1

Diagnosing Church Health across Cultures: A Case Study of Turkish Roma (Millet) Churches in Bulgaria

Authors: Richard and Evelyn Hibbert

The final, definitive version of this paper has been published in Missiology: An International Review 44(2016): 243-256.

Introduction

The work of many missionaries focuses on helping churches in their host countries grow to

health and maturity. Missionaries pour their efforts into discipling believers, teaching the Bible, and training leaders in the hope of leaving behind healthy, mature churches. Like the

apostle Paul, they “want to present them to God, perfect in their relationship to Christ.” (Col 1:29). While the overall purpose of these discipling, teaching and training efforts is similar

across cultures, when missionaries are able to discern the context-specific needs of the particular churches they work with, they can tailor their approach and emphases to make

their training more effective.

When missionaries set out to assess the health and maturity of churches from a very

different cultural background than their own, they face the challenge of contextualisation. The local people’s ideals and images of church are likely to reflect different emphases than

those of the missionary’s home culture. Indicators that have been used to assess church health in the missionary’s home country will usually not be the best measures of health in

their host culture. Missionaries’ attempts to help churches grow can then end up reflecting their home culture’s concerns and priorities as much as or even more than they reflect

biblical ideals of church.

This paper proposes an approach that expatriate Christian workers can use to contextually assess the health and maturity of churches. It then describes and reflects on the application

of this approach to a group of relatively young Turkish speaking Roma (Millet) churches in Bulgaria.

The need for contextualization when diagnosing church health in another culture

In the mid-1970s a groundswell of concern for church health emerged partly out of the need to provide a balance to the church growth movement’s emphasis on numerical growth and

partly out of a recognition that healthy churches are more likely to grow. The architects of the church growth movement believed that just as people benefit from regular health

checks, so do churches (McGavran and Arn, 1973: 74). Since then, pastors and researchers have attempted to define what a healthy church looks like by developing lists of

characteristics of healthy churches (e.g. Wagner, 1976; Peters, 1981; Anderson, 1992; Warren, 1995; Warren, 2004; Macchia, 1999; Dever, 2004; Getz, 2007).

A particularly comprehensive study of church health was carried out by Christian Schwarz and published in Natural Church Growth (1996). He and his team used a questionnaire to

survey members of 1000 churches in 32 countries and collected over four million responses (1996: 16-18). Analysis of these led Schwarz to identify eight characteristics of growing churches. Schwarz found that the presence of each of these characteristics was associated with numerical church growth (1996: 38-41).

2

Applying lists of characteristics such as that developed by Schwartz without adaptation for specific cultural contexts is fraught with difficulties. First, although there is some simi larity among the various lists developed by Western theorists, these lists still vary significantly from each other. For example, “supernatural power” and “God’s empowering presence,” appear on only two out of twelve lists and Schwarz’s characteristic “hol istic small groups” appears on no other list (McKee, 2003: 31-35). This variability suggests that authors have selected items from a wider possible list of health characteristics according to those that

they see as being the most important in their context or that best reflect their theological emphases. Some authors writing about church health recognize this variability and explain

that what is healthy in one church may be different from what is healthy for another. Leith Anderson (1992: 128), for example, argues that what is healthy for a two-year old church

may be different from what is healthy for a twenty-year old church. Generational shifts in Western culture also influence conceptions of what is a good or healthy church. Younger

generations of Christians in the West are, for example, more likely to emphasize community and belonging as indicators of church health more than well-organized worship meetings

and clear structures (Gibbs and Bolger, 2005: 96-104).

A second problem with applying the lists of characteristics developed in the West is that the authors of those lists give no indication about the influence of context or the relative importance of the various factors. Research has consistently demonstrated that in addition to “institutional” factors arising from within churches and their denominations, contextual factors play an important role in growth (e.g. Hoge, 1979; Roozen and Carroll, 1979). Churches are more likely to grow when they develop an effective interface with their communities that connects with the spiritual and cultural issues, concerns, and themes of the people they live among (cf. Britt, 1997; Van Engen, 2004: 139).

The drawbacks of using lists generated in the West are amplified when they are applied to new cultural contexts. Schwarz’s list comes the closest to attempting to address all cultures

because of the broad variety of churches from many countries that he included in his survey. He claims that the list of characteristics generated by his research is valid across all

cultures, and that he achieved this supracultural validity by intentionally “stripping the observable models of all their specific, local, and cultural flavor” (1996: 18). This approach is

problematic, though, because it assumes that local cultural influences on perceptions of church health are unimportant. Well-intentioned missionaries from an individualist, low-

context culture (where attention is given more to words than non-verbal elements of communication), for example, who apply such a generalized, culture-stripped list to a collectivist, high-context culture (where attention is more holistically focused on all aspects

of interpersonal interaction, including the physical context) will likely underestimate the importance and influence of community in the host culture (cf. Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 1997). As a result, they may conclude that the local church is deficient because its members prioritize relationships over doctrinal correctness. In the same way, missionaries from a high

context culture may judge a Western church unhealthy and cold because of the relative inability of church members to demonstrate love through close personal relationships and spontaneous expressions of emotional warmth.

3

Choosing an approach to contextualizing the diagnosis of church health among the Millet

The Millet are a Turkish-speaking, traditionally Muslim group of Roma who number

between 300,000 and 400,000 in Bulgaria. They are marginalized in Bulgarian society and the majority live in segregated neighbourhoods (Marushiakova and Popov, 2001: 372; Tomova, 1995: 19). Beginning in the 1980s and accelerating with the fall of communism,

thousands of previously Muslim Millet came to faith in Christ and formed Turkish-speaking churches (Barany, 2002). The number of churches grew rapidly from about five in 1989 to

around 100 in 1995 with an estimated 10,000 church attendees (Johnstone and Mandryk, 2001: 129; cf. Tomova, 1995).

This movement began to decline in numbers during the late 1990s and early 2000s as many Millet began leaving churches. A recent estimate was that there were no more than 5000

people gathering in 125 Millet churches in 2014 (Otto, 2015). Research conducted in 2008 set out to discover the reasons for this by interviewing 20 people who had left churches, 20

people who had stayed in churches, and 6 church leaders. That study found that more than half of interviewees who had left churches felt that churches and their leaders had failed to

welcome and take a genuine interest in them and that this was the main reason for them leaving. Many interviewees also noted that church leaders who had acted in authoritarian

ways, been in conflict with other leaders, and engaged in morally questionable behaviours such as adultery had discouraged them from continuing at church (Hibbert, 2013).

As missionaries concerned for the growth of the Millet Church and the development of its leaders, it seemed clear that there was a need for some objective assessment of the health of the churches. However, not only is Millet culture very different to our own, the issues

facing the Millet churches in post-communist Bulgaria are very different to the issues facing churches in our home contexts. Previous experience had also taught us that uncritical

application of Western approaches in other areas of ministry had been largely unhelpful to the church. This caused us to research an approach to diagnosing Millet Church health that

was contextually appropriate.

The task of contextualisation is complex. Wisdom is needed in selecting and applying an

approach to diagnosing church health that is sensitive to cultural context. The aim is to help churches to grow towards biblical ideals of church life in ways that resonate with the local culture and that avoid syncretism. These ideals “must be voiced and practiced in ways that take careful account of the particular time and circumstance into which God's people are called” (Brueggemann, 1991: 129).

Of the models of contextualisation described by Stephen Bevans (2002), the translation and synthetic approaches hold most promise for the task of contextualizing the diagnosis of church health in Millet churches. The translation model’s weakness of tending to hinder appropriate expressions of Christianity in the long term, though, compromises its suitability

for this contextualisation task as most Millet churches are now more than two decades old and are wrestling with the challenges of addressing areas of under-contextualization

especially in the area of church leadership styles (Schreiter, 1985: 7; Bevans, 2002: 42-43; Hibbert, 2013). A synthetic approach to contextualisation begins with the questions,

problems, and needs of the local people and brings them into dialogue with the Bible and

4

Christian tradition. The context and the contextualisers’ study of Scripture inform each other in a two-way process (Schreiter, 1985: 13; Bevans, 2002: 92; Moreau, 2012: 40).

Paul Hiebert’s approach to contextualisation, that he most recently termed “missional

theology,” provides clear guidelines about how to put the strengths of a synthetic approach into practice (Hiebert, 2009: 44-57). Utilising this approach for contextualising the diagnosis

of church health among the Millet involves three stages: (1) listening to local Christians about their perceptions of what healthy church looks like; (2) examining what the Bible,

theology, and what churches in other cultures say about church health together with local Christians; and (3) integrating the insights gained in the first two phases to formulate a

biblically shaped and culturally sensitive picture of what a healthy local church looks like. The rest of this article describes our application of this approach among the Millet churches.

Applying the approach

(1) In order to find out how Millet Christians perceive church health, we travelled to ten Millet churches in Bulgaria during January and February 2015 and interviewed 59

believers and 15 church leaders about their ideas of what a healthy church looks like. i Questions included: “What does a healthy Millet church look like to you? Can you

describe a time when your church was particularly healthy (or unhealthy)? What were the believers like and what were they doing [at that time]?” ii One focus group was also

asked to to give at least one illustration for each ideal of church health identified by other groups as to how those ideals might be expressed in practice.

(2) Applying the second phase of Hiebert’s “missional theology” to contextualizing the diagnosis of church health means listening to what the Bible says about what makes a

healthy, mature church. This requires the identification of a set of images and ideals for the local churches that express biblical images and ideals in culturally relevant ways (cf.

Hiebert, 2009: 50). For this step we drew on Brian Woodford’s (1997) model of church for two reasons. First, it distils the plethora of biblical images of church into a readily

accessible form while still providing a comprehensive biblical picture based on the Bible’s “extensive gallery” of images of the church (Minear, 1960: 13). Second, it was

formulated with the diagnosis of church health in cross-cultural contexts in mind.

Woodford’s model portrays the church as having five major facets: the Family of God’s People, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the Herald of God’s Word, God’s Servant in the World, and the Household of God. Grouped under each facet are 4 or 5 principles. The principle “Family relationships: Church members express their love for one another in practical ways as members of the God’s family, regardless of cultural or social differences,” for example, falls under the facet “Family” (Woodford, 1997: 197). Woodford’s model, showing the five major facets and an abbreviated form of the principles associated with each facet, is shown in Figure 1.

5

Figure 1. A five-facet model of church (based on Woodford, 1997: 221-226; Woodford,

2007: 46)

Based on the 23 principles arranged around the pentagon in Figure 1, we formulated 23

brief statements accompanied by a relevant Bible reference. In line with Millet linguistic

preferences, each included an active verb. One example is “Believers are growing spiritually.” These statements were checked by two Millet believers for clarity and linguistically modified when necessary. They were then printed on cards. Interviewees were asked to discuss each statement to make sure they understood them, to read the

related Bible verse and any other biblical passages they could think of that related to that principle, and to ask questions of us and each other to clarify what each statement meant.

(3) The final phase of Hiebert’s contextualisation process involves bringing biblical

perspectives on church health as expressed by Woodford’s framework into dialogue with Millet perceptions about what makes a healthy church. This involved interviewees,

usually in groups, arranging the 23 biblical principles into several categories and giving each category a name. They then discussed which of the categories were going well and

which needed strengthening in their church. When time permitted, interviewees were also asked to provide practical examples of how these biblical principles are enacted in a

healthy church.

Fam

ily

Spir

itu

al u

nit

y Fa

mil

y re

lati

on

ship

s

Ass

ura

nce

of

salv

ati

on

G

row

th

Per

seve

ran

ce

6

Results (1): Millet perceptions of a healthy church

Interviewees gave just over 100 responses to the question “What does a healthy Millet church look like?” and the related questions “In a healthy church what are the believers like

and what do they do? What are the leaders like and what do they do?” These clustered around six themes and 20 sub-themes that are shown in order of frequency in Table 1.

