HOME | CONTRIBUTE A STORY! | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT ME


image

Three Kinds of Churches—Do you agree?

Orginally published on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 7:14 AM
by Todd Rhoades


Michael Spencer recently wrote: “There are three kinds of evangelical churches today: consumer-driven megachurches, dying churches, and new churches whose future is fragile.” Wow... that sounds kinda bleak to me.

I find myself these days really encouraged about the church. There are so many young, bright leaders in churches today. And their number is growing every day. I get to work and rub shoulders with many of them in my work at Leadership Network. And many of the readers of MMI are really outstanding leaders, leading some great churches.

So...let me say that I disagree with the good Michael. First of all...

I think it’s totally unfair to classify all megachurches as ‘consumer-driven’.  It doesn’t take a rocket science to realize that those are charged words.

I will agree that many churches are dying.  A majority, probably.

And I’m seeing many new churches that are strong and vibrant.  I guess the only way for them to become viable according to Michael is to take the ‘consumer-driven’ route and become really large.

So… my question to you is:  Do you agree with Michael’s statement?  If so, what kind of church is yours?  If not, why not?

I’d love to hear your comments…

image

PS—Here’s a link for you to check out...


This post has been viewed 398 times so far.


  There are 10 Comments:

  • Posted by Todd

    First Century Church:
    1.  House
    2.  Dying
    3.  New Fragile Churches

    For 2000 years we’ve had the cycle of dying and new.  Its the same.  House vs mega...cultural context.

    Dave Olson’s research on 200,000 churches...categorically only churches less than 30 years old are growing as a group.  All others are declining.  Been that way for 2,000 years.  Shows our need for new churches...and then trust God is working in and through the leaders who are planting.  Have the founding pastors of our megachurches been faithful and followed God’s leading?  Yes.  Are there other models that will excel?  Yes.  Scorecard is changing with the young emerging leaders.  We dont have to force it.

    Peter Drucker also said that rarely in the history of man can you find institutions with an impact greater than 30 years.  Its a natural cycle.  Its the S curve of life.

  • Posted by ryan

    Spencer’s comment is

    A. A gross generalization
    B. Ill-informed
    C. Cynical
    D. Bleak
    E. All Of The Above

    Michael Spencer is so cool/intelligent/radical for hating on the evangelical church.

    /sarc

  • Posted by

    I am always suspicious of people who paint with a “broad brush.” It is my understanding that the Church is organic and in any organism and its parts change is the norm. BUT to be honest our church is known for being on the “cutting edge of traditionalism” yet we are growing. Go figure! So please take this with several grains of salt.

    Tom

  • Posted by

    I agree with Spencer’s assessment with one caveat: there is a fourth category of churches who follow sound doctrine and will persevere, perhaps one day under threat of persecution.  These are the churches that teach sound doctrine and theology and lift up Christ above all else.

    I believe it is fair to categorize most megachurches as, “consumer-driven.” From the article:

    “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.”

    Subjectively, I would say that most megachurches focus on some elements of the charges laid out above.  Which would give credence to Spencer’s charges.

    Todd (the poster):

    “For 2000 years we’ve had the cycle of dying and new.  Its the same.  House vs mega...cultural context.”

    No, those are two totally different things.  First century house churches met in secret under extreme risk of persecution to worship the Lord.  In modern megachurches, you might win an iPod by showing up.

    --
    CS

  • Posted by Brian L.

    Two things:

    One of our more traditional churches planted another church back in 1999.  The “mother” church runs around 500-600 per week.  The church plant, in the same city, runs well over 1,000 per week, leading literally hundreds to Christ every year (and no, they don’t water down the gospel - preach about sin and repentance and all the stuff that many of you will say is never preached in a mega-church).  I haven’t heard the latest year-end statistics, but I do know that on Easter Sunday they had over 4,000 people, with over 100 coming to Christ.  I anticipate this church will have a regular attendance of over 2,000 in the next 2-3 years.

    Second, the church I pastor is 123 years old.  Hardly a new church plant.  However, this last year, we grew in terms of attendance (almost 60 per week).  Three people came to Christ through my own preaching and witness (while others in the church are also making inroads with unbelievers), and we baptized 3 people.  Not the huge numbers of our sister church in the other city, but God is moving among us.  I don’t think we’re dead by a long shot, and truth be told, I think our best days are still ahead of us, because the people who are there are actually concerned with reaching the lost for Christ.

    So I can’t say I agree with Mr. Spencer at all.

  • Posted by Brian L.

    Oops - I forgot to mention that the church plant mentioned above is a very contemporary church - it would turn off many here who are against being seeker-sensitive or any of that.

    But I dare you to visit with the pastor and come away with anything but the conviction that he and his staff are passionate about winning souls for Christ and seeing lives transformed by the gospel.

  • Posted by

    Brian L:

    “Oops - I forgot to mention that the church plant mentioned above is a very contemporary church - it would turn off many here who are against being seeker-sensitive or any of that.”

    Interesting--Would you say that his church would then fit into the definition of the article’s, “consumer-driven church,” model?

    “But I dare you to “visit with the pastor and come away with anything but the conviction that he and his staff are passionate about winning souls for Christ and seeing lives transformed by the gospel.”

    I (and probably most other people here who have similar views to me) don’t question the sincerity of people who want to see people saved by Jesus.  It’s the methods employed that cause me to speak out.

    --
    CS

  • Posted by

    I think Michael’s categories are a little restrictive.  I think there are about as many different types of evangelical churches out there as colors in the rainbow.  Ours is a large church struggling to find its footing and new identity after a split a few years ago.  Using Michael’s categories, I can see where we have components of each of these type of churches in ours.  In some respects we’re consumer driven and have to ask ourselves how far down that road we should go.  In some respects we’re dying as we are losing some longtime members who move on for various reasons and in some ways we’re like a new church that is facing a fragile future as we seek to forge our way.

  • Posted by

    Todd’s citing of Drucker’s research on 30 years for institutions of great impact is interesting.  Our church was approaching the 30-year mark at the time of our split.  Could it be that a change was destined to take place anyway simply because of the time factor?  In other words, all other factors aside, would we have faced some sort of identity crisis within our church and needed to do some soul-searching on our direction simply because we would have exhausted our previous model?

  • Posted by

    CS:

    “I (and probably most other people here who have similar views to me) don’t question the sincerity of people who want to see people saved by Jesus.  It’s the methods employed that cause me to speak out.”

    Careful...you’re in danger of being banned for touching the sacred cow called the “Institutionalized ‘Church’.”

  • Page 1 of 1 pages

Post Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Live Comment Preview:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: