples. In this landscape, megachurches (much like their large factory or big box store counterparts) had the competitive advantage of scale. By committing to efficiency, they could produce more disciples while utilizing fewer resources.
The challenge with equating efficiency with effectiveness, however, is that not all processes can be standardized. Taylor’s method works well when applied to predictable systems—ones where the outcome of any decision is known. However, when applied to complex systems—ones with unpredictable results—the drive for efficiency and control can lead to unintended consequences. For example, the documentary, Artifishal, highlights the challenges of applying scientific management principles to the complex system of nature.[6] When building dams and overfishing salmon put the wild salmon population at risk, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service used Taylor’s industrial model to manufacture fish. The ideal environment for growing fish was analyzed and standardized to raise large numbers of eggs to adulthood economically. The Wildlife Service then introduced these manufactured fish to rivers to supplement the wild salmon population.
While this process looked good on paper, it had a disastrous effect on the salmons’ health. In the wild, salmon must fight hundreds of miles of the current, overcome obstacles, and evade predators to return to their spawning grounds. Usually, only the strongest, healthiest salmon survive long enough to hatch the next generation of salmon. Conversely, manufactured fish are grown from the eggs and sperm of fish that may or may not have survived the ordeal of the salmon run. Flooding the rivers with these potentially genetically inferior salmon bypasses natural selection and dilutes the gene pool. As a result, the wild salmon are dying off faster than before hatcheries were implemented.[7] The failure of fish hatcheries is one of the many examples of how nature is too unpredictable to be standardized and controlled.[8] The variables are simply too numerous to manage.
What if growing disciples (and churches) is a similarly complex endeavor that evades standardization? Indeed, our efforts to standardize church growth have created several unintentional consequences. According to Revealed, Willow Creek’s landmark study on discipleship, the industrial approach to discipleship increased commitment to the church but not necessarily spiritual growth.[9] By the early 2000s, it was common for nondenominational Christians in the United States to measure their spiritual health by their participation in programs rather than a close connection with God. Activity, not intimacy, defined their spiritual journey. Conversely, studying God’s followers in scripture reveals that each person’s journey was unique. They were original masterpieces rather than a generic paint-by-numbers artwork.
Not only is the discipleship journey complex, but society has become more unpredictable. With the advent of the internet, the world is growing more interconnected and is changing faster every day. Police brutality in Minneapolis can spark protests in South Korea.[10] An infection in China can lead to a worldwide pandemic. The variables have increased to the point where it is impossible to predict how our current choices will impact our future.
So, if God has called the church to perform the complex work of discipleship in an increasingly unpredictable world, then adaptability, not efficiency, is the key to effectiveness. When navigating unknown waters where the environment can shift at a moment’s notice, churches must have the agility to change directions as needed. They cannot merely set a course and follow it blindly. As Henry Mintzberg, author of The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, puts it, “Setting oneself on a predetermined course in unknown waters is the perfect way to sail straight into an iceberg.”[11] Because the future is unpredictable, the church must become adaptable.
Throughout the past year, our churches have adapted more than we could have imagined was possible two years ago. Bereft of our in-person gatherings, churches found new ways to connect. Deacons performed virtual visits with the sick. Seniors gathered on zoom to hold bible trivia nights. Children chatted in as their pastors read them stories on Facebook. The church adjusted and then readjusted as the world around it continued to change. Yet, to continue to minister effectively in our changing world, we must stop viewing adaptability as a temporary phase brought on by the pandemic. It must become a vital characteristic of all our congregations.
Organizations do not exist in a vacuum, but often the church behaves as if it does. We assume that we will be successful if we follow established practices. This assumption was born out of experience. For the majority of the church’s existence, it had time to adapt to new changes. Scott Cormode points out, “For most of the church’s history, Christians had up to a century to recalibrate in the face of a disruptive change such as the Industrial Revolution. Even in the twentieth century, the church typically had a generation to recalibrate to changes like the advent of the automobile or the rise of suburbia.”[12] So, the church became used to following a “wait-and-copy” strategy—allowing others to adjust to the new reality and then learning from them.[13]
The pandemic has helped us see that the pace of change has accelerated to the point where the next shift is upon us before we have finished adjusting to the previous one. The age when efficiency was primary is behind us, and now adaptability rules. My prayer is that we will continue to innovate as we experiment our way into the unknown future.



[1] Stanley McChrystal, Team of Teams (New York: Penguin Publishing Group, 2015), loc 692, Kindle.

[2] Stanley McChrystal, Team of Teams, loc 880, Kindle.

[3] Stanley McChrystal, loc 692, Kindle.

[4] Ed Stetzer, “What’s the Deal with the Church Growth Movement? (Part One),” Christianity Today, October 1, 2012, https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2012/october/whats-deal-with-church-growth-movement-part-one.html.

[5] Ed Stetzer, “What’s the Deal w/ the Church Growth Movement? Part 2: Some Unfortunate Evolutions,” Christianity Today, October 8, 2012, https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2012/october/whats-deal-w-church-growth-movement-part-2-some.html.

[6] Josh Murphy, Artifishal (Ventura: Patagonia Films, 2019).

[7] Josh Murphy, Artifishal.

[8] In Team of Teams author Stanley McChrystal describes multiple failed attempts of controlling nature (loc 1215).

[9] Greg L. Hawkins and Cally Parkinson, Reveal: Where Are You? (Barrington, IL: Willow Creek Resources, 2007), 34.

[10] See: Jason Strother, “America’s BLM Protests Find Solidarity in South Korea,” The World, June 8, 2020, https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-06-08/america-s-blm-protests-find-solidarity-south-korea.

[11] Harry Mintzberg, “The Strategy Concept II: Another Look at Why Organizations Need Strategies,” California Management Review 30, no. 1 (1987): 26.

[12] Scott Cormode, The Innovative Church, loc 180, Kindle.

[13] Scott Cormode, loc 180, Kindle.

---