Lost in the Crowd
What’s wrong with this picture: A megachurch of over 2,000 members holds their annual celebration event. One member, who has faithfully attended for years, comes to the event and is troubled to find he knows almost nobody. This supposed celebration of the church community therefore turns out to be quite the opposite for this fellow, as he feels lost in the crowd.
Who is to blame here? The individual, because he didn’t take the initiative to meet others? Other members, because they didn’t try to get to know him? Or could the fault perhaps lie in the very nature of a megachurch, in which people who should feel connected as a vital part of the “body of Christ” instead feel lost in the crowd?
The reason megachurches rely so heavily upon small/home/cell groups is that true community cannot be achieved in large settings. There is simply not enough time or space for that, as most megachurch leaders will concede.
Naturally, this leads me to ask: What is church, if not community? And if community is not possible within a certain program or context, why do we bother with that program or context? Sure, we can bring people in the doors; but then what? Does this even have anything to do with the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18–20, i.e. making disciples?
Just some things to consider. I welcome any response.
posted by P.T. Peterson | 4:14 PM
6 Comments:
I'm with you Pablo. When I read the N.T., I see the random large crowd, but the focus is on the smaller groups - either the 12 or slightly larger. When there were thousands, it was exciting, but then Jesus would say something crazy like "eat my flesh, drink my blood" and people would take off because it was too hard! He didn't sell-out for large numbers, but sought intimacy. I think his agenda was intimacy with the Father, the Spirit, and the people around him. The megachurch agenda is numbers. Word, dawg.
Though the megachurch agenda may seem like numbers, I'm sure we can think of a few people (lost sheep) whom the mega church has reached for the glory of God...are they healthy, growing christians? I don't know, but in the words of the philosopher Tupac Shakur, "only God can judge me". Just flipping the script a little and making you think that I'm a jerk. though I'm not a huge fan of the mega church's philosophy of program, this is where I truly met the love and compassion of Christ and will forever remember that when I get down on the megatrons.
Good point, Ron; there is no disputing personal testimony. I just wonder how much more effective a church could be if it was 200 members instead of 2,000. Perhaps it wouldn't have the level of musicianship or other spectacle that has warmed many a cold heart to the idea of church, but then maybe the level of communal love could be that much deeper.
My concern is that the megachurch or "seeker-sensitive" models tend towards a consumer mindset for reaching people. Advertising is a large component of such models (and I should know, since that is much of what I currently do). But once we have accomplished the outreach aspect and added numbers to our ranks, where do we go from there?
That is the crisis of discipleship that I see overwhelmingly in larger congregations. Instead of beginning with the message of Christ as our starting point for leading people to faith, we begin with cool music, bleeding-edge multimedia, and an entertaining speaker. And that's when we pull the ol' bait-and-switch tactic of Oh yeah, here's the real reason why we gather -- and it will cost you everything.
"Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)
You both have good points, and I'm glad somebody around this blogging world has the guts to be the dissenting voice, even if it is the brown kid. I too made the big life change in the mega-church. I guess what I would add is that the mega-church is not essentially bad, but it often seems to turn bad, especially for the three of us who have seen it from the inside. "Seeker sensitive" doesn't have to be bad, but it seems to typically be because it means Spirit-insensitive.
I'm in it for the $...
"Spirit-insensitive" is a perfect term for my qualm here. I could count on one hand how many times I've heard the Holy Spirit given adequate reference in my church. We've made him the little tag-along brother of the Trinity that people would rather not have around. Are we scared of him? Have the pentecostals got a monopoly on him?
I think we just don't understand that the Holy Spirit is responsible for doing most of the supernatural work among us. Instead we have this image of ourselves as empowered beings who can wow people to Jesus with our own charm, good deeds, or "Look, I can be cool and still be a Christian" pseudorelevance. But ultimately, it's the Spirit of God who will change the hearts of those who would hear.
Gee, this really makes me sound Calvinist, doesn't it?
Go back to Geneva!
Post a Comment
<< Home