I really believe a church's longevity and viability is keenly based on the sense of mission and calling for the local church body. If the reason people are drawn to the local congregational is because of a dynamic leader and not to the broader mission that the church is trying to attain, then once the leader steps down for good or bad reasons, the church will see an exodus of sorts.

Sometimes it's good, as it will force those who remain to reevaluate the church's calling and mission. It may even reveal the underlying leader and structural issues that were never addressed during the previous leader's tenure. Other times it may be "bad", the church closes its doors, faithful congregants are left without a spiritual home in a sense.

Either case, the real test of a local church body is how they will endeavor this inevitable type of change.

Perhaps now more than any other time in the past 15 years we can begin to seriously evaluate the mega-church model of ministry. Though I'll never say it is a bad model (clearly it is being used for good things in God's Kingdom) it may be okay to say that it is unsustainable.

When a church is built by and centers around a charismatic personality (not theology) who is an excellent speaker they often have a very difficult time replacing that person and when they do the church often dwindles in size and significance. I can only think of two or three mega-churches that have transitioned well (Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, KY being the prime example.)

Now Mars Hill in Grand Rapids is looking at a serious problem of lack of people, budget, and an abundance of facilities. Willow is going to have to address their transition seriously soon as well. Think of all the other major, mega-churches that have impending (within the next 10 years) senior leadership transitions. Given the changing nature of American evangelicalism (coupled with the insatiable celebritification of a select few pastors by the press and publishers) we have a serious problem on our hands.

Mega-churches are doing good ministry and many of them will continue to do so. However, I wonder if we as evangelicals have the courage to have the conversation about what a sustainable model for multi-generational ministry looks like in our emerging Post-Christian culture.

Perhaps if churches payed more attention to the needs of their local communities instead of the wishes of the elders they might find bette direction and less conflict within the church . All churches need to listen to concerns and needs of their congregation and not wait till after the damage is done to clean up the mess . Big is not better as a previous leader at Mars Hill said , How big is your steeple 1
I miss that guy !

For me this is not about mega-churches. Of course with a mega-church the impact is greater but it happens everywhere. Transitions are difficult at the best of times when you have a strong personality at the forefront. I have seen this happen over the years with youth ministry, in regular size churches and in business.

Part of the solution is to build a strong team around you and then share the ministry spotlight. Which can be difficult for many senior pastors because they are often insecure. How often does the Associate Pastor speak in a year in many churches? I find it interesting that with many larger churches even in the summer the bring in a "Big Speaker" instead of letting the staff develop their speaking skills.

Just a thought.

Crystal Cathedral.

A bit odd that in the wake of a departing celebrity-pastor in Bell (and to a lesser extent, in Hipps), Mars Hill would seek to concentrate teaching leadership. (And I generally like Hipps and Bell, from what I've read; "celebrity" is not a criticism, just an acknowledgement of their wider reach.) If they think that transitioning is difficult now, just wait till the 40-weeks-a-year pastor decides to move on. Won't that feel like a bigger hole to fill? That they would specify a certain number of weeks seems to prevent a pastor from developing new leaders. Instead, shouldn't these larger churches try to give as many chances as possible to younger leaders, so that when the original pastor retires or moves on, the congregation has been used to hearing from other voices?

"Crystal Cathedral."

Not sure what your context was, elegance, but if it's in regards to the transitioning of leadership I was thinking the same thing myself.

"Crystal Cathedral"

Not following that reference--at least in regards to Willow. I'm not sure what succession process MHBC had in place after Hipps left but Willow at least has what appears to be a solid plan with the elders of the church driving the process.

One thing that has fascinated me (in terms of piquing my curiosity) about Willow is how after 37 years, they could still remain relevant and at least willing to critique their own ministry methods.

MHBC seems to be one big mess right now. It will be interesting to see how Kent Dobson's tenure goes there.