This will be short (for me) but will hopefully stir some discussion. With the recent (and long-term) events involving Mark Driscoll and the tragedy involving Ergun Caner coupled with the beginning collapse of the megachurch system (including a score of other examples), I think that the rest of us really need to take a break from following the personalities and “successes” that has marked so much of Evangelical Christianity over the past 40-50 years or so – really since the 1950s. We never really held the megachurch phenomenon up against Scripture to ask if it was the right approach. There was too much money and power involved. Those of us in the trenches have been given much information over the years from the “experts” as to how to be “successful.” When we have tried much of it, we find that it either doesn’t work or perhaps, we aren’t impressive enough to pull it off. Churchgoers get the message too about what is best, so they flock to whoever can provide them with more and more or the leader with the most charisma or who can organize things best or who makes them feel good. All the while, we live by the wrong metrics.
A megachurch in my own state melted down over the past few years. There wasn’t some kind of scandal (in the way we think about scandals). It melted down because the pastor employed every strategy and tactic for church leadership that SBC leaders and seminaries have been teaching for the past 30 years in church growth and pastor-as-CEO-type-leadership. It was devastating and the church went in very counterproductive directions. But, this church was celebrated by SBC leaders for years as being on the cutting edge of church growth and success. In the end, it was unsustainable. There should be a case study done and we should rethink our entire approach. But, that won’t happen because the entire system is built upon the presumptions that are ultimately failing.
Celebrity leadership is a cancer – perhaps a slow growing one, but a cancer, nonetheless. There aren’t many experts anymore – at least at the edges of culture and church growth/effectiveness. Things are changing way to fast. The ones who seem to know more than others are the ones going deeper and slower and who are putting down roots and who are failing at much but who are learning even more.
The greatest tragedy is not what has happened to our celebrity leaders (as difficult as that is). The greatest tragedy is how willing we all were to follow and glorify them and fight and defend them – and attack them as well, as though they represented something true and endearing. Before we throw anymore stones, we need to all look in the mirror and ask why WE are so susceptible to the temptation to go for the glory instead of the cross. And, we need to pray for them. They need it. So do we.
And, then of course, we should all look to Jesus as our true Source of life and direction. Or, maybe we should look to Him first.
Just an opinion from a guy who is trudging along.
There are so many things about this icle that sound like a rant by someone seriously ticked off. Lots of opinion masquerading as facts etc. But in the interest of time one observation: “Celebrity leadership is a cancer”.
Really? That’s what you’re going with?
How many great pastors achieved celebrity status and kept on pastoring?
We could start with Augustine, jump way forward to Edwards, Spurgeon, & McCheyne. Another quantum leap and we’re at Adrian Rogers and the list goes on and on.
OK, another point, you twisted my arm. Not every mega-church does things the same way. The Village recently spun off a satellite campus to function on their own (intentionally going smaller instead of bigger). Have others done that as well? Matt Chandler, pastor of said church, was, prior to pastoral ministry, an evangelist of some note and use in the Kingdom of God.
Go ahead, rant, criticize,call them all cancers. Marginalize yourself.
Are there problems? Yes of course there are. If you analysis of your local mega-church is even 30% accurate, and of course we have no way of knowing, then there was problem right there.
But, and this is part of the other two objections to your article not a new one, all this talk of CEO training at the seminaries, etc. is getting so old and tired for those of us who attended an SBC seminary and actually heard very little about pastoral ministry.
Sorry, I have appreciated your writings on other occasions, but this was beneath your usual abilities.
Sorry, computer glitch turned article to icle.
And Clark, you are the second person to tell me this week that my latest writing was beneath my usual abilities. I guess that I should listen. Thanks for the constructive criticism. I will take it to heart.
On this one, Alan. I couldn’t agree more. A batting average of .500 is outstanding.
We have been on the celebrity system for quite some time and I’m not sure it has served us well.
Clark,
These are observations that I have had for years. The Village is making a GREAT move by spinning off their campuses as autonomous churches. That is what I am talking about. The mega-model is dying fast and is being replaced by much better things. That is what I am seeing – so I think it is a good move.
Are there well known pastors that are doing and have done a great job? YES. Absolutely. But, the holding up and pursuing of “celebrity” in pastoral leadership is a cancer. It is based on nothing other than name recognition.
Take Adrian Rogers for example. He was a well known pastor. I didn’t see him as a “celebrity” though. He preached the Word and impacted a lot of people. That is a great thing. But, he stayed steady and kept going. I am talking about the cult of personality that develops around many of the “celebrity” leaders that is very counter-productive and I am blaming those of us who contribute to it more than I do the people caught up in it. Read the end of my post.
I am simply trying to say that we are all in the same boat and there aren’t really models or magic bullets to solve our problems. Some churches grow large – that is great. But, their “model” might not be what is best. We don’t need to hold them up as the example for everyone else, necessarily. Some pastors might have a great deal of influence. But, we need to remember that they are just men and perhaps temper our adulation and also our criticism when things begin to struggle.
Clark, this was not a rant. It was more of a call for a sober, measured response to all that we see both when things are going great and when things are struggling.
Regarding the spinning off of Village Church campuses, from the Village Church page explaining their upcoming launch of a Plano campus, I found these useful comments on their strategy:
“What do we hope to accomplish with this fifth campus?
The mission of this campus is the same mission of The Village Church: to bring glory to God by making disciples through gospel-centered worship, gospel-centered community, gospel-centered service and gospel-centered multiplication. We believe that in order to pursue this mission it’s crucial that we reach out to our neighbors and cities and do community where we live. This is difficult to do when our people are forced to drive long distances for weekend services, church ministries and events. Campuses give us the opportunity to go deeper with fewer and live out our mission.
Will the Plano campus and other campuses eventually become autonomous churches?
As we’ve discussed in light of the potential transition of our Denton campus into an autonomous church, it is our growing conviction to use multi-site as a strategy for church planting. We don’t have a timeline in place for any other campus besides Denton, but we will move prudently, prayerfully and faithfully one step at a time, learning as we go.
Are we going to continue planting churches?
Yes, church planting is very much a part of what we believe God wants us to do in pursuing gospel-centered multiplication. That’s one reason why we are excited about Matt’s role as president of Acts 29, an organization dedicated to planting churches that plant churches. It’s also led us to help plant two churches this year: Declaration Church in Bryan-College Station and Redeemer City Church in Washington, D.C.”
I don’t sense there is a current, committed plan for any site other than the Denton campus based on their website.
I still think that it is a move in the right direction. What I am critiquing here is the “celebrity” aspect of things that has gripped modern Evangelicalism. For what it’s worth, I do not think of Matt Chandler that way – as a “celebrity” pastor, I mean. He seems to be trying to do things the right way.
A lot of people are and not all “big” churches are wrong. My concern here is in the way that we build people up and then tear them down. It all becomes quite predictable.
I read some financial analysis of the 2 largest churches in the SC area, one in Charlotte and one, now the largest SBC church at 27k weekly across 10 campuses, here in the state. The analysis stated that if the pastor of either church were to leave, financially these churches would be hard pressed to continue remotely close to what they are now. Everything about the churches is tied up in the pastor. I think that’s what you are kind of getting at. If the identity of any church is more tied up in the pastor than it is in Jesus, their is something wrong in that church. It seems to me to be a foundation of sinking sand. I don’t think necessarily that the mega church is dying, as the stats I have seen show that their attendance emcompasses most church attendance these days. I do think we’ll see more and more implosions. It takes an extrordinarily humble man to handle fame, wealth and applause with grace. In many of these churches I see men basking in the spotlight and becoming drunk with power and control. Eventually, you will reap what you sow.
Jeff, you are right. Perhaps it is not currently dying as a legitimate thing. But, I think that serious people are beginning to rethink the wisdom of it and are beginning to compare it to Biblical perspectives.
How big is too big? I have no idea. Some churches could be in the thousands and still do it really well and accomplish what they need to. So, I am not against large sized churches, per se. You have to take it on a case-by-case basis, obviously. What I am against is using size as a metric which goes along with “celebrity” and charisma and influence and all of the things that we buy up as important. We listen to Driscoll and Furtick and others because of the size of their churches and because they had some success reaching unchurched populations or in growing big things. My point is that that is not the reason for someone to have influence – necessarily. There is more to it than their “success.” And, lots of times we find that some pretty negative things were happening.
By the same token, criticizing these guys because of their influence is not necessarily right either. We need to treat them like regular people either way.
