Bigger, Better, Faster, More:
I just listened to a very interesting interview with Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan and the creative genius behind Nooma. Mars Hill became a megachurch almost overnight - as the story goes, without any advertising other than word-of-mouth, they had 3,000+ folks turn up their first Sunday and currently run around 10,000 over three services. Anyway, in the interview he is asked to comment on how he reconciles his unique style of thinking, teaching, writing, ministry and the like (which IS pretty unique) with being the "teaching pastor" at a megachurch. In response, he states that perhaps the "dominant question of our generation" is "Can something be big and still have a soul?"
Now, I don't intend this to be a discussion of Rob Bell, who I think is pretty dang cool, incidentally, but I wonder what people think about this question: whether it is an important question or not, and how you'd go about answering it. I, for one, have made some pretty "anti-big-church" comments in discussions on this and other blogs and often do so in person. These sentiments overlap, naturally, with a somewhat leftist, anti-corporate (which is to say, anti-capitalism-when-it's-taken-to-the-ridiculous-extremes-we-are-beginning-to-observe) attitude that has developed in me over the past few years. Such attitudes get me in trouble sometimes, like when an anti-Walmart comment I made sparked my first real drag-out debate with my father-in-law over worldviews, economics and politics (we were long overdue, believe me).
In that debate/argument/discussion with my father-in-law, he expressed his concern that it seems like a lot of "young people today" (I'm never really sure who such phrases are supposed to indicate, or whether or not I am truly part of whatever socio-cultural trend people who use such phrases want to highlight) have this tendency to be against anything that's big and successful. "Sure they might do some things wrong or have room to improve, but they must be doing a lot more things right to become so successful!" (my paraphrase of his point).
But I tend to think that wildly successful corporations and the like probably became so successful perhaps at first by conducting business with integrity and sound principles, but eventually by a slow and steady process of compromise. In other words, I don't think anything will be successful if it sets out to be evil and ruthless - you've gotta start out "good" to get anywhere - but nothing will becoming dominantly sucessful - a Walmart or Starbucks or Microsoft - without taking a LOT of shady steps along the way.
The deal is, I think this is especially true where Christianity is concerned. Maybe it's just the result of what I've observed in the strange cultural climate of American evangelicalism, but I have a hard time believing that if a church were really being The Church - selling all they have to tend to the poor; sharing everything in common - and were really preaching the gospel where Jesus bids a man "Come and die" (to invoke Bonhoeffer), that they'd be able to grow to congregations of 10,000 over a matter of years. I suspect that churches who really embody this ethic, the authentic ethic of The Church, especially in America, will drive away as many people as they attract, and at best will maintain a small, closely-knit communal feel, and at worst, will be driven into extinction, crucifixion style, by a culture that cannot and will not accept such an upside-down value system.
Is this just a personal hang-up? Is it okay for churches to have 10,000, or even 1,000, members? Can a (any) "megachurch" actually be the Body of Christ in the world in such a way as to deserve the name "church"?
Now, I don't intend this to be a discussion of Rob Bell, who I think is pretty dang cool, incidentally, but I wonder what people think about this question: whether it is an important question or not, and how you'd go about answering it. I, for one, have made some pretty "anti-big-church" comments in discussions on this and other blogs and often do so in person. These sentiments overlap, naturally, with a somewhat leftist, anti-corporate (which is to say, anti-capitalism-when-it's-taken-to-the-ridiculous-extremes-we-are-beginning-to-observe) attitude that has developed in me over the past few years. Such attitudes get me in trouble sometimes, like when an anti-Walmart comment I made sparked my first real drag-out debate with my father-in-law over worldviews, economics and politics (we were long overdue, believe me).
In that debate/argument/discussion with my father-in-law, he expressed his concern that it seems like a lot of "young people today" (I'm never really sure who such phrases are supposed to indicate, or whether or not I am truly part of whatever socio-cultural trend people who use such phrases want to highlight) have this tendency to be against anything that's big and successful. "Sure they might do some things wrong or have room to improve, but they must be doing a lot more things right to become so successful!" (my paraphrase of his point).
But I tend to think that wildly successful corporations and the like probably became so successful perhaps at first by conducting business with integrity and sound principles, but eventually by a slow and steady process of compromise. In other words, I don't think anything will be successful if it sets out to be evil and ruthless - you've gotta start out "good" to get anywhere - but nothing will becoming dominantly sucessful - a Walmart or Starbucks or Microsoft - without taking a LOT of shady steps along the way.
The deal is, I think this is especially true where Christianity is concerned. Maybe it's just the result of what I've observed in the strange cultural climate of American evangelicalism, but I have a hard time believing that if a church were really being The Church - selling all they have to tend to the poor; sharing everything in common - and were really preaching the gospel where Jesus bids a man "Come and die" (to invoke Bonhoeffer), that they'd be able to grow to congregations of 10,000 over a matter of years. I suspect that churches who really embody this ethic, the authentic ethic of The Church, especially in America, will drive away as many people as they attract, and at best will maintain a small, closely-knit communal feel, and at worst, will be driven into extinction, crucifixion style, by a culture that cannot and will not accept such an upside-down value system.
Is this just a personal hang-up? Is it okay for churches to have 10,000, or even 1,000, members? Can a (any) "megachurch" actually be the Body of Christ in the world in such a way as to deserve the name "church"?
posted by Brannon Hancock | 12:18 PM
7 Comments:
Okay, I'll bite. You perhaps forget that the largest sect of Christianity both in America and in the world is the Roman Catholic Church, and it is highly debatable for many as to whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. But I will say that it definitely has a soul, even if it is preserved in its smaller cells that are individual parishes (as large as they get, they don’t get the megachurch feel). The biggest argument against its soulfulness is that it has managed to completely fossilize the work of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost documented in the book of Acts.
When it comes to megachurches like you described, I can’t help but point to some other factor that attracts the people other than the Gospel itself. Most churches these days, to me at least, seem extremely self-centered in their approach to everything, seeming to focus on warm fuzzy feelings and calling them God (I’m a Nazarene turned Catholic, btw).
Jesus stated that if we raise Him up, He will draw all men unto himself. When I think of people among our generation who have major issues with Christianity, renouncing the Gospel or going the always popular and all-too-easy route of being agnostic, their feelings are more against organized religion or Christians themselves as opposed to the teachings of Jesus. They see the political leanings of the religious rite and cringe. They see Jesus as something created in our image that is being advertised. They hear the music we make and say, “No thanks.” Jesus said that all people will know his followers by their love, and let’s face it, Christians don’t exactly hold the corner of the market on love these days, at least in terms of with their public face.
In its purest form, Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left un-tried.
JH - I wasn't forgetting the RC in this analysis...in fact, I had the thought that many Catholic Cathedrals would have a "congregation" of thousands (what, something like, 3K people are considered "members" of the Cathedral of the Incarnation in Nashville - although of course all 3K would rarely turn up for the same worship service), but this is an utterly distinct phenomenon from that of the megachurch, as you rightly identify. For even a Catholic church of 1000+ would not succumb to the "feel" of an evangelical or independent megachurch, with (again, as you rightly point out) its extreme individualism in song, sermon and even fellowship: indeed, many people prefer churches of this ilk because of the anonymity - they don't have to deal with people gettin' all up in their bizniz, or asking them to teach childrens' sunday school or help out in the nursery. Or, to be fair, they like the small-group dynamic that many such churches emphasize alongside their gargantuan corporate worship spectacle.
And nice job with the Chesterton quote. I think you, and he, are right; and this is my key point, I guess...if Christianity were presented as being as "difficult" as it is (as testified by scripture, history, church teachings, and even statements such as Chesterton's), would any (individual/local) church ever become a megachurch? I'm thinking "no"...
I gotta jump in here. I lean away from the megachurch, or the church with a large number of congregants, for many reasons. First of all it seems that the megachurch is only a megachurch because of the methods and strategies used in that church. For example, most of these churches, and I am talking about the non-denom Protestant churches, we will get to the RC later, use a capitalistic, business model that has been used to produce the big corporations as Wal-mart, Target, or Home Depot. What does this model look like?
For the Consumer, or the seeker(?), the corporation, church(?), is attractive. First of all, the building is not intimidating. It is as comfortable as walking into a basketball arena for the big game.
Secondly, there is safety in numbers. One can walk into this type of church and never speak to a soul, walk out, and say, "I went to church." It is ok if one does not want to talk to any other person at church because that is their "right" (see my last post).
Thirdly, nothing is asked of these congregants, and no one is expected to participate, except for just being there. It is easy to be a member here.
Finally (for now), most of the sermons preached in these churches are so shallow and skin deep, one gets more theology out of Dr. Phil than most sermons I have heard from these churches. Now in the mega's defence, I have recently been introduced to Greg Boyd, megachurch pastor in Minnesota, who I am reading right now. He is doing things that is not stereotypical to the megachurch scene. More on him to come.
Now let us turn to the Producer, the corporation, the church. How does the church make itself attractive?
Make it easy, simple, comfortable, and ask for nothing. If you do this, they will come. That is the philosophy of the big corporations, the customer is always right, so give them what they want. The consumer becomes the center of this type of congregation, not the Risen Saviour. Also, if one doesn't like the church, they leave and think nothing of it. (now I understand that there are those who would care; I am just stating my experiences with others).
Think about it. Is there any other way of looking at this movement? Correct me if I am wrong, and lash out at me if I am very wrong.
Now we move to the Roman Catholic Church and the big congregations there. One of the beauties of this church is the fact that if there is a number of Roman Catholics in an area, the Roman Catholic Church will go in and build a church. Most Roman Catholic Churches are not huge in number, and those that are do not come together to participate in Mass every week. I believe this is a topic for another post, so I will reserve my thoughts until then.
My opinion? I think that church congregations should not be larger than 150-200 people. The smaller number allows a congregation to know each other, not only by name, but by occupation, kids, grandkids, struggles, excitements and the like. Yes, I come from this size congregation, but I have participated in the larger congregation context with almost no intimacy. I could walk in and out of a service and speak to no one, and no one speak to me. Just a few smiles or turned heads and I was in and out of there.
This is something I am passionate about, regardless of denomination. More to come later I'm sure, but the door is now open.
Weakness in numbers,
Joseph
To me its not an issue of size, persay, so long as the congregation is structured in a way that provides the community of Christ for all those committed to growth in grace.
I'm not sold on the congregation of small groups model entirely either, but its more along the lines of how that could work.
Congregations with more people have more resources, pure and simple. I think we would be foolish, in this day and age, to shun the possibilities of large collections of believers.
A church near me has a membership of about 500. Probably 70% of that number shows up for Sunday services, but they have really done a great job of creating smaller, unique communities within the larger structure (of 75 or so people) that meet at different times throughout the week and have a staff member dedicated to each group as pastor.
I like the idea of that model. They use the resources of the whole for the good of everyone and can provide more opportunities than several small churches could on their own.
I don't know if that's fool proof either, but its something to think about.
I'm sorry but I think you all have a big chip on your shoulder when it comes to megachurches. I went to Trevecca and heard and participated in all the anti-willow creek discussion. I, as you all have stated, felt that nothing that begins with a survey of non-believers can lead to something that is all that spiritual.
Upon my first visit to Willow I totally changed my mind. I don't necessarily agree that we should change what the church is doing to make it more "attractive" or "comfortable" to the world because the cross is not attractive or comfortable. However, we cannot sit by and just do church the way we've always done it and expect to reach those who have never stepped foot in and could care less about the church.
When I first heard a teaching pastor at Willow I was shocked at how intelligent, deep and challenging it was. As Bill Hybels said at the Leadership Summit last year, we do not sugar-coat the gospel, this is a very challenging church, and we've had a lot of people walk out of our church because of that.
When it comes to your comment that megachurches require nothing of their participants you are partly right and partly wrong. They do not require much of those that would be labled "seekers." This is not an evil term as most of you would probably think. All that means is they are not a follower of Christ. Bill Hybels was sick and tired of seeing church just doing what it does and not seeing anyone come in to the church doors let alone have their life changed. His heart was to see people who would never step foot in a church building to be able hear the gospel preached and to have their life changed.
Along the way, the realized that they themselves needed to make a change. Many of the people that were coming to their services were no longer "seekers" but were now following Christ and so they added the New Community gatherings on Wednesday night. They didn't call it New Individual but New Community. They recognize that this journey is not an individual pursuit but one that requires us to learn and grow together. They continually force their members to make a decisions to serve the Body. Every single person that helps at their conferences is a volunteer. They have a lot of paid staff but the bulk of their workers for even their weekly services are volunteers. They require a lot of those that call themselves Christ-followers.
A large congregation is not a bad one. It means people who were once living their life without thinking of Christ are now wanting to know Him and grow closer to Him. When I first got to PowerLine Church we were running around 175. We had a lot of people that were coming to church but they had all been in the church their whole life and were used to status quo. We moved to a new building and began to really do our best to reach our community. We did adopt some ideas from mega-churches and church-growth but we never watered down the gospel and never allowed our people to stay where they are. We've had many people leave our church because we called them out on their lukewarmness. We are now running over 300 and are going to multiple services next month. We are not trying to make a church that is big just to say we have a lot of people but we want to be known as a place where 1000s of people have come to know the God that created them, loved them, died for them, and now is continuing to re-create them to be more and more like Him.
Let us all be carefull that we don't begin to put this Christian life in a box and that it can only by 1 way. God himself is Triune and therefore, we can have diversity without disunity. We're all working for the same purpose to see the world changed by God using His people. God is using pastors like Billy Hybells just as much as He using you, me, Peter and John Wesley. He chooses to use us and we are to follow where He leads us even if it doesn't look the same for everyone.
Jonathan: a few comments. To be clear, nobody was criticizing Bill Hybels or Willow Creek personally.
However, I will relay what Stanley Hauerwas said in a lecture that he delivered at Calvin college in Jan 2003 but which I just listened to online this week: "Why don't we starting calling Willow Creek what it is: HERESY! I mean, 'The cross gets in the way of the Gospel?' Give us a break!" Now, THAT is a personal criticism of Willow Creek, from a leading and well-respected theologian (who happens to share OUR particular theological tradition, no less), so take it for what you will.
I happen to think he's right. I also think that small churches are often just as heretical, about the same or different issues: this is not a unique feature of megachurches. I also happen to think that God can still work through such heresy to accomplish His redemptive work in people's lives. Deeming something heretical is, in one sense, simply the Christian way of calling it into account, demanding that it (to invoke a classic sermon anecdote) "change it ways or change its name."
I don't think anyone is saying (necessarily) that big churches are non- or anti-Christian. But I (for one) would say that they present certain problems and obstacles to the church (local) being THE CHURCH in the way that Christ has called us to be his Body in the world. Such churches have to work overtime to guard against this, and be willing to do whatever it takes to remain within the scope of Christian orthodoxy. In fact, your comment, Jonathan, points to one of these obstacles: multiple services. Not to get into it too much, but for a church to move to multiple services in a way that does not fragment the congregation and impinge upon its unity is a very difficult feat to accomplish. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's difficult to create (comm)unity across such deliberately-created divisions, however fuctional or even necessary they might seem.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home