The Market Driven Church by Gary Gilley (con't)
 

Who's the Leader of Our Gang?

Trying to identify new paradigm churches, as far as doctrine or denomination is concerned, is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall -- it is a slippery proposition at best, and impossible at worst. They must be identified on the basis of philosophy of church growth, as outlined above. Setting the agenda for new paradigm churches is Willow Creek and their quasi-denomination, the Willow Creek Association (WCA). The WCA is a loose association of hundreds of churches that have shown an interest in the method and philosophy of church growth as espoused by Willow Creek Community Church. All members of WCA claim to be evangelical, but are as diverse as Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, and Pentecostal. In many communities, both evangelical and liberal churches are members of the WCA. The new paradigm churches are united not by doctrine, but by philosophy, a philosophy based on market-driven principles.

But is a market-driven church so bad? After all, a lot of people seem to be getting saved and they're really "packing 'em in." Rick Warren puts a positive spin on new paradigm philosophy in his very popular book The Purpose-Driven Church. Describing the ministry of Saddleback Valley Community Church, Warren ably demonstrates that many church growth principles are simply common sense on the one hand and purposeful, aggressive leadership on the other. -- Churches should pay attention to cleanliness and attractiveness, where people are going to park, and how new people are going to feel walking through our doors. We should strive for excellence and do our best to communicate God's truth. And we should want to grow -- in the right ways. Warren states, "Every church needs to grow warmer through fellowship, deeper through discipleship, stronger through worship, broader through ministry, and larger through evangelism" (The Purpose-Driven Church, by Rick Warren, p. 48).

Who could argue with that? And who would debate the need for churches to know why they exist (their purpose), channeling their energies in that direction rather than wandering aimlessly as many do? And what about evangelism? Warren and the new paradigm churches are geared to reaching the lost. While many churches are wasting precious energy fussing over the color of the drapes in the foyer, the Saddlebacks and Willow Creeks are focusing their attention on bringing "unchurched Harry" and "Saddleback Sam to Christ." You can't help but admire that kind of emphasis. To this end, Willow Creek, in particular, has made it a passion to understand the unsaved around them (unchurched Harry and Mary) in order to more effectively communicate the gospel.

Willow Creekers know Harry's interests and passions, his goals and his hang-ups. They understand how his mind works and are doing all they can to make Christianity relevant. Churches that are growing are doing so primarily because they are focusing attention on the lost and visitors. They are churches that have not become in-grown and comfortable. None of these things are wrong; the problems are in the details. Having detoured around the Bible, the new paradigm churches often look to other sources to develop their systems.

Perhaps no single source carries as much weight in the "seeker-sensitive" church than George Barna and his Barna Research Group. Barna, the church counterpart to George Gallup, has ignited a number of fires in Christian circles with his books such as The Frog in the Kettle and Marketing the Church. In his more recent book Church Marketing, Breaking Ground for the Harvest, Barna declared that he, and his types, have won the ideological battle over the issue of marketing the church (pp. 13,14). That is, only a few old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds still question the validity of the market-driven strategy. Barna defines marketing as:

... a broad term that encompasses all the activities that lead up to an exchange of equally valued goods between consenting parties. … activities such as advertising, public relations, strategic planning, audience research, product distribution, fund-raising and product pricing, developing a vision statement, and customer service are all elements of marketing. When these elements are combined in a transaction in which the parties involved exchange items of equivalent worth, the marketing act has been consummated (p. 19).

Barna assures us that churches sell (or market) their product the same way Wal-Mart sells shoes and Sears sells tools. But what is the church's product? What are we trying to peddle to consumers? This has to be thought through carefully, for unlike shoes and tools that have great attraction for some consumers, the gospel is repulsive -- foolishness, to the unsaved (1 Cor. 1:18-23).

How do we market such a product? By changing the package. Note the subtle bait and switch in Barna's philosophy:

Ministry, in essence, has the same objective as marketing -- to meet people's needs. Christian ministry, by definition, meets people's real needs by providing them with biblical solutions to their life circumstances (p. 21).

By repackaging ministry, including the gospel message, as we will see, Barna has made it attractive. If we can convince people that Christ died to meet their needs, they will line up at our doors to buy our product. But is this the gospel message? Has Barna merely repackaged, prettied-up, the gospel "product" or has he gutted it of its purpose and value? An important question upon which so much hinges -- a question worthy of much consideration Parts II-IV.

Part II -- The Little Church Went to the Market

David Wells bemoans concerning the new paradigm church, "Much of it … is replete with tricks, gadgets, gimmicks, and marketing ploys as it shamelessly adapts itself to our emptied-out, blinded, postmodern world. … There is too little about it that bespeaks the holiness of God. And without the vision for any reality of this holiness, the gospel becomes trivialized, life loses its depth, God becomes transformed into a product to be sold, faith into a recreational activity to be done, and the Church into a club for the like-minded" (Losing Our Virtue, by David Wells, p. 180). Damaging accusations -- are they true?

The standard rhetoric coming from new paradigm churches is that they teach the same message, the same gospel, as the more traditional evangelical churches, and that they differ only in methodology and philosophy of ministry. Lee Strobel (former Teaching Pastor at Willow Creek Community Church) writes, "Objections [to the market-driven church] generally relate to the method that's used to communicate the Gospel, not the message itself, and consequently we're free to use our God-given creativity to present Christ's message in new ways that our target audience will connect with" (Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary, by Lee Strobel, p. 168). This is simply not the case. While some of the methods may disturb us, it is their message that is of real concern.

In Part IV of this series, we will demonstrate that while the new paradigm churches have dressed their gospel in the gown of conservative evangelicalism, it is in reality a masquerade, a costume, that disguises a gospel message that would have been unrecognizable only a few years ago. For now, we need to examine the methodologies for which the new paradigm churches have become famous: their market-driven strategies. After all, that the new paradigm churches are most often known by the handle of "market-driven" is not without reason. We have chosen not to use this label exclusively, because these churches are unique in other ways as well, but their market-driven approach is certainly their outstanding feature.

What Is a Market-Driven Church?

Some within the market-driven church would cringe at being called such. They would rather be hailed "purpose-driven" (so Rick Warren's influential book The Purpose-Driven Church), or "seeker-sensitive" (a.k.a. Bill Hybels). But others, such as George Barna (the most highly regarded marketing researcher in evangelicalism), pull no punches. In works such as Marketing the Church and A Step-by-Step Guide to Church Marketing, Barna outlines for pastors who have not had the privilege of a graduate course in marketing (A Step-by-Step Guide to Church Marketing, p. 15), just how it is to be done in the church. As to the debate within evangelical circles concerning marketing, Barna declares it to be over and the marketing gurus have won (pp. 13-14).

If this is true (and as one visits churches all over the country from liberal to conservative and observes their mimicking of market-driven principles, one would have to agree that Barna has a good case), what exactly has been won (or lost, depending upon your view)?

Barna defines marketing as "a broad term that encompasses all of the activities that lead to an exchange of equally valued goods between consenting parties." Barna moves on to give supposed examples of marketing in Scripture, including examples of marketing the gospel (cf. pp. 20,23,77). Unfortunately, in order to support his marketing strategy from Scripture, he must twist its meaning. For example, Barnabas is given as an example of a marketing strategy (p. 23). Barna writes, "Barnabas successfully tackled a tough marketing or PR assignment when he overcame the early disciples' fear of Paul, convincing them he was no longer a persecutor of the church" (Acts 9:26,27) (p. 23). Jesus also owed His fame to marketing, according to Barna (p. 23), because word of mouth is "the world's most effective advertising." By his definition, all proclamation of any Christian message is an act of marketing. He is then saying that all churches market, but some do not know it; the new paradigm churches simply have taken marketing to a new level.

But the marketing philosophy is a very different approach from the methods found in Scripture -- to spread the good news. Is the gospel marketable by Barna's definition? Is the gospel the "exchange of equally valued goods between consenting parties?" Hardly. The gospel is offered by grace (undeserved favor) and received by faith. In the exchange, God gets us, we get Him (equally valued goods?). In the exchange we receive the righteousness of Christ, He takes our sins upon Himself (equally valued goods?). When the "product" is Christ the market process breaks down in its very definition.

But is Christ the product of the market-driven approach? Barna would say yes, but note his explanation: "Ministry, in essence, has the same objective as marketing: to meet people's needs. Christian ministry, by definition, meets people's real needs by providing them with biblical solutions to their life circumstances" (p. 21). Although not so stated, I am certain if questioned Barna would say we meet people's real need by bringing them to Christ (please keep in mind that "ministry" to the new paradigm churches, which have become evangelistic centers, means their efforts to bring Unchurched Harry to Christ). But is the purpose of the gospel to meet the felt-needs of people? Is that why Christ came? (See Part III) We strongly protest such an understanding of the gospel.

The gospel is not bringing people to Christ in order to meet their felt needs. According to Scripture, the gospel is the good news that lost sinners can be forgiven of their sins and receive the righteousness of Christ in exchange. This is the real need of humanity, the need for which Christ died. The new paradigm church would have no problem agreeing that Harry's true need is salvation from sin. But they do not believe that Harry will respond to such a gospel unless we dress it up with other enticing offers. Felt needs is the porthole, they believe, through which Harry is reached in order that his true spiritual need is met. According to their marketing research, Harry is not interested in truth (Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary, by Lee Strobel, p. 56); therefore, he does not react well to "Thus sayeth the Lord" (Ibid., p. 50). And Harry is not interested in the future (including heaven) (Ibid., p. 57); therefore, reaching him through concern for his eternal destiny is futile. What Harry is interested in is feeling better about himself. He is asking, "What can help me deal with my pain" (Ibid., p. 56); he is interested in "his marriage, his friendships, his career, his recovery from past pain and so on" (Ibid., pp. 58, 59). Unchurched Mary, for her part, is attracted to churches, "Where women have access to leadership and influence" (Ibid., 76), (i.e. an equalitarian approach). If we are to reach this generation, we must then "market" the gospel as something that works (i.e. relieves pain and provides happiness).

"The most effective messages for seekers are those that address their felt-needs" (Ibid., pp. 213-214). However, this approach is not drawn from Scripture; it is drawn from market research and the latest in pop-psychology. No one denies that there are many benefits to the Christian life, but these benefits must not be confused with the gospel. The gospel is not about helping Harry feel better about himself and his circumstances; it is about his rebelliousness against a holy God who will ultimately condemn him to hell if he does not repent and trust in Christ for the forgiveness of his sins. The distinction between the market-driven approach and the Biblical approach lies largely in understanding this fundamental difference.

Market Evaluation

Given the obvious fact that market-driven methodology works (almost all of the biggest and fastest growing churches in America have hopped aboard the market-driven train), and granted that we are a pragmatic people who worship at the feet of the goddess success, what serious flaws could be found in the movement? Below are some things to consider.

Big is good, small is bad; or where have all the people gone?

Most churches in America are small. Fifty percent of churches average fewer than 75 attendees on any given Sunday, and only 5 percent attract more than 350, according to Barna's surveys. These statistics are not denied; it's their interpretation that is in question. Church growth gurus use these figures to prove that the church has lost its edge -- she is not making a significant impact on society. But is this the case? David Wells shares his thoughts: "A century ago, in 1890 … the average Protestant church had only 91.5 members, not all of whom would have been in attendance on any given Sunday; a century before that, in 1776, the average Methodist congregation had 75.7 members. It seems to be the case that our churches today are about the same size as they have always been, on average, and the supposition that we are now experiencing drastic shrinkage needs to be clearly justified before it can be allowed to become the premise for new and radical strategies" (God in the Wasteland, by David Wells, p. 78). As a matter of fact, church attendance in 1937 averaged 41% of the population, whereas it was 42% in 1988, (close to 50% in the late 50s and 43% in 1999 according to Christianity Today, July 10, 2000, p. 20), leading Wells to comment, "Barna's efforts to make megachurches the benchmark of normality and then to argue that churches of conventional size are failures is simply unwarranted and wrongheaded" (God in the Wasteland, p. 79).

It doesn't take a mathematician to realize that if the percentage of Americans going to church has remained constant, yet megachurches are popping up almost weekly, then the giant churches are largely being populated by folks funneling in from small churches. Just as Wal-marts are killing mom and pop department stores, chain restaurants and groceries are doing the same in their respective venues, and the Mall has demolished "downtown," so the megachurches are doing a number on the small church. But large does not necessarily mean better, and when all the numbers are tallied, overall church attendance (on a percentage basis) is not increasing despite the methods championed by these megachurches.

Who needs God, we have a program?

We are certainly in danger of reductionism, but when such faith can be held in the marketing methodology, little room is left, or needed, for faith in God. In what has to be one of the most blatant examples of the self-sufficiency of marketing is the claim that the salvation of souls has a price tag. Barna suggests that a church might set an objective to "lead 50 baby busters to Christ this year, for under $5000 in program expenditures" (Barna, p. 170). So for $100 per head, we can bring people to Christ. The need for prayer and trust in a sovereign God becomes questionable when we can statistically figure what it costs to bring a soul to the Lord. In Barna's defense, this "souls/dollar" strategy is not new. Both Charles Finney and Billy Sunday could predict to the penny what it cost to win a soul. Their cost however ran between $2 and $3 a head -- quite a bargain as compared to today. But of course, if you factor in inflation, you can apparently still win a soul pretty inexpensively.

Or take the church-growth consultant who boldly claims that "five to ten million baby boomers would be back in the fold within a month if churches adopted three simple changes: 1. Advertise 2. Let people know about product benefits 3. Be nice to new people (See Dining with the Devil, by Os Guinness, p. 38). The belief in the omnipotence of marketing techniques is changing the nature of the church.

                                                                                                                          part 3

If after reading this message you feel it has been a blessing to you, and you would like to see more articles like this posted on this website and Broadcast on the Radio, please Pray about what you can do to help make this possible. Your Prayers and Financial support are what keeps this Ministry going.  We depend on people like you who believe as we do that our Churches have fallen away from the True Word of God and the time is getting nearer when the Lord shall return.  Please help us to get the message out to the lost souls following under the guidance of False Teachings.  To help us prayerfully or financially, please click here.