I know with the now largest church in the SBC, Newspring, their are plenty of folks who question them. They began a new campus just west of Columbia, SC a little over a year ago and it’s affected many churches who have lost members to them. That seems to be a pattern whatever town they go in to, and they are in about every town with a decent population here. They definitely know how to draw a crowd, but as you have stated, is it a biblical way to do it? We can look across the nation and see many fine large, if not “mega” churches. We also see many more that make us go hmmmmm. 2 things I know from my knowledge of them. They are generating huge sums of money, and have hardly any disclosure, especially in regards to payroll. I always question that. But I also know this, you take away their baptism numbers and our convention is really in for a rude awakening. As bad as they are, worst since 1948 I believe, without the megas they are beyond historical lows. Cynically, I believe this is one of the reasons why they receive such a long rope sometimes when our leaders should speak out to correct and attempt to curb some of the more questionable practices
I don’t want to invoke the devilish spirit of Ed Stetzer’s goattee to this blog, but the stats seem to say that megachurches are growing, both in number of churches (more churches as a % of all churches are becoming mega) and in individual size (a single megachurch is very likely to still be adding members). We would do well to evaluate what it is that we are celebrating (man vs. Christ) but let’s not get ahead of ourselves in proclaiming the death of big churches.
Stephen, I know about Ed’s stats, and I would never want to argue with the goatee. I am of the persuasion that the megachurch approach is a bubble that will burst at some point in the not too distant future – perhaps not across the board, but in places where it is built on personality and celebrity, which is really what I am getting at here. I still maintain that there are large churches doing a great job and well-known pastors who are also doing things well. We have already talked about Adrian Rogers in the past and Matt Chandler in the present. There are many others that I can think of too – J.D. Greear comes to mind – that do not base their effectiveness off of their notoriety but off of what they do.
These are just my gut thoughts. I don’t have hard stats to back up my perception. But, I am seeing things that lead me in this direction.
If you are an active member, and the pastor(s) don’t know you, the church is too big.
Bill, just out of curiosity, how many people do you think you can “know?” And I’m not merely talking about their name, but actually know them. Dunbar’s equation has that number around 150. Do you think that a church shouldn’t be any larger than that?
Nate: I’m not real comfortable putting a specific number out there, but I’d say in the low to mid-100s. Certainly not in the 1000s.
Another rule of thumb I would throw out there is: If you have to go through layers of hierarchy before you can see the pastor, it’s too big.
1. What if, in a church that had several hundred, or up to a thousand, and the Senior pastor doesn’t know you, but one of the other pastors does, would that acceptable in your mind?
2. If I were running things, I would think that at a church of “large” size, the preaching pastor should at least be in the lobby after the service to speak with anyone who wanted to talk with him. However, at other times, I recognize the need for him to have some level of control over his schedule, such that having his secretary schedule meetings would not be a bad thing. Even churches of 200-300 will often do that.
I think the only thing I’m comfortable saying is that size is a terrible indicator of whether a church is being faithful or not. I can personally think of churches of 100, 200, 400, 1500, and 4,000 which I am familiar with that I think are doing a lot of good faithful disciple-making work, and that it would be totally unfair to call them sell-outs or merely crowd-seeking.
On the other hand, I can also think of churches of 10,000, 700, 300, 100, 60, and 30 that I would say have some serious problems. As DL Said above, not every small church has the spirit…some are downright toxic places to be…
With some exceptions based on location, atmosphere, etc….I am still convinced that a healthy church will see SOME level of growth. For anyone to look at a church that has grown and automatically thing that church is somehow less faithful than their own smaller church seems very simplistic. (And I’m not saying that’s what the OP has done).
Andy,
I agree that numbers are not necessarily correlated with faithfulness. This is one of those things where I’m just saying “this isn’t optimal”. I believe in a plurality of elders (even in my tiny, 50 member church).
The pitfalls I see are:
The pastor(s) don’t know the congregation.
Getting to see the pastor is difficult.
Drawing in, instead of reaching out (building bigger, and bigger buildings).
What’s the point of multi-campus, other than a consolidation of power? Multi-campus with video-preaching is even worse. That isn’t church, IMO.
I would be shocked if the main pastor of these mega-congregations doesn’t make many times the average salary of the members. I don’t think this is right.
It seems to me that the “pastors” of these mega-churches are not pastors at all, but simply preachers. I could be wrong, but that is my impression.
I think a pastor should preach, teach, visit the congregation, visit hospitals, be available for counseling, etc. This is my opinion.
Regarding Multi-campus…I agree about the video sermons…however, when each campus has it’s own preaching pastor, I think it is a very good model for slow-phase church planting. Sharing of resources is not always a power-grabbing exercise.
Andy,
That might be OK, if the pastor of the campus church is accountable to the congregation. But if he is part of some type of hierarchy where he is accountable to the pastor of the main church, I have a problem. If multi-site includes some type of autonomy plan, it might be fine.
I would say there is a good argument for a plurality of elders in there.
I would say there is a good argument for a plurality of elders in there.
Exactly…
The “coming implosion” of the mega church sounds like wishful thinking. It reminds me of the “assured results of higher criticism” from my college religion professor. You might want the mega churches to implode. There might be people who prefer smaller churches. Some mega churches are on the wrong track. I even long for a smaller, more connected church body.
But this implosion is not on the horizon. If all the mega churches were removed from our midst right now, the effect on the SBC would be disastrous.
Such rhetoric undercuts your credibility.
Disastrous you say? What is wrong with a little crisis every century or so? Holy Scripture is full of many devastations in the history of God’s people. Who are we to choose success all the time? Such are the sovereign ways of God almighty. In sackcloth and ashes let us cry for holy change.
Peaches, people will always want to gather together in large groups. I am talking about the idea that “bigger is better” and that the leading edge of thinking in relation to church is the megachurch. We are already seeing a rethinking of that premise in many realms of Evangelicalism.
Personally, I am unconcerned with what other churches do. If churches are working well, making disciples, and are sending people out on mission and they are really large, then praise God! If they are doing all of that and have well known pastors who are working faithfully, then praise God for that too! But, pursuing celebrity and size as marks of effectiveness is what I see changing and imploding as a viable approach to ministry in the 21st century.
Will we still have large churches? Yes. But, will that be the goal, necessarily? I think that that is what is changing.
Many SBC megachurches are imploding. We won’t hear about many of them, but I can name several prominent, well known congregations where the attendance is half or less of what it was a decade ago. And that’s just a casual list.
Names, please. Are they mega churches or just well known churches? And during that same decade, have those that shrunk outnumbered all the new ones that appeared?
Well, since Adrian Rogers has factored into the discussion, Bellevue would be on that list. I don’t think anyone would deny, their numbers are down, a lot, since he went home. First Baptist Dallas, the original SBC megachurch, is quite a bit smaller than it was when 6,000 gathered to worship when Truett and Criswell were pastors. I think Two Rivers in Nashville, which was at one time the largest SBC church there, is just about disbanded now. FBC Jacksonville is not nearly where it was when Vines and Lindsey co-pastored. I was living in Houston when Lakewood Church relocated to the center of town, in the former Summit, and I observed streams of members drain out of several local SBC megachurches, including First and Second Baptist. Forest Cove was a Houston area mega-church that died over the course of about five years. Those are churches I can name.
Lee, just last month Dr. Thom Rainer updated the largest churches in the SBC. Below are the rank in size of the SBC and their weekly attendance of a few of the churches that you mentioned.
2nd Houston – 2nd largest in the SBC w/ ave. wkly. att. -26,000
Bellevue – 25 largest – 6,7000
1st Houston – 31 largest – 5,600
1st Jacksonville – 45 largest – 4,500
1st Dallas – 72 largest – 3,4000
It seem evident that 2nd Houston is not imploding or hurting as for as attendance is concerned. I have read the attendance of 1st Dallas was under 2,500 when Dr. Jeffress became pastor. While the SBC has declined over the last seven years Dr. Jeffress has led 1st Dallas to increase their weekly attendance by 1,000 people and stay committed to the downtown area. That is impressive.
I would love to know if anyone can give the approximate numbers of these great churches when they were averaging their most in weekly attendance? I may be in the minority but if these numbers do show a drastic decrease I would choose to celebrate the greatness of past leaders while still appreciating current leadership. Joshua was not Moses but he still was pretty good.
Dean Stewart,
Very good information and comments.
The churches you mention have outstanding pastors.
If the church is Bible believing and evangelistic, I’m for them, regardless of size.
Large churches can do things small churches cannot do.
Small churches can do things large churches cannot do.
They each have their pluses and minuses.
God can and does use big churches, small churches, and those in between.
If you are standing for the truth of God’s Word, I’m for you, regardless of the size of your church.
I also agree that if a church was large and influential, but not so today, that still does not take away the great things they may have done for the Lord. It also does not negate the great things they may still be doing for the Lord, albeit in a smaller way today.
As far as I know, the local churches started by the Apostles are no longer in existence. But they did great things in their day, and that influence continues in many ways today.
David R. Brumbelow
This is true, Lee. The stated numbers are usually twice the actual numbers in many of these churches, so we cannot tell from denominational reports. You have to actually talk to someone who is in the building each Sunday – and few want to talk about it. But, I have heard similar things.
From Flakes Sunday School to Megatrends to Good to Great and beyond and all between, there has been a multitude of writers suggesting this and that for success, and time and time again examples have been given that the currently favored set of prescriptions are not permanent and even may be irrelevant to many situations, but some of our opinion leaders and formal leaders, that we sometimes uncritically listen to and follow, often lead us in directions in which it is more likely than not they that will benefit than we, should we just follow along.
There are no magic formulas. Scholars have not found them, nor have practitioners. r is not 1, but fortunately it is not usually 0, either, in many cases. But in nearly all cases, r at its best still leaves much to discover; thus let’s be a bit careful, a bit humble when we make our pronouncements. When scholars and practitioners work closely together (and yes, we need scholars to also test the bounds of inquiry, for without the boundaries are never increased and we thus attenuate knowledge ) to discover the nuances and boundary conditions of knowledge and its proposed context for use it increases the likelihood that programs, processes, and structures may be developed to more effectively meet the environment as it is currently developing.
That being said, I am not, and have not been consistently, impressed with consultancy that has come out of Nashville and other SBC agencies. The bar in which individuals must cross to hold positions in which advice is sought and expected is too low. There is the ability, then, now, of said individuals to speak more intelligently on organizational issues, but the will to do the preparatory work in order to do so have not been convincing to me.
Churches are the same as other organizations; and they are unique, too, but its uniqueness is especially difficult to understand and manage. The literature, as advanced as it is concerning organizational functioning, lacks a breadth and depth that is needed to be more confident up-front that interventions based on it will prove beneficial … enough for religious communities. To produce this kind of scholarship, we need for the most part a different type of consultant (and scholar), one with academic preparation in organization sciences and religion, and experience in both ministry and the academy, too. The scholarship that is needed requires a bit more time in terms of preparation than the scholarship developed by those that specialize in one or the other. Presently we are often confronted with consultants with high religion and low organization or high organization and low religion. High knowledge and experience in both is what we need.
Said scholarship will not be magic, either. But it will likely be much better.
Actually, Flakes Formula worked and will work rather well. That is because it is founded on biblical principles — one being the Great Commission.
When it was abandoned for the “celebrity church growth model,” the creeping, gradual decline began.
CB: “Actually, Flakes Formula worked and will work rather well. That is because it is founded on biblical principles — one being the Great Commission.”
bapticus hereticus: That it is founded on the Great Commission is applauded, but the operationalization of a concept (e.g., GC) is a different matter, thus it is an open question as to whether something will work as desired … for as long as desired.
Flake’s prescriptive approach was in keeping with the management/organizational scholarship of the day, reflecting aspects of Taylorism, but interestingly anticipating the work of Mayo and Roethlisberger, whom were tilling ground broken by Follet. In the latter sense, Flake, like Follet, was a bit ahead of the curve. Time moves forward and contexts change. Always something to do.
This is sane consulting analysis. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. In the name of the FAther Son and Holy Spirit. amen and AMEN. The Psalmist said I am small and despised yet I do joy forget your precepts. 119:141. give me understanding that I might live. 119:144b. Shalom to all in the Way.
Well said. The kingdom, at least in this country, is declining, and has been for quite some time. But we continue to gather in larger groups so that we can pool our resources, waste them on building a facility to “impress and attract,” bring in lighting, sound and theater to enhance the “look and feel” of worship because the Holy Spirit just isn’t there, and convince ourselves that we are doing something of significance. We wind up killing the ministry of organic churches, and leaving ourselves with little means of connecting with people who need the gospel, because they aren’t attracted to our capacious edifices and religious entertainment.
Granted, the churches that are relying on “capacious edifices and religious entertainment” are growing by leaps and bounds while those relying on the Holy Spirit are daily dying.
I don’t know how many people Peter preached to on the day of Pentecost, but 3000 were saved on that day. The Holy Spirit seemed to move well in that high number event. To say that the Holy Spirit isn’t there is a statement that cannot be verified, therefore should not be made.
Question: just how far removed from the Jerusalem church way of doing church does one go before it becomes a show an thus devoid of the Holy Spirit. The Jerusalem church did not have a building, piano, sound system, hymn books, worship folders, parking lots or ushers. Where do we draw the line at doing things to draw a crowd because the Spirit is not moving in a church.
Another question: does a small church with no light or sound shows automatically have the moving of the Spirit.
I’m not saying that a small church automatically has a leg up on a mega church when it comes to the Holy Spirit. Frankly, in the 35 or so years that I’ve been a Christian, I haven’t been in many churches of any size where the Holy Spirit was an active presence in the worship, or in the congregation. And I’m not talking about Pentecostal type manifestations. I’m not sure, in my Southern Baptist upbringing, that I was ever really taught about discernment, and recognition of, or seeking of the Holy Spirit. It was something that came about by study of the scripture, and by observing the contrast between moments in which there was a definite presence of the Spirit, and when there wasn’t. I learned those things from the Guatemalan church where I spent a couple of weeks helping construct a bare bones building for them to meet in, from the African American church in East St. Louis, Illinois, that was the only viable ministry in a community overwhelmed by poverty and despair. I’ve seen it in the life transformation of students in the Christian high school where I am administrator, when they come back from a week of service in the Dominican Republic, and in our worship when they return.
It doesn’t seem to me to be an element of worship that is incorporated into most Sunday morning church services, or if it is, it’s the attempt to work up an emotional response, rather than a spiritual one.
Alan, Men aspire to many things well beyond God’s call in ministry. Unfortunately, the church entertainment and marketing industry clouds the work of Christ’s church in many ways. The mega church scene is just another example of how “shiny objects” can blur the vision. The Apostle Paul warned the Corinthians of much the same……
“But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.”
Bottom line though, God is never mocked….even as He is patient. Pastors need to be faithful and diligent to the flock they have been given, …and run from the glitter and spotlight.
cj
Churches cannibalizing is the unstated action plan in the era of shrinking membership and resources. Someone should write the piece.
I agree. I have written about that before, William, in bits and pieces. Nothing comprehensive, but it is painfully obvious that that is what is happening.
The future will be a number of megachurches due largely to consolidation, but their existence will not be a leading edge of gospel ministry (that is what I mean by decline). Some large churches will still do ministry really well though and I am always glad to see a large church doing things the right way. The leading edge, in my opinion, will be stable, strong, disciple-making churches of 500-1000 that reproduce and engage in mission and that are networked together. Along with that will exist smaller, missional house-type churches. The problem with those involves stability, however. The rest will be smaller churches led by teams of bivocational pastors (mostly) or the remnants of older, dying congregations still employing pastors as mostly chaplains. That is what I see happening in the future as the American religious landscape realigns pretty dramatically over the next 20 years. Of course, this is just an informed opinion. I might be completely wrong.
The well-worn Matthew 6:33 comes to mind. Church growth is studied as though it were “building the kingdom”. But I don’t think it is. We can pursue the latest programs and miss the fact that we haven’t led our churches in the pursuit of kingdom of God and his righteousness.
I’ll make an analogy with raising kids. You can work hard to get your kids involved in the best academic and athletic pursuits so that they can get into a good college and be successful. Many Christian parents who have done that have either ended up with children who are successful pagans or have rebelled against both God and their parents because they sensed how things other than God were important to their parents and they didn’t like what their parents were pushing them into.
The Kingdom of God is not programs and measurable achievements. It is the growth of people in faith and righteousness. That’s the ultimate goal. Be faithful to that and you will see how God is blessing your family, church, and ministry whether or not you have a big church, or whether your church even survives being faithful. Remember, the first megachurch in Jerusalem was all but destroyed in Acts, not as punishment, but to bless the rest of the Roman Empire with the gospel of Christ.
Okay, I’ll bite.
As the son of one of the most well-known and beloved pastors in recent years in the SBC, the topic of this post cuts close to home. As Alan has graciously recognized, in the case of my father (and others, such as, for example, Matt Chandler), they have not set out to become “celebrities.” But the fact of the matter is that in the evangelical context in which we live in the Bible-belt USA, unusual gifting in leadership and speaking ability, combined with faithfulness and prophetic courage, has many times (not always) resulted in noteworthy church growth.