Responses under each sub-theme are also grouped together under a representative phrase, with the number of interviewees who gave that or a similar response shown in brackets.iii

Table 1. Interviewee responses grouped by theme and sub-theme

Themes Responses grouped by sub-theme

Growing in,

and serious about, their faith (38)

“They are serious

about their faith.” (13)

“They read, learn,

and obey God’s Word.” (11)

“They are founded

on Jesus, not something else.” (7)

“They stay away

from sin and live holy l ives.” (7)

Being united (29)

“They love each other and don’t give

up on each other.” (10)

They are united. (10)

They pray. (6)

They meet together. (3)

Having good leaders (12)

Leaders share leadership with others and empower

them (4)

“The leaders point to Jesus rather than themselves.” (3)

“The leaders’ l ives are good examples.” (3)

“The leaders know God’s Word and put it into practice.” (2)

Sharing the gospel (11)

“They constantly share the gospel with unbelievers.” (6)

“They are a l ight to the world and attract people to

God’s way.” (3)

“The go to other people groups even though it’s

difficult.” (2)

Serving God

and people (10)

The church gives –

money, time, prayer, their hearts. (5)

They serve God and

each other. (2)

“Something is

being done for the children and youth.” (2)

“They visit people

who have left the church.” (1)

Experiencing

God’s power (3)

“People are being

healed.” (2)

“People see and

experience Jesus doing things and know that he is sti l l working.” (1)

Growing in, and Serious about, Their Faith

The largest proportion of responses fell under the theme “Growing in, and serious about, their faith.” Interviewees felt that believers in a healthy church are above all serious about

their faith and passionate about their Lord. Consequently they learn and apply what the Bible says in their lives. The changed lives of believers are the most significant sign, for

Millet respondents, that people really believe. Examples of this transformation given by interviewees include new Christians who had begun talking about their new faith

7

continually, helping people in the community, or who had stopped sinful activities such as getting drunk.

Believers and leaders in many towns felt this was an area of significant weakness in the

churches especially because they felt the gospel that was preached in the early years of the churches focussed too much on healing and too little on reconciliation with God. This church

leader’s comment is representative of many others:

There is a great weakness in this area, especially among the older believers. They

want health, healing, and the solving of their problems more than salvation. In the early years of the church that was the gospel that was preached – “Jesus will solve

your problems and heal your sicknesses.” The real gospel wasn’t preached. I want people to come for salvation. Very few people understand the real gospel in the

churches. Especially in the big churches people are coming for health and problems.”

Interviewees also felt that, in contrast to the early years of the church when “people had a real desire for the Lord,” there is now a generally lower level of commitment to God that is reflected in unwillingness to make changes in their lives or take up opportunities to serve in the church.

Being United

A little over a quarter of all responses related to the theme “Being united”. Interviewees focussed on the church being a family of people who love each other in practical ways such as accepting one another, praying for each other, forgiving each other, and living together in harmony. More than any other expression of unity, meeting and spending time together both in whole-church meetings and each other’s homes was emphasised as the most important sign of being united. Many interviewees made comments such as “Years ago there was a lot of warmth. We looked out for each other and visited each other. We met frequently. We sang songs and hymns passionately. We were always praying for each other.” A key outcome of this kind of unity that was characteristic of the early years of the churches was that “the voice of the church was heard in the neighbourhood.” The love that believers had for each other was more obvious, and “new believers were going to their neighbours and relatives to tell them the gospel.”

Interviewees explained that the main reason that the unity and love that characterised the

early years of their churches had diminished was conflict and jealousy among believers. Several leaders noted that churches tend to be unhealthy when relationships between believers are weak and when they do not visit each other outside the formal meetings. There were encouraging signs, though, that some churches were once again experiencing a degree of the warmth and unity they once had. In some towns believers had recently begun visiting each other or been reconciled to each other. A missionary couple who have been working with the Millet churches for more than 20 years in the country commented: “What really makes the difference in growing churches and drawing people in is going to visit Millet people in their homes. That’s happening in a few places.”

Having Good Leaders

Good leadership was the next most frequently mentioned aspect of a healthy church. The

qualities that Millet believers believe characterise good leaders are that they avoid acting in an authoritarian way but instead empower believers to participate in decision making and

serving God, and they work together in harmony with other leaders. Several interviewees

8

complained that too many leaders promoted themselves and prevented people in their church from being involved in ministry. One leader pointed out that many of the church leaders in town “tend to lead as a one-man band and put pressure on others to do what they say. They don’t let others have a say in decisions. They don’t give freedom to other brothers to do anything.” The authoritarian behaviour of leaders and their conflicts with fellow leaders, according to several interviewees, have caused a lot of hurt and conflict and led to many people leaving churches, something that the research we had conducted in

2008 also highlighted (Hibbert, 2013).

Serv ing, Witnessing, and Experiencing God’s Power

A little under a fifth of all responses related to service and evangelism. Serving was understood primarily as giving money, especially to help the poor, and using spiritual gifts to build up the church. The focus of sharing the gospel was telling the message verbally to people both locally and cross-culturally, but also included the witness of lives characterised by love. Each of the six focus groups felt that one or both of these areas was the weakest or

least healthy facet of their churches.

Three interviewees in this study emphasised that in healthy churches people experience

God’s power, especially in the form of healing. A pastor’s wife said that her greatest desire was that God would give believers the gift of healing “because when people find healing

they find it easier to start believing. They feel God’s power.” This reflects the way that the majority of Millet first became interested in Christianity. Most people came to faith because

they or someone close to them was miraculously healed in answer to prayer, often in church meetings. One man we interviewed in 2008 who had earlier been paralysed by a

stroke illustrates this phenomenon: “Some friends took me to the meeting in a wheelbarrow, because I couldn’t walk . . . . They prayed for me, and I was immediately

healed. I began to believe in Jesus at that moment” (Hibbert, 2013).

Results (2): Examining the Bible together and integrating cultural and biblical perspectives

When we presented the Millet focus groups with the 23 biblical principles of church health from Woodford’s model, they consistently arranged them into the following categories: (1) Growing in Faith; (2) Being United; (3) Sharing the Gospel; (4) Serving; and (5) Leadership. Millet interviewees’ responses to the question “What does a healthy Millet church look like?” were also easy to group under these categories, as has been shown in Table 1. iv

Millet interviewees’ categorisation of biblical principles correspond less well to Woodford’s five facets. Only two of the Millet interviewees’ categories--“Serving” and “Being United”—

correspond neatly with facets of Woodford’s model (i.e. “Servant” and “Family.”). Interviewees created three large categories and two much smaller ones. The three large categories, all containing at least 7 biblical principles, were “Being United,” “Growing in

Faith,” and “Serving.” Interviewees placed more items into the category “Being United” than any other. Seven principles from Woodford’s “Family,” “Household,” and “Temple”

categories were consistently placed by interviewees into it, and several groups insisted on adding an additional principle—“Believers forgive each other and ask for forgiveness” under

this heading. Of the other two large categories, “Growing in Faith” included seven principles drawn from the “Family,” “Temple,” and “Herald” facets. The category “Serving” included all

of the principles under Woodford’s “Servant” but also incorporated some principles from

9

“Temple” and “Household.” “Leadership”—one of the principles placed by Woodford under “Household”—was, in the minds of the interviewees, a distinct category that stood alone.

Woodford’s conceptualisation of a healthy church suggests that biblical principles of church

health can be evenly distributed into five facets of roughly the same size. This study among Millet Christians demonstrates that as local believers engage with and interpret those

principles in the light of their context, they configure their conceptualisation of church health according to their own cultural emphases. This results in a pattern that prioritises

some areas of church health and gives less weight to others. The Millet’s conceptualisation of church health is shown diagrammatically in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Millet conceptualisation of a healthy church

The process of Millet believers generating their own grid for assessing the health of their churches served three main purposes. First, it highlighted to the Millet believers areas of church life, particularly evangelism and service, which had been neglected in recent years and needed strengthening. These areas may have been overlooked partly because unity and

spiritual growth are so strongly emphasized as the primary markers of health in the Millet Christian consciousness that they can tend to overshadow other concerns.

Second, this process highlighted to us the need for missionaries and other expatriate Christian workers to avoid blindly applying church health assessment grids generated from

10

their own contexts and instead to adapt their conceptions of church health to include local cultural emphases. For example, “expository preaching,” often stressed by Western conservative evangelicals as a mark of a healthy church, was not mentioned by the Millet. Instead, the broader principles of learning and applying God’s Word to life was emphasized. Third, Millet interviewees’ formulation of their own church health assessment grid enabled them to assess their own churches’ health in a way that takes their culturally and contextually generated concerns into account. They concluded that along with growing in

the faith, evangelism and serving were the three weakest areas in their churches.

Conclusion

Christians in any cultural context naturally conceptualise church health in ways that are

shaped by their culture. They emphasise and prioritise some images and ideals of the church more than others. They also tend to draw their sense of identity and direction as a church

from whichever ideals or images of church are most important to them (cf. Minear, 1960: 24; cf. Ott, 2013: 3). African Catholic bishops at their 1994 Synod, for example, identified the

image of family as their primary model of church as it resonated with African values. More than any other image, they felt that this image of the church had a natural appeal for

Africans because of the strong, positive values and sense of belonging and identity that the family is seen to provide in Africa (Msafiri, 1998; Kiriswa, 2001). For the Millet, two ideals

stood out: unity in the church expressed especially by loving relationships among believers, and growth in faith expressed by taking God and his Word seriously.

Hiebert’s “missional theology” approach is a useful roadmap for contextualising the diagnosis of church health in another culture. This case study of Millet churches suggests

that Hiebert’s three-phase model of contextualization can help to identify contextually

specific health measures. Employing a process such as this, that takes the local context seriously, has the advantage of eliciting culturally specific vignettes of behaviour from local

believers that express aspects of church health in locally meaningful ways. Ideally, this process would also include helping local believers to elicit their own principles, as well as

discussing perspectives from churches in other cultures about what constitutes a healthy church.

Contextualising the diagnosis of church health in another culture well takes considerable time. Hiebert proposed that his approach ideally stimulates ongoing reflection on the

underlying issues in the light of the Bible in order to keep refining “long-term, well-grounded responses,” in this case to contextualizing church health (Hiebert, 2009: 50). Using

this approach will ideally help local believers engage in ongoing reflecting upon and assessing the health of their churches. If their evaluative criteria are developed according to

local experience and understanding, they are more likely to be compelling and meaningful to them than church health measures imported from other contexts. Using an approach

such as the one outlined in this study requires missionaries to invest significant time—more likely years than weeks—eliciting and listening to local ideals of church health as well as facilitating dialogue between these local ideals, biblical principles, and perspectives of church health from other cultural contexts.

11

References

Anderson L. (1992) A Church for the 21st Century, Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House.

Barany Z. (2002) The East European Gypsies: Regime change, marginality, and ethnopolitics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bevans S. (2002) Models of Contextual Theology, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

Britt D. (1997) From Homogeneity to Congruence: A Church-Community Model. In: Conn H (ed) Planting and Growing Urban Churches. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 135-149.

Brueggemann W. (1991) Rethinking Church Models through Scripture. Theology Today 48: 128-138.

Dever M. (2004) Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, Wheaton, Il l : Crossway Books.

Getz G. (2007) The Measure of a Healthy Church : How God Defines Greatness in a Church, Chicago: Moody.

Gibbs E and Bolger R. (2005) Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Hall E. (1976) Beyond Culture, New York: Anchor Press.

Hibbert RY. (2013) Why do they leave? An ethnographic investigation of defection from Turkish -speaking Roma Churches in Bulgaria. Missiology: An international review 41: 315-328.

Hiebert PG. (2009) The gospel in human contexts : anthropological explorations for contemporary missions,

Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

Hofstede G. (1997) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hoge D. (1979) A Test of Denominational Growth and Decline. In: Hoge D and Roozen D (eds) Understanding Church Growth and Decline 1950-1978. New York: The Philadelphia Press, 179-197.

Johnstone P and Mandryk J. (2001) Operation World: When We Pray God Works: 21st Century Edition, Carlisle, UK: Paternoster.

Kiriswa B. (2001) African Model of Church as Family: Implications on Ministry and Leadership. African Ecclesial Review 43: 99-108.

Macchia S. (1999) Becoming a Healthy Church, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Marushiakova E and Popov V. (2001) Bulgaria: Ethnic diversity—a common struggle for equality. In: Guy W (ed) Between past and future: The Roma of central and eastern Europe. Hatfield, Hertfordshire: University

of Hertfordshire Press, 370-388.

