Quesitons about "Mega Church" ecclesiology...

Bill Kinnon at Acheivable Ends has posted a humorous yet perceptive reflection about a large church in the US that trumpets consumeristic and entertaining ecclesial methods for the sake of numerical growth.  The original article by Perry Noble of NewSpring Church suggests that numerical growth is a result of the hard work invested in creating entertaining services, with the goal to provide an experience for churchgoers.  His argument is supported by interpreting the signs and miracles of Jesus as His intention to "create an experience" for his followers that would not be forgotten.

After reading through the material, I am left feeling a deep concern for the sake of the gospel about methods employed in the name of Kingdom growth that, in this case (and many others), I feel is narrowly understood in numerical and consumptive terms.  To be respectful and in a posture of learning, I have decided to frame my concerns around a series of questions I would ask mega church pastors ministering along these lines for the sake of what it means to be the Church.

What is the Gospel? I am pressed to ask this question as its answer should reveal much about ecclesial methods.  When the Gospel is narrowly defined as salvation for individual souls from the perils of hell, then the goal becomes to get as many souls into heaven by whatever means.  Therefore, is the gospel only about saving souls?  Has the issue of rampant, autonomous individualism been juxtaposed against how people would have understood the hope and promise of God in scripture?  What type of understanding of the gospel perpetuates an ecclesiology that focuses on attractional entertainment so people aren't bored? 

How have you considered the role of culture in shaping your ecclesiology?  I ask this question to understand the lenses by which the scriptures are being interpreted.  I fail to read in any of the scriptures the notion of gospel as entertainment.  Matter of fact, often when Jesus performed a miracle, the order was to keep quiet about it.  I vaguely remember Jesus resisting temptations of creating a spectacle.  We have to ask whether 'using' certain cultural means for communicating a gospel limited to those means is in fact faithfulness or reductionism. Does the church that caters to the therapeutic and felt needs of individuals alone not align itself in the same spirit as Wal-Mart?  Does not the Church become a dispencer of religious goods where people only come as long as they are receiving the best programs, entertainment and experience?  Something tells me that it's really not about Jesus when this is the case.

Should the role of marketing have any inflence in shaping your ecclesiology?  The goal of marketing is to increase numbers or market share and to sell product.  Is the goal of the gospel along those same lines?  How has marketing commodified human beings and in some strange sense, is the church doing the same by commodifying people when they should be dignifying them?  In what ways has Jesus become a product for the mere purpose of improving the lives of individuals?  An addition to improve lives fixated on pursuing the American dream of prosperity, happiness, property and comfort?  Is this in line with who Jesus was for those who met him in scripture?

How is mission to be understood within your ecclesiology? Is God's mission in this world to entertain the bored?  Or is it about learning to act against injustice, feed the poor, care for the brokenhearted, and heal the sick?  If church is all about getting people to come, then how does the pattern of being "sent" that we find in the incarnation fit into the picture?   If a boring church is a sin, is not an entertaining one a sin also when we consider what the work of Christ was all about?  Where does the call of Isaiah 61 fit into the picture?

These are just some questions stirring in me in light of what I read and what I've been pondering lately...

Comments

[James McMillan]

John,
This is my first time visiting your blog, and I'm enjoying what I have found here. I think you bring up some valid critiques. If we understand salvation entirely in terms of what happens after you die, than sure, getting people in the door to get them "saved" is a worthy goal. But I think we agree that is a limited understanding of salvation. I am reminded of the book "Selling Out the Church" by Phil Kenneson and James Street which I would recommend to you or anyone who is interested in a thorough discussion of this topic. I've been chewing on the strengths and weaknesses of mega church ecclesiology in my blog recently, as well.

[john santic]

James, thanks for chiming in. I had a browse through your blog and its interesting. I'll try to check out Kenneson's book.

I think much of the ecclesiology conversation hinges on that topic of salvation and how it is defined...it leads to all sorts of reducitons when it's narrowly defined within individualistic terms...

peace,

[dh]

I think people misunderstand megachurches and the like by failing to recognize that they DO focus on things within the Gospel beyond "Saving souls". We must not fail to recognize that the Gospel includes "seeing souls enter into the Kingdom". The megachurches and the like focus ondiscipleship, responsibility of the Body to itself and to the community, etc. The answer to the question seems a gross overgenerlaization.

