Single Page
E-mail
Print
RSS
G-bookmarks
Live
TechnoratiIn our ongoing analysis of The Coming Evangelical Collapse we must inevitably examine what I call the “new ecclesiology” or doctrine of the church. I say new because there has been a shift in how we understand and define the church, so much so that the institution itself is being redesigned and much of its life reoriented.
Michael Spencer argues: “There are three kinds of evangelical churches today: consumer-driven megachurches, dying churches, and new churches whose future is fragile.” For the purpose of clarification, the term megachurch refers to any Protestant congregation with a sustained average weekly attendance of 2000 persons or more in its worship services. This is not the type being addressed here. Simply being large is not necessarily bad. I know of many theologically orthodox, missional-minded churches that meet this criteria. Instead I am emphasizing the point made by Spencer: “consumer-driven megachurches,” which is more about philosophy, affecting churches both large and small.
For many evangelicals, the consumer-driven megachurch has come to define success and thus this model, according to Spencer, remains most likely to survive the post-Christian era. I am not (nor is he) suggesting that these churches will survive because they are better or even that they should. Rather, these churches may stand a greater chance of survival because they tend to be insular, subcultural, and most accommodating to the culture. As Spencer noted, these churches are more “pragmatic, therapeutic, [and] church-growth oriented,” churches whose emphases have “shift[ed] from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success.” Such churches are unlikely to offend, much less challenge, the post-Christian culture. In short, the culture is unlikely to be concerned with such churches. To those outside the church, they just don’t matter.
The premise of the consumer-driven megachurch is rooted in the idea that you if you build it they (the lost) will come, meaning: make the institution as attractive as possible. Don’t get heavy on doctrine and theology, emphasize “visitor experience,” maximize programs and services, Xbox and Playstation for the youth, weight rooms, yoga classes, restaurants, and, of course, you must have a Starbucks. Megachurches appear to be competing for “consumers” by offering the most amenities. Visit such a church and you will quickly pick up on the proprietary pride felt by its members, “our church has…”, “our church is…”, and so on. Such statements tend to be more about the institution rather than the work and person of Christ. Outside the Sunday gathering of the church, you’re likely to encounter a boastfulness subtly conveying the idea that “our church is better than your church.”
Driven in large part by the belief that mere church activity produces spiritual growth, the consumer-driven model-aka seeker-sensitive-tends toward the maxim: just get ’em in the door! Willow Creek admitted to this strategy in their 2007 Reveal survey results and concluded what should have been obvious: it does not work. Whether or not their humble discovery has been received and acted upon by those caught up in the church-growth movement remains to be seen.
The new ecclesiastical premise is that the worshipping congregation exists for the lost, the person not actually in the church. Build a building, strategically located (based on the latest demographic trends/data), make it nice, and hope they come. Given this new target audience, we then make some compromises. The sermon can’t focus on doctrine and theology; that might be confusing to visitors. So we jettison expository preaching-aimed at equipping the saints-for topical preaching addressing felt needs. This changes as the felt needs change and the Body never gets anything more than lowfat milk! (Recall the data demonstrating the staggering theological illiteracy in America). Continue »
