In the book Tony Campolo co-authored with Brian McLaren (Adventures In Missing the Point: How the Culture-Controlled Church Neutered the Gospel) Campolo seems to suggest that seminarians ought to pay more attention to marketing techniques and less attention to theology, exegesis, and other traditional seminary curricula. After all, those are academic subjects with limited practical significance, and pastors these days hardly ever use such stuff after seminary. In Campolo's own words:
What if the credits eaten up by subjects seminarians seldom if ever use after graduation were instead devoted to more subjects they will actually need in churcheslike business and marketing courses? It is not true that with a gifted preacher, a church will inevitably grow. Good sermons may get visitors to stay once they come, but getting folks to come in the first place may take some marketing expertise.
It was a marketing degree, not an M. Div., that Bill Hybels had when he launched the tiny fellowship that would one day be Willow Creek Community Church. It's not that Hybels is a theological lightweight, contrary to some critics. His sermons are biblically sound and brilliantly relevant to the needs of his congregationand the relevance comes not from giftedness or theological discernment, but from thoughtfully studying his congregation. As any good marketer would, Hybels deliberately surveys his people with questionnaires in order to determine what they worry about, what their needs are, what's important to them. . . . Then he schedules what subjects he will preach on in the coming year, and circulates the schedule to those on his team responsible for music and drama in the services.
The result is preaching that is utterly biblical and acutely relevant. But the process isn't something you'll learn in most seminaries. Maybe it's time that some business school courses find their way into seminary.
I don't know where Tony Campolo has been for the past twenty-five years or so, but if that advice sounds the least bit fresh or novel to you, you haven't been paying attention to the drift of the church growth movement and its influence in seminaries over the past three decades. What Campolo is suggesting is precisely what many evangelical seminaries started doing some twenty years ago.
Pastors these days are thoroughly indoctrinated with the notion that they must regard their people as consumers. Religion is carefully packaged to appeal to the consumers' demands. There are even marketing agencies that specialize in church marketing. (Typical slogan: "Changing the Way the World Looks at Christians.") There are seminars for church leaders who want to learn how to "brand" their churches as a marketing strategy.
This stuff is everywhere. Fad-driven® pastors can even buy prepackaged, market-tested sermon ideas or whole sermon series. ("New fall message series designs!" now available.)
Church leaders these days are obsessed with image, opinion polls, public relations, salesmanship, merchandising, and customer satisfaction. They have been taught and encouraged to think that way by virtually every popular program of the past two decades.
It has been nearly twenty years since George Barna published Marketing the Church. In that book, he proposed this then-revolutionary notion: "The audience, not the message, is sovereign." That is the basic idea that underlies every Fad-Driven® church. And it's a notion that thousands of pastors and church leaders have uncritically imbibedand it has been parroted in virtually every major book on church leadership up through and including The Purpose-Driven Church. The audience is sovereign. Their "felt needs" should shape the preacher's message. Opinion polls and listener response become barometers that tell the preacher what to preach. That's what Barna was calling for back in 1988. He wrote,
If [we are] going to stop people in the midst of hectic schedules and cause them to think about what we're saying, our message has to be adapted to the needs of the audience. When we produce advertising that is based on the take-it-or-leave-it proposition, rather than on a sensitivity and response to people's needs, people will invariably reject our message.
Compare that with the words of the apostle Paul, who said, "The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables" (2 Timothy 4:2-5).
What was Paul's point? Do you think he would have agreed with Barna, who said we must adapt our message to the preferences of the audience, or risk having them reject the message?
I think not. Here's what the apostle actually did say to Timothy: "But you . . . fulfill your ministry." "Preach the word! . . . in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching."
That is what pastors are called to donot ape the fads and fashions of our culture. Not even to follow the silly parade of evangelical fads. I'm convinced that those who do not get back to the business of preaching the Bible will soon see their churches shrivel and diebecause, after all, the Word of God is the only message that has the power to give spiritual life.
And, frankly, the death of the fad-driven churches will be a good thing in the long term. It's something I hope I live long enough to see.
24 comments:
It's sounds like Balaam and Barak getting together again. Oh how we need some more Balaam's Asses!
Excellent post, mon ami.
I don't know how many more times I can commend this book before I become an official fan-boy, but the absolute best book I've read on this subject is Selling Out the Church. It's a definite must-read on this topic.
Not to mention that Campolo, far from being a prophetic, countercultural voice, was a court chaplain, apologist, and all-purpose lap-dog for Bill Clinton's immoralities--like the OT false prophets and court prophets.
Os Guinness makes the case in "Prophetic Untimeliness" that the church's blind pursuit of relevance has made her irrelevant.
"I'm convinced that those who do not get back to the business of preaching the Bible will soon see their churches shrivel and die . . ."
Phil, while I agree with your post, I don't think the above sentence is entirely accurate. While that may (and could), in fact, occur, it does not necessarily follow that because a church is not preaching the Bible, it will shrivel.
In Romans 1, Paul writes, " . . .and just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, etc."
So, a failure to preach the Bible, i.e., acknowledge God, may cause these churches to grow. God will "give them over" to unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, etc. Exhibit 1: The Osteen Show.
I was about to say what PURITANICOAL just said. These churches will likely not shrink, they will; however, be rendered eternally ineffective!
YOu know, maybe that isn't even the case, they may be effective. Effective in leading people downt he Broad road of Destruction. You know that one that is usaully labled "Evangelical!"
BREUSSE - Thanks so much for mentioning Guinness's PROPHETIC UNTIMELINESS. Great book.
There is a tension for me as an Outreach Pastor who is very committed to the Doctrines of Grace. I have an overwhelming passion to reach my community with the Gospel. I want them ALL to know about Christ and come to hear the Hope that is the Gospel. I want to "get the word out" about the Word. We do use commercials, billboards, banners, etc... Very carefull crafted not to be misleading or man centered. But any marketing expert will also tell you what God told us a long time ago! (Rom 10; 2 Cor 5) The most effective means of getting a message out is "word of mouth" If you want to reach your world with the Hope fo the Gospel - personally proclaim it, in the relationships that exist in your life - "as though God is making is appeal through us."
The sad thing is, there's a lot of church's on this bandwagon that would never deny the Word of God being important or you'd never catch them saying that it's all about marketing, yet their actions show differently.
I know because I attend one.
reformer wrote:
>These churches will likely not >shrink, they will; however, be >rendered eternally ineffective!
I agree that it's possible to artificially manufacture numbers without the Word & Spirit. "Ineffective" might be generous. 1 Cor. 3:15 says such ministries will someday "burn". If the method is artificial (the "lofty speeech or wisdom" of 1 Cor. 2:1), the results are artificial ("wood, hay, straw" of 1 Cor. 3:12).
Artificial results from manufactured methods means the pews (the "building" of 1 Cor. 3:9 or "temple" of 1 Cor. 3:16) are filled with unbelievers who will "burn" because their builders preferred the wisdom of the world rather than the foolishness of Christ (the "gold, silver, precious stones" of 1 Cor. 3:12).
The mere possibility that we could be artificially manufacturing the temple growth should give us pause as to how we interpret that growth. Growth isn't necessarily bad. "Methods" aren't necessarily bad. But making Christ and His Word subservient to the methods and growth can be disastrous.
"I'm convinced that those who do not get back to the business of preaching the Bible will soon see their churches shrivel and die . . ."
Contrary to a few other opinions, I think you this is an accurate assessment. Accurate that is, if by "church" it is understood that we are not talking about the physical bodies present in the congregation, but the number of actual born again believers. It is my strong conviction that carnal efforts reap carnal results.
I blogged on your statement about needing a new reformation yesterday. This stuff justs gets worse and worse.
I agree that I hope I live long enough to see change.
P.S. Love the dog. We had a Beagle until he was 18 years old. Great pets.
Phil,
Great post, very good stuff. Thank you.
Though there is the other side of the coin here: Those who think preaching the Word of God is to use the pulpit solely (or primarily) as a means for telling everyone in the church how horrible is the current state of the church really is, without offering solutions, cheif of which is simply preaching the Gospel and living it out by example.
Rather than writing a huge comment here with specifics, I'll just blog it and wait for you to tear it to shreads :o) Thank you, again.
Brad
A blogging friend, Jeff at onerandomblogger.blogspot.com/ has an article about a church holding the Eucharist in clown costumes! My only response is, "Why?" Is this the only way His church can reach people?
Campolo endorses a group like http://www.paperstreet.org.uk/ikon/
-- nuf said. He is preaching to the choir; he is marginalized and un-influencial. But that is just my opinion.
wow, what a concept! toss out the brainy, useless stuff that they make you learn in seminary or divinity school, and instead have the would-be pastor take marketing pablum and other "practical" drivel.
boy, does that sound familiar - that's exactly what the progressives did in american education a hundred years ago. get rid of that useless algebra, geometry, physics, chemistry, foreign language, grammar, literature, etc. (what do bricklayers and seamstresses need that for, anyhow) and offer practical courses like woodshop, home economics, and "life adjustment." look at the wonders this attitude did for american education: SAT scores have been on the decline since the early 1960's, colleges are offering more remedial courses than ever before, and high school students have no idea who Mark Twain was, when the Civil War occurred, or how to solve a multi-step math problem.
i guess it's a logical consequence that if the culture is dumbed down, the church should follow suit. after all, that is consistent with the emerging/emergent crowd's philosophy.
they forget, however: the Church that marries the spirit of the age will be a widow in the next...
What is very unfortunate today is that those kinds of fads are not just fringe occurrences in evangelicalism; it has ravaged most every denomination today and their affiliated seminaries.
We need a new reformation; but can it ever happen in such a Laodicean time like we live in? Not many men left in leadership today with unshakable biblical convictions that are willing to risk all for Christ and His gospel. The "politics of faith" are to rampant, to charming and to inviting to walk away from.
Good post Phil.
“Taking Heaven by Storm”
Campi
2 Cor. 4:5-7
I have grown so weary of this whole “marketing-the-church” nonsense. The church has spent entirely too much time studying business models rather than abiding by the biblical principles for the church. For over well over a decade, the evangelical church has listened to the message parroted by the church growth experts that we must be relevant to the culture, that we need to cater to everyone’s “felt” needs and conduct surveys to discover the preferences of the culture. They claimed that this was the only way we were going to reach the culture of today. It is interesting that according to Barna, while the population has increased by only 15%, the number of “unchurched” has actually increased a whopping 92% since 1991. You would think that Barna would learn from his own statistics.
There is an interesting statement in Barna’s article; “Stirring worship music won’t attract them because worship isn’t even on their radar screen. More comfortable pews cannot compete with the easy chair or the bed that already serve the unchurched person well. Church events cannot effectively compete with what the world has to offer.” Yet we keep hearing things today about participatory worship that the seekers can participate in and experience?
The church that I previously attended began using the seeker-sensitive approach. I raised concerns with one of the pastors, questioning him about how far they were following the Willow Creek philosophy. His reply was that they wanted to be sensitive to seekers without going the whole “seeker-sensitive” route. Over time I began observing that more and more of this philosophy was being integrated into their ministry. Now, according to their own admission on their web site, they are “seeker-sensitive", cutting-edge”. By the way, as Frank Martens commented about his church not denying the Word of God, this church that I attended also had a solid statement of faith. They also would never admit to watering down the truth.
By the way, this church experienced explosive growth. But we need to understand that there is both healthy and unhealthy growth. Cancer is a growth, but a very deadly growth indeed!
An intersting read. But I though the living Spirit of God was the one who changed lives?
David You Wrote:
"He uses some diagrams:
Gospel+Culture-Church=Parachurch
Culture+Church-Gospel=Liberalism &
Church+Gospel-Culture=Fundamentalism"
and...
Church-Gospel+Culture-Absolute Truth-Sound Doctrine+Postmodernism-Expositional Preaching=The Emergent Church
S.
Acts 20:24
Note to all commenters:
I deleted a comment because the material wasn't original, and it wasn't attributed.
Please don't cut and paste stuff from the Web into my comments section, especially without giving credit to the original author. A link to the original article is sufficient.
Also, article-length replies are not authentic "comments," even if the content had been original. If you have so much to say that I have to press the "page down" key more than five times to get to the end of your "comment," you should start your own blog, or else apply for posting privileges at one of the team blogs.
In other words, as Bill O'Reilly would say, "No bloviating. That's my job."
PS:
....except for Steve Hays. He can bloviate here any time he wants.
"I deleted a comment because the material wasn't original, and it wasn't attributed."
Good bless you.
Reading about the "Fad driven church" makes me appreciate my own church (Fourth Baptist Church in Plymouth, MN) and men like Peter Masters and others who stand against such foolishness!
Phil.
Excellent thought provoking commentary. I don't entirely agree, and I have posted my thoughts here.
Eric.
As far as I understand, pastors not only should exegete the Word but also their audience. Pastors act as a bridge from the then and there to the here and now. I agree that there are times that the felt needs are different from the real needs. I believe that we do not make the Bible relevant. It is already relevant. But there are times we fail to communicate to our audience. Thus, we make the Word irrelevant to them. In doing so, we do the Word an injustice. We have to connect the Word to their real needs. We must be "koine" to them, that is, we must speak their language without compromising our message. I think that's what Barna and company are just trying to tell us. I may not agree with everything they said but I agree with the concerns that they aired about the church making itself irrelevant because of the way believers present their message.
Post a Comment