On the second: Jesus "kept quiet about the message at first" becuase "His time had not yet come". It could be said that Jesus using parables was the "entertainment of the day". So I see nothing wrong with taking the Truth of the Gospel and presenting it in a way that can be received positively. It doesn't make sense to overgenerlaize and refer to it as Wal-Mart when the message Jesus said was "How can they hear in whom they haven't heard and how can they hear without a preacher?

On the third: God desires us to live for Him and experience everything God has for us. I don't see people when presenting the Gospel commdifying people. I see them caring for their soul and thus be within the Body of Christ, helping them live for Christ within the Body and as individuals within that Body. Everything else is a misrepresentation of what actually is going on in the Body. Do individuals not live for Christ as Christians? absolutely Do some churches not help people in the area of discipleship and reponsibility to the community of Believers called the Body of Christ? absoultely However, one must recognize on an individual basis where the blame is sometimes it is individuals within the Body, sometimes those individuals aren't Believers but they think they are, sometimes the Body (church within the Body) fails the individuals but not teaching discipleship and thus helping people and the Body and sometimes the church within the Body is teaching things contrary to God and thus "leading people astray".

On the forth: I see this more as an issue of emphesis. I see the church and the Body doing what you say here but not to the extent that it should. I believe strongly that people feel that "Evangelism" and "being missional" are mutual exclusive when they aren't. One can pursue Evangelism saving souls, discipleship, stewardship, feeding the poor, care for the sick and all of the other things equally and at 100%. I don't see those things as contradicting each other. We need to add to the emphesis not deny an emphesis to another emphesis.

[john santic]

Hi DH, thanks for your comments. One of the things I feel I might not have emphasized well in the original post was the good work that some mega churches are doing. There are vast resources available for much kingdom work and this needs to be recognized. What I am mainly emphasizing in my questions pertains to mega churches (and any other church, I might add) that get caught in the individual, consumer entertainment trap.

Because the gospel is for the most part defined along the lines of personal salvation for the individual soul, it becomes the greatest emphasis. Although it's not untrue, it does become a reduction of the gospel when it’s the main focus.

To your second point, when churches minister through the paradigm of entertainment and entertainment becomes the means for saving the individual soul, or meeting felt needs without the broader elements of the Gospel and its implications for the world both physical and spiritual, then the church is fashioned in the same vain as a Wall mart. Put differently, when an individual sees all available in a consumer culture to them as benefiting their lives and they can access the best programs and shows, it really becomes about them, and not God. That Jesus amazed people is without question, but he also criticized and had the harshest words for those demanding a spectacle. All of his signs and miracles and parables pointed to what God is doing in the world and how he is resorting all things. The message via an entertaining Christianity is often; see what God can do for you, and it sadly stays there.

DH, you third point is a valid one as when we share and show God’s love for people genuinely, we are not commodifying people. The comodification comes when churches become obsessed with numerical growth and see that growth as a definitive representation of God being at work. We can’t forget that we live in a culture that is obsessed with progress and economics and that has some bearing on how people view success and growth. Why is the size of their church often the main point of introduction and discussion among pastors? There is a counter movement arising at this point that would suggest that the new “big is small”; that through smaller groups pf accountability and participation, rather than observation, a broader and richer theology of the gospel and church is emerging. Some might suggest that a Christianity entertaining people and limited to meeting individual felt needs to gain market share may be (to your final sentence in the 3rd paragraph) teaching things contrary to God.

I’d agree that evangelism and mission go hand in hand. The conversation about mission is really about a self understanding that as Christians, we are missionaries. When we focus on the one (evangelism) and neglect the heart of God in justice and mercy and acts of compassion, we miss the point. Reading the OT, it seems that God was always concerned for the weakest and the poor. How might evangelism and mission work together is a question that churches need to ask.

Thanks again for your comments, I appreciate your feedback.

[dh]

I still think you totally don't understand modern Christianity. Just because Evangelism and saving souls is included in the Gospel doesn't mean it is the main emphesis in those churches. It seems you continue to not really understand modern Christianity other than the Saving souls part. If I was going to overgenerlize the post-modern Christian (I don't believe this but state this to help you understand your overgenerlaization) that the ECU doesn't have any emphesis on saving souls. The point I was getting at is that saving souls must be included but not be the sole focus. I don't see that as the sole focus in megachurches. I see that plus discipleship, missional, etc. Have you been to a megachurches homegroup or study groups outside of the main service? If you have, and they are in the majority, I think you would change your conclusion.

On your second point, I don't see twhat you are concluding. I see the "entertainment" more as Jesus using parables to get the message across. I see no value in degrading methods that actually change lives and help them live for Christ thereafter.Living for Christ is beyond just taking care of the poor but it doesinclude taking care of the poor.

You say this, "Some might suggest that a Christianity entertaining people and limited to meeting individual felt needs to gain market share may be (to your final sentence in the 3rd paragraph) teaching things contrary to God." I don't see that as a conclusion because you haven't been to any homegroups, missionary groups, study groups, etc. of any megachurch modern Christian churches. Hense the overgenerlaizations. Where in the Bible does it say the Gospel doesn't include individuals living for Him and does it say certain forms of Evangelism are contrary to Scripture? I see none. Also, I don't see the "sole focus" that you are talking about and this is coming from someone from the inside who has experienced fully the churches you are talking about.

With regard to the OT and NT God cared for the poor but He also cated for more those who Worshiped Him in Spirit and in Truth. Look at all the Kings and people who got judged for worshiping false gods? ECU must focus equally on Belief and Faith with the working and outpouring of that Faith thereafter. It isn't mutually exclusive as you are presenting.

[john santic]

Not sure I follow where you're going and we may very well disagree, and that's fine. The bottom line is that if any church is not engaging with the types of questions above about gospel & culture in shaping their ecclesiologies, then I think it's an overall mistake.

thanks for stopping by to share your views...

[dh]

I think the modern IS engaging with the question and I feel that the answer is a combination of post-modern and modern Christianity rather than a rejection of modern for an acceptance of the post-modern.

I still think the misconception of the modern Christian church is what is promoting the conclusions you face. Also, where don't you follow me? I would be interested to know where you don't understand for better understanding between us.

[Rob Borkowitz]

Good questions to raise and ones I would want answered as well.

I find myself troubled both at Perry's philosophy of ministry as well as the tone he takes in communicating it. It seems his approach is more driven by Hollywood and less by biblical principles. I am glad for his desire to reach the lost, but is what we call reaching the lost by filling churches with those who are entertained the same thing as teaching people "to obey everything I have commanded you" as Jesus said? It's hard not to ask the question whether this approach to ministry will result "cotton-candy" Christians or will bring about real growth in discipleship in Christ.

[john santic]

Hi Rob, a comment I read sums the issue up quite nicely: "What you win them with, you win them to". That churches, not just mega churches, are winning people with entertainment not only creates consumers of experiences that constantly need better and beeter experiences, it also feeds the gospel of individual salvation. I am curious to know how some define the gospel...

thanks for chiming in with your thoughts.

[dh]

But John Salvation is not only to a Body of Believers but it IS individual. Even Paul says "We are members of one Body but all members have not the same office so we being many are one Body in Christ." It seems to me that there is a Body of Christ but it is a Body of Believers in Christ. That there is a responsibility as a Body for Christ but also individuals within that Body to Christ. To overextend the emphesis individual or community to the detrimate of the other is where I feel the conclusion is incorrect. Jesus even told Nicodemas "YOU must be Born Again." It seems to me there IS individual Salvation and that this communal Salvation or whatever else there is is actually inconsistent with all of Scripture. This isn't said to downgrade the responsibility of the Body to Christ but to totally downgrade the individual response seems rather odd in light of Scripture.

When it says "Go ye therefore..." the ye is both individuals saved by Grace through Faith but as a group of individuals saved by Grace through Faith ALL as community "going". Gospel must include the starting point of Faith AND the sharing of that Saving Faith.

To focus only on the entertainment toi bring them in rather than what is said that is Truth AFTER they are brought in by the entertainment seems rather odd. It isn't the entertainment that is the Gospel but what is preached and taught thereafter that is the true Gospel. What is before that is part but in and of itself is not. It can be used as part of the Gospel in conjunction with the sharing of the Truth for Salvation by Grace through Faith in Christ alone but by itself without the sharing it is just a "clanging gong". Do many churches not do the sharing after they are brought in? absolutely However, for me the bigger problem is the message or lack of message given and the consistency to God's Word of that message thereafter that is the bigger issue. God can use anything but is the message and the Holy Spirit behind the message or what is being used that the apostle Paul says "gives the increase" of souls in the Kingdom and souls thereafter who live for Him in Spirit and Truth.

[john santic]

DH, in the words of Eugene Peterson, "salvation is never individual, but it is personal." the reality is that people in cultures prior to the enlightenment - wherein the enlightenment, autonomous individualism was seen as the highest end - did not percieve themselves as individuals as people today do. Back then, people envisioned themselves as part of a bigger whole....paul's 'body' analogy speaks more to what it means to be "a people" than individuals.

Alot of the discussion here and elsewhere about church in the west is really about what people think the gospel is.

what do you think the gospel is?

answering this question (which is in my original post) will shed much light and perhaps provide a common ground for discussion...

[dh]

Well John, what about the "many members of the Body" part of Scripture? It seems when "many members" is mentioned it IS individuals WITHIN the Body.
Also, I need to rephrase. I think it is BOTH what you say and what I'm saying. This isn't an enlightenment thing it is Salvation of people across time. Why else would Scripture in Hebrews point out INDIVIDUALS who had Faith? Why would they refer to periods of time in Israel where Faith was there? It seems wrong to say 100% it isn't individual and just as wrong to say 100% it isn't the Body. I, if I wrote clearly which sometimes is not the case :) , I never said it was individual 100% but it appears you are saying it is group of people 100%.

I believe the Gospel is this definition "The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation." and secondarily (what I refer to as discipleship and Sanctification) is the living out of the "Gospel that was originally preached to you". What many people do is add to the definition of the Gospel when technically that is the living out of the Gospel that one receives when they receive redemption by Faith in Christ alone. It is the Good News but one truly can't have "Good News" unless one receives the free gift made available to all who would believe made by Christ'sdeath and resurrection. If one hasn't ever received the "Good News" of redemption then have they really received "Good News" or the Gospel. I guess there might be a difference between Gospel and gospel (if you get the drift from the capitalization).

I see no difference between personal and individual. It seems to be thesame thing.

If one is part of a bigger whole then to be part of the bigger whole requires individuals to accept being part of the bigger whole. So while it isn't 100% individual it at the same time logically can't be 100% bigger whole either sense being part of a bigger whole requires individuals to agree to be part of the bigger whole or else they are not parts of the whole or the whole already and that totally is against Scripture because "Without Faith it is impossible to please God."

[john santic]

in a sence very different than contemporary culture understands, individuals (persons) were/are part of the body. Individualism is anti gospel. we may be splitting hairs here. But, the gospel message is personal, it is not individualistic. The gospel affirms the uniqueness of each person participating, but it does not affirm individualism, it confronts it.

Here is an example: How would you feel about the church calling you on how you spend your money? how would you feel about the church (community) having a say in where you live? how would you feel inside if the christians you share community with suggest that you do not take the job that would pay you more because it would pull you away from the corporate mission the church shares? How about someone else telling you not to buy that bigger house? At hearing this, sadly most feel a little (a lot) uncomfortable inside and think that the above suggestions are a little overboard and controlling. Well, that is individualism. that is the anti-gospel feature of our culture that many receive the gospel through...a gospel that is reduced of it's full meaning

the reality is that many christians in western culture determin their own direction with little or no influence from the church...the church is wehre they go on their own terms to have their spiritual needs met.

If I can quote a seminary prof...pastoring many churches today is like herding cats.

By the way, elaborate for me what the good news of redemption is, please.

[dh]

The Good News of Redemption is where it says in John 3:3 "Except a manbe Born Again He cannot see the Kingdom of God." It is how to enter the Kingdom of God which is obtaining eternal life. This life begins nowand for eternity once we accept Christ as our Savior giving our lives over to Him. The living out that is beyond the Gospel andis really under adifferent term than the Gospel but can be the Gospel when it is observedby unBelievers. Sanctification, discpleship, etc are better terms than Gospel except if those things are observed by other non-believers. Redemptionis from sin for Salvation and for being Born Again andthus thereafter living for Him under the authority of the Holy spirirt.

Your example doesn't work for God in His Word never says those things are wrong however He does mention other things that are wrong. Buying a bigger house in and of itself is not wrong or sin or taking a more paying job. I don't see this "individualism" that you are describing in the Body of Christ being directed in the Body of Christ toward people.

When each person is participating arent' those basically individuals participating and thus individualistic. One really must define this "individualistic" term because individualistic vs. personal still seem the same to me.

Your example is flawed and I don't see this type of example being portrayed in the Body of Christ so I'm still left with no difference between individual and personal. I don't see the church needing to dictate things that aren't directly mentioned in God's Word to people. They cangive advise. But how can the Body dictate something that isn't from God in all cases like where to live, take a job, etc. It seems your example and your post kind of proves my point on individual vs. personal actually being the same. See how this phrasiology is so messed up by the EC and post-modern and McLaren types? It creates ambiguity.

[John santic]

DH, this discussion is not very fruitful so i will not reply further. Have a Merry Christmas and may God bless you and lead you closer towards him.

grace and peace,

John