One of the more well-known megachurches in the US is Willow Creek Community Church. This past year, they completed and published a self assessment that among other things, looked at the correlation of ministry dollars spent and growth in spirtual maturity. The results of the WCCC were definitely one of the more interesting developments in the past year. The results basically said that the correlation was extremely weak, if not non-existent. Since then, folks have reacted in a number of ways. The good conversations (like the one that finally moved me to write about this) have been about “what does this mean for God’s church writ large?” Others have been more along the lines of: “See, we were right all along, you mega/contemporary/business thinking churches stink” I don’t think these voices are the loudes more most numerous, but there are plenty out there who have and will continue to use the results that way.
One of the discussions that is being stimulated by the results is about the issue of balance between churches focusing on discipleship and being “seeker friendly”, with an inherent assumption (somewhat accurate) that many of the newer megachurches are build on the idea of seeker friendlyness. To me, this particular issue is not so much a church size issue as a choice-of-focus challenge. Churches can either choose to be specialized or generalized. They can specialize in introducing and converting followers to Christ or specialize in providing opportunities for Christians to become deeper disciples of Christ. To choose to do both is by definition generalization. Each approach has its trade-off. Add to that questions like “contemporary or traditional”, “sacred dance or childrens choir”, “liturgical or not-so-much”. The more of these questions a church says “both” or “all of the above” to, the more generalized they become. A hard truth about generalization is that the more of it you do, the less likely that you will do any one thing with excellence. Churches (large and small) have a very hard time with that. When your beloved charter member comes up to you and says “God has put it on my heart to start an alto-only-Gregorian-chant-a-capella-contemporary-praise-band”, its always going to be difficult to say, “That’s fantastic. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work with the kind of church we are, but the one down the street would be a perfect fit.” Because of this dynamic, most churches are going to trend towards generalization as they mature. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. However, it leaves you at the risk that a) you may not reach the potential you would have if you kept it simpler and b) you may loose sight of why you are doing the endless variety of programming in the first place.
Ultimately, the most telling thing about the Willow Creek report is that they asked the question. Its very easy for a church to get in the mode of “I’m doing it for God, so it HAS to be good”. They asked the question “what are we getting back on the talents we’ve invested”, and that is a lesson from which we could all benefit.
So let me chime in here:
Willow Creek deserves a fair amount of praise for two things that I think are getting lost in the blogverse discussion.
Number one: They are actually spending the time to evaluate what they are doing. I have been on three church staffs, worked for a parachurch organization and NONE of them ever spent any time doing evaluation of events, etc. except for how the annual pledge campaign went. (As if cash is king in the church world.) The fact that they have done all this work to determine if they were hitting the mark they wanted is spectacular in my opinion, as they certainly had enough voices in their ears telling them how great they are.
Number two: They aren’t offering solutions. To put it another way, they released the information halfway through the process. Some of my more cynical brethren have said that they have done so as a way to boost attendance at their conferences, etc. which I think is hogwash. I’d like to think that they realized their positioning in the church world as leaders, recognized their errors and wanted people to know. Again, this doesn’t happen in the average church world. Some of it is because if you don’t evaluate, then you don’t have to own your failures. But sometimes you train wreck something so bad that you can’t help but realize it needs to be fixed and someone needs to own the blame.
As for your point, I think you are dead-on in terms of churches needing focus. I’d push back a little and say that church programming needs that kind of focus and not necessarily the whole church. For example, I need to know what I am trying to accomplish in small groups with my youth. If I don’t, then we will drift into chaos. But if I can keep the focus on that area, then another program can do something else. This part could easily descend into (gasp!) a purpose-driven discussion but I will defer as this is already too long for a comment.
Comment by Jason Sansbury — December 18, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
I read your blog, and the inspiration blog you referenced, and saw some conflict within it, specifically in what the modern day church faces in regard to how it will reach out to people and help them engage in an authentic Christian life.
As a Christian Leader, I am wanting to see a shift in the way our church approaches its ministry; less focus on programming and more focus on connections. This brings on haymakers from some well-intentioned
people who think that it’s a full slate of programming that makes, saves, or
builds a church. However, I would rather see churches take a step back, evaluate what they’re doing, and meet people’s needs with the most effective ministry possible. This is uncomfortable for persons who have a set idea of what church IS.
Church, discipleship, or whatever doesn’t have to be the glitziest or most
glamorous program, but something where people can encounter the Living Lord.
This is a big struggle for people who can only relate to their own past
church experience and make those gospel, as opposed to asking the questions
(I presume) Willow Creek asked. Churchy folks don’t like change, and some
cannot get past the way their own past tells them it should be. “Program,
program, program! It’s programs that build a church.” Nay, I say! It’s
people making real-life connections with God and each that builds a church.
Some will want the generalization approach where others will prefer a more specialized approach.
If I am understanding you properly, it can be illustrated by ice cream! You can get ice cream at Wal-Mart, along with toys, a manicure, haircut, and an oil change; but if you want really good ice cream, you go to a place like Bruster’s or Cold Stone Creamery where the focus solely on ice cream and making it the best it can be.
I like really good ice cream.
Comment by REV — December 20, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
In a way I find it funny that so many in the Bible Belt seem to find a disconnect between science and religion. Then Willow Creek applies the idea of scientific research data and it creates a large debate about programming.
I’m fascinated by mega-churches and what makes them tick. I think Jesus is about numbers
(feeding the 5000, thousands converted after Peter’s sermon at Pentecost etc) but the Bible doesn’t measure the spiritual maturity in these cases. In fact I remember some arguments in Paul’s letters about who is more spiritually mature. So my guess is that this is an age old debate.
I read the blog you referenced but was really bothered by one thing. He said that the church should exist for people to become spiritually mature. I disagree. I think that spiritual maturity is secondary. If the
church is the body of Christ that means they are doing Christ’s work. Healing the sick, feeding the poor etc And doing these things will often encourage spiritual maturity.
I do think he got it right in one area. The crisis of “the church that gives me what I ask for”!! If I gave my kids everything they asked for they would never learn how to do things for themselves. Same goes for church. If we give people everything they ask for instead of teaching them how to do it for themselves the OF COURSE they’ll NEVER mature.
That doesn’t mean I don’t have programs for my kids. I sign them up for soccer camp, piano lessons, VBS, etc. But most of those things are to give them an experience of something new, different, fun, and good for them. My expectation is that they will practice these things at home and make them a part of who they are. I DON’T expect them to make this leap all by themselves so I encourage them to practice. I play soccer with them. I go to piano recitals. I play VBS songs throughout the year.
I (and their father) also try and model a lifestyle for them. I exercise. I read for pleasure. I am part of my own adult small group. I play music just for me. I feel that the programs, practice, and modeling are all important for them to become mature men someday.
Perhaps the problem isn’t the programming. Perhaps it is in the extention of programming into practice and also into mentoring. There are so many more Biblical examples of Christian practice and mentoring but I’m really at a loss to think of any programs.
Comment by Dr K — December 22, 2007 @ 1:29 pm