Size Matters, Finis

Adam and Dino both asked questions about the earlier Size Matters posts. I'll deal with that in a bit. I wanted to sort of finish this string of thoughts. I doubt there is much new to say, since I've said most of what I think about church and what it ought to be over the past ten months here. However, just to summarize...We left off with fellowship, service, and witness. Those are the three tasks of the church. Without hedging any longer, size matters because the process of making Christians requires a community where people know each other, commit to each other, love each other, correct each other, and serve each other in friendship. Jesus came to inaugurate a kingdom. In the process of the growth of that kingdom, we live as a community. I am convinced the church is broken. I'm convinced that no amount of reform will fix the church as it is understood because the point was to live as a community, not as an institution. To say that a community must institutionalize to some degree is to miss the point. Of course it must, but it can stay a community. Think of it like a small town, only a good small town. Everyone knows everyone. Everyone knows everyone's story. There is a mayor or there are town leaders, there is a city council, there is fire, police, hospital, etc. Institutionalization, yes, but no one believes we have to go to a building and meet together once a week to call ourselves a town. We are a town because our lives are intertwined.

The megachurch fails at almost every level because the friendship necessary to sustain community is not available. (The moment you argue that you find friendships in small groups, I'll argue the small group is your church. We needn't deconstruct how silly most of these small groups really are and how ineffective they are at making disciples.) I mean community in the real sense of the word: people who are committed to each other, who tell the truth, who live in a state of accountability with each other, who share, support, love, etc. The group has to be small enough that we can share a common story. The story of our lives become the story that shapes me into a disciple. We live the story of Jesus together.

What does it mean to live the story? This is where I'll depart from standard evangelical fare about the Bible. It's not a guidebook or answer book or roadmap in the sense they think it is: they mine it for propositions and ethics to help make decisions. The only decision that needs to be made, and this, Dino, is where repentance and faith come in, is to decide to live like Jesus. Once the decision has been made to live like Jesus, the "ethical dilemmas" aren't really dilemmas. Once we embrace non-coercion, non-violence, trust in God with our lives to the point of death, tell the truth, live simply, give sacrificially, incarnate our lives in places of need, eschew materialism and acquisition, we'll discover that there are few "ethical dilemmas." To live like Jesus is to live the story and let the life of Jesus control our story. That can best be served with a community of friends. Only when church is conceived of as an institution whose goal is to make our lives better and "save" people can the megachurch or institutional church model be sustained.

I wrote a post a while back called "This is Who We Shall Be, so This is Who We Must Be." The idea is that the community is eschatological. We look forward to the consummation of the kingdom. Those who will live in the kingdom in its fullness must have trained themselves to live like kingdom people. This is best done in a community of friends. How can 10,000 people help shape me into a disciple? They don't know me. They don't really even care about me. Christian love has become a joke. Christian love isn't saying I feel like I love someone because Christ commands it; it's to love someone in the messiness, ugliness, and joy of their lives. It's to commit to them in the midst of their pettiness, selfishness, fear, and dishonesty to work with them to allow the Spirit to lead them into the life of Christ. (Yes, I'm a trinitarian.)

Size matters because people matter. I know that churches regularly justify their programs with the idea that people matter. What they mean is that "saving souls" matters. It doesn't if you're not teaching them to live like Jesus. You're not saving them from anything. You're helping them toward a place of complacency in the face of impending judgment.

Adam, I think Christ matters for at least two reasons: I really believe he revealed and conquered the "principalities and powers" at the cross and resurrection; and, I really believe he serves as the anthropological model to whom we align our stories. Here's where I start to sound really orthodox. No resurrection; no point in all this. No resurrection; do what you want. I've heard all the liberal arguments and they don't wash; no resurrection means it's foolish to live like Christ because the principalities and powers are still the prevailing authority in the world. By his defeat of these p/p, Christ is revealed as Lord and therefore the One we should follow, submit our lives to, and live like. Dino, the rest of your question have to do with praxis, so I'll answer them in another post. This one is already too long.

Comments

[James]

One of the things I have had to work very hard to adjust to since moving to the US is the prevalence of driving to church. Back in the UK I was well aware of people who commuted to church, but other than in very rural settings I was able to believe that they were in the minority. While we were only driving 15 minutes to church, that whole process did serious damage to my ability to understand our destination as a place of community. Ironic, perhaps, that someone who spends so much time in online/virtual communities should find it difficult to adjust from local to commuter community.

Harder than that to deal with was when I discovered that the largest congregation I had ever been part of on a vaguely-weekly basis was looking to extend its building to allow for still further growth. Such size seems to set the barrier for membership very high indeed. You either resign yourself to only ever knowing a small proportion of the church membership (the small group thing) or you have to throw every ounce of energy into networking.

As someone who finds the act of corporate worship far too often draining, that energy usually isn't there to be thrown into anything. Smaller churches don't have the sometimes-virtue of anonymity, but they're also not quite so exhausting!

[Scott]

The mega-church does fail in almost every area, but I would interject that it doesn't have to. In every situation, big or small, there is an ability to meet every need assuming that the leadership, small church mentality and kingdom mindedness necessary to carry out the heart of yeshuah can be maintained vs. the mega-church "feed the organism" environment that is created most of the time. I'm not speaking in support of the Mega-church, merely that posibilities exist through their resourses if strong ethical leadership is applied.

[greg]

Scott,

I argued that it does have to. It's missing the very thing necessary to make Christians: community. Strong, ethical leadership has nothing to do with it. Some companies have strong, ethical leadership. They aren't good at making Christians either. The biggest, single problem with leadership in mega-churches is that the pastor doesn't realize he's not a pastor anymore.

[Sarah]

I apologize if this comment accidentally comes up like 3 times. It keeps screwing up when I try to post it...

My dad was a Director of Missions for the BGCO for 13 years. During that time, he "oversaw 13 small, community based churches in rural Oklahoma. It has been 12 years since we left that mission. to this day, most every person in every one of those churches knows my name, my baby's name, my husband's name, and everything about every other member of my family. They still call my Dad for weddings, funerals, revivals and anniversaries. They insist he bring the family. Including my two very gay (and they know it) brothers. They genuinely love us. Have supported my family through many things in the past 12 years. Churches entrenched in a true sense of community welcoming and discipling with open arms.

After that I was a member of a LARGE church in OKC for 7 years. One week i just stopped going. I have never heard a word from anyone since.

Is that kinda your point, Greg?

[greg]

Sarah,

That begins to get at the point. That sort of community is possible among small groups of friends. That's the kind of community that makes a church. (Naysayers, I'm not an idiot. I know there are bad small churches. That's not the point.) The larger point is that those buildings we call churches are only harming Christianity and things won't get better until we stop meeting there.

[Streak]

I think this is intriguing and convincing. The way you describe love gets right to the heart of this issue, and Sarah has effectively talked about it in practice.

I am still a little conflicted here. I grew up in a small town where everyone knew everyone else and it felt very restrictive. It might fit into the model fof the bad small town, but it is one of my experiences with community at that level. The difference between this and what you describe is that this town knew everyone, but didn't really care for everyone.

I am also conflicted by an experience we had in Houston when we attended South Main Baptist Church. Clearly the largest church I have ever joined, it had many of the elements of what we want from our good churches. It reached out to inner-city Houston, and in fact, refused to move to the burbs with the rest. It maintained an active AIDS ministry, and worked with other local institutions to house a clothing center for the poor. They maintained apartments for the families of people undergoing treatment at MD Anderson. But at the core, Greg makes a great point. I knew those in our small group, and found other small groups that made sense to me, but did not really know most of those people. In a sense, South Main may represent a good institution, but not a good church.

Back to the idea of love. One of the other things I have found grating in my church experience is the superficiality of it all. I remember visiting a church in Plano (wealthy galore) and chuckling when they handed out the visitor cards. That day, Richard M. Nixon visited that Baptist church--the very same name I once used to sign into a strip club. That felt right. But people in that church would act as if they loved the people in the church, visitor or member--yet they didn't know them. Care about, maybe. But if you start throwing around the "love" word, it soon has little meaning.

Enough rambling. I am avoiding work.

[don]

Two thoughts on opposite ends of the intellectual spectrum, but not the faith spectrum.
First: Have you ever read William Stringfellow's book, "An Ethic for Christians and Other Aliens in a Strange Land"? Out of print today, but an amazing interpretation of the Book of Revelations and what the author (now deceased friend of Daniel Berrigan's) believed the "principalities and powers" were all about (e.g., the spiritual powers that dominate our nations and other institutions; what Stringfellow referred to as the power of death). Try to get it somehow if you haven't read it.

Second, your post reminds me of a very simple yet somehow profound song a friend of mine used to sing, the chorus of which goes:

"I want to be like,
I want to hear like,
I want to see like
The man from Galilee.
I want to walk like,
I want to talk like,
I want to be like
The man from Galilee."

You might have had to know my friend and heard him sing it to appreciate it, but whenever the complex issues of faith and reason confounded me, this refrain always seemed to make things clear.

[Adam]

Greg,
I agree completely with what you are saying. I don't think I need to go into my experience of mega-churches to illustrate, but suffice it to say that everything you have said hits the nail on the head.

I would, though, like you to clarify a couple of things. What exactly does it mean to "trust in God with our lives to the point of death"? I'm not sure I understand the content of this phrase.

Also I'm still not sure why the resurrection was necessary or why Jesus was essential to this sort of community. Do you not think somone could pull this off by modeling their lives after some very benevolent person, say, maybe a Ghandi or a Desmond Tutu or a Nelson Mandella (sorry if I spelled that wrong). Christ is obviously important to christianity, but is he necessarily important to this sort of community that you are describing. I understand your argument about resurrection but if you take out the eschatological subtext then couldn't you say that this sort of community is simply better for everyone now, and that be enough to justify living this way. I'm not trying to argue this is the case and I am a Christian and I think that Christ is the best example and I believe in the resurrection because it is part of my story, but it just seems like there could be benevolent alternatives. Don't hate me, please. I'm just curious.

[greg]

It means to embrace an ethic that might ultimately lead to death with no certainty of any reward. I believe there is a reward. I believe there is a necessity to never resort to coercion or violence. That means, in the right setting, my life will be in jeopardy. I embrace the ethic anyway believing that the resurrection will vindicate my choice to live under a kingdom ethic.

The three persons you listed all modeled their lives after Jesus' life. I do believe that a community could benefit from applying this kingdom ethic. I just wonder why they would want to apart from certain metaphysical presuppositions. If I'm wealthy, powerful, cruel, intelligent, and deliberate, there is no sense in me submitting my life to this ethic. It would make no sense apart from an appropriation of the Jesus narrative.

[Dino Zaragoza]

Greg,

While aknowledging that the mega-church has failed in most ways if not all ways....aren't there a few things to consider that can make it valuable and enriching?

To stay with the samll town analogy aren't there larger community events throughout the year that everybody comes to that connects them together? Do you think that a large group meeting (corporate worship) could or should provide that kind of connection?

Second, wasn't part of the purpose of the large gatherings we see in the New Testament also for the benefit of proclaming the Gospel? Assuming mega-churches can get the Gospel right aren't large gatherings one way to allow lots of people to hear the narrative or story of Christ?

Also, Paul played a pastoral role in most of the churches he started, but he was never there on a long term basis. Perhaps in mega churches there ought to be shift in the leadership paradigm, where the primary leader's purpose is to start new smaller church's (communities)and find people who have pastoral gifts to shepherd those communities.

I am not suggesting that mega-churches have it right, but also don't believe that they should all just dismantle. I have a difficult time accpeting or believing that the church has had everything wrong since Constantine. While, there are serious problems and much compromise, there have been many benfefits as well...probably another topic for another post...so I'll stop.

[Resident Atheist]

Why would anyone submit to the kingdom ethic without buying into the metaphysics behind it? I don't propose to answer this question (primarily because I'm not sure I fully understand its scope), but here are some thoughts that might be relevant.

It's my experience that what people care about is, with not very many exceptions, basically independent of what they believe. If you're concerned for the poor as a Christian, for example, it's unlikely that your concern will somehow magically vanish if you eventually come to the conclusion that the idea of the trinity is incoherent. On the other hand, if you're a Christian who would rather not think about the poor, you'll find a way to rationalize this avoidance with your beliefs. By and large, the function that beliefs serve is to prioritize the things that people find most important and (sometimes) to outline a plan of action to address those fundamental concerns. I think one reason why American churches are so shallow is that so many Americans are fundamentally concerned with receiving low- or no-obligation social reassurance that they've structured their beliefs in such a way that this perceived need is easily met.

It is true that it will be virtually impossible to persuade someone who doesn't buy into the kingdom ethic that (say) caring for the needy is a good idea, but try persuading a gospel-of-wealth advocate who claims to follow Jesus of that very same thing. It's just as hard, or possibly harder since the latter will assume they're carrying out God's wishes and the former might not be so presumptuous. Caring and empathy almost seem like a kind of predestination deal; you either have them or you don't, and whatever you think you believe or disbelieve isn't likely to change that one way or the other.

I'm sure there are nontrivial cases of people's concerns changing based on their beliefs (i.e., something more substantial than the usual developmental issues of shifting from peer acceptance at any cost to basic ethical behavior, or recovery from substance abuse), but I can't think of any examples off hand. Can anyone help with this?

Cheers,
RA

[greg]

Dino,

If everyone in the small town in which I grew up gathered, it would be half the size of LifeChurch and one sixth the size of Osteen's. The large gatherings you reference in the NT were not churches. In Acts, the people had gathered because of the Jewish festivals. Peter is preaching to the nearly-converted; which is to say, they were already followers of YHWH. That's a far different task than preaching to the happy or unhappy pagan.

Paul played an apostolic role. If megachurch pastors want to go to COUNTRIES where there is little church membership, I think that would be a fine idea. I'd love to see Joel spend a year in North Korea or Vietnam planting a church. It would renew my faith in his character.

Hearing the story worked for the first century because the vast majority of the story was already theirs. Getting a large group of people together to hear the Gospel is a fine thing and almost worthless for making genuine disciples. That's why friendship and community are so important. The large group mentality still operates under the transactional rubric, not open friendship.

The Church hasn't had everything wrong since Constantine, just the important things. I'd love for you to point out some of the positives that happened since Constantine. Every one of them happened within the framework of Christendom and can therefore be deconstructed in telling ways, especially the Protestant Reformation.

[Scott Jones]

Excellent Greg. Thanks for so eloquently summing up my thoughts. I'm going to print this off and use it.

[Scott Jones]

I was trying to read all the comments and save for one big comment, since i missed the dialogue while it was going on. But I'll just have to post several comments.

I like what Sarah wrote about the small churches and what Streak wrote about South Main (which is sadly tending a little more conservative under the new pastor).

I had grown up and in college attended large churches (FBCs, not mega-churches). I spent 1 1/2 years ministering in a small church in Fayetteville, AR. When I went there, I didn't know if I'd fit in the small church. What I found is that it changed me, and I have ever since been very critical of larger churches.

When I came to Dallas I came to a church that isn't big (especially by Dallas standards), but was bigger than that church in Fville. I thought maybe this was just the right size because we'd have enough resources to do the things we wanted to but couldn't in Fville, but would still be small enough to be authentic church. My hopes were not realized.

But that in some sense is where the association or diocese idea comes in. To do real church, we need to be small. But larger groups can come together to pool their resources to do the things the small groups are not able to do.

Greg, what are your views on how the small church associates with other small churches?

[Scott Jones]

Adam,

You make a good point about benevolent community. And I like Greg's response. After reading what he said, I think the response to your thoughtful question is (and I'm new at this pacifist thing) that without the belief that the powers and principalities are ultimately defeated, then we are more likely to trust our own resources and power and when the going gets really rough, we get violent. So though we may agree with the issues raised by revolutionary figures, like Che Guevara, say, we can object to their methods which devolved to violence.

[Dino Zaragoza]

Greg,

While I agree that much has gone wrong since Constantine I believe that the impact of Christianity would have evetually happened. To me the questions to ask are what was it that allowed the "Constantinian conversion" to happen? What was it about the Christian faith that persuaded a virtually pagan and pluralistic country to embrace its faith? I realize that arguments can be made as to whether it was genuine Christian faith...but the impact is unquestionable in my mind.

I think Christianity's influence upon art, lliterature, politics are quite substantial that may not have been possible without Constantine. I think within the church the rise of monasticism, the influence of Augustine, Aquinas, the Christian mystics, the rise of the Resnaasiance, the reformers, in my opinion, while all these happened within the church I think their influence is felt in the "pagan world" as well. While secular people helped shape many of these movements...there does seem to be an undercurrent of Christian theology and inlfuence within these threads.

I just think it is too easy to blame all the church's problems and corruption's upon this one move (conversion of Constantine) it is our history like it or not and we must wrestle with issues that you have mentioned. But it leaves the question what would the church look like without it? In terms of impact at least upon Western Civilization? While there are lots of bad (imperialism, colonialism, slavery, crusades, inquistions ect.)there is also great good.

Your thoughts?

[Adam McIntire]

Greg,
Thanks for your clarifications. I do think that it would make sense for someone to submit to this Ethic if say there was some larger story of humanity and that "We are all in this together, so let's help each other through it". One who is rich, powerful, affluent no doubt got there at someone elses expense and if they wish to climb the ladder they care not for humanity. (Why do I talk like that?) Like I said, maybe it is simply better for humanity. But maybe I'm still biased because I do think that Kingdom Ethics are the best ones.

RA,
Socrates would have loved what you said about people being predisposed to goodness or compassion. He saw philosophy as the ultimate litmus test for "goodness" in humanity. Whenever someone was arrested they would be rehabilitated using philosophy for three years and then released. If they committed another crime then they were scene as "bad" and would be put to death. Of course I don't know if anyone actually reformed because of philosophy, so maybe I don't have a good example for you. I however can say that before restructuring my beliefs under philosophical council I had quite a different value system.

Scott,
I've always read the gospels and the death of Jesus as a tragedy. I don't guess I'm a pacifist and all of those other good things because of the resurrection. I see the cross as the ultimate condemnation of evil. God sent us a perfect example of what humanity was supposed to be like, what the kingdom was supposed to be like on earth and told us to seek it. What did we do instead, we killed him. So I think that the commmandment stands even without the resurrection. Under a Christian rubric I would say that we could have been promised a resurrection and Christ have been the first of those resurrections, later. But maybe having the resurrection when it happened gave the story that extra "ummmpphhh" it needed to get us to do the right thing" like you said. Or, maybe the resurrection was telling us something important about what the eschaton would be like, that it is a worldly, bodily resurrection and so we should still be concerned about wordly, bodily things.

[Scott]

Greg,

As you wrote above,

"Some companies have strong, ethical leadership. They aren't good at making Christians either."

I agree, but making a Christian isn't the job of corporate officials and I would argue that it isn't the job of the senior pastor either. We influence by example, word, deed and faith. I don't know anywhere in scripture that a Christian was made. Early leaders such as Timothy were influenced, discipled, encouraged and disciplined. A senior pastor's job, mega church or any other, is to lead through means mentioned above thereby influenceing others to take up the cause of the kingdom; to find the story of the kingdom and live it out.

Mega churches, though seriously flawed in the vast and overwhelming majority, have the ability to create and nurture communities within the larger organism. How? I'm not sure, and I'm not sure there is a way, but I'm exploring several models(don't hate on me guys). Granted, there aren't many if any that are doing it right as mega-church examples but if what we as Christians and humans crave and thrive by is community, then it's the job of the church to create that sense of family, acceptance and faith.

Understand me fellow bloggers, I'm NOT echoing a "thumb-up" for mega-churches. For the most part they are a "nuclea-o-logical" fall out of the TBN syndrom which says bigger is better. There's a church down the street that has as it's goal to become a mega-church. He wants to be on TBN so bad he'd kiss Paul & Jan's @$$ to get his face on camera. In fact, he just put up on his marquee that he's going to be on TBN on Friday...We should all be so very proud of him. He's arived.

[Adam]

Scott,
How does a mega_church nurture the smaller communities and how does this community not become that persons church as Greg has argued?

[greg]

Dino,

I'm not sure what you mean by the impact of Christianity happening. It was happening until Constantine comes along and baptizes politics, war, violence, and all manner of things that were antithetical to this new ethic. The kingdom was supposed to be an alternative community, not part of the poltics of the culture in which it was embedded.

What does it matter is the influence is felt in the pagan world if the net result is cultural Christianity? If there is no modeling of the kingdom, then the faith that's being practiced is no faith at all. I appreciate the art and literature, but I'm sure they were possible without Constantine. The writing in I Corinthians 13 and in various passages in Hebrews is transcendent. If I had to choose between art that reflected a cultural understanding of Christianity's role and a church that was honestly modeling the kingdom, well, the art has to go... The rise of monasticism was a reaction against the Constantinian model. (A good reason I'm using them in my thesis.) As is often the case, those orders were eventually co-opted by the larger institution and used for the furtherance of the abberational model (the Jesuits being the most egregious example).

We will never know what the Church would have looked like without it. It is our history, but like any negative event in our personal lives, the goal is to overcome the effects, not synthesize them into some kind of workable compromise. An honest reading of the NT can't help but lead to huge questions about the kingdom and its alternative nature. If those questions are never seriously considered, then we will never attempt to model the kingdom. Constantine's kingdom was the world's kingdom; it's not ours. We shouldn't embrace it. As I've said before, the structures for compromise were already in place before Constantine, so the fault doesn't lie there completely. There is something pernicious about institutionalization. That's where the analysis needs to start.

[Scott]

Adam; Who are you saying is "that person"; the pastor or Joe Member?

As far as how? As I said before - I don't know. I believe it can be done, I am seeing limited results in some larger churches that I'm studying and we're doing some things very differently in our church. For starters, the Senior Pastor has to cease from being THE pastor and become the facilitator of fellowship and discipleship. He would have to seriously decentralize authority and control to undershepherds. I think that perhaps the resourses of the larger organism may be able to, if properly used, help create community through a system of some kind of small group structure (ours are called Passion Groups). Hopefully through good leadership, these small groups built around fellowship an discipleship lead to other types ministry within the church such as missions and mission training, homeless and transient ministries, neighborhood mentorships, Probationary Mentorship for probabioners and their children AND the children of those currently incarcerated; those are just to name a few that we've implimented so far. We're actually partnering with Harris County (Houston) in this faith based initiative for most of the mentorship programs with the majoritiy of the 134 mentors coming from this community in North Houston.

Sorry for the long narrative but if you want to be critical, at least be aware of what we're trying here.

[Dino Zaragoza]

Greg,

What I meant was that that the world wide impact of Christianity would have been inevitible(sp?) without Constantine...resulting in the same dilemma...I agree that the kingdom is to be an alternative community but not so alternative that it is completely divorced from culture...too me that was the extreme form of monasticism...isn't that the whole struggle of being in the world but not of it?

I think this has been the struggle of the church since. My belief is that the church exists for the world and not for itself...to be peacemakers...to help the poor...to love our neighbors and our enemies...to take care of the environment...to care for the sick...point people to God (Jesus)for the possibility of human redemption as well as the redemption of creation. Isn't that the whole premise of being a blessing to all nations? Global and world impact? Seeing the Kingdom of God come to earth (I do believe the Kingdom has been inaugurated, but not completely revealed)?

There will always be a struggle for the church of being faithful to the Kingdom and the ethics of the Kingdom and becoming a whore. At the same time there must be a participation and dialogue within the structures of culture and the world in order to see social transformation and establish Kingdom ethics.

[Adam]

Scott,
I'm very sorry if it sounded like I was trying to attack. I was just very honestly asking what you meant by those things because it was a bit unclear.

"That person" is any person that is a member of that larger organism and also belonging to the smaller organism.

Also, isn't "authority" and "control" the rhetoric of the institution? I think what streak said about mega-churches ability to be good institutions is what it sounds like your church is doing (again, I'm really really not trying to offend you). I think it is possible for an institution to do benevolent things and I definately encourage that. But it doesn't sound much like a community or "church", if you will, to have control or authority. I have to admit though I haven't made up my mind on this whole issue yet because I'm not sure how small communities are supposed to interact. I'm interested to see what Greg has to say on that issue. I'm not ready to say that the larger organism can't create community, but I think I'm willing to say that it definately isn't a community. Perhaps though, we don't disagree on that point.

[greg]

Scott,

There are so many assumptions in your response to Adam I can't keep up with them. But, starting with your previous comment: making Christians isn't the job of the senior pastor. Really? What is his job then? You don't know where a Christian was made in Scripture. Really? Which version are you reading, the New Abridged? The task of the church in the NT was to make Christians and to help each other (Christians) bear witness to the truth of the person, Jesus.

Since there is nothing called a senior pastor in the Scriptures, you can't say what his job is as if it's a given. His job is something we sort of make up. I can tell you historically and traditionally, the pastor's job has been to preach, visit, counsel, marry, bury, study, instruct, teach, fellowship with, bless sacraments, etc. This revisioning of the pastoral task you're talking about makes the word pastor a nonsense word. Undershepherds? You mean the people that do the real work, right?

And this statement: "Mega churches, though seriously flawed in the vast and overwhelming majority, have the ability to create and nurture communities within the larger organism. How? I'm not sure, and I'm not sure there is a way..." You realize you just said they could do something and then admitted you don't know how or if it's acutally possible? May I ask how you know if you don't know how? You've made an assumption that is direct conflict with what I said in the post, so at least have something to back it up with.

They (megachurches) are not just fallout from the TBN syndrome. The problem is much deeper: it goes to the heart of what it is to be American, and even to what it means to embrace liberal democracy in some senses (not liberal politics). They are the ultimate temple to the self. They are the logical trajectory of a politic that insists the telos of life is happiness. They are the end result of Christianity cut loose from its historical moorings and cast adrift on a sea of consumerism.

In your response to Adam you wrote: "For starters, the Senior Pastor has to cease from being THE pastor and become the facilitator of fellowship and discipleship..." This is such a huge assumption I was nearly speechless when I read it. Why does she have to cease from this task? Who said? What warrant do you have for making that statement? Stop being THE pastor? In order to facilitate? How do you facilitate fellowship? Scott, you facilitate fellowship by fellowshipping. You facilitate discipleship by discipling people. The senior pastor, if you believe in those sorts of things (I tend not to.), has to be THE pastor because that's the task of pastoring. If they want to be a bishop, let them join the Methodists and work their way up. If they want to be CEO's, let them get a real job and work their way up. If they want to be pastors, then pastor the damn church.

You're talking about small groups again. Small groups are churches, Scott. I can't say that enough times. Why go to a large church to find a small one? It makes no sense. As to Scott J's question about fellowship between small churches, I think it's a wonderful idea. I think it's what we ought to be doing. You can even pool resources for missions, outreach, benevolence, whatever you choose to call it. The process of making disciples happens in a small group of friends though.

Scott, we're critical because the model simply doesn't work. I'm sorry. You've offered no evidence that it does. I'm glad you're partnering with Harris County, but honestly, the Lions Club can do that. The question isn't just "do you do good things?" More importantly, it is "do you model the kingdom of God with your fellowship, service, and witness?" That's a loaded question, I know, but I've fleshed out what I mean in many previous posts. From what I've seen, for the megachurch, the answer is no, no, and no.

[Allison]

Has anyone read The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky? Let me recommend it to all as a text that shows the individual and community in perfect balance exactly as is being described here. I did my senior seminar on this book and it helped me articulate and really see how the church MUST function: in acknowledgment of our fallenness, we much humbly submit to a community where we practice love and grace and are prepared to overflow into a larger culture. Dostoevsky's concept of Christian socialism based on the ethical deed is fascinating and set up as a response to Marxist thought. I recommend this book to anyone wanting to dig a bit into literature for similar ideas. Long yes, but excellent!

As much as many dislike the mega-church, I equally hate the American "I am an island" mentality. I think it's equally as destructive. I think the church can serve as a hiding place for this independent, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps isolation. It isn't how the church was intended to be either.

[Scott Jones]

Allison,

When I read Brothers Karamazov, I didn't get that out of it. Plus, it's been a few years. Please expand on what you were saying.

[Scott]

Adam,

No attack taken. Like you, I'm merely exploring possibilities and searching for answers. I'm not convinced that any of this research is even worth my time but we'll see.

You're right that control and authority are institutional phrases, I used them as frame of reference. Our fellowship doesn't use them either, but for purposes of this discussion and for relevance to the majority of the Mega-church phenom, I used them.

I agree with about a large church in it's typical or present structure not being community. Community at it's root meaning means to share or mutuality. Those terms aren't reflected well in the present state of the mega church.

Oh by the way Adam, I appreciate the courtesy very much. By me saying "if you want to be critical..." I wasn't refering to you, but to everyone because I knew I might get an ass kicking for what I wrote and I was right. I'm used to being the Resident Whipping Post but it's totally cool. (laughing) I think most of us learn from one another as well as push each other's buttons...it's stimulating.

[Resident Atheist]

My take on church-state relations in Brothers K was that when you put Zosima's views in full context of his life and death, people will inevitably fall into the idolatry of revering the embodiment of a vision of the kingdom (or the Kingdom) rather than becoming embodiments themselves; hence the scandal when Zosima's corpse didn't smell sweet after it had had a chance to decay. I took that to mean that Zosima's vision failed to materialize because his followers were more interested in praising him than imitating him.

But like Scott Jones, I haven't read the book in several years, so I'm open to revisiting the issue.

Cheers,
RA

[Adam]

Allison,
I just finished Brothers K this summer and I didn't get much of what you are talking about either so I would love it if you would expound a bit.

RA,
That is a good way to put that episode. It also speaks alot to why father Zosima told Alyosha the leave after he was dead.

Scott,
Thanks for your response. I've started trying to be more and more courteous in my responses (I think I'm in danger of actually becoming a good person these days) because I've found that it is hard enough to get people to understand the content of what you are saying without the personality issues. Besides these issues tend to be very touchy with most people. But as to the mega-church I'm interested in why you are trying to preserve it. I grew up in it and I guess my reasons for it were to validate my experience growing up. But the more I spend time around the more I see how messed up and inadequate it is and I've finally just given up on it. Anyway, just curious.

[Scott]

Adam

I guess I'm not really trying to save the mega church, it's doing pretty well without my help. I'm actually looking for ways for larger churches to create a sense of community with out closing the doors and scattering the people. I'm not really a mega-church lover either; I've been there and like you said, it's like a trip to Disney world...you're just there to enjoy what they've built. But if there is some way to combine effective leadership, fellowship, discipleship through ethical leadership and submission one to another and to scripture in the way Jesus would have us do it, AND salvage the efforts of others then the theory of creating community within large churches can begin to take on concrete form. Like I said, I'm not sure it can ever really work. To be honest with you, I don't find many mega-churches that I'd approach with this stuff, and I don't think that ANY of them would even listen to the theory; and for that reason it may be a complete waste of time but I am more curious than confident in my quest.

Here's a thought; our church in North Houston is growing extremely fast, but the alarming thing to us as it's leadership is the "transfer growth". That is people who just decided they didn't like the preacher at First Pres, or the music at the Methodist church was too boreing...you pick the reason. We don't really want transfer growth, but the things we advocate seem to be compelling. For instance, missions and servitude; tradition and balance; the very facts that church isn't about US is so new to these people that it's creating a surge towards the layperson finding a place to serve; it's a bizarr church situation. Suppose our church becomes a "mega" by definition? I just don't know where we'll go from there or if I'll be able to continue as I am now. Hopefully you can see my reasoning for trying. We just don't know the solution; splinter the congregation or foster a sense of community with evidense of Kingdom thinking within the larger number?

[Adam]

Scott,
I think I see the dilemma. I think it would be a bit different for me if I was in leadership at a church that was growing to be one of these "megas". I hope that you find something that is good for your situation. But, in the spirit of the blog, if Greg is right, and I think he is, then what you are looking for can't ever happen. If you figure it out though, let me know, cause I'll be on my way there.

[Scott Jones]

The church I grew up in was a large church at its peak and for its time. But it built about 20 other churches through its history. That seemed to be the model of big Baptist churches in the mid-twentieth century. But the mega-churches seems to gather all things unto themselves. Why don't they build more mission churches?

[Scott]

S Jones

I agree completely. The mission church is an idea we've been looking at for a long time now. This is one way I've seen real success for larger churches duplicating ministry. Actually I'd like to see more resourses sent into either foreign missions and the work of the church there or domestic missions in poor areas. We're actually about to dive into that task at the first of the year, with the first mission church going up in the early spring. The location isn't known yet, but we're thinking somewhere in Houston's 5th ward (known by the locals as "inside the loop of death").

Adam

I'm not motivated merely by my own morals here, but by the prospect that doing things right can bring growth; the key is to do the right thing with growth and use resourses for the kingdom's task and not to the task of sustaining the church. I'm following Greg's advise and tackling some of Yoder's readings on the church and it's purpose. It is challenging to my thinking and I believe it will ultimately shape my role.