|
“A Few Final Observations on the Megachurch”
August 1, 2005
John H. Armstrong
Theologian John Stackhouse, in a Christianity Today article of 1991, argues that “the acceptance [of the Church Growth Movement and with it, the rise of the magachurch movement] shouldn’t surprise us. The history of evangelicalism in North America shows that it is quite technique oriented. Evangelicals are willing to innovate in a way that surprises Christians of other stripes, who tend to see evangelicals as conservative in every respect. In fact, they are not at all conservative when it comes to the practice of Christianity, especially when it comes to evangelism.”
A number of studies and surveys reveal that megachurches have many common characteristics, as you would expect. But there are important differences among them as well. Fair-minded analysis demands that we see these common traits both positively and negatively. All megachurches do not look like Willow Creek, and all megachurch pastors do not sound like Creflo Dollar when they deal with money. Like all churches, the megachurches can be “grouped” around common goals and beliefs. To my complete surprise, to cite but one illustration, the megachurches are generally more racially diverse than other types of evangelical, moderate and mainline congregations. (Since churches are very segregated in America this is a hopeful sign, though still a small one.)
Daniel Vestal, a Baptist minister-theologian, recently raised several important concerns about the megachurch in a May 26 article (“The American Megachurch”) posted by the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship at http://www.thefellowshipinfo/News/05052megachurch. Vestal’s trenchant criticisms include the following: “The emergence of the megachurch is symptomatic of American Christians’ comfort level with corporate culture. They like business corporations and they want churches to look and feel like business corporations. If, as the chamber of commerce says, ‘The business of America is business,’ then for the megachurch, the business is to be a church that functions like a well-run business.”
Vestal observes correctly that the megachurch pastor is more like a CEO. The fact that the average member has little or no relationship to their pastor is not seen as a problem because the people have been so profoundly shaped by the church acting like a corporation that provides “goods and services that are consumed by the members.” As with all consumption-based culture, “felt needs” are consciously determined so that the company can then sell to the buyer on the basis of consumer desires.
Vestal adds, “The megachurch creates a comfort zone for members. It is all-encompassing and all inclusive. It is a well-run organization that can deliver results, provide quality and perpetuate a predictable environment. Occasionally the members may venture outside that zone in projects (benevolence or missions), but they return to where they feel familiar and safe.” Surveys of various types identify this tendency in the megachurch.
But even this observation is not entirely accurate. I do not see the level of sacrifice known in previous generations of Christians, joined with a clear missional vision, increasing in the church-at-large. Does the modern megachurch contribute to this problem or solve it? That question is one to be explored further. I do honestly wonder where these trends will lead evangelical Christianity in the long term. Some evidence already suggests that the future is not entirely bright if this approach continues. It simply makes becoming a passive observer far too easy.
Daniel Vestal further suggests that megachurches “feed upon, and in turn, feed a consumer culture rather than challenge its basic presuppositions.” He adds, “There is little cooperation and collaboration with other churches¯even with other megachurches.”
This particular criticism is one that pains me personally. I have known and observed megachurch ministers for decades. I count several as my friends. But the almost universal tendency, within megachurch culture, is to build a local base, to draw people into the emphasis of one particular church, and then promote a particular brand of evangelistic success. Even when megachurches expand beyond their local base they often do so by planting satellite churches, often connected by real satellite connections, and through a network of completely like-minded churches. These churches are actually more alike socially than confessionally. Vestal observes that “the centrifugal (sending) energy of the gospel is [thus] minimized.” I find this a useful observation. I would love to see it intentionally put on the front end of an agenda that begins to seriously discuss the future of the megachurch and how it will relate to church planting, especially beyond the major cities of America.
So far I have met only one megachurch minister who is deeply committed to the body of Christ beyond his own church organization and its particular way of building the church. This, in effect, kills serious evangelical ecumenism, at least at the grass-roots level. Megachurches, to the casual observer, seem to actually compete for their spiritual market-share much like Walmart, Target and Costco compete for consumer dollars. I would be delighted to see this trend reversed and hear of a few examples that suggest some are beginning to address it in private.
On a more positive note, the rise of the megachurch has clearly encouraged many Christians to recover the priority of reaching people with the message of Christ through their local congregation. It has also provided a highly visible means whereby the church can impact a metropolitan community through numerous service programs that offer effective financial and emotional support. Like many observers I have wondered, “Who or what will replace the massive Billy Graham Crusades that impacted our major American cities?” The answer, for now, seems to be that the megachurches are doing essentially what the Billy Graham campaigns did in the 1960s through the 1980s and early 1990s. They may be doing it even better since they remain in the city and continue their ministry week-by-week. The trade off, however, is that they do not unite many churches in the common cause of city-wide evangelism. I am personally challenging megachurch pastors to face this unique moment for city-wide cooperation and respond in ways that will build positive networks in their respective regions.
Face it, all churches have the mark of human culture on them. This will always be the case. Incarnational and missional theology requires that we understand and relate to human culture. Megachurch leaders understand this well and are correct to point this out to their critics.
Megachurches also provide, contrary to what many critics see, a unique opportunity for community. In a culture where people are increasingly nameless, and strive to protect their privacy, megachurches offer a blend of both that meets real and felt needs in very positive ways.
But in the midst of these positives a real danger comes, as Daniel Vestal notes, when “a culture eclipses Christ, or is so identified with Christ that the two become one and the same.” I have taken a fresh look at the megachurch movement during recent months. I see a good deal that is positive, even challenging some of us who are not members of a megachurch. I also see huge weaknesses that often go unchallenged in the present evangelical marketplace. We have a few harsh “attack dogs” on the right who simply hate the megachurch, perhaps for reasons of jealousy or theological bigotry. On the opposite side we have liberals on the far left who always hate serious efforts to win people to faith in Christ, especially when they come with such overt intentionality. I have no interest in either extreme. I write as a friend of the gospel and as one who believes that most megachurch pastors are godly leaders who have a huge vision for the lost. I also believe that these same leaders often have a huge hole in their understanding when it comes to the weaknesses of their ministry. (Seeing one’s weaknesses is truly unusual, but believers should always be challenged to pursue such self-knowledge.) Friends and critics alike would better serve the cause of Christ by humbling themselves. Then they can enter into a fresh discussion, beyond both the attacks and praises of the present battles. Such a discussion might move us all closer to real reformation and revival. Personally I can’t see such reformation and revival without the megachurches being included so I welcome these massive congregations, and their leaders, to the growing national prayer moement for real revival and the ensuing discussion about biblical reformation that I believe must take place for the health of all our churches.
Gilbreath, Edward. “The Birth of a Megachurch,” Christianity Today, July 18, 1994.
Greeley, Andrew M. Religious Change in America. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1989.
Hartford Institute for Religion Research, The. Extensive research and papers available at: www.hartsem.edu.
Miller, Donald E. Reinventing Protestantism: Christianity in the New Millennium, Berkley: University of California Press, 1997.
Roof, Wade Clark. A Generation of Seekers: The Spiritual Journeys of the Baby Boom Generation. San Francisco: Harper, 1993.
Sidey, Ken. “Church Growth Fine Tunes Its Formulas.” Christianity Today, June 24, 1991.
Thumma, Scott L. The Kingdom, the Power and the Glory: The Megachurch in Modern American Society (Ph. D. dissertation), Emory University, 1996.
Vaughan, John N. Megachurches & America’s Cities: How Churches Grow. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.
Wuthnow, Robert. The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith since World War II. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1988.
|
