I subscribe to a handful of blogs ranging from technology tips, to thoughts on marketing. Blogs of people I know, blogs of folks I don't know. The occasional random photography or financial blog are also on the list. Today, as I was catching up from things that were posted over the weekend, I found this article linked from Church Marketing Sucks, yet another one of my subscriptions. The article is about the "Top 50 most influential churches" (in America).
I'm really not trying to rant here. I'll be totally honest and say that when I became a Christian several years ago (woah, more like over a decade ago!!), I experienced some numbers-driven practices at what was then my home church. Those events left some bitterness, and I'm now very wary of any numbers-driven activities. Not to say that all numbers-driven activities are inherently bad. But seeing things that I saw as a 16 year-old, it kind of taints them a bit.
Click the link on the article and read it. I'll give you a few minutes....
Waiting....
Hope you're reading....
Whew! Glad you made it. Now, back to the "discussion."
So, can someone tell me when "influential" started to mean "fast growing"? Or even "huge"? I don't recall that memo from Miriam Webster. In fact, MW, in all its finery, defines "influential" as: "exerting or possessing influence"
After reading this article, it seems that every other sentence was laden with numbers. From Sunday school attendance, to growth per year, to ages of pastors, and on and on...and the point? The point, it seems, is that to be influential, you must be gargantuan.
To me, that's like saying the world's biggest cookie is the best-tasting cookie, simply because it's the biggest.
But I disagree. I'm trying to be objective about this.
Do big churches accomplish great things and influence many lives? Sure they do. All the time and in many nations. There are people attending mega-churches that are making huge strides in spreading the Gospel.
But so do smaller churches.
Does having the opportunity to influence the masses mean that you actually influence the masses? Not necessarily.
Per the article:
"It is a high privilege to be able to share these few ministries as examples of faithful churches committed to making a Great Commission kind of difference in today's world."
If so, then why not highlight some of the smaller churches that are making a difference in today's world? Heck, why not highlight individuals that are choosing to do the same?
Take my friend Kaitlan, for example. She just got back from Kenya where she spent several months living in a slum outside of Nairobi. She worked with local believers there to tell people about Jesus. Did 10,000 people attend their gatherings every Sunday? Not quite. Did they influence people in Kenya? You bet.
Or my friends Heather and Alexia. They are each choosing to spend the next months/years of their lives in foreign countries teaching kids. And in that span of time, they are hoping to get the chance to tell about their faith in Christ. Influential? Yep.
Please don't get me wrong: I'm sure the article means well. It just makes me crazy when we start focusing on quantity rather than quality. Are these churches teaching quality doctrine? I have no idea. They might be, or they might not be. But who says that numbers are a great indication of that?
Just wanted to get the ball rolling. Smack me down in the comments if you'd like to. But please be nice :)
6 comments:
hrmmm I agree with you on your principle. I am not quite sure if the article deserves the kind of flaying you gave it though :-).
They state in the beginning, "the 2005 survey was sent to 2,000 church leaders with the goal of ranking the nation’s fastest growing churches and churches with more than 2,000 weekend attendance."
They clearly state that their goal is to rank the fastest growing churches. Agreed they then title these churches "most influential" which is sad but more of a sad truth rather than indication of a quantity over quality argument (IMHO) :-)
Let me restate this. I agree with you in theory but if you took on something as daunting as "listing influential churches" (which is a stupid taking given its scope) and you had to do it on time and on budget what would you recommend as a measurement unit apart from some crude macro measurement unit like "size of the congregation".
This is no different than ranking the 50 most popular artists in LA. Does that mean they are the 50 most talented actors.... yeah right... But does that necessarily mean we value popularity over talent... am not so sure...
I could be missing the thrust of your argument in which case of course mea culpa :)
I just would like to comment that influence can be for good or for evil - it doesn't say that it's inherently best, just powerful. For instance: in Houston, Lakewood is BY FAR the most influential church. Tons of people listen to what their pastor has to say, and they care about his opinion. This is mainly due to their visibility based on book sales, TV exposure, and basic hugeness. I think my church is more in tune with what God wants, though of course this is just my opinion. I have no desire to go to Lakewood. But I can't deny their influence - like I said earlier, for good or for... not so good.
Agreed - with both of you - thank you for sharing your thoughts :)
Now, I'm off to start a mega church. See y'all later!
I fully understand your point. I've long felt the same way, and have often asked myself if I've just become jaded over time. I don't know the answer to that...yet.
At this point in my life I agree with your take, though.
What's that saying, "Grow where you're planted?"
I don't think it means become like Jack and the Beanstalk...it just simply means "grow." Keep your roots planted firmly in the ground, receive the nourishment from the soil, and beautify the space around you. THAT's influence. Big or little.
Keep thinking and sharing. God gave you a gift and you're using it. He must be smiling on you.
Hey Kim and Kim's blog readers. I just returned from a long absence from your blog. Please forgive me. I do love your take on things and as always your writing style is impecible.
I tend to agree with you completly Kim about the size and influential thing. Being in a country where most "churches" can't be more than 30 people big I guess my viewpoint might be somewhat jaded. However, any time I walk into one of those megachurches I can't help but get the feeling that people can just go hide there each Sunday morning without interacting with anyone but being able to check church off some imaginary list they think they have to keep for God. It makes me sick that so many people use church as a "feel good" experience when isn't it supposed to be the oposite? Anyway, I view church as God's tool to bless. I think that if churches are being a blessing to those around them, and to those within them -- not that aritificial feel good blessing, but a real desiring to love and walk with the Lord blessing -- they have become really influential. Who wants to be influenced with masses of people who aren't living counter-culturally as Jesus did? Not me. Don't get me wrong. These churches might actually be doing these things and living out God's ideal for His bride. I just want to be involved in something authentic and part of bringing God glory.
Welcome Sarah :) Always good to hear from you, my friend!
Thanks for the great feedback, y'all. It's always good to see what everyone is thinking out there. More to come, I'm sure...
Post a Comment