Quality & Popularity in Ministry

I've decided that, among the many other untrue things I was taught in Church Growth 501 class at seminary, there is almost no connection between quality of pastoral ministry and attendance figures. Here's what I mean:

The appeal of preachers varies wildly from one part of the country to another, and it has almost nothing to do with whether the preacher is any good. Chuck Swindoll was fired from his first pastorate in Waltham, Massachusetts, only stayed a short time at his second pastorate someplace in Texas (where you would have thought he would shine, him being from El Campo), and only became "Chuck Swindoll" after he arrived at Fullerton. A good friend of mine, who pastors the church where my wife and I were married, is a much sounder preacher than his predecessor, yet Sunday attendance is less than half of what it was. Using Christian doctrinal orthodoxy as a yardstick, Lakewood Church is one of the worst churches in America, and Joel Osteen does not deserve the title "shepherd". Yet Lakewood has tens of thousands of people in enthusiastic attendance.

I think this is what Jesus meant when he said, "Many who are first will be last, and the last shall be first" -- meaning, the preachers of some of the most celebrated, large, powerful, and wealthy churches in America will end up being called "unprofitable servants" by Christ, and the pastors of some of the most obscure, feeble, poor, struggling, and 'unsuccessful' churches on earth will be given ten cities to rule. MacGavran and C. Peter Wagner are wrong; there is almost no connection between quantity and popularity. Popularity is an unpredictable alchemy of personality, gift, circumstance, and setting, under the direction of the hand of God. I believe that you could take some of the most popular preachers in America, and geographically move them, and in many if not most cases they would fail. You could pluck certain faithful preachers out of the time stream, unheralded and even disliked in their time, equip them with the ability to speak with modern Americans, place them somewhere right now, and they could be world-altering successes. There is no way to predict it.

If there was a direct and reliable connection between quality and popularity, then Twinkies, Big Macs, Andy Warhol art, and rap music would all be failures. Instead, they are all fabulous market successes, despite being mediocre at best and drek at worst.

Also contrary to the quasi-Pelagian man-centeredness of MacGavran, it is the hand of the Lord that alone makes a ministry fruitful. Nehemiah successfully built Jerusalem's wall because the hand of the Lord was with him. Peter had a powerful ministry at Joppa because the hand of the Lord was with him. The real cause, the foundational cause, of ministry fruit was the hand of the Lord. Fruitfulness wasn't ultimately caused by better organization, a different style of illustrating points, better technology, or a different style of music. These methods all might be what theologians call instrumental causes of success. God works through means. One method might be wiser than another. One method might fit the situation better than another. But no method is the originating cause of fruit in church ministry, just as power drills, saws, or lathes do not produce fine pieces of furniture. The mind, skill, and energy of the carpenter builds the piece. Finney was wrong about revival, just as he was wrong about almost everything else he ever said: You can't cause revivals or conversions by the scientific application of psychological principles. Revivals happen because of the hand of the Lord.