Isn't this recommending the ultimate in a consumeristic church? Choose the teacher you want, at the time you want, and meet with the people you want at the place you want?

The question is asked, Is the church delivering what the market needs? Perhaps the more significant question is this: Does the church understand what the "market" actually needs? Or will the church continue to pursue the surface needs at the expense of the deeper needs?

It sounds like Spencer left one consumeristic model for another? Was that really an improvement?

The whole problem with a consumer mindset is that it assumes the primary reason for the body of Christ to meet is to get something. But we meet to worship! Not to get - but to give! As long as the church is focused on meeting the needs of any particular group (i.e. consumers), the focus is skewed. When the focus is on worship, giving to God, the Lover of our souls meets everyone where they are. He's the only one who can.

Amen!
At first I thought this was a rant against relevancy. Just the opposite. Too many churches have become (in contrast to the Apostle Paul) one thing to reach a few.
While trying to avoid the sin of idealism (see Bonhoeffer), what can be done to improve our offerings (to the people, not from them)?

No DVD can kneel next to me and pray for me. No TiVo can listen to my anxieties or hopes. No TV program can give me a chance to teach little ones about Jesus. Or offer me the bread and the cup.

The church has so much to offer, if leaders will answer the question "what do you have in your hand?"

In an effort to grow churches, many modern leaders tend to focus on strategies and programs aimed at improving their relevance, excellence, and appeal. A lot of the leadership rhetoric within church circles today is really about building a church as opposed to being the church.

It’s relatively easy to create an institution, but it is a lengthy, painful, and demanding process to change a heart or influence a life. All the more so when you consider our dysfunctions, wounds, and cultural schizophrenia.

Many churches today are opting to be vendors of ecclesiastical goods and services, instead of getting into the shoes of their community and becoming relationally and spiritually influential.

Having planted a community church, I’m haunted by the efforts of many churches today. When a church is driven by the pursuit of relevance and excellence, it tends to make people focus on building winsome services, events, programs, or facilities. That produces an “If you build it, they will come” mentality. Rather than develop compelling people who are equipped to enter into the lives of people in their community in an incarnational way, they build compelling attractions and equip people to keep the church machine greased and running.

Although there are many churches who have created “both/and” winsome people and winsome events, most church leaders are ill-equipped for such highly complex leadership and end up giving in to the “either/or” reality. They become driven by fads, where congregational enthusiasm is connected to style, and momentum seems to rise and fall with the “cool-factor” of events.

And doesn’t it seem like there’s a church on every corner hanging out a shingle offering a contemporary event, which, in most cases, is tantamount to a wrinkly old lady wearing teen fashion?

Spencer is asking an important question, Is the church (both local and global) communicating the gospel in ways that are most readily received and processed? This is really a part of a much bigger question which is, "What is the mission of the church?" Stop for a minute and ask, what would my city, or our nation look like if people really understood the message of Jesus?

That of course leads to the bigger and critical question: "What was the message of Jesus?" How people process faith depends in large degree to how they answer that last question.

I think Burke is right on. I've departed a megachurch aspiring congregation recently due to the same short-sighted and consumer driven mentality. The organizational and communication paradigm for The Church from the last millennium must change.

I do bristle at applying the economic metaphor to The Church. While I see the point being made, I think we should avoid putting The Church and the Gospel in that context. Part of the issue for church leaders is getting them to reject a transactional, consumerist metaphor for what they're doing. "Selling" any "product" is not the "business" of the church, and is actually why, as Burke asks, people "don’t want what the church is currently selling."

I look forward to the full article.

Yes, megachurches may play to the wrong audience. But Spencer's response is hardly any better. Neither seems to be aware that worship is for an audience of One.

How is high wattage video worship any worse than iPod-download-teaching supplemented with the small group of my choice? Both are anthropocentric.

Isn't the church about bringing ourselves TO GOD, confessing our sins, acknowledging that he is Lord and we are not, receiving forgiveness, remembering Jesus through the bread and the cup, renewing our commitment to serve in His name, and living it out with the ecclesia (those gathered) in this household of faith who aren't like me?

I don't see submission, sacrifice, or group sanctification in either of the models Burke cites. Just different ways of tickling our ears. Have we forgotten why Hebrews tells us not to forsake our gathering together?

Beautiful Spencer,

I particularly love the banking analogy! It is interesting that we are still forming weekend gatherings that focus primarily on listening to one speaker when we have instant access to some of the best learning resources ever and our people are highly literate. No wonder people are losing interest. Why come to hear the preacher? After all, Erwin Mcmanus is podcasting and I would rather listen to him than myself anyday. Why come to worship with the band? I can take a walk with my ipod on the beach! Why come to be with friends? Can't we just "do lunch" and fellowship together outside of the church building?

We have to consider that the value of being together collectively is found elsewhere if it is to be found at all. Is there something vibrant and alive about gathering around the scriptures with other people rather than alone? What would it look like to involve the whole faith community in this process? Might that offer something that the podcast (no offense Erwin, you're still my favorite) doesn't? Is there something powerful and transformative about standing in a room with others to proclaim allegiance to God with voices raised in song or collective praise? (Perhaps we should empasize this in our collective times and leave the band behind or at least deemphasize it). We could escape the so called worship wars forever by letting God's creative purpose for the ipod find its fulfillment in individual times of worship. Is there something powerful about setting aside collective time to observe the sacrament and offer prayers for and encouragement to one another? Is there something beneficial about a community of people living in the mission of Jesus gathering together to encourage and "provoke" one another unto love and good works, in turn recieving the blessing of that encouragement and returning to that mission with renewed zeal and perspective? Is there something compelling about people getting together to honor God who have nothing in common but a committment to following Jesus?

Some people might have a hard time recognizing the gathering of the ecclesia without all the steriods we inject into it and the make up we pour on. Is there something underneath all of that that is worth preserving? I agree with Spencer that we must start with mission be willing to re-tool. We may need to undergo some pretty severe pruning, but I think that fundamentally there is still marvelous fruit to be had in the collective life of the community of faith.

I am a recovering Mega church pastor ('mega' being relative to the city I live in!). I was an associate in a large church, when I left, after suffering some depression, and being a bit disolutioned and having read "Escape From Church Inc." by Wagner I was told by many, "Oh you will be back". I am now not sure if that was a threat..."Oh you had BETTER be back". Meaning if you don't come back there is one less person to justify this model of church? Or did it mean, "You wont make it 'out there', this is where it's at". I am not sure why many said, "you'll be back" but it was said...and 4 years later I am not back, in fact I am further removed from the mega model than ever, and loving it, the way I do church cost lots less too! In fact I am removed enough to 'go back' from time to time and enjoy the experience.

Spencer Burke's idea isn't lost on me.

I believe that much of today's so-called "life change" preaching tends to be little more than recipe theology at best and hyper-spiritualized psychology at worst. The current line of reasoning keeps chanting "felt needs, felt needs", but before long, they all sound like five steps to this and seven keys to that. Modern day messages tend to devolve into an unemotional transfer of information and ideas--a collection of enthusiastic concepts rising from the pastor's passion for study and desire to please the crowd. The sermon is frequently disconnected and out of touch with the heart of the congregation, unaware of the common rhythms and themes that flow through the emotional and relational experience of the larger body.

Is it any surprise that Sunday morning is just one of many consumer-influenced products to choose from? And could the one-ups-manship demanded of churches/church leadders be an attempt to compete with the culture or with the church down the street? Is the church just another option on the compartmentalized menu of modern life?

Chad wrote: "Isn't the church about bringing ourselves TO GOD, confessing our sins,..." Actually, as far as I can tell it's all about obeying Heb. 10:25: "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together...." Nowhere that I know of in the Bible tells us *why* we need to be together physically on a regular basis in an institution that we happen to call a "church". Just that, based on this verse, we're supposed to do something around one another on a regular basis.

Personally, I find the title of the article incredibly misleading. It is called 'The Church that Consumerism Built and Why I Fled'. However, from the proposals made in the article, it appears that far from rejecting consumerism, it is being even more wholeheartedly embraced. Fragementing a shared experience into personalised choices of teaching/ministry, turning corporate spirituality into individualised 24/7 'on-demand' resources, encouraging a virtual community rather than building real community - all these seem to be feeding consumerism more than resisting it.

Perhaps 'The Church that Consumerism Built and Why I Built a Website More Suited to Customer Needs' would be a more appropriate title? Not so much the 'emergent church' but the 'merging church'.

“Let’s start our conversation with the mission of the church, not about any particular tools or methods. Let’s let function drive form, and be willing to follow Jesus even if it means re-tooling everything we do.”

The opinions over the purpose(s) of the church even in this blog are all over the map. Is it teaching? Is it Worship? Is it community? Once upon a time some people in this country said it was to reach people for Christ. Those people let that function drive its form and churches all over the country began retooling and reshaping ministries for evangelistic impact. Almost every mega-church came from this thinking, and tens of thousands have come to know Christ. Of course those who do not like this function (purpose) criticize the mega-church as having sold out, caved to consumerism, and watered down the gospel.

Barna says look at the house church movement, someone else says let’s live in community ... With each of these and all other forms, someone will criticize.

Whatever form you choose, choose it because of what you are for, not because of what you are against. I've got to several conferences, and I had to keep wading through everything this new awakening was against before I could find what it was for.

At least I know what the movement that spawned the Mega-Church era was for; REACHING PEOPLE FOR CHRIST. The ideas expressed in the post come across reactionary not missional.

Personally, as a pastor and a church planter, I am for three things: I want people to know Christ, to grow in that faith friendship with God, and then to live out the rest of their days fully engaged in their God given purpose. Everything in our church is built around this focus because it is what we are for. Amazingly it works.

The suggestion to re-tool from function must be built on a clear understanding of what we are for, not what we are against.

Thanks for a thought-provoking post.

leoskeo. Good comments. My impression (not to discount any of the souls won) has been--from Barna research primarily--that the megachurch movement hasn't very been successful by the numbers (conversions).

On top of that, it is a huge demand on resources to pull off the Sunday event-centric model. I guess I have been led to think that those mega-church resources are not being stewarded efficiently to win souls or serve humanity as well as they could be. Thankfully, Rick Warren and some others seem to be headed the same direction in this regard--so I think there is hope to redirect the mega-church. But I also think it will take years for this insight to work it's way through the mega-aspiring church world. For example, the church I just left recently began to call itself "a relevant church" like spencer alluded to 8 years ago. That's not a slam, but just shows that these trends and mindsets have a long lifespan--change is slow.

"Nowhere that I know of in the Bible tells us *why* we need to be together physically on a regular basis in an institution that we happen to call a "church". Just that, based on this verse, we're supposed to do something around one another on a regular basis."

No offence, but the NT begs to differ.
Colossians 3:16-17, Ephesians 4:11-6, 1 Timothy 4:11-16. Even the rest of the verse you quoted actually says one function is 'encouragement.' So just from those 4 passages, we are commanded to: teach, preach, pray, sing, exhort, and encourage one another on a regular basis. And that is only a select few passages- there is much more to be said.

Delivering our religious goods and services in "new media" ways seems like a good idea. This probably explains why "video venues" are the hot idea in "normal" church expansion. I am sure that people are tired of being "driven" through their paces in the local religious organizations. How many 40-day programs can one endure?
But is this the right question? Maybe we should be asking how Christians can go about giving Jesus a better reputation in our communities? Instead of the political, judgmental and rigid Christ we so often present, maybe we could substitute the kind, compassionate, generous and healing Savior? This might be a "product" worth "selling."

I agree with Spencer's premise, but his solution is simply to take the church along with the evolving marketplace. Mass customization and experiences are watchwords and principles for the current marketing tactics(i know, I work for the best marketing company in the world) and Spencer simply has tuned out of the old way of marketing to a newer way. His solution sounds eerily similar to the megachurch pastors of 20 years ago... e.g. the problem isn't the people, it is that you don't know your audience.

This isn't transformation, but a recipe for more disconnectedness and alienation. When will the church realize that 'serving your key customer' is best done by obedience to God first.

We can have all the access to great teaching we want (in fact, the megachurches do a pretty effective job). We can have ipod sermons and customized teaching Tivo'd for our work schedules, but that won't transform anyone. The Bible commands us to 'forsake not the assembling of ourselves with the the body of believers' so church attendance (not necessarily on Sunday) is a key component to God's eternal plan.

God meant for us to be in community with each other and that means face-to-face and involved intimately with other's lives. We can't get away from that truth. Technology and teaching accessibility can be a great tool, but it is nothing more than that.

In his book, Liquid Church, Pete Ward presents the idea that consumerism isn't an enemy to be fought, but is a cultural reality throughout time. He, in a way, contends that our consumerist culture is a modern version of a hunter-gatherer culture. We, as humans, are driven to go and get.
To stop fighting this and to channel it in healthy ways Ward suggests viewing church in more of a network paradigm, rather than an institutional one, much like Spencer Burke does in this article. Ward goes so far as to say the church is a part of the problem, but is also part of the solution.

I believe that consumerism is a message as a medium, not as an agenda. Consumerism is a neutral reality that communicates about our culture, but is not inherently evil. The more distinct challenge is going to be forming church structures, systems and disciplines that rely less on consumer culture and more on networked, relational and biblical theology.

I am still amazed at the number of people who want to deconstruct church. As I read the article I tried to imagine watching a major sporting event that had no live spectators but web fans. Or how about watching a major rock concert without any fans (try acrowd surfing!}. If the idea for an on-line church is to make available a resource to engage web-seakers in a meaningful relationship with Christ then great but I don't think that the New Testament concept of community was for a personless church.

