Giving people the right foot of fellowship…

lost1I came across a post tonight on the web site “Church Marketing Sucks,” which has as its raison d’etre the task of helping churches communicate effectively in our technological age. As I was reading their site, I came across a post entitled Grow your church by asking people to leave. This title sounded more than a little disconcerting to me, so I read on to see if I could find something useful behind it. What I read raised some of the issues I’ve discussed before about the way we Christians evangelize and (in)form our faith.

Here’s a selection of the post in question (and I encourage folks to read it in its entirety as well as the comments):

Craig gives an example where he preached on the church’s vision trying to get everybody on board. If people weren’t on board with the vision, he asked them to find another church. He even offered brochures from 10 other churches he knew and recommended. It was a serious challenge and 500 people ended up leaving. Most people would freak out at that thought. Not Craig:

The next week, we had about 500 new seats for people who could get excited about the vision. Within a short period of time, God filled those seats with passionate people. Many of those who left our church found great, biblical churches where they could worship and use their gifts.

Everybody won!

That’s why I sometimes say, “You can grow your church by asking people to leave.”

Craig focuses on making leaving a church a graceful option and a positive thing and not the bitter experience it often is.

While I applaud the fact that Livechurch.tv doesn’t seem beset by that paralyzer of ministry, the fear of “sheep stealing” and is in fact a church that is willing to recognize the movement of the spirit in other congregations, as well as the fact that some places of worship will better equip some people than theirs will–while I think that part of the attitude is great–I can’t get beyond the notion of asking people to leave based upon whether or not they are “on board” with the “vision” of the church. I understand that some people may think I’m standing on thin ice as the Episcopal Priest in charge of a small church plant–where do I get off criticizing anything a large and successful ministry like Lifechurch.tv, with its multiple campuses fast becoming a mini-denomination within a denomination (Lifechurch is part of the Evangelical Covenant Church), is doing? Well, first and foremost I’m a fellow Christian who sees some things within this philosophy of ministry that could be harmful.

Certainly one of the roles–even primary roles–of a Pastor or Priest as a Shepherd is to protect the flock, even when such threats come from within. There may be times when individuals and groups with a congregation are creating a situation of such dissention and division that the only healthy thing to do is to help them see, in a loving way, that their spiritual health as well as that of the congregation would be best served if they found another church home. But something tells me that I would disagree with Pastor Groeschel about when exactly that needs to be done. I certainly can think of very few cases–none of them involving anything short of public and unrepentant actions that cause distress to the community–where I would feel compelled to address the issue from the pulpit rather than in a one on one conversation.

The first thing that bothers me about Pastor Groechel’s statement is that the “vision” of a given congregation is not the Gospel itself, and that if anything is going to drive people away it is the clear presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ–and that Gospel is also the only message that will be life-giving to those who stay, regardless of what supplemental direction the congregation wants to go. The primary task of the Church is to evangelize and make disciples… one of the problems I have with the contemporary church in America–across the board, and not just with either the “contemporary” free church traditions or with the old-line traditional bodies–is that we do a horrible job in actually making people disciples. On the one hand many seeker-sensitive churches seem to have forgotten that Sunday worship is primarily for the believer and is not meant as the primary means of outreach.

I know, I know, this goes against many church growth schemes. But that doesn’t make it less true. While it is true that the most likely a time a newcomer is to visit your congregation is Sunday morning, it is also true that most seekers expect to hear what we as Christians believe–not some watered down, candy coated version blasted through a $100,000 sound system. On the other hand, many historical traditions seem to have forgotten what outreach is in addition to fumbling around big-time with how to actually inculcate the faith.

I’m also concerned–perhaps as a residual effect of Donald Miller’s lecture Free market Jesus, as well as my reading of Dr. Michael Budde’s Christianity Incorporated: How Big Business is buying the Church.–that the influence of a corporate mentality has begun to overshadow the Gospel–when we start talking about telling people that they need to get out of our churches because they aren’t 100% on board with our extra-biblical mission strategy, then we have lost something very important and have begun to treat the Body of Christ like a corporation where members can be hired and fired at will for disagreeing with the direction the leadership wants to take–can you say recipe for egotistical pastors? The only reasons any Church would have for asking anyone to leave would have to be based on scripture, not adherence to a marketing plan–that sounds suspiciously like adding to the Gospel.

It definitely inspires the sort of market-centered mentality among other Christians that another mega Church pastor, Steven Furtick was complaining about recently. I mean, isn’t Groeschel just expressing the ecclesial version of this attitude:

The other day, a lady said something to my wife that made me sick to my stomach upon hearing about it. Literally.

She was talking about how she visited Elevation with her family over the summer.
So far, so good…

In fact, she continued, they have visited “just about every church in Charlotte, looking for the church that’s perfect for us.”

Uh oh…
My wife doesn’t have much tolerance for church hopping Southerners.
Neither do I.

Then the woman made one of the most absurd comments I’ve ever heard from a churchgoer, even here in the Bible belt. That’s saying a lot.

“I wanted to let you know that there’s one praise song, I can’t remember the name of it, that ya’ll do better than all of the dozens of churches we’ve been to in our church shopping quest.”

Ma’am, if you’re reading:

Doesn’t what Groeschel seems to advocate–and I freely admit that this is from a shred of a quote taken from a site that’s not affiliated with his ministries, so it could be completely misconstrued–seem a whole lot like Churches going people shopping?

The final thing that bothers me–and the most important–is that 500 people left his church. 500. Did they find other churches where they “fit in” better? Possibly, but what a condemnation of a congregation that it had no welcome for them. And how many never found another congregation to welcome them, another place to praise the name of Jesus. For how many, possibly wounded by less than Christ-like Christians in the past, was this the last straw, the last brick in the wall separating them from a loving community of Christ-followers?

Makes me think of something our Lord said:

“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt. 18:5-6).

{read it all}

  • Adam

    I read the original post and the comments that followed, and while I do see his point in bringing in 500 people with “passion,” I’m not sure what was really accomplished. I don’t like the idea of some members being considered “dead weight,” even if that is what they may be. I also don’t like the idea of a congregation being a place where some people just don’t belong.

    That’s not to say that any single church can be all things to all people. There are times when the fit is not good, as I well know. But I don’t think pastoral care is challenging people to get on board or leave from the pulpit.

    Part of the problem is the “megachurch” concept. I grew up in a megachurch, so I feel like I have some perspective on this. Unless you hire a lot of ministers, it’s very hard to give good pastoral care to such a large congregation. How many of those 500 did Craig know personally? How many would have had access to him if they wanted to talk about this further? I’m not trying to be accusatory, because I honestly don’t know the answer, but I think those are appropriate questions?

    To paraphrase Kennedy, it seems like Craig was saying “Ask not what your church can do for you, but what you can do for your church.” Maybe that’s great outreach, but it’s not such good inreach. A church is a community of believers, and while there are times when people must find another community, I don’t think we should ever take it lightly when someone leaves. I commend Craig for trying to recommend other churches for those whom he was pushing out the door, but I respectfully question his priorities.

  • http://adamantius.net Jody+

    Adam,

    I think the anonymity is precisely why some people–not all–like the mega-church environment. To steal a comment from my friend Garland, “they go to church on Sunday, get their God-fill/feel on and do what they want the rest of the week…” I’m not sure most people are conscious of it, I think new Christians wind up at mega-churches because they feel more comfortable, but perhaps aren’t self-aware as to why. Also, people in mega-churches tend to run in groups–one of the good things about them is that you’re much more likely to find someone like you… and one of the bad things is that you’re much more likely to find someone like you. Affinity groups can form and solidify and not let new people in or ever break out of their comfort zone. In an odd way, cliques in mega-churches can act like some small-churches act to newcomers. But I digress–your point about pastoral care being difficult is well made, and along with pastoral care, deep discipleship can also be a problem. Some mega-churches do it well and “staff-up” for the task… others just add a starbucks in the foyer and hope discipleship happens.

    But, on the whole, there’s no blanket statement one can make about mega-churches that would be true in all cases. I do prefer models of ministry that emphasize churches that plant churches rather than continuing to grow all in one place, but I don’t believe there’s a hard and fast rule about how big is too big–that depends on the individual congregation and its character. The whole multiple site model that some churches use bugs me a bit when it feels like franchising… I was recently reading about a church that started out around Charleston and now has multiple locations–their newest being in Asheville NC, my old digs. And get this… their name is “Seacost church“…fits their origins, but not very incarnational in the mountains.

  • Adam

    I certainly get what you mean about franchising. I saw one church – maybe it was Cornerstone, which seems about right – has a location south of town now. And maybe franchise churches (I know that sounds really bad, but I like the term) are set to become the new denominations.

    I realize there are some megachurches that do wonderful things, and I respect that you don’t want to overgeneralize. However, these are my overly cynical thoughts on why people like huge churches. The first is, as you said, the anonymity. This is bad for discipleship, but perhaps that is better than these folks not being in church at all. Still, in many cases you lose out on the community aspects of church, and to me this is a very Western individualist form of worship. Not all good.

    Secondly, I think megachurches can foster pastor worship. Not that this doesn’t happen at all levels, but big churches often attract Joel Osteen-type pastors. Growing up in my megachurch, a significant portion of the congregatoin left after the sermon (during the invitation hymn). Granted, many in Churches of Christ emphasize that preaching of the word is the focal point of Sunday worship, but it still had a feel of people being there for the show. And our preacher was fantastic. And people love to watch Osteen or Maury Davis (sorry to pick on Cornerstone so much) on TV.

    I agree that affinity groups can become small churches unto themselves, almost like plants, and I think most effective megachurches do have “cell groups” of some sort. I think that’s a good idea for any church with more than 100 or so ASA (and yes, that number is almost completely arbitrary). But if you have 100 cell groups that meet once a week, then you’re still having difficulty with pastoral care without several ministers to visit groups.

    There are benefits to having such large churches, and obviously it’s working. But I agree with you in subscribing to the church planting model. Nothing works perfectly, as the church is ultimately a human institution, but I do cringe at the idea of a church losing 500 members without batting an eye.

  • http://adamantius.net Jody+

    Adam Said:

    Granted, many in Churches of Christ emphasize that preaching of the word is the focal point of Sunday worship, but it still had a feel of people being there for the show. And our preacher was fantastic.

    ***

    That’s an interesting experience. In some ways it’s similar to my experience at a small Baptist Church. There, the teaching aspect of the ministry was very emphasized, and in fact the pastor would often give a shortened version of his adult Sunday School lesson as his sermon. But what I saw happening, was that many people–especially older folks–would come only for Sunday School and leave afterwards without coming to Church. And I had to wonder, what is our primary focus on Sunday morning–is it to educate or to worship? See, I got to the point where I felt like I was going to two Sunday School’s on a Sunday morning, and I wanted more worship–that’s what I found in the liturgical tradition of Anglicanism. Does that mean I am against education? Not at all, I’m all for it–but it’s not the central reason we come together on Sunday mornings.

  • Adam

    On that we agree, and it is also the reason that I found my home in liturgical worship. I love a good sermon, but to me celebrating the Eucharist is the central focus of worship.

    I do think the focus on preaching the word as the central act of worship is as much an evangelical protestant characteristic (or some such thing; this is where my self teaching in comparative theology reveals itself). And I do think that, especially combined with a very polished preacher, it can lead to a cult of personality centered on the pastor.

    Granted, I think we all can fall into that. There’s a fine line between having a good relationship with your pastor and having an unhealthy dependence. In the (secular) counseling profession, we strictly avoid any type of dual relationship in order to combat all sorts of ethical issues, including an unhealthy dependence upon the practitioner. But as a priest and pastor, part of your calling is to cultivate close relationships with your flock. It’s very easy sometimes for parishioners to depend on the person more than the office.

    Of course, like anyone else who has found something that works better than what he or she grew up with, I know a lot of what I’m saying reflects my own bias. But I also try to take time to observe what goes on around me, so I think these critiques point out legitimate concerns. It’s a fun conversation.

  • Palmettopastor

    After reading the first paragraph I thought that I was going to learn more about raisins. I was wrong.

    D+

  • http://adamantius.net Jody+

    Dave…if it’ll make you feel better I could post about Raisins…or other dried fruit of your choosing. Just let me know.