My church started the CG ministry basing on FCBC's philosophies
and books of Laurence Khong and Ralph Neighbour. In itself it is
not wrong to base one's programme on a successful model. The
problem happens when the model is seen to be God-ordained - ie
cast-in-stone, unchangeable. I have major issues with the writers
insisted on a 100% copy of the structure.
Success rates? MY OPINION ONLY: Well depending on how your look at
it, you will get different interpretation. As with any given
programme, there will be a level of success till a stagnation
point. The stagnation point can be a physical one (ie church
building cannot sustain the growth), or spiritual one (ie need a
change in the "spiritual diet"). Either way, the buck stops there:
ie the church stops growing. I see my the population of both the
congregation remaining relatively the same over the years. People
do come and go, but the potential is limited. The only way to do a
physical growth is to embark on a different approach (ie megachurch
style).
Back to my church's CG - the fact that there are CGs does not
translate to a more caring church. I am actually see more b-itching
(between pastor, some church members, leadership, etc) in the
charismatic service than the traditional service. Here's not to say
the traditional service is extremely holy - just a little more laid
back. It is strange too, that I see some movement from charismatic
to traditional recently, plus the trad svc has a fairly strong
number of young people.
Tool of the devil??? A little too strong for me, ha ha.