This article does rest on one assumption that needs to be challenged. It rightly points out that the teaching is the centrepiece and foundation of the modern church service. But the question ought to be asked "Is the teaching all that it should be"?
Paul said that he "fully" preached the Gospel because his preaching wasn't merely a matter of words, but a demonstration of the Spirit and the power of God.
This type of preaching is a rare and valued commodity in todays market.

If we go back to the New Testament concept of community, we're talking about something very different than a non-personless church. We're talking about something very akin to communes.

Here's the reality--unless we live in community (really live. in. community.) with one another, we -have- to be able to support alternative forms of "church." We have to examine other ways community looks.

I'm a sexual abuse survivor who found a great sense of healing, community, and encouragement from other survivors on the internet. Those relationships changed my life, and helped me survive a lot of difficult times.

I -know- that "church" is possible on the world wide web. I also know that "church" is possible in what might appear to be un-church-like forms.

We serve a big God. Let's live in the midst of that Bigness.

We are called to make disciples. In particular, we are called to help each other be disciples of Jesus.

He is leading, teaching, and caring -- and we are to help each other follow, learn, and receive. He is risen! (You can't be a dead person's disciple.)

Too often a church thinks it is called to make converts. No one wants to be just a convert. But many people see their need to really discipled by Jesus.

If you're looking for ways to fill churches, don't offer the world what it knows is failing them!
Offer them a safe place to be real, an anchor to hold onto and a new perspective on life.
The church at its essence is counter-culture! Therefore trying to be culturally relevant and theologically pure at the same time will never work. They are mutually exclusive concepts.
The world wouldn't be "seeking" if they wanted more of the same of what they are trying to escape.
God spoke to a friend of mine and told her "if you'll tell them about me, I'll bing them in."
We are programming the Holy Spirit out of our churches. If we allow Him to move in, He'll fill the seats. He has a track record of bringing life into a void.

I don't agree with the methods Spencer suggests, but then again, I don't think the article was as much about the methods as it was about trying to break us out of old ways of doing things which don't work. After all, he concludes by saying, "Let’s start our conversation with the mission of the church, not about any particular tools or methods."

What are we about? Too many times I think we are about counting numbers, measuring growth, imitating what "works" somewhere else, without ever really thinking about the mission first.

Its interesting to think of how church would look if we were to completely reengineer the way we do things to match the mission, much harder actually to do it.

When starting with the wrong premise we often get the wrong answer. I think Spencers article is an example. Both he and the Evangelical/megachurch model begin the question with "How can I reach more people with the gospel". This is fundamentally a question of communication. But ultimately his criticism is that a consummerist model does not give life to the church. It was, to him, unsatisfying and vain. That is the problem. I would suggest that the church draws its life, not from mission, but from the eucharist. The mission of the church flows out of a communion with the body and blood of Christ, in the participation in a meal whose properties exceed the physics of matter. The Protestant church is constantly and feverishly inventing new means and methods because it is running exhausted. She spends herself to pour out the gospel while she fails to draw life from the source and summit of our real (not abstract) union with God. When mission is not anchored in communion it loses its connection with the life of Christ and the worshipping community. What is necessary is a return first to the Eucharist and let mission proceed from there.

The article and the posts dmeonstrate passion from all, which, I believe, is a good sign. The question is,: What is it that we are passionate about?

This is a subject near to my heart, also, We went from pastoring in a mega-church to the type of home fellowship that Gearge Barna describes in "Revolution". It works! We teach through the Bible a book at a time, chapter at a time, verse at a time.

As far as relevancy, we follow the model's of Peter at Pentecost and Paul before Felix and Drusilla. The folks that are part of this fellowship are actively involved in being and making disciples of Jesus Christ.

The "doing church" model has become about programs and organizational structures. What happens now - at least for this pastor - is what I was called to do. I see people consistently growing in their faith, living it out, investing in the lives of others in whatever sphere of influence God has assigned them to, and they enjoy "community" as a part of the Body, as part of the Church. They are equipped for and are activeky engaged in ministry. They worship together, alone, and in other venues as they have opportunity and as they find enjoyable.

What else could I hope for?

When a church member tells me "Pastor, I didn't like that song, it was too cold in here, or we ought to/should ...." I'm finding the reply "Well, that's an interesting comment...but let me ask you Joe Member, 'How many hungry people did you feed this week? Did you visit any sick folks? What about praying with some guys in prison?'" A blank stare in usually the reply and results in that person never asking about how they'd like church to meet "their needs" again. It's amazing what the smell of body odor left on your clothes from hugging a homeless person will do for your "hour on Sunday" mindset.

You and I are the Church -- not a building. However, the "gathering times" as a Body are critical for prayer, corporate worship, and encouragement as we then leave the building to BE the church throughout the week. "Coming to church" should not be seen as the end, but the menas to equip one another for good works.

So pastors.... go charter a bunch of buses one Sunday morning, take your "members" to the local homeless shelter and feed some people. It'll will speak louder than 52 weeks of music, video clips, and alliterations.

Wow all this talk is very exciting. I am a member of one of the fastest growing MegaChurches in the country www.lifechurch.tv. The thing that makes this the most exciting is Lifechurch addresses all of the concerns mentioned in the comments. It is relevant yet it is service focused. It is large, yet we have hundreds of small groups. It is feeding its people and we also have dozens of outreaches to the community at each campus. Lifechurch.tv is constantly growing changing and maturing - and ever becoming more Christlike as a body and individuals.

I think we also need to keep in mind that different churches have different callings. Instead of developing strategies we need to hear from the Father and implement His plan. Why do a lot of things OK, when we can do a few excellent to reach our community?

Also, one of the key benefits of attending a church is relationships. DVD's and TV services are great. But if you look throughout the Bible, very few leaders were successful alone. Even Christ had His disciples then he sent them out by twos.

There seem to be a couple of themes raised here.

It seems that many people here are doing what we followers of Jesus do best - split hairs. Who cares if its a mega church or a new Barna type church that reaches someone for Christ? I'm positive Jesus just commanded 'Go and make disciples'. Jesus, who was fully human and fully God did not elaborate on the details, I think he trusted us enough to be inspired from Him to work it out.

As someone who has been a recipient of a 'mega church' introducing them to Jesus through a small group (in the last 10 years) I want to encourage every person, large church or small to just 'go'. Let God and the Holy Spirit do the rest.

Surely, the primary mission of the church (and I mean the WHOLE congregation when I say church) should be to introduce someone to Christ. oh and yes there should be discipleship follow up. Yes there should be points to a vision too, but the primary one should surely be just 'Go'

On the staffing issue. I live in Australia and our churches, even the 'mega church' that I attend are poor cousins from a staffing perspective compared to America (and yes we are so rich too compared to the rest of the 80% of the planet's churches). There are no health plans, no career plans. Just a desire to follow Jesus and change the world.

So much of the conversation has come from pastors previously from the mega churches. I think the large churches are in a very awkward situation with all of these burn outs. The expectations of the large churches (and I mean from the senior staff and the congregations) are high. They are expected to operate funtionally like corporations - yet they don't have the funding to support the staff to do their job properly with adequate resources.

Churches are esentially funded like NGO's and operate with little or no funds for any kind of H.R. development and support. the money always goes to the 'business end' What do people expect when burn outs occur?

Pastors are workaholics too (an issue that seems to be not addressed enough). Pastors want people to be transformed and to follow Jesus. Unfortunately they work so darn hard that they do burn out from from ministering to everyone that calls out to them.

I am not one usually to 'blog' as I usually find a blog like many so called post modern convesations to go never end.

But I am passionate about pastors having a life in and out of work. I'm also passionate about the 'lost being found'.

Surely we all need to talk less and 'GO' more.

What product line does the cross of Christ go under? How do we make a blood soaked, beaten, and brutalized God/Man nailed to a piece of wood for our sin attractive to "consumers"? It's time the "Me, Myself & I" consumer faced the SHAME of our it all.

If anything is NOT marketable it's the crucified Christ. For goodness sake He wants us to live the life and die the death He did - who'd buy that product? would you?

but we preach Christ crucified.....

Ian

www.allaboutchrist.net

I want to encourage Spencer for fleeing the consumer version of church. God's mercy has brought him out. When you earn a living that does not take money out of an offering plate, they will accuse you of “giving up THE ministry”. Rejoice with Paul, that you can minister “free of charge” (1 Cor. 9). A warning is that Satan will tempt you to repackage church with different packaging that is still consumerist and call it non-consumer. I have found that believers, even strong believers resist giving up their consumer habits and addictions. They will even reject you relationally, especially if you show them the obvious scripture that calls for a quality of church life that is so different.

One of my favorite statements about consumer church is: “The great danger is not that we will renounce our faith, but that we will settle for a mediocre version of it.” Consumer church is a little truth mixed into a lot of “dung” (KJV for c _ _ _ ). Consumer church escaped the cleansing that occurred at the reformation and got passed on to us to day as good church. It's time to get on with more clean up.