McGavran DA and Arn W. (1973) How to Grow a Church: Conversations about Church Growth, Glendale, CA: Regal.

McKee S. (2003) The Relationship between Church Health and Church Growth in the Evangelical Presbyterian

Church. Asbury Theological Seminary.

Minear P. (1960) Images of the Church in the New Testament, Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Moreau S. (2012) Contextualization in World Missions: Mapping and Assessing Evangelical Models, Grand

Rapids, MI: Kregel.

Msafiri A. (1998) The Church as Family Model: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. African Ecclesial Review 40: 302-319.

Ott C. (2013) The Power of Biblical Metaphors for the Contextualized Communication of the Gospel.

Missiology: An international review.

Otto T. (2015) Interviewed by Richard Hibbert, 2 February.

Peters G. (1981) A Theology of Church Growth, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

12

Roozen D and Carroll J. (1979) Recent trends in church membership and participation. In: Hoge D and Roozen D (eds) Understanding Church Growth and Decline 1950-1978. New York: The Philadelphia Press.

Schreiter RJ. (1985) Constructing local theologies, Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books.

Schwarz C. (1996) Natural Church Development : A Guide to Eight Essential Qualities of Healthy Churches, Carol Stream, IL: ChurchSmart Resources.

Tomova I. (1995) The Gypsies in the transition period, Sofia, Bulgaria: International Center for Minority Studies

and Intercultural Relations.

Van Engen CE. (2004) Centrist View. In: McIntosh G (ed) Evaluating the Church Growth Movement: 5 Views. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 121-147.

Wagner P. (1976) Your Church Can Grow: Seven Vital Signs of a Healthy Church, Glendale, CA: Regal.

Warren R. (1995) The Purpose Driven Church: Growth without Compromising you Message and Mission, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Warren R. (2004) The Healthy Churches Handbook, London: Church House Publishing.

Woodford B. (1997) One Church, Many Churches: A Five-Model Approach to Church Planting and Evaluation. Fuller Theological Seminary.

Woodford B. (2007) Master Plan: Biblical Foundations for Living Churches, Taupiri, New Zealand: Eastwest College of Intercultural Studies.

i Interviews were conducted both with individuals and focus groups. In all except two towns, where the combined focus group was composed only of men in their 20s and 30s, interviewees ranged in age from 20 to 65. Some had been believers for at least 15 years, and at least one was a new believer (who had come to faith

in the last six months). Details of the interviewees and focus group members are as follows:

Town A: two focus groups, one of 5 men and the other of 10 women, one interview with pastor and his wife, and one interview with a couple in their 30s; Town B: a focus group of 4 men from Town B and 4 men from

Town C, and an interview with the missionary church leaders; Town D: interview with male church leader; Vil lage E: two focus groups of about eight people, each including both men and women, and an interview with the pastor and his wife; Town F: interview with a couple from the church in their 30s who has been involved in starting another church in another town; Town G: interview with pastor and his wife; Town H: interview with

pastor and his wife; Town I: interview with church pastor and his wife and one church member ; Town J; one mixed gender focus group of 15 people, and interview with pastor.

ii Our full l ist of questions was: 1. In your view, what does a healthy Millet church look like? What are the believers l ike and what do they do?

What are the leaders l ike and what do they do? 2. Can you remember a time when your church was particularly healthy? What were the believers l ike and what were they doing? How did you feel at that time?

3. Can you remember a time when your church was not very healthy? What were the believers l ike and what were they doing? How did you feel at that time? 4. Which of these groups or themes [those we had identified in the early focus groups] is going well at the moment in your church, do you think? Which is/are weak at the moment? What needs to be done to

strengthen the weak one(s)? Through which of them are people coming to faith recently?

13

We posed this additional question to the focus groups: “The Bible describes many aspects of a healthy church.

We have written these on cards. Could you familiarise yourselves with these, and then put them into four to six groups and give a name to each group?” We asked five of the focus groups to perform this task. iii Thirteen people, for example, gave a response similar to the representative response “They are serious

about their faith” that is shown in the table. iv The additional category “Experiencing God’s Power” was needed to account for three responses.