(Note: this was originally posted on August 28—and then had the misfortune to be swamped by political commentary. I’ve bumped it up in hopes that folks who might be interested who might have missed it before will catch it.)
I want, if I can, to start a conversation here. Over the past year or so, I’ve gotten acquainted to one degree or another, starting through Hap, with a lot of people who’ve left the church, either temporarily or for good, after being hurt by churches with a bad approach to ministry—people like Erin, Barry, Tyler Dawn, Barb, and Katherine Gunn—along with others like Kathy Escobar and Heather who had reason to leave but didn’t. (This is not by any means an exhaustive list.) I’ve also continued to chew on what it means for the church to be missional; along those lines, I’ve appreciated Jared Wilson‘s ongoing work contrasting the missional paradigm with what he calls the attractional-church paradigm. For those of you who haven’t followed that, you can find his overview here, and his ongoing overview at SearchWarp in Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Now, up until recently, I thought of these as just two separate phenomena. On the one hand, you have bad churches. On the other, you have a bad ministry paradigm. I’m starting to wonder, though, if there might be a connection.
What got me thinking about that was Jared’s post “Mega(church)lomania”, in which he linked to and quoted a post by a Dr. Jim West called “Speaking Of The Outrage That Is The Mega-Church…” that I found very interesting. First, let me note one of Jared’s comments on Dr. West’s post:
When I agree with folks who are harshing on the megachurch vibe, it is typically because what I see them criticizing is the attractional model of church, and while I’ve gone on record several times acknowledging that there are certainly aspects of our ecclesiology and methodology that can be attractional, I think the attractional mode of “doing church” is counterproductive to discipleship. (Because it doesn’t work.)
Now, with that in mind, here are some of Dr. West’s comments on the megachurch, which as Jared says apply not to the size of the church but to its approach, and are really a critique of the attractional model in all sizes of congregation:
Mega churches exist for one simple reason—the accumulation of wealth. Churches, you see, once upon a time would grow, flourish, and in order to extend their ministry establish mission churches in areas where no church work existed. Their goal in the establishment of such churches was to realize the goal of local churches sprouting up everywhere. Neighborhood churches, though, over time, became too small and offered too little to the consumeristic American who wanted more and more.
So, in order to quench the unending thirst of American Christians, Churches ended their missionary outreach and instead of planting small churches in local neighborhoods they began drawing people from miles and miles away. This allowed them to offer more glitzy programs for the thirsting public (a public which thirsts not for righteousness but for entertainment). It also allowed them to collect larger offerings and once that pandora’s box was opened, it became a free for all for as many members as possible concentrated in the fewest churches possible.
Churches turned inward rather than outward . . .
Born then was the mega church and at her helm, the millionaire (or close to it) mega church pastor. Said pastor now had a vested interest not in missions and church planting but in making sure that 1) no one left (so that money wouldn’t seep out) and 2) no one found out how much they actually earned as chairman of the board of the local church corporation (in the most demonic sense of the word).
The mega church is, in other words, the church turned in on itself. It is the logical conclusion of a christianity that has lost its way and which instead of doing the work of the ministry now becomes itself the sole recipient of any and all ministerial efforts.
Now, I know full well that everyone’s story is different. If you go to Barb’s blog and read her posts on why she and her husband left their church, you’ll find elements of charismatic/Pentecostal thinking that figure strongly in the story. For Erin, there was the”Better Christian Woman” box into which her church tried to squeeze her. No one’s experience exactly conforms to the experimental model. That said, I do think there’s a common theme that runs through a lot of them, anyway, and it’s the attractional church paradigm. It’s the church that has turned in on itself and exists for the accumulation of resources (not just wealth, but also people, prestige, and influence) and the building up of the glory of its leaders—because in that mindset, the people of the church are there for the sake of those leaders, to serve their purposes, and over time, tend to come to be treated accordingly.
Along with that, since the numerical success of such churches depends on quick attraction, there’s a need to preach a sort of quick-fix instant-oatmeal version of Christianity; my wife today called it a form of spiritual crash dieting, the sort of thing that in the short term helps you look good for the people you want to impress but in the end just screws up your metabolism. Not only is this kind of thing not the gospel preaching of Jesus that gives real life, but it sets up unreasonable expectations—see how easy this is? Follow these 27 simple steps and you too can have your best life now!—and if you can’t live up to those expectations and look just as good as everyone else, well, there must be something wrong with you and you must not be much of a Christian.
The result of this? Burnout. Jared captures it well:
[Christine] Wicker surveys attractional church burnout, which I’ve witnessed numerous times personally. Committed Christians are used up and spit out in service to the Program, and if they ever so much as suggest something isn’t right, they are accused of being immature and told to go self-feed or whatever. Church isn’t “for them,” they are sometimes told, which is doubly hurtful when the volunteer is a believer who was a seeker or baby Christian when they first entered the church. The church itself makes it clear the volunteer has outgrown the church, and then it will act surprised or indignant when the volunteer realizes he has outgrown it and takes his service elsewhere. . . .
Conversion to disillusionment averages about 8 years. That’s not a very good track record and does not bode well for the attractional future.
As I say, I could be off base; but what folks like Kathy Escobar and Tyler Dawn are talking about, from one side, and what others like Dr. Jim West and Jared Wilson are talking about, from the other, sounds like pretty much the same lump of coal to me. And why shouldn’t it be? When you have congregations that have come to exist for the accumulation of resources, driven by the consumerist mindset, should we be surprised if they turn out to be organizations that burn out those who want to serve, and chew up and spit out those who dare to ask questions or challenge the leadership?
What I want to invite you to do, then, is to think about this, talk about it, and tell me if you think this makes sense. I’ll try to contact all the folks I’ve actually named in this post to see what each of you have to say, but I certainly want broader input as well—if you have a thought, pro or con, or if you have a question because I’ve been “clear like mud,” please fire away regardless. Leave a comment here or post about it on your own blog, whichever you prefer (though if you do the latter, please leave a link in the comments here so that I don’t miss what you have to say); I just want to get the conversation started.
Hey sweetie,
I actually didn’t leave the church because it hurt me. Neither some of the other folks you cited. I left because God told me to leave. Many of us were being told to leave for months or years before God shoved us out the door. Me? I was begging to leave week after week and He would tell me to wait and then one day He said, “Okay, write up your resignation today — but you can’t turn it in until thursday.”
Ok — FINE! I didn’t realise the poetic nature of it until about a year later. I officially left the church on Ascension Day. lol
Granted, certainly. The point was not to diminish anyone, or to imply that anyone’s motives were selfish, or that anyone left against God’s will. I’ve edited it to clarify that. The point, rather, was simply to set up the parallel between, I’m beginning to think, folks who are looking at the same problematic way of “doing church” from two different angles.
I enjoyed reading your post. I know that I am not part of the “group” of people that you are writing about but I was hurt by my Church and as a result left. The abuses that a Physical Body of believers can inflict can be malicious and downright ruthless. Then again on the other hand, we go to Church not because it is a social meeting place although it is nice to see friends and family but because we want to be in the very presence of God. We don’t have to go to the building to do that because we are the Church, the body. As a result of leaving my “click of believers” we started an online ministry so that we could not be “bound” by the social clicks that abound in these circles. Embarking on a new era in Church so to speak. It has been a true blessing because now no one is judged by what they wear, what they look like, what kind of job they do, how much money they make, etc…they simply have Church. I am glad that God told me to go because His plans were far better for me than what I could have imagined or if I had stayed. I think the bottom line is if you Go, Go because of God, if you stay, make sure it is because of God.
God Bless- http://www.jimwilsonministries.com
I’ve never been part of a megachurch. I visited one once and didn’t find it at all appealing, even in a superficial sense.
The church I attend now is the largest church I’ve ever been part of, at around 1200 weekly attendance, and its “seeker-sensitive” model is adapted from what is done at Willow Creek. But I’d say it’s less inward-focused than many smaller churches I have attended.
The churches I have attended that were most “attractionally” oriented seemed to be the ones that were used to the way things were several decades ago when going to church was what good people did, or where you took people so they would hear the Gospel and get saved. They think in terms of how to get people to come to church, and if they do try some kind of outreach and it doesn’t seem to be showing results in a relatively short time they want to go back to what they see as the “tried-and-true” method (although it’s really not working either).
This may sound sort of dumb, but I’ve always felt that my ‘calling’ had something to do with people were outside the church – partly because I’ve always felt at least 1/2 outside the church myself, even at the height of my activity and commitment to church.
I feel bad when we fail to be Church for people. That’s one of the worst tragedies about the life of faith. I think you’re right – the mega-church model does seem to be about money in a lot of ways. I don’t have a lot of experience (my few trips to mega-churches left me a little nauseous and leaving early – a whole other story) but that makes sense to me.
I’d say that if you’re a pastor making more than it costs to live middle-class in your area, you’re doing it wrong.
And yes, I’ll practice what I preach there, in the very unlikely event that I’m ever paid well.
There’s a possible comparison here to abusive romantic relationships. So often, the abuser is a really charming, charismatic, may we say ‘attractional’ person? And the abuse is always focused on not letting you leave the relationship at all (or at least intact).
Where are the self-sacrifical/cross-oriented Churches? Where are the people figuring out what it means to die to themselves? Probably off quietly ushering in the Kingdom of God while the rest of us worry about the stewardship drive. Let’s go find those Churches and do what they do.
I have been struggling with my relationship to the church, whether large or small, for decades. I have been online for nearly a decade and the only real abuse directed toward me has come from self-proclaimed Christians. My last pastor told me, “People don’t understand you,” so I feel like an outsider within the house of the Lord to whom I am dedicating my retirement years.
I have walked away from life in the suburbs and am living in the inner city where I am working as a faith-based community organizer. The organization which gives me a paycheck holds me loosely, allowing me to function, not according to a set of rules and regulations, but through the spiritual direction I receive from a God who does seem to understand me.
So, here I am, trying to follow Jesus’ example in the way I live my life, being encouraged by the secular world while feeling further and further removed from the people of the church. When you quote others who feel God has taken them out of the church, I have the sense that God has circumvented my stubborn entrenchment and removed me from the church without my having to make the move on my own.
The Bible clearly says we are to gather together. We are to be a part of the bride of Christ, the church. So, just where is the church? Is it behind doors which proclaim the word, “Church”, or is it somewhere else? When I meet with 2 or 3 people who want to live Jesus’ example and we plan together to develop anything which strengthens families or transforms neighborhoods, have we become the bride of Christ–even though we do not have a structure, a building, or a collection plate?
I don’t have answers yet, but I do have a lot of questions.
Rob, you’ve said some awesome stuff here. I will try to post on it in the next day or so.
In a nutshell, all of the above and then some. I experienced the disillusionment of a wealthy church, an attractional model that did little to mature up believers, abusive leadership, charismanical theology, unrealistic expectations of human beings, burnout from demands, and promises of unconditional love that were broken when truly needed.
The healing and growth I have experienced in 3 years since leaving the paradigm are exponentially greater than a lifetime in it. Agree with it or not, that’s the truth. However, in contrast to Tyler, I know he was telling me to leave for months but I refused to listen, until a catalyst event happened and forced my hand.
Key to me among your words was the quote here:
“Committed Christians are used up and spit out in service to the Program, and if they ever so much as suggest something isn’t right, they are accused of being immature and told to go self-feed or whatever….The church itself makes it clear the volunteer has outgrown the church, and then it will act surprised or indignant when the volunteer realizes he has outgrown it and takes his service elsewhere…“
rob, yeah, it wasn't pretty, my leaving but i do look at it as God's provision for me in all kinds of ways & in reality if i would have "towed the line" i could have stayed. i do think that there are lots of great things about growing attractional churches, but over time i have just come to doubt a lot of the methods & philosophies of ministry that keep them going. is God at work there? sure, he's much bigger than my idealism 🙂 i think many of the things you cite here are very accurate & one of the things that i love about so many good thinkers & doers out here in blogland is that there is a stirring for the kingdom, now, in all kinds of great ways i wasn't sure what the "same lump of coal" meant?
Sorry–I was using “lump of coal” as a bad thing, what you wouldn’t want to find in your stocking, which I realize as a practical matter it isn’t; by “same lump of coal” I meant, basically, the same set of issues, problems, things gone wrong–two sides of the same bad understanding of the church.
Thanks for all your responses (and Erin, I look forward to reading your post); I really have no doubt that God led you out of those congregations–as I tried to make clear to Tyler Dawn, though I didn’t do a very good job of that; I need to go over and comment on her post–and as I’m trying to put it all together, it makes sense to me why that should be; and it’s the “why” I’m trying to get at. If my sense that this whole approach to how the church should operate is fundamentally flawed in a way that tends not to build up Christians, as individuals and as a body, but instead to grind people down, and that causes God to lead people out of congregations for their growth and healing instead of into them–if that sense is right, then I think it’s an important thing to talk about. So, thank you.