Certainly, gifting in leadership and speaking ability, faithfulness, and prophetic courage are not things we should criticize, but rather seek to emulate. At the same time, we must remain aware that we are not all gifted equally, and, for one reason or another, we are not all placed in contexts that always produce the greatest numerical results of the gifting we may have. It is important to remember that on the day of reckoning God is not going to question us regarding our level of gifting, but rather regarding our faithful stewardship of the gifts he has given us.
That being said, I do agree that during the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s, Southern Baptists (and to a large degree, Evangelicals in general) became enamored with a mega-church (and corresponding celebrity) approach to church and ministry that in the long run has not always been the most effective for the advance of the kingdom of God. Though he was never, in my opinion, among the most egregious offenders on this point, my father was in many ways a product of his generation, and like just about everyone else at the time bought into certain aspects of church growth theory that years of experience are showing to not always be the most helpful for the long-term health of the work.
Though the concept of “celebrity” and “mega-church” are not exactly the same, I think it is hard to escape the notion that they are closely related.
With this in mind, the following article by R. C. Sproul, Jr. (the son, not the father), in my opinion, has some important insights. I think, while pointing out some of the inherent pitfalls in mega-church ministry, though, it is important to highlight the following lines from Sproul’s article:
“There are, of course, benefits to large churches. There are also, I suspect, certain strategies that can be done to combat anonymity of congregants in a large church. But if there are such strategies, they don’t come to pass by accident.”
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/mega-churches-and-worshipping-incognito/
Thanks David,
I’m also reminded of something Tim Keller has said: (Paraphrased)
Large Churches naturally have access to resources and expertise to make their ministries excellent, but have to work hard at developing community and fellowship. Small churches naturally have close community, but have to work hard at excellence.
Very good comment, David. As usual, I agree with you completely. I do see “celebrity” and influence/leadership as separate things. Also, what I am assessing in the “mega” movement is not the presence of large churches per se. Every church is different and has different contexts. I am addressing the drive for both celebrity status and for size as a determining characteristic.
Again, I agree with all that you have said.
One day I think other countries will send missionaries to us and try to get us back on the right track, but they will be met with opposition and suffer for the name of Christ, they will be banished from our shores.
I wish what I have just said will be filed away somewhere to be brought up again at a later time to prove I spoke the truth.
You’re right. Some denominations are already sending missionaries here. But I know that the suggestion has already been made to send Baptist missionaries from other countries to the States to help us reach the wealth of immigrants we have. I have no doubt that opposition will grow.
I wasn’t talking about the wealth of immigrants we might have, I was talking about missionaries sent here to try to reach what we call the church. I truly believe this will happen, all signs are pointing to it now.
It will be like Jesus as he was trying to reach the religious leaders in Israel.
I realize you weren’t talking about immigrants. I added that as an aside. My family both goes overseas and also works to spread the gospel here at home. When we go overseas we inevitably get, “but there are so many people to reach here at home,” from people who aren’t worsking to reach people at home. As an aside, I challenged one once with the fact that we also do that. The same person then criticized spreading the gospel here at home.
The point is that I am well aware that the Church in the US, in general, is in dire straits. That’s why we aren’t doing what we are supposed to be doing. One of the places we go is London where we go to reach foreigners from closed countries who vacation there. Why aren’t the Brits doing that? We have had an effect on some of the churches there who weren’t doing much but are now doing more. One of the things we do when we go is enhance what Christians who are there are trying to do or aren’t doing but should. It’s an encouragement to them and gives them and us both a healthy spiritual workout.
Missionaries coming here for any good reason would have a similar effect. As a principle, a missionary relies on assets in-country to accomplish goals (although they typically bring temporary assets with them). The result is a larger asset base for future endeavors than what they started with and as assets overwhem the goals, new endeavors by people who were there start up beyond anything that the missionary can do. why weren’t they doing that to begin with? It took outside influence to start the proverbial fire burning again.
So I don’t know why you want to throw a bone of contention when my original purpose is to agree with you and point out that it’s already in the works.
Jim,
My intention was not to throw a bone I guess I misread what you were saying. I am so glad you shared all the work you are doing, keep it up brother.