Churches: The Pamela Anderson Syndrome

My local denominational leaders have come to a statistical realization that the most effective way to reach the non-Christian is to plant new churches. They support this claