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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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”… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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…