The Market-Driven
Church
By: Gary E.
Gilley
Pastor-Teacher; Southern View
Chapel; Srpingfield,
IL
A reprint of the June–September
2000 issues of Think On These
Things
Published by Southern View
Chapel
3253 S. Fourth Street – Springfield, IL –
62703
www.svchapel.org
From the
back cover of the printed booklet reprint: As the
author writes, “The church, as observed throughout its
history, reminds me a lot of my golf swing. She is
constantly going from one extreme to the next, over
correcting, coming up short, searching, and frustrated.
Occasionally she gets it right and drives one down the
middle, but repeating that feat is rare and soon she is
slicing again.
“Take
the church growth movement for example. Having watched a
large segment of the church become content with short
yardage and lousy scores, some decided that there had to
be a better way. The church was not penetrating society;
she was not pulling in the masses; she was not making a
significant impact for the gospel. It was not that the
church leaders didn’t care, it was, it seemed, that they
lacked the ‘know-how,’ the tools, to effect change. The
gospel was still ‘the power of God for salvation’
(Romans 1:16), but it was being rejected out-of-hand by
too many. What was needed, apparently, were new methods
to reach the lost, new techniques to promote the church,
new packages for the gospel message. People, we were
told, were not rejecting the gospel or Christ; they were
rejecting our out-of-date, unappetizing forms,
philosophies, and
methods.”
In
this well researched and written series of articles, the
author accurately outlines the new practice of
evangelism in our day, a practice that does in fact,
misrepresent the Gospel of Jesus
Christ.
Part
1
What’s Driving the
Church?
A Look Behind the Scenes of the
Market-Driven
Church
At the first tee,
with great optimism and hope, I take a mighty cut at my
Top Flight #2. I eagerly look up, fully expecting to
watch that little white ball soar 250 yards straight up
the fairway, only to find that I have hooked it into the
woods on the left. Determined not to repeat such an
“uncharacteristic” performance, I correct my swing a bit
at the second tee only to slice the ball into the water
on the right. By the third hole, I’m sure, I have all
the bugs worked out. Taking a swing that Tiger Woods
would envy, and that blows leaves off trees fifty yards
away, I am amazed to find that I have topped the ball,
causing it to dribble harmlessly almost to the ladies’
tee about twenty-five yards away. Frustrated, fully
humbled, and deciding that keeping score would be a bad
idea this round, I slump to the next tee. With no
expectations and few hopes I leisurely drive the ball.
To my utter amazement it is straight and long. Ah, I am
back to form, I surmise. I am myself again—until the
next shot. Oh, the joy of golf. And I took this game up
to relax!?
The church, as observed throughout its history,
reminds me a lot of my golf swing. She is constantly
going from one extreme to the next, over correcting,
coming up short, searching, and frustrated. Occasionally
she gets it right and drives one down the middle, but
repeating that feat is rare and soon she is slicing
again.
Take the church growth movement for example.
Having watched a large segment of the church become
content with short yardage and lousy scores, some
decided that there had to be a better way. The church
was not penetrating society; she was not pulling in the
masses; she was not making a significant impact for the
gospel. It was not that the church leaders didn’t care,
it was, it seemed, that they lacked the “know-how,” the
tools, to effect change. The gospel was still “the power
of God for salvation” (Romans 1:16), but it was being
rejected out-of-hand by too many. What was needed,
apparently, were new methods to reach the lost, new
techniques to promote the church, new packages for the
gospel message. People, we were told, were not rejecting
the gospel or Christ; they were rejecting our
out-of-date, unappetizing forms, philosophies, and
methods.
It is these pronouncements that we want to
examine together. We will say up front that the church
growth (or market-driven, or seeker-sensitive) experts
have gotten some things right. They are calling for
excellence rather than shabbiness; aggressive evangelism
rather than indifference; direction and purpose rather
than aimless-ness; innovation and creativity rather than
traditionalism; dedication rather than slothfulness. In
all of these things we commend them. On the other hand,
much like my golf swing, they have over corrected in
important areas. These areas demand careful probing and
biblical realignment.
While we will examine the writing of various
individuals who speak for the market-driven movement, we
will focus often on the two flagship churches:
Saddleback Valley Community Church in Orange County,
California, and Willow Creek Community Church near
Chicago. These churches serve as the models that are
reshaping the way we “do church” today. As a matter of
fact, many refer to these churches and their clones as
“new paradigm churches.” Churches all over the world,
even those who would claim to reject the church growth
movement, are imitating the many methods promoted by
Saddleback and the “Creekers.” Others have written about
church growth, but these two churches have made it work,
and for their success they are idolized and adored by
the modern evangelical
community.
The New
Paradigm
There are numerous things about the market-driven
church growth movement that are disturbing, and we will
examine these in detail later in other papers. However,
at this point we need to ask some questions: What
exactly is a new paradigm church? How do they work? How
do they differ from more traditional churches? What are
they doing right? Why are they growing? And what can we
learn from them?
First, we must distinguish between megachurches
and new paradigm churches. Megachurches are defined as
those with average worship attendance of 2000 or more,
but these behemoth churches come in all shapes, stripes
and forms. Some are centers of great preaching and
teaching, some are charismatic, others are little more
than social clubs. New paradigm churches, on the other
hand, are identified by a philosophy of ministry
intentionally designed to effect numerical growth. In
their church growth methodologies more attention is paid
to market strategy, business techniques and demographics
than to New Testament instruction. This is not a
criticism at this point (although we will critique these
tactics later), simply an observation. Read the leading
literature from the pens of the church growth experts
(e.g. The Purpose Driven Church, by Rick Warren
of Saddleback; Marketing the Church, by George
Barna and Inside the Mind of Unchurched
Harry, by Lee Strobel) and you
will find bucket loads of marketing techniques and only
passing references to the book of Acts (the divinely
inspired church growth manual) or any other Scripture
for that matter.
An interesting article, just the type that shapes
the new paradigm system, is found in American
Demographics magazine (American Demographics,
April 1999, “Choosing My Religion,” pp. 60-65, by
Richard Cimino and Don Lattin). Several statements from
the article are worth quoting since American
Demographic seems to have its
finger on the pulse of Americans’ wants and desires.
According to this article people today claim they
are:
into spirituality,
not religion. . . Behind this shift is the search for an
experiential faith, a religion of the heart, not the
head. It’s a religious expression that downplays
doctrine and dogma, and revels in direct experience of
the divine — whether it’s called the “Holy Spirit” or
“cosmic consciousness” or the “true self.” It is
practical and personal, more about stress reduction than
salvation, more therapeutic than theological. It’s about
feeling good, not being good. It’s as much about the
body as the soul. . . Some marketing gurus have begun
calling it “the experience industry” (Ibid., p.
62).
“Congregants,” the authors believe, “care as much
about a church’s childcare services as its doctrinal
purity, pay more attention to the style of music than
the pastor’s theological training” (ibid.). If these
things are true, how should the church react? Church
marketing consultant Richard Southern encourages us to
have “an essential paradigm shift in the way church is
done, putting the needs of potential customers before
the needs of the institutional church. Baby boomers [the
inevitable target of new paradigm churches] think of
churches like they think of supermarkets, they want
options, choices, and convenience. ... Numerous surveys
show that Americans are as religious as ever — perhaps
more than ever. ... But what is on the decline is
Americans’ loyalty to particular denominations or
traditions. ... In 1958 only 1 in 25 Americans had left
the religious denomination of their upbringing. Today,
more than 1 in 2 have left or switched. … Protestant
megachurches have become the evangelical answer to Home
Depot, marketing such services as worship, child care, a
sports club, 12-step groups, and a guaranteed parking
place” (ibid., p. 63).
The natural outcome of church leaders, who pour
over such literature, is that they begin to use,
“computerized demographic studies and other
sophisticated marketing techniques to fill their pews”
(ibid., p. 62). And the good news is that it does not
matter what a given church believes, for “anyone can
learn these marketing and outreach techniques. You don’t
have to change your theology or your political stance”
(ibid.). Springing from this fountain of demographic
“truth” is a whole industry of experts to teach church
marketing techniques. One such expert is Christian A.
Schwarz, who is the director of the Institute for
Natural Church Development. Schwarz claims that between
1994 and 1996 his organization conducted “the most
comprehensive research project about the causes of
church growth that has ever been conducted in the
Christian church. . . More than 1000 churches on all
five continents took part in this study” (The ABC’s
of Natural Church Development,
by Christian A. Schwarz).
From this mountain of research Schwarz has
observed eight characteristics of growing churches.
These are: empowering leadership, gift-oriented
ministry, passionate spirituality, functional
structures, inspiring worship, holistic small groups,
need-oriented evangelism and loving relationships. Some
of these qualities we will examine more closely later,
but at this juncture there are two things that draw our
interest. Schwarz claims that these principles work in
any type of church anywhere in the world, and secondly,
that if all characteristics are present these principles
will work every time. “Every church in which each of the
eight quality characteristics has reached a certain
level. . . is a growing church. There is qualitative
value — which can be shown in exact statistical terms —
beyond which a church will always grow” (ibid., p.
23).
One quality especially important to today’s
growing churches is enthusiastic worship services.
Schwarz asks his readers, “Is the worship service an
inspiring experience for those who attend it? It is this
area that clearly separates growing from non-growing
churches. People who attend inspiring worship services
unanimously declare that the church service is — and for
some Christians this is almost a heretical word — ‘fun’”
(ibid., p. 14).
Growing churches are creating an atmosphere, an
environment of fun. So fun has replaced holiness as the
church’s goal. Having a good time has become the
criterion of an excellent, growing church, since fun and
entertainment is what church consumers want. Yet
Scripture references encouraging churches to become
havens of fun are, as one may suspect, sadly
lacking.
Let’s play “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” For
$500,000: Which church was a growing church in the book
of Revelation; the church at Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22),
which saw itself as rich and wealthy and in need of
nothing; or the church at Smyrna (Rev. 2:8-11), that was
described as poor, in tribulation and facing great
persecution? Need a “lifeline” you say? Here you go: God
said of the Laodicean church that He would spit them out
of His mouth, but of the Smyrna church that they would
receive the crown of life. Confusing, isn’t it? The
obviously growing church did not please God, while the
struggling one did. This is something worth pondering as
we press on.
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. 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,
including ours, 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 commonsense on the one hand and purposeful,
aggressive leadership on the other. Many of Warren’s
suggestions are excellent. 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 (p. 13,14). That
is, only a few old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds still
question the validity of the market-driven strategy.
Marketing, by the way, is defined by Barna as “a broad
term that encompasses all the activities that lead up to
an exchange of equally valued goods between consenting
parties.”
In other words, “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 (I
Corinthians 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 in our future
papers.
Part
2
This 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,
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 4 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) pulls 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 (p.
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,
as I hope to demonstrate in these papers, but for now
look at his definition of marketing. Is the gospel
marketable by this definition? Is the gospel the
“exchange of equally valued goods between consenting
parties?” Let’s see. 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?). The market process breaks down in its very
definition when the “product” is Christ.
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? We will
study this subject in detail in our next paper but at
this point we must at least 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 respected 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.
The Consumer is King. The premise of all
marketing is that the consumer must be pleased; he must
be kept happy; he must be given what he needs, or has
been programmed to think he needs, if we are to succeed.
This premise works very well for say, McDonald’s, but
can it be adopted by the church? Certainly it can, but
is not the church, and more importantly, the gospel
message, altered and distorted in the process? Listen to
these words by Wells, “The fact is that while we may be
able to market the church, we cannot market Christ, the
gospel, Christian character, or meaning in life. The
church can offer handy childcare to weary parents,
intellectual stimulation to the restless video
generation, a feeling of family to the lonely and
dispossessed – and, indeed, lots of people come to
churches for these reasons. But neither Christ nor his
truth can be marketed by appealing to consumer interest,
because the premise of all marketing is that the
consumer’s need is sovereign, that the customer is
always right and this is precisely what the gospel
insists cannot be the case” (Wells, p.
82).
Even the New Yorker
sees a problem with today’s audience-driven preaching,
“The preacher, instead of looking out upon the world,
looks out upon public opinion, trying to find out what
the public would like to hear. Then he tries his best to
duplicate that, and bring his finished product into the
marketplace in which others are trying to do the same.
The public, turning to our culture to find out about the
world, discovers there is nothing but its own
reflection. The unexamined world, meanwhile, drifts
blindly into the future” (As quoted by Guinness, p.
59).
But What if the Consumer Changes? The
following two quotes are worthy of pondering: “He who
marries the spirit of the age soon becomes a widower.”
“To be always relevant, you have to say things which are
eternal” (Guinness, p. 63). What happens when the fickle
consumer changes his interests, or develops new wants,
as he inevitably will? Will today’s cutting edge pastor
suddenly find himself stampeded by the herd tomorrow? In
order to avoid such a tragedy must he keep his ear to
the ground of modern marketing techniques? Will he
become a slave to polls and surveys? And how does all of
this affect his use of the Scriptures? We don’t have to
have a crystal ball to answer these questions; all we
have to do is look behind us. The church has always
fought, and too often lost, the battle with its age.
Parallels with today are plentiful. For example, the
“Downgrade Controversy” of Spurgeon’s time ultimately
led to the liberalization of the evangelical churches of
England. In our own country we think back to the early
nineteenth-century changes that came about through the
revivalism movement, best known by some as Finneyism.
Guinness sees this as an important precedent because as
in our time the change was not “so much from Calvinism
to Arminianism as from theology to experience, from
truth to technique, from elites to populism, and from an
emphasis on ‘serving God’ to an emphasis on ‘servicing
the self’ in serving God” (Guinness, p. 27). Some are
still alive who experienced the great
Fundamental/Modernist battle of the first half of the
last century in which the big names of the church
invited us to court the spirit of the age. The fad was
so popular that almost every major denomination in
America eventually married that spirit and moved away
from biblical Christianity. It was at that point that
new fundamentalist denominations, churches, schools, and
associations were formed. It is these very institutions
that are now flirting with the spirit of our age. The
results are predictable.
Origen, in the third century, taught that
“Christians are free to ‘plunder the Egyptians’ but
forbidden to ‘set up a golden calf’ from the spoils”
(Guinness., pp. 30,31). Easily said, but as history has
proven, almost impossible to
implement.
Michel Horton summarizes things well, “By the
time we are finished, we have entirely transformed the
communion of saints. We did not even have to officially
jettison the Bible, as the modernists did earlier this
century. We did not have to say that Scripture failed to
provide answers for the modern world or speak to the
real needs of contemporary men and women, as the
liberals said. All we had to do was to allow the world
to define the church instead of allowing the Word to
define it” (The Coming Evangelical
Crisis, edited by John H.
Armstrong, “Recovering the Plumb Line” by Michael S.
Horton, p. 254).
Summary
When we speak of marketing the church we are not
referencing such things as advertising church events,
providing excellence in church programming, being kind
to visitors, or providing ample parking. No one is
arguing the importance and value of such things.
Marketing, as defined by the new paradigm churches, goes
much further because its focus is on what the consumer
(Unchurched Harry) wants and thinks he needs, rather
than on what God wants and what He says Harry needs. In
other words, market-driven churches are built upon the
foundation of polls, surveys and the latest techniques
instead of upon the Word of God. In order to market a
church to the unsaved the consumer must be given what he
wants.
Since unsaved consumers do not desire God, or the
things of God, they have to be enticed by something
else. Thus the temptation then arises for a church to
change, or at least hide, who they are so that they
appeal to Unchurched Harry. Additionally, the church is
tempted to alter its message to correspond with what
Harry wants to hear and thinks he needs. The end result
is a felt-need gospel that appeals to Harry’s fallen
nature in an effort to entice him to come to Christ, the
ultimate felt-need supplier, so that he is fulfilled and
feels better about himself. But, “Can churches really
hide their identity without losing their religious
character? Can the church view people as consumers
without inevitably forgetting that they are sinners? Can
the church promote the gospel as a product and not
forget that those who buy it must repent? Can the church
market itself and not forget that it does not belong to
itself but to Christ? Can the church pursue success in
the market place and not lose its biblical faithfulness”
(Losing Our Virtue, by David
Wells, p. 202)? I believe the answers to these questions
are self-evident.
Part
3
I Feel a Need Coming
On
We Are
Driven
Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Valley
Community Church in Orange County, California, has
written the definitive book promoting the market-driven
concept of evangelism and church growth. The
Purpose-Driven Church, which
admittedly has a considerable amount of practical and
helpful advice, nevertheless is laced with a felt-need
philosophy that undermines, in my opinion, the value of
the whole book. It is Warren’s view that in order to
reach the lost we must begin with their felt needs (p.
197ff). He writes, “[For] anybody can be won to Christ
if you discover the key to his or her heart” (p.219). In
order to discover the felt needs of the Saddleback
Valley citizens he orchestrated a community survey of
the unchurched (p.139). Once those needs were
discovered, a program was implemented to reach the
community by offering Jesus Christ, the gospel, and the
church as a means of fulfilling those needs. Warren is
so committed to this approach that written into the
bylaws of Saddleback is this sentence, “This church
exists to benefit the residents of the Saddleback Valley
by providing for their spiritual, physical, emotional,
intellectual and social needs”
(p.220).
In support of this philosophy Warren does a
couple of things. First, he offers Jesus’ example as a
model for reaching the lost through the felt needs
porthole (see pp. 197ff). Unfortunately for Warren’s
position the passages he uses are misunderstood,
misapplied, and simply do not teach that Jesus reached
the lost through felt needs. Quite the contrary, in
Jesus’ evangelism He always quickly got to the heart of
the real need of his audience – their sin which
separated them from God (e.g. John 3; 4; Mark 10:17-31)
(in contrast to loneliness, poor self-esteem, lack of
fulfillment, etc). Next Warren defends himself by
stating, “Beginning a message with people’s felt needs
is more than a marketing tool! It is based on the
theological fact that God chooses to reveal himself to
man according to our needs”
(p.295). Warren offers no theological proof for this
assertion of course, for there is none. The apostles
would be absolutely dumbfounded to find their
“God-centered” teachings twisted to make them so
“man-centered.”
This needs-oriented approach to the Christian
life is so prevalent within the seeker-sensitive camp
that the little jingle, “Find a need and meet it, find a
hurt and heal it” has become the unofficial motto. Os
Guinness observes, “Few would disagree that
church-growth teaching represents a shift from the
vertical dimension to the horizontal, from the
theological to the practical, from the prophetic to the
seeker-friendly, from the timeless to the relevant and
contemporary, from the primacy of worship to the primacy
of evangelism, and from the priority of Christian
discipleship in all of life to the priority of spiritual
ministries within the church. But what happens when the
much-heralded new emphases are seen from the standpoint
of the Scriptures to be quite simply wrong? And what
happens if tomorrow’s ‘need’ is for what is overlooked
today” (Dining with the Devil, by Os Guinness, p.
84)?
Continuing with Guinness’ line of questions we
might ask: What are the new paradigm churches really
offering that is attracting great throngs of people? Is
this offering the same old message (the biblical
message) in new wrapping, or is it a mutation of the
real thing? And if it proves to be a mutation, what
effect is it having, and will it have on the modern
church?
The New
Message
A. W. Tozer warned decades ago of a new wind
blowing across the fields of the evangelical
church.
If I see aright, the cross of popular
evangelicalism is not the cross of the New Testament. It
is, rather, a new bright ornament upon the bosom of a
self-assured and carnal Christianity. The old cross slew
men; the new cross entertains them. The old cross
condemned; the new cross amuses. The old cross destroyed
confidence in the flesh; the new cross encourages
it.
If only Tozer could see us
now.
In our next paper we will examine the gospel
message itself. In this one we want to look at the
corollary and overlapping issue of mankind’s need(s).
What has happened, I believe, is that the evangelical
church has become a reflector of our times rather than a
revealer. “The problem is not that Christians have
disappeared, but that Christian faith has become so
deformed. Under the influence of modernity, we modern
Christians are literally capable of winning the world
while losing our own souls” (Guinness, p.
43).
A Personal
Tale
How has this happened? What has changed our
message from a force to a farce? A large part of the
answer lies in the almost wholesale embracing of
psychology by the Christian community. My first
encounter with the encroachment of psychology upon the
church was my senior year of Bible college in 1972. As I
prepared for the pastorate at Moody Bible Institute, I
had been immersed in the study of Scripture and
theology. As a senior I was required to take a course in
“pastoral counseling,” which proved to be almost
identical to a course in psychology that I had taken at
the University of Virginia. That same year I was asked,
along with several others, to be an RA in the dorm. As
part of our preparation we were given training in the
latest rage of pop-psychology, which by the way has
since been relegated to the psychological junk heap. At
the time I remember my wide-eyed amazement that all my
studies in Scripture apparently did not equip me to deal
with the real problems that would face me in my future
ministry. Bible study and knowledge were great for
salvation and sanctification, but there apparently
existed a set of problems and needs “out there” that
needed more than the “simplistic” solutions as found in
God’s Word. Scripture, after all the dust had cleared,
needed help from Freud. Unable and ill-equipped to deal
with my newfound knowledge, I tucked it away for
safekeeping. Later, in the early days of pastoring, I
decided to pursue a master’s degree in psychology in
order to help people with their “real” problems. But it
soon became abundantly clear that something was
seriously wrong. Virtually everything that I learned in
my psychology courses contradicted the Scriptures. So, I
ended my illustrious career as a would-be
pastor/psychologist and went back to the study of
Scripture, which has proven itself more than adequate
throughout the years for every need and concern that has
come my way. Meanwhile, immersed in my own ministry and
the study of Scripture, I was somehow oblivious to
psychology’s hijacking of the evangelical church during
the 1970s and 80s. One day I awoke, sort of a Rip Van
Wrinkle experience, to find that my world, the world of
the church, had changed, and I had been left behind.
Where had everyone gone? Most churches were now talking
about dysfunctional families, poor self-images,
co-dependency, addictions, 12-step programs, and needs,
lots and lots of needs that the church was supposed to
meet. More Christians were obtaining their philosophy
for living from Oprah and Sally Jesse than from Jesus
and Paul.
When Christian leaders saw this metamorphosis of
God’s people, a metamorphosis that they had helped
create, they could either pull in the reins, denounce
this caricature of the Christian faith and repent of
their part in its birth, or they could jump on the float
and join the parade. Most, recognizing that this is what
the people now wanted, what they expected, what they had
been trained to “need,” choose the float approach. Give
Christians the need-oriented pop-psychology that they
had grown to love, they decided, just alter it a bit
with a little Scripture and some references to Jesus –
they would never catch on that what they were swallowing
was not biblical Christianity at all, but an almost
unrecognizable perversion. Whether this approach was
calculated or naively taken matters little, the result
is the same: a psychologized Christian community which
no longer recognizes the difference between the
teachings of Scripture and the teachings of Carl Rogers,
and no longer cares.
Since the Christian was now indistinguishable in
philosophy from the world, both having fallen in love
with psychobabble, the offense of the cross became far
less, well, offensive. It was only a short step for
someone (Robert Schuller is a worthy candidate as we
will see) to develop a psychologized church for the
already psychologized Unchurched Harry (as the Willow
Creekers call him). This would be a church that would
offer the same things to Harry that secular society
offered only better, since Jesus was better than a Carl
Rogers, Oprah and Freud combined. And so it was — “The
new paradigm churches, then, appear to be succeeding,
not because they are offering an alternative to our
modern culture, but because they are speaking with its
voice, mimicking its moves” (Losing Our
Virtue, by David Wells, p.
32).
A Little
History
The church growth movement owes much to Robert
Schuller, who claims to be its founder, at least in this
country, by being the first to launch the marketing
approach in Christianity. “The secret of winning
unchurched people into the church,” Schuller said, “is
really quite simple. Find out what would impress the
nonchurched in your community” then give it to them (as
quoted in Willow Creek Seeker Services, by G.S.
Pritchard, p. 51). Believing that expository preaching
is a waste of time, and borrowing the philosophy of his
mentor Norman Vincent Peale, Schuller “began to
communicate a message of Christianity that focused on
meeting the emotional and psychological needs of people”
(Pritchard, p. 53). Schuller laid out his philosophy of
ministry in his 1982 book Self Esteem: The New
Reformation, in which he called
for a radical shift in the church’s focus from God to
human needs. The most important issue before Schuller
was to determine through some means what was the deepest
human need upon which the church should focus. He
decided that mankind’s deepest need was self-esteem, a
“need,” by the way, nowhere mentioned, alluded to or
even hinted at in the Scriptures. He then went on to
wrap his theology and church growth strategy around this
all-important need. Originally Schuller’s church growth
philosophy met with scorn and denunciation by
conservative Christians everywhere. But while Christian
leaders held the theological front against need-oriented
Christianity they were out-flanked by pragmatism. It
just so happened that Schuller’s methodology worked, and
those who employed it were seeing exponential numerical
growth in their churches. In most arenas truth doesn’t
stand a chance against success; this proved to be the
case in the church growth
wars.
If Robert Schuller was the architect of the
user-friendly church, then Bill Hybels, pastor of Willow
Creek Community church, became the contractor. Working
from the premise that, “The most effective messages for
seekers are those that address their felt need”
(Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary, by
Lee Strobel, pp. 214,215) it remained for Hybels and
company to determine which felt needs most needed
attention. Leading the pack, Hybels decided it was not
self-esteem, although he did not reject it, but rather
personal fulfillment (or the pursuit of happiness)
followed by identity, companionship, marriage, family,
relief of stress, meaning and morality (ibid., pp.
70-73). To Hybels, fulfillment was the felt need that
encompassed and defined all others. Since, to the
founders of the new paradigm church, felt needs are the
driving force behind the actions and attitudes of
people, and since Christianity, Hybels would argue, is
the best means to solve problems and satisfy the desire
for fulfillment (ibid., p. 143), he developed the gospel
of personal fulfillment. According to the research book
Willow Creek Seeker Services
by G. A. Pritchard, the canon within the canon at Willow
Creek is that human beings can be fulfilled. Fulfillment
permeates every venue at Willow Creek, even leading to a
redefinement of sin. “Instead of only portraying sin as
selfishness and a rebellion against God, Hybels also
describes it as a flawed strategy to gain fulfillment”
(ibid., p. 177).
It should be noted that while this felt need
strategy is not derived from Scripture, coming clearly
from secular psychology, it nevertheless would become
the foundation of the new paradigm
church.
The
Repercussions
The result of psychology’s invasion of our
culture has been, as R. Albert Mohler, Jr. noticed, that
“Americans are now fanatic devotees of the cult of
self-fulfillment and personal autonomy” (The Coming
Evangelical Crisis, edited by John H. Armstrong,
’Evangelical’: What’s in a Name?” by R. Albert Mohler,
Jr., p. 40). The role of the church has been to
challenge the spirit of the age, for as Wells points
out, “The church is in the business of truth, not
profit” (God in the Wasteland, by David Wells, p.
76). Unfortunately, “the healers of our time –
psychotherapists and advertisers – have extended their
long reach into the life of the church as well. Our
secular healers have populated the Church with their
close cousins” (Losing Our Virtue, by David Wells, p. 197). Even “the language of
theology has been replaced by the vocabulary of the
therapeutic” (Mohler).
These new
cousins have affected every aspect of church life. Take
worship for example — New paradigm pastor Wes Dubin goes
on the offensive when his entertainment oriented worship
services are challenged. “It (worship) is not all gloom
and doom,” he states, “and all of us take our Bibles and
just bore each other, let’s show them that we can also
have fun” (In the Name of God, video with Peter
Jennings). There is a time for fun in the church but
surely, “the purpose of worship is clearly to express
the greatness of God and not simply to find inward
release or, still less, amusement. Worship is
theological rather than psychological” (Losing Our
Virtue, p.
40).
And then there is the issue of sin. In a
psychological world sin is reduced to sickness and
addiction. The sinner is not seen as depraved, but as a
victim. What is then lost is our capacity to understand
life, and ourselves, as sinful. When the
seeker-sensitive church adopts the language and theology
of psychology it then attempts to dispense psychological
prescriptions for life’s issues rather than biblical
ones, for after all, it reasons, the world now thinks
within the framework of psychology and we must be
relevant. Rather than challenge and confront the world’s
wisdom the modern church is seeking to sanctify it. The
result is, as the prophet Jeremiah warned in his day,
“They have healed the brokenness of My
people
superficially” (Jeremiah 6:14).
The emphasis on psychology is also changing the
focus of the church. Pritchard is right when he says,
“Instead of looking at God’s face, this teaching
suggests that individuals look in the distorted mirror
of modern psychology” (Pritchard, p. 233). Pritchard
claims that when he attended the church (ibid., pp. 227,
235), the majority of the books sold in Willow Creek’s
bookstore were psychological and self-help books, with
the decidedly anti-Christian Codependent No
More by Melody Beattie the top
seller. This accentuation on psychology, “instead of
encouraging Creekers to know and love God, encourages
them to know and accept themselves and develop a strong
self-esteem. The goals and means of one’s ethics change
from a God-centered to a human-centered orientation….
Willow Creek Christians have accepted the psychological
framework as foundational to their self-understanding
and as a trustworthy guide for daily living” (Pritchard,
p. 234).
Pritchard’s assessment of the psychological
influence at Willow Creek is lethal. “Ironically, while
Hybels is evangelizing those in the world toward
Christianity, he is also evangelizing Christians toward
the world. As the unchurched Harrys in the audience (10
percent) move closer to Christianity, the Christians in
the audience (90 percent) are often becoming more
psychological and worldly…. In the effort to become
relevant Willow Creek ironically is in danger of
becoming irrelevant” (Pritchard, p. 238-239 —
Percentages of Christians and non-Christians attending
Willow Creek are estimates based upon the author’s
research).
Pritchard’s critique of the need-oriented
approach to “doing church” is worthy of quoting
extensively:
The unintended
consequences of this approach are that Hybels
incorporates large chunks of the American psychological
worldview into his basic teaching and teaches that
fulfillment is a consequence of the Christian life.
There is a lack of critical evaluation to Willow Creek’s
approach to relevance. This felt-need approach to
relevance ultimately distorts their
Christianity.
A more
biblical approach to the current American fixation with
fulfillment is to call it the idolatry
that it is. Jesus does not
guarantee that to follow him will make one fulfilled. In
fact, at several points, the direct opposite is
communicated: “I have chosen you out of the world. That
is why the world hates you” (John 15:19); “I did not
come to bring peace but a sword” (Matthew 10:34); “If
they persecuted me they will persecute you also” (John
15:20). The temptation to say that Christianity will
meet all one’s needs and provide fulfillment is not true
to biblical Christianity (Pritchard, p. 200 — emphasis
mine).
Willow Creek’s unintended failures result from an
uncritical use of various cultural tools and ideas
(marketing, psychology, media). In particular, their
mistakes are rooted in a superficial understanding of
the American culture and an inadequate grasp of
Christian theology (Pritchard, p.
207).
The
seeker-sensitive experts would defend marketing as a
tool they use to attract more Unchurched Harrys to hear
the gospel. Methods change, the message stays the same,
is the cliche. What they naively do not seem to
understand is that the message will ultimately be shaped
by the method. This is especially true of marketing
since it, “shapes how one views the world. People become
‘consumers’ and ‘target audiences.’ These consumers have
‘felt needs,’ which ‘research’ discovers in order to
modify the ‘product’ to meet these needs” (Pritchard, p.
244).
There exists a subtle yet important difference
between the New Testament church and the new paradigm
church. The church, the New Testament teaches, is to
glorify God and instruct people on how to please Him. In
the process needs may very well be met but the purpose
of the church is not to meet people’s needs (except for
the need for godliness). In the modern church, needs
reign; God exists to meet Harry’s needs. Harry comes to
Christ, not to glorify Him, but to find the promised
fulfillment and happiness in this life. When Harry is
attracted through a felt-need philosophy, he will not be
retained when that approach is no longer used. In other
words, if Harry is drawn to the church in order to
get, in order to satisfy his
flesh, he is not likely to stay around when and if he
discovers that Christ calls for him to lose his life for
Christ’s sake (Matthew 16:25). The result is that
churches which have been built on the quagmire of the
superficial must remain superficial if they hope to
retain their Harrys and
Marys.
Summary
David Wells asked the right question of these
seeker-sensitive churches, “Does the Church have the
courage to become relevant by becoming biblical? Is it
willing to break with the cultural habits of the time
and propose something quite absurd, like recovering both
the word and the meaning of sin?” (Losing Our
Virtue, p. 199)? “I fear that the seeds of a
full-blown liberalism have now been sown, and in the
next generation they will surely come to maturity”
(ibid., p. 205). I agree with the closing sentence in
Losing Our Virtue, “We need
the faith of the ages, not the reconstructions of a
therapeutically driven or commercially inspired faith.
And we need it, not least, because without it our
postmodern world will become starved for the Word of
God” (ibid., p. 209).
Part
4
The New
Gospel
Counterfeit money is recognized by those who know
how to identify the real thing. Before we examine the
gospel message found in the new paradigm churches, it
would be best to examine the gospel message found in the
Bible. The gospel message in a nutshell is this: Harry
(to use Willow Creek’s name for the unsaved) is a
sinner, in full-blown rebellion against God (Rom. 3:23;
5:1-12). While some Harrys are outwardly religious and
some even desire the gifts and benefits that God can
supply, no Harrys truly seek after God or desire Him
(Rom. 3:10-18). As a result of Harry’s sinfulness he is
under the wrath of God (Rom. 1:18), faces future
judgment (Heb. 9:27), will die both physically and
spiritually (Rom. 6:23) and will spend eternity in hell
(Rev. 20:11-15).
It is because of Harry’s hopeless plight, and the
fact that he can do nothing to redeem himself in God’s
eyes (Titus 3:5), that Jesus Christ (through grace
alone, not because of Harry’s value and worth, Eph. 2:8)
became a man, died on the cross (Rom. 5:8) (thus taking
Harry’s sin upon Himself and satisfying the wrath of
God, Heb. 2:17) and resurrected from the dead in order
that Harry could be saved from his sin and be given the
righteousness of Christ (Rom 4). While all of this is a
gift from God, Harry obtains that gift through the
exercise of faith (Eph 2:8,9) – purely taking God at his
word, trusting that God will save him if only he truly
believes.
What I hope to demonstrate in this paper is that
while many within the seeker-sensitive stable would
ascribe to most of the above definition for the gospel,
in reality, this is not how the gospel is being
presented to Harry. Rather Harry is being told that he
is so valuable to God that He sent His Son to die for
him (a denial of grace, cf. Hebrews 1-2 which lays out
the case for God’s grace through the unique method of
showing that Christ did not die for angels who are of
greater value than man, but he died for man – by grace
alone). Harry is being told that if he will come to
Christ, Christ will meet all of his felt needs and that
will lead to personal fulfillment. Harry is then being
asked to trust in Christ, the great “Needs-Meeter,” who
will end his search for a life of happiness and
fulfillment.
This, I suggest, is not the gospel at all, but
the “Gospel of Me”, the “Gospel of Self-Fulfillment,”
the “New Gospel.” “We must never confuse our desire for
people to accept the Gospel,” Oswald Chambers warned
long ago, “with creating a Gospel that is acceptable to
people.” “How we define the problem will define our
gospel. If the ‘big problem’ in the universe is my lack
of self-esteem, the gospel will be ‘finding the neat
person inside of yourself.’ If the great question is
‘How can we fix society?’ the gospel will be a set of
moral agendas complete with a list of approved
candidates. But how often do we discuss the ‘big
problem’ as defined by Scripture? That problem is the
wrath of God” (The Coming Evangelical
Crisis, Edited by John
Armstrong, “Recovering the Plumb Line,” by Michael S.
Horton, p. 256).
Harry Would Come to
Church But…
The reason Unchurched Harry is unchurched is, to
the market-driven proponents, a matter of Harry being a
fallen creature who has rejected God and has little, if
any attraction toward the things of God. Right? No, not
at all. Rather, Harry would love to come to church, and
ultimately receive Christ, if only the church would
learn to market and present its product better. Lee
Strobel, former teaching pastor at Willow Creek, now
with Saddleback Community, assures us that marketing
studies have shown that “Harry has rejected church, but
that doesn’t necessarily mean he has rejected God”
(Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and
Mary, by Lee Strobel, p. 45).
Yet, the Scriptures are very clear that mankind does
reject God (Rom. 3:10-18; 5:1-12; I Cor. 1:18ff). What
surveys show is that people have not rejected the gods
of their own creation and imagination — but they do not
seek the true God.
Actually what we learn, from marketing study, is
that the real reason Harry doesn’t come to church is
because church is boring, predictable, irrelevant, money
hungry (ibid. p. 80), and does not meet his needs (ibid.
p. 58). The new paradigm church operates under the credo
that Harry is “Hostile to the church, friendly to Jesus
Christ” (ibid. p. 47). They “have the misconception that
to win the world to Christ we must first win the world’s
favor. If we can get the world to like us, they will
embrace our Savior. The expressed design of the
user-friendly philosophy is to make unconverted sinners
feel comfortable with the Christian message”
(Reckless Faith, by John
MacArthur, p. 52).
Reaching Harry
with the Gospel
It is clear, when one studies Scripture rather
than marketing surveys, that the seeker-sensitive
church’s gospel message is flawed at its roots – it has
a faulty anthropology. It views Harry as attracted, even
friendly with God, but turned off by the out-dated
methods of the church. Once that premise is accepted the
methodologies of the user-friendly church are logical.
All that remains is to discover what Harry wants in a
church, and in a God, and give it to him in an
attractive package. In other words, make him an offer he
can’t refuse. On the negative side we must understand
that “Unchurched Harry doesn’t respond well to someone
who predicates a command on, ‘Thus sayeth the Lord’”
(ibid. p. 50). Nor is the way to Harry’s heart through
the porthole of truth. For, you see, Harry is a
pragmatist; his question is does Christianity work
(ibid. p. 56)? Harry is also an existentialist;
“Experience – not evidence – is their mode of discovery”
(ibid. p. 59).
Now that we know that Harry is not motivated by
the commands of God, nor is he all that interested in
truth, we can abandon the direct approach. And since he
is looking for something that will help him reach his
goals in life and to feel good in the process, we are
ready to package the gospel to draw his attention. The
new paradigm church does this by focusing on the gospel
of felt need. “The Church’s problem today is simply that
it does not believe that, without tinkering, the Gospel
will be all that interesting to modern people”
(Losing Our Virtue, by David
Wells, p. 207). And so tinker it
must.
The Gospel of Felt
Need
From psychology the seeker-sensitive church has
discovered that both baby boomers and busters
have—
Learned to expect that their needs should be met,
jobs would be provided, money would be available, and
problems would be solved. The result is a generation of
young adults who want and expect everything right away.
Life is to be lived for the present. There is little
awareness of a philosophy that says we should make
long-range plans, or work hard today so things will be
better tomorrow. This is a ‘now’ generation that has
little interest in any religion that talks about
sacrifices, heaven, or ‘the sweet by-and-by.’ They want
to hear about a faith that works now and brings
immediate results (Strobel, p.
57).
If this is true, how are we to proclaim the
gospel to a pampered, self-centered generation that
demands society meet their every whim? Previous
generations, including biblical ones, would use these
traits to point to evidence of sin in Harry’s life. They
would call Harry to repentance from such a lifestyle,
and to faith in Christ for forgiveness of such sins.
Then they would challenge new-believer Larry to abandon
his self-centeredness, call for a life of
self-sacrifice, humbly allowing the Spirit of God to
transform him into
Christlikeness.
But the modern church sees it differently.
Strobel writes, “Our challenge, then, is to help this
new generation of Unchurched Harry’s understand that
Christianity does work, that is, that the God of the
Bible offers us supernatural wisdom and assistance in
our struggles, difficulties, and recovery from past
hurts” (ibid.). Strobel is suggesting that “this new
generation” is unlike the past generations, and
therefore must be reached differently than the past.
What worked at one time simply does not speak to today’s
Harry. Wells has nailed down the prevailing attitude
when he writes, “What our culture suggests is that all
of the greatest treasures of life are at hand, quite
simply, in the self. Religious man was born to be saved,
but psychological man was born to be pleased. ‘I
believe’ has been replaced by ‘I feel.’ The problem is
that we have not been feeling so well recently”
(Losing Our Virtue, by David
Wells, p. 107).
There is just enough truth in Strobel’s statement
to throw most of us off guard. Does Christianity work?
Does God offer wisdom and help during times of struggle?
Certainly, but is this the gospel? Is the good news that
Christ died for our sins in order to free us from the
wrath of God and give us the righteousness of Christ; or
is the good news that Christ died in order that we might
feel better about ourselves and have our felt needs met?
These are two separate
gospels.
A few more
quotes from Strobel’s book will help identify exactly
what the new paradigm church is offering the unbeliever.
“We baby boomers aren’t coming to church to become
members,” said one pastor, himself a boomer. “We are
coming to experience something. Yes, even to
get something” (Strobel, p.
71 — emphasis in the original). What is it that Harry
wants to experience? Strobel supplies some examples. “If
you discover that unchurched Harry suffers from a
sagging self-esteem… you can tell him how your own
self-esteem has soared ever since you learned how much
you matter to God” (ibid. p. 92). Never mind that the
concept of self-esteem is foreign to Scripture, even
anti-scriptural; never mind that the real issue that
Harry struggles with, according to the Bible, is pride
not low self-esteem; the gospel is now gift-wrapped to
offer Harry what he has been conditioned to believe he
needs.
Not everybody is in need of an ego boost however;
some are looking for thrills, excitement, and adventure.
Fortunately for the quick-minded evangelist the gospel
resembles a chameleon, taking whatever shade is needed.
Strobel assures such thrill-seekers that he “learned
that there is nothing more exciting, more challenging,
and more adventure-packed than living as a devoted
follower of Jesus Christ. What I found is that there’s a
big difference, between thrills and thrills
that fulfill” (ibid. p. 124 —
emphasis in the original).
So now Jesus Christ can be offered as the big
thrill, the ultimate in excitement. Not only is this a
misrepresentation of Christ but it just does not square
with the facts. I wonder how thrilled the saints
described in Hebrews 11:36-38 were as they were mocked,
beaten, put to death, became homeless and lived in holes
in the ground. The new paradigm church is offering a
purely Americanized, yuppie brand of Christianity found
nowhere in the New Testament. “Much of the Gospel
presented today befits less the God of the ages than a
fairy Godmother – offering people by God’s hand what
they’ve been unable to achieve for themselves: wealth,
fame, comfort, and security” (Wayne Jacobsen as quoted
from Leadership, Vol. IV, #1,
p. 50).
The Gospel of
Fulfillment
G. A. Pritchard, after spending a year studying
the ministry at Willow Creek, eventually came to the
conclusion that “Hybels’ believes that Harry’s most
important concern is for his personal fulfillment….
Hybels teaches that Christianity will satisfy Harry’s
felt needs and provide fulfillment…. Hybels and the
other speakers do not condemn the search for
fulfillment. Rather they argue that Harry has not
searched in the right place. The question remains the
same, but the answer has been changed. Harry asks, ‘How
can I be happy?’ ‘Accept Jesus, answers Hybels’”
(Willow Creek Seeker Services by G. A. Pritchard, p. 250). Pritchard’s analysis
is on the money,
Is Willow Creek correct in their teaching that a
relationship with Christ will provide a life of
fulfillment? In a word, no…. Personal fulfillment is the
dominant goal of the vast majority of Americans. In this
context it is a great temptation for American
evangelicals to argue that Christianity is a means to
fulfillment and the church becomes another place that
promises to satisfy emotional desires…. To argue for
Christianity primarily by pointing to its usefulness in
satisfying felt needs is to ultimately undercut it. To
teach Christianity as a means eventually teaches that it
is superfluous. If someone is able to satisfy his or her
felt needs without Christ, the message of Christianity
can be discarded…. The bottom line why individuals
should repent and worship God is because God deserves
it. Fulfillment theology does not reflect the teaching
of the Bible. We find in Scripture vast evidence that
Christianity is often not “fulfilling.” Jesus promises
his disciples that “in this world you will have
trouble.”… The Lord did not promise fulfillment, or even
relief, in this world, but only in the next… .
Fulfillment is not a spiritual birthright of Christians.
The goal of a Christian’s life is faithfulness, not
fulfillment (Pritchard, p.
254-256).
Sociologist Robert Wuthnow, attempting to examine
modern Christianity, “suggests that in contemporary
America, God has been molded to satisfy people’s needs….
God is relevant to contemporary Americans mainly because
the sense of God’s presence is subjectively comforting;
that is, religion solves personal problems rather than
addressing broader questions” (As quoted in Pritchard,
p. 260). Hybels has caught this wave and presents a
sanguine portrayal of God to unchurched Harry that could
be summarized, “God loves you and will meet you where
you are, forgive you, and meet your felt needs and make
you fulfilled” (Pritchard, p. 260). John MacArthur
comments, “Marketing savvy demands that the offense of
the cross must be downplayed. Salesmanship requires that
negative subjects like divine wrath be avoided. Consumer
satisfaction means that the standard of righteousness
cannot be raised too high. The seeds of a watered-down
gospel are thus sown in the very philosophy that drives
many ministries today” (Ashamed of the
Gospel, by John MacArthur, p.
24).
Summary
In response to those who object to the new gospel
Strobel counters that “these objections 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”
(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. The new paradigm church would
loudly proclaim that salvation is by grace alone,
through faith alone, in Christ alone. But they have
redefined salvation. Salvation is not simply, under the
new gospel, the forgiveness of sin and the imputation of
righteousness. It is not a deliverance from the wrath of
God upon a deserving and rebellious
people.
The new gospel is a liberation from low
self-esteem, a freedom from emptiness and loneliness, a
means of fulfillment and excitement, a way to receive
your heart’s desires, a means of meeting our needs. The
old gospel was about God; the new gospel is about us.
The old gospel was about sin; the new gospel is about
needs. The old gospel was about our need for
righteousness; the new gospel is about our need for
fulfillment. The old gospel is foolishness to those who
are perishing; the new gospel is attractive. Many are
flocking to the new gospel but it is altogether
questionable how many are actually being saved. In a
moment of reflection on the validity of the methods used
at Willow Creek Hybels himself asked the audience, “How
many of us have been vaccinated with a mild case of
Christianity? How many among us have the real disease”
(as quoted by Pritchard, p.
316)?
“Nothing in Scripture indicates the church should
lure people to Christ by presenting Christianity as an
attractive option…. The message of the cross is
foolishness to those who are perishing (I Cor. 1:18).
There is no way to make it otherwise and be faithful to
the message…. The gospel itself is disagreeable,
unattractive, repulsive, and alarming to the world. It
exposes sin, condemns pride, convicts the unbelieving
heart, and shows human righteousness – even the best,
most appealing aspects of human nature – to be
worthless, defiled, filthy rags (cf. Isa. 64:6)”
(MacArthur, pp. 72, 111,
128).
Spurgeon warned his day that, “When the old faith
is gone, and enthusiasm for the gospel is extinct, it is
no wonder that people seek something else in the way of
delight. Lacking bread, they feed on ashes; rejecting
the way of the Lord, they run greedily in the path of
folly” (As quoted in Ashamed of the
Gospel, by John MacArthur, p.
67).
We are forced to ask, with Peter Jennings in the
thought-provoking video, In the Name of God, “As
these churches try to attract sell-out crowds are they
in danger of selling out the gospel?” Worthy question.
Rather than winning the lost for Christ the truth is
closer to Well’s assessment, “The church is losing its
voice. It should be speaking powerfully to the
brokenness of life in this postmodern world and applying
the balm of truth to wounds that are fresh and open, but
it is not. It is adrift” (Losing Our
Virtue, by David Wells, p.
207).
