• Can Megachurches be Missional?

    October 13, 2009

    That is the questions that Ed Stetzer and Dave Fitch are addressing in this video interview (26:44).

    The video is worth your time, but there’s in inherent flaw in the question.  Asking if megachurches* can be missional is sort of like asking if a diesel truck can run on unleaded gas.  Or if someone with type A blood can receive a donation from someone with type B blood. On the surface, it might seem like a legitimate question, after all, diesel and unleaded are both automobile fuel and unless you have the right tools, A blood looks just like B blood, but that’s just the problem – the superficial appearance is where it stops.

    Megachuches and missional churches, while superficially similar in some regards, are so intrinsically different that the question loses all meaning.

    The model of the megachurch relies upon Christendom as a cultural context while missional churches (as I said my last post) see Christendom as a debilitating cultural condition and therefore seek to subvert it.

    The very medium of megachurch so distorts the message of the gospel, that it’s left virtually powerless to shape a people for fully and authentically participating in the mission of God in the world – the hallmark of missional ecclesiology.  Note: I am not saying that God cannot or does not impact and change peoples lives in the context of megachurches.

    Another version of this question is probably more worthwhile.  Can megachurches become missional? Maybe, but we need more people who are willing to be honest about the full scope of what a shift like this will mean.  There is just too much money and and too much popularity to be gained from going around and telling megachurches that they too can hop on the missional bandwagon without monumental shifts in identity and practice.  Like telling those who are wealthy, happy, healthy, and powerful that they are in fact poor, confused, sick, and weak, most people who lead “successful” megachurches simply don’t have ears to hear or eyes to see.

    So, my experience tells me not to bank on it.  But my wife tells me that if I believe in the power of the gospel to restore the world, I might not want to be so quick to discount its power to transform churches!  Good thing she’s around ;)

    *my comments on megachurches are limited to a Western context.  I simply don’t know enough about megachurches in non-western contexts to speak intelligently about differing cultural factors.  However, I’d be quick to ask, “Who taught them to do church like that anyway?!”
    • Share/Bookmark

    Posted in: christendom, church, community, gospel, missional, young adults

Recent Comments

  • Josh Garrington said...

    1

    Interesting thoughts.
    Heather and I went to what passes for a mega church in North East Wisconsin (a few thousand members) for about 9 months. I would have to say from that experience that while some effort was made to try and be missional, the setting made it inherently more difficult.

    One idea that's been bouncing around in my head is "Megachurch as community of churches". That is, using some variant on the megachurch concept to foster interaction between different church communities of a functional size in a region
    I'm a big fan of interaction between the Church in a local community, regardless of denominational affiliation, I just haven't figured out a way to foster that communication. Seems like something like the megachurch model could be used to become "the Church in Green Bay" or "the Church in the Chicagoland North West Suburbs" much like "The Church is Corinth" or "the Church in Ephesus". I'm not sure how it would work, I haven't worked out any details, but I think there's potential there.

    10/13/09 5:47 PM | Comment Link

  • @jayoldaker said...

    2

    "Note: I am not saying that God cannot or does not impact and change peoples lives in the context of megachurches."
    So, what ARE you saying, then?

    10/13/09 6:48 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    3

    Totally agree. Networking smaller communities is a promising alternative to the megachurch phenomenon. Missional ecclesiology runs far deeper than that alone, but it's helpfully imaginative.

    10/13/09 6:57 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    4

    That being honest about whether or not a church is truly missional is not the same as saying God is or isn't present/active there.

    10/13/09 7:03 PM | Comment Link

  • sean said...

    5

    JR. Props to the response to Jay, as I sort of had a similar question. (here's a line of thought to preface my question) There's a very interesting give and take with culture and the church. Culture went a certain way and the church either led, followed or was just a part of the movement, good or bad. An argument could be made for each and every one of those. My parents participated in the tail end of denominational superiority. Church was a staple in culture, Ohio didn't sell beer on Sunday. The mega-churches (probably over-generalizing) took that idea, ran with it, made it 'better?' and used it to drive their ministries. They got big, people like(d) big. And the jury is still out as to whether or not those churches will flourish beyond their leaders. The assumption is that God will continue to move amongst his people. So I guess the thought or question I have is two fold. 1. Is the missional model the best or right model we have from scripture to grow the church, or is it a variation on the same model that meshes with what culture is doing. 2. If people in a mega-church are growing in their faith, becoming healthy Christians who are living out the gospel, do they need to change their variation?
    So the second half is predicated on the first. I would lean towards the idea that while by definition a mega-church may not be able to transform into a fully missional church, chances are if they are healthy (lots of wiggle room in that word), then God is going to continue to grow the leaders and the church into what He would have them to be in their specific situation. Another, perhaps easier way to ask that is if God is present/ active in a church that isn't by definition missional, deos it need to change?

    10/13/09 8:20 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    6

    Good thoughts Sean, let me take a crack at your thoughts/questions.

    1) I would say (and indeed took 70+ pages to say in my masters thesis) that a missional ecclesiology holds tremendous potential for helping to restore hope for a more faithful future to the church in Western culture. Is it not a model to grow the church – that's where mega comes from. Missional ecclesiology places the emphasis not on church growth, but on holistic spiritual formation of believers in community. I can't think of one way in which the missional church is taking its cues from the broader culture. In fact, most of what it's about runs in opposition to dominant cultural norms. This is the precise opposite of the modern megachurch movement.

    2) This is a faulty sort of logic. By the same token we might say, that because some people have conversion experiences while tripping on acid, we should go ahead and get as much of it out there as we possibly can. No doubt that through the labors of the Pharisees, at least some people were leaning and growing in godliness, but that didn't stop Jesus from correcting where and when necessary. The real issue is that of faithfulness not pragmatics – another major difference between missional and megachurch approaches to being the church.

    There is a problem with understanding missional church as one more model amongst others to pick from. In fact, this is where most of the trouble lies. To go back to my analogies from above, what it means to be missional represents a paradigm shift so fundamental, that it simply can't be compared with other expressions of church which rest on the assumptions of modernity and Christendom. It's on a par not with deciding deciding between AT&T or Sprint for phone service, but with wondering if the whole concept of telecommunications needs to be rethought.

    The answer to your final question, in my opinion, is "of course!" That God is present and active in a church community is no more of an excuse to assume you are fine than is the love of a parent who comes to take care of you while you are in the hospital. From entire traditions to local congregations, we ought to always be asking where we need to change, adapt, and repent. This is no different for those of us who aspire to live out a missional vision of the church.

    To be honest, while I find the word missional helpful for the sake of current dialogue about the church, I really could care less about whether or not others use it. Again, for me, it's really a matter of biblically faithful expressions of the church, not one type overagainst another, like branding. I just happen to think there are major problems with the dominant expressions of church in Western culture and that missional ecclesiology has a lot to offer in both pointing out and helping to correct those problems.

    Hope that clarifies a bit what I'm on about.

    10/13/09 9:51 PM | Comment Link

  • sean said...

    7

    Good answer. With that in mind, I do believe that a mega-church can become 'missional'. Though it may take more time to turn a big ship, it can still turn. If any church is seeking to be healthy, numerical growth being one evidence of health and life, and spiritual growth and fruit being some others, then I would venture to guess that they can and do adapt and change and repent and surely could adopt an ethos of being missional.

    10/14/09 7:51 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    8

    Amen!

    10/14/09 8:04 PM | Comment Link

Leave A Comment

Mail (will not be published) (required)