;)
Consumer Christianity
Posted by David Rogers in Church & Missions
Watch the following 5-minute video.
1. Taking into account that the video is obviously a spoof, intended primarily as satirical humor, to what degree do you think it accurately portrays a mindset present in much of American evangelicalism today?
2. Do you think it is good for churches to adapt their program and activities in such a way as to make them more attractive to the unbelieving and/or unchurched prospect?
3. Do you think it is good for churches to adapt their program and activities in such a way as to make them more “user-friendly” for the members?
4. Is it right for churches to use the way they adapt their program and activities as a means to attract new members from other churches?
5. What are some typical ways in which churches frequently do the things mentioned in questions 2, 3, and 4?
6. Some church growth studies show that successful marketing is an important factor in maintaining positive church growth. But is numerical growth necessarily healthy growth?
7. To what degree do you think consumer Christianity is an example of the church being influenced by the culture, rather than the culture being influenced by the church?
8. What are some biblical principles that can help us discern the difference between healthy church marketing (if such a thing exists) and unhealthy church marketing?
9. What are some practical suggestions to help churches that might want to be more biblical in regard to all of this?
;){kind=logo}
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;){kind=logo}
Dave,
I remember seeing a short video of a man in a park simply looking up into a tree with his hands in his pockets. The passersby that noticed his gaze followed his eye trajectory to see what he was looking at. Many stopped and focused upon the area where he was gazing to see something that would cause someone to stare up into a tree.
I am unable to see the video you have posted because I am at work this morning but I get the idea of what it may be talking about in your following questions. I struggle inwardly with the approach the churches are taking today to get new members or sinners to join. I recall a scene from M.A.S.H. when the doctor, Charles Emerson Winchester the III, was dreaming that he could not save the patient through the proven surgical procedures he was taught and put on a funny mask and began to dance around to see if that would help. Even though that is a harsh example it fits with what the church is doing today. All we are doing is dressing up pigs and building our buildings over the wallow so it doesn’t look like they are returning to it.
Maybe our approach should not be such a focus on “attracting”, “influencing”, “marketing”, “methodical”, “programs” or the like. Maybe we should simply gaze upon our Lord and Savior. He was the one who said to Peter in Matthew 16:18 “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”
Great post, Dave. Thank you.
It depends on what we want to accomplish.
Despite Rick Warren’s jumping on the business bandwagon and urging churches to write vision and mission statements (which are oddly indistinguishable from Warren’s vision and mission statements)it turns out that few churches really invested time, effort, prayer, and soul-searching into the effort of trying to determine exactly what their purpose was intended to be.
I must believe that or I would fall into despair if it were true that every church with a purpose statement determined that they exist for self-serving ends.
In an era of Christless Christianity, this is the symptom, not the disease. Leaving our First Love is the disease.
David,
2. Do you think it is good for churches to adapt their program and activities in such a way as to make them more attractive to the unbelieving and/or unchurched prospect?
I think one of the issues that we forget is that the Church is made up of believers. The New Testament never suggests that non-believers are part of the church, yet many of the seminars and church-planting gurus talk about reaching the “unchurched.” Outreach is good and our corporate gatherings should have an element of outreach, but that is not the focus of our gatherings. I think many of the trendy and hip churches have shifted the target people group from saved to the lost.
Many of these churches have tremendous growth, people get saved, and disciples are cultivated. So I don’t want to say they aren’t producing good fruit. But what else are they (or we) producing. If I have a small tree that produces ten good pears and one bad pear, is that worse than a large tree that produces one hundred pears but only ten are edible?
Here is a quote I found online from a modern church’s page depicting some of their rationale for their ministry strategy:
Should we attempt to sing praises to God and teach from the Word with non-members (which consist largely of non-Christians) as our main focus? There is nothing wrong with doing things that may be “attractive” to the lost as long as they are beneficial to the saved. I personally prefer to sit on cussioned chairs than wooden pews. If lost people like that too, then good for them. But if we are picking our music and our songs with the lost as our main focus, are we not patronizing our great God and Savior who tells us that true worshippers will worship Him in spirit and in truth? How then can a lost person trully sing praises to our God when his heart is rank with sin?
I’m sure it has happened already, but I fear the day when a church comes out and says that the time of communion is really uncomfortable for guests and visitors, so they’ve decided to encourage everybody to participate. Would you not be offended?
Bottom line: the church in the New Testament was open to outsiders and sensitive to them (cf. 1 Cor. 14). But they were still considered outsiders. The corporate gathering of believers served for the edification of the believers. Most, if not all, of the evangelism took place outside of the corporate gathering of the church. Trends today seem to advocate turning our gatherings into an evangelism event.
Thanks for the comments so far. I guess I ought to try my hand at answering my own questions, too. So, here goes…
1. Taking into account that the video is obviously a spoof, intended primarily as satirical humor, to what degree do you think it accurately portrays a mindset present in much of American evangelicalism today?
In the article I link to in question #6, Marler and Roozen are quoted as saying, “Our analyses show that the increasing dominance of religious consumerism, as a form of cultural individualism, is the most important change in the American religious marketplace of the late 1980s.” I think they were probably on target, and this trend hasn’t been reversed since the late 80s. It is more prevalent in conservative, evangelistically-oriented churches than in mainline, not evangelistically-oriented churches, though. Some conservative churches may well have fallen into the extreme patterns suggested in an exaggerated caricature by the video, but not all.
2. Do you think it is good for churches to adapt their program and activities in such a way as to make them more attractive to the unbelieving and/or unchurched prospect?
I believe that one of the primary tasks of local churches is to evangelize the lost, and that we ought, as Christians to strive to do all that we do as well as we can. Thus, in a real sense, yes, we ought to design programs and activities that we think have potential to be more successful at reaching the unreached.
At the same time, I agree to a certain degree with Andrew that, perhaps, Sunday “worship services” are not necessarily the best time for doing this. The seeker-service idea is based on the premise that Sunday morning at church is one of the best opportunities we have for preaching the gospel to the unreached, so we should take advantage of that—we can do those things the church does that ought to be focused toward believers at other times.
In theory, this is an idea worth taking into consideration. I don’t see that the Sunday morning hour is necessarily sacred. However, today, it would seem that Sunday morning seeker services are less effective, in general, than perhaps 10 to 20 years ago. I think that, for the future, a more missional (“go” as opposed to “come”) approach will prove more effective.
Also, if we neglect the responsibility of the church to do those things it ought to do with/for the believers/members in favor of evangelism/outreach, that is unbalanced, and ultimately counter-productive.
3. Do you think it is good for churches to adapt their program and activities in such a way as to make them more “user-friendly” for the members?
I think everything we do in our churches ought to be evaluated in light of its ultimate usefulness in helping us to reach the “end-vision” of Eph. 4:12–16 (i.e. discipleship, spiritual maturity, and unity). Some of the things that members “like” do not contribute positively toward the “end-vision.” Others may.
4. Is it right for churches to use the way they adapt their program and activities as a means to attract new members from other churches?
No. I think it is important that, in the way we “market” our church program and activities, we are not in competition with other churches, or trying to do something bigger and better than them, but rather that, all we do, we do in solidarity with the Body of Christ at large, and in partnership with the other local churches in our locality.
5. What are some typical ways in which churches frequently do the things mentioned in questions 2, 3, and 4?
Christian concerts, celebrity speakers, advertising “worship styles,” church signs, newspaper ads, lavish facilities, etc.
I don’t think any of these things are bad in and of themselves, but all have the potential to contribute to an unhealthy attitude of consumerism.
6. Some church growth studies show that successful marketing is an important factor in maintaining positive church growth. But is numerical growth necessarily healthy growth?
Obviously not. I think Willow Creek’s “Reveal” study a couple of years ago was very “revealing” in this respect. I appreciate, however, their honesty and integrity in recognizing this publicly, and taking steps to correct it.
7. To what degree do you think consumer Christianity is an example of the church being influenced by the culture, rather than the culture being influenced by the church?
I think this is a big part of the problem. It is very easy to let the culture around us influence what we do, without being aware of what we are doing. I don’t think it should surprise us that the most consumeristic churches are located in the country most influenced by consumerism as a culture.
8. What are some biblical principles that can help us discern the difference between healthy church marketing (if such a thing exists) and unhealthy church marketing?
Once again, I think Eph. 4:12-16 is a key passage. We should always ask ourselves, “In the long run, is this contributing to discipleship, spiritual maturity, and unity with the Body of Christ around the world?”
9. What are some practical suggestions to help churches that might want to be more biblical in regard to all of this?
I think we would do well to have Eph. 4:12-16 before us, and read it in all planning meetings, and ask ourselves, Does this activity or this emphasis really and truly contribute positively toward the “end-vision”? Is there another way we could do things that would contribute in a more positive way toward this “end-vision”? Are there hidden agendas, or other competing “end-visions,” we need to expose for what they are?
This seems to spring from a false dichotomy. The implication is that we can love the truth or we can do church growth. Let’s look at the questions in light of this false dichotomy and, like Jesus, refuse to be gored on one horn of a dilemma or the other.
1. Taking into account that the video is obviously a spoof, intended primarily as satirical humor, to what degree do you think it accurately portrays a mindset present in much of American evangelicalism today?
A. A great deal. Clearly the impression both in and out of the church is that worship is a consumer-driven exercise fueling both an abandonment of institutional worship by the young and a distrust by the unbelievers who see through marketing scams like nobody’s business. Witness the last election cycle. Was anyone fooled by the attack ads?
However, and this is the more accurate question, to what degree does it portray how actual worship services are run? I don’t know anyone who has a growth strategy centered on pandering to worldlings. It’s called a lot of high-sounding things and it isn’t portrayed this crassly, but no one involved in pandering (that I’ve met, anyway) actually thinks what they are doing is pandering. Maybe we need to ask, how closely does perception line up with reality?
Is your church like this? Are you pandering? What about the churches in your fellowship? The association?
2. Do you think it is good for churches to adapt their program and activities in such a way as to make them more attractive to the unbelieving and/or unchurched prospect?
A. As opposed to deliberately making them unattractive and unappealing?
This is the wrong question. The question needs to be, “What is it that we have to offer that is both most valuable and most appealing to sinners?” We offer forgiveness and redemption.
The trouble is, we are trying too hard to appeal to those who are not sinners. Either we want to attract more bright, shiny families than the church down the street or else we want to attract the bright, shiny families that just moved into the neighborhood but aren’t going to church anywhere at the moment.
Few of us are in the business of being truly attractive and appealing to those most in need of salvation. The respectable people found Jesus disturbing. The rich found him ultimately unappealing and walked away because he wasn’t worth giving up their wealth for. Publicans and sinners, on the other hand, flocked to him, much to the chagrin of the respectable people of the day.
If we are trying to appeal to the suburban soccer mom, then sure, we need to be more attractive and appealing. Rick Warren taught us how. If we want to be attractive to HIV sufferers, prostitutes, junkies, and inner city throw-away kids who bounce from one unofficial foster home to another, then, well, I don’t know what church growth book to read on that. The Gospels, maybe.
3. Do you think it is good for churches to adapt their program and activities in such a way as to make them more “user-friendly” for the members?
A. As opposed to “that’s the way we’ve always done it” or making things user un-friendly just so participants have to run through a gauntlet to attend so as to weed out the Sunday Morning Onlies from the True Faithful?
As an end in itself? Certainly not. As a means to an end? Even that is suspect. As a natural consequence of how we conduct our corporate activities before God Himself? But of course.
4. Is it right for churches to use the way they adapt their program and activities as a means to attract new members from other churches?
A. Trick question. Unless a church is actively preventing this (and I know of none that do) and refusing people who are currently members in good standing with another congregation to attend,I don’t see that this is a helpful question.
If we are a church that is seeking and saving the lost instead of the whole who have no need of a physician, then we will likely, by design, not be the kind of church that is appealing to typical church-hoppers. On the other hand, if the gay-bashing pastor down the street so offends his church member who is in Exodus international and the constant anti-abortion rhetoric grieves the woman who had one performed 20 years ago when she was a wild thing in college, where else do they go?
5. What are some typical ways in which churches frequently do the things mentioned in questions 2, 3, and 4?
A. Do we even want to know? I guess if it makes us feel like, “I thank thee, God, that we are not as other churches are…” then let’s go full speed ahead. Even better would be, “This is what we do at First Baptist and as a result of this article I’m repenting in sackcloth and ashes and we aren’t going to do that any more.”
And what of those who preach against such churches while envying them at the same time? That was my bugaboo. I didn’t jump on the Purpose-Driven bandwagon and eventually sold the building to another Baptist church while the PD church down the road continues to grow by leaps and bounds.
6. Some church growth studies show that successful marketing is an important factor in maintaining positive church growth. But is numerical growth necessarily healthy growth?
A. Is no numerical growth healthy growth? It doesn’t have to be an either/or. Or can we content ourselves in saying, “God didn’t call me to be successful. He called me to be faithful,” and be consoled that we’re doing everything right and it’s not our fault that no one new is coming? (And no, I don’t want to go down that road again, but you all know what I mean.)
7. To what degree do you think consumer Christianity is an example of the church being influenced by the culture, rather than the culture being influenced by the church?
A. 100%. Just like the clothing we wear is influenced by the culture, the language we speak, the way we comb our hair, the musical choices we make, the instrumentation, the way we park our cars, the architecture, the… I could go on ad infinitum.
To what degree do you think Christ was an example of being influenced by the culture instead of influencing the culture? For that matter, what sweeping cultural change did Jesus bring about in His earthly ministry? Or was he here to seek and to save that which was lost, not redeem the culture?
So, yes, the question does get answered. But is this a question about anything that really matters? Are we called to establish a Christian counterculture? Some would say yes. Or are we called to live out the gospel?
8. What are some biblical principles that can help us discern the difference between healthy church marketing (if such a thing exists) and unhealthy church marketing?
A. The book of Jeremiah followed by the book of Ezekiel, especially the last half.
9. What are some practical suggestions to help churches that might want to be more biblical in regard to all of this?
A. Love them until they ask us why.
Rick,
Thanks for your thoughtful replies. The purpose of the questions was not to get us to take sides simplistically one way or the other on this (“yes” or “no”), but rather to get us to thinking, and see, if among us, we can come up with some edifying and helpful ideas related to this.
Was I being polemical?
I was merely trying to be incendiary.
Let the discussion begin. I think I’ve added enough kindling to your tinder to get the blaze nice and hot.
Jeremiah and Ezekiel…
Would the following verses, perhaps, sum up what you are getting at here?
Ezekiel 2:3–7
And he said to me, “Son of man, I send you to the people of Israel, to nations of rebels, who have rebelled against me. They and their fathers have transgressed against me to this very day. The descendants also are impudent and stubborn: I send you to them, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD.’ And whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house) they will know that a prophet has been among them. And you, son of man, be not afraid of them, nor be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns are with you and you sit on scorpions. Be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, for they are a rebellious house. And you shall speak my words to them, whether they hear or refuse to hear, for they are a rebellious house.
I finally got to watch the video and want to answer the questions.
1. Taking into account that the video is obviously a spoof, intended primarily as satirical humor, to what degree do you think it accurately portrays a mindset present in much of American evangelicalism today?
BASED UPON THE PEOPLE’S RESPONSE TO THE PREACHING AND TEACHING, I WOULD SAY THE SATIRICAL HUMOR IS ACTUAL WITHIN THE CHURCH BECAUSE OUR LIVES WOULD FALL WITHIN THE SAME SATIRE EVEN IF WE ARE PLUS OR MINUS ABOUT 50% OF WHAT THEY ACTED OUT. IT IS REALLY THE SAME NO MATTER HOW SILLY WE TRY TO MAKE IT. LUKEWARM HAS A WIDE RANGE.
2. Do you think it is good for churches to adapt their program and activities in such a way as to make them more attractive to the unbelieving and/or unchurched prospect?
THERE HAS TO BE A BALANCE. IF THE GOAL IS TO BE BALANCED IT WOULD BE WRONG. IF WE FOCUS ON CHRIST AND OUR LIFESTYLE MAKES IT MORE ATTRACTIVE THEN WE WILL KNOW BY THE RESULTS. WE CANNOT BE THINKING OUR WORK IS WHAT MAKES THINGS HAPPEN.
3. Do you think it is good for churches to adapt their program and activities in such a way as to make them more “user-friendly” for the members?
IT WOULD BE GOOD TO MAKE THINGS USER FRIENDLY, HOWEVER, SUFFERING HELPS ELIMINATE THE FLESH. IF WE SIMPLY FOCUS ON USER FRIENDLY WE MISS THE MARK.
4. Is it right for churches to use the way they adapt their program and activities as a means to attract new members from other churches?
NO. THAT IS TOO FLESHLY. WHEN WE DEVELOP PROGRAMS AND THEY WORK WE THINK WE DID SOMETHING AND GIVE GOD OR THE HOLY SPIRIT THE GLORY. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.
5. What are some typical ways in which churches frequently do the things mentioned in questions 2, 3, and 4?
I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THAT CHURCHES DO THE THINGS IN 2, 3, AND 4 BECAUSE THEY HAVE SEEN RESULTS IN THE PAST. THAT IS WHERE WE GET IN TROUBLE WITH OUR FAITH BECAUSE BE BEGIN TO USE FORMULAS TO DETERMINE HOW WE DO OUR BUSINESS.
6. Some church growth studies show that successful marketing is an important factor in maintaining positive church growth. But is numerical growth necessarily healthy growth?
JUST TO HAVE THE NUMBERS MEANS THAT YOU HAVE TO COMPROMISE SOME WHERE. MANY ARE CALLED, FEW ARE CHOSEN. WE HAVE TO LOVE IN SUCH A WAY THAT WE ALLOW SOME TO LEAVE. I THINK OUR WESTERN MIND-SET WILL NOT ALLOW US TO DO THAT.
7. To what degree do you think consumer Christianity is an example of the church being influenced by the culture, rather than the culture being influenced by the church?
I DON’T THINK OUR CULTURE IS INFLUENCE BY CHRISTIANITY. I THINK IT IS REPULSED BY CHRISTIANITY. IT IS THOSE WHO WATER DOWN CHRISTIANITY TO INFLUENCE THE WORLD THAT HAVE BECOME CULTURIZED BY THE WORLD.
8. What are some biblical principles that can help us discern the difference between healthy church marketing (if such a thing exists) and unhealthy church marketing?
MATTHEW 25:31-46 TALKS ABOUT THE SAVED AND UNSAVED IN THE JUDGEMENT. THE SAVED HAVE DONE THINGS THEY DON’T REALIZE THAT THEY HAVE DONE. THE LOST THINK THEY HAVE DONE SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE NOT. THE PRINCIPLE IS THAT WE REALLY DON’T KNOW WHAT WE DO THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT WORKS IN US TO DO. THE OTHER CROWD THINKS THEY HAVE DONE SOMETHING AND THEY HAVE NOT. THE PRINCIPLE IS THAT WE DO NOT KNOW WE ARE DOING WHAT GOD IS DOING THROUGH US.
9. What are some practical suggestions to help churches that might want to be more biblical in regard to all of this?
IF WE WOULD JUST FOCUS ON JESUS. IF WE WOULD JUST FOCUS ON THE HOLY SPIRIT. IF WE WOULD JUST FOCUS ON THE FATHER. WE WOULD WALK A DIFFERENT LIFE AND WE WOULD BE DOING WHAT GOD WOULD HAVE US DO WITHOUT TRYING (ROMANS 2:14.
David Rogers (author) said:
Rick,
Thanks for your thoughtful replies. The purpose of the questions was not to get us to take sides simplistically one way or the other on this (“yes” or “no”), but rather to get us to thinking, and see, if among us, we can come up with some edifying and helpful ideas related to this.
People always take sides. Sometimes they are on the same side and don’t know it. We are an opinionated world (in my opinion..haha)and we get more pleasure in expressing our thoughts than actually doing something about problems. As a pastor, I need less opinions about the Kingdom and more doing for the Kingdom.
Thanks,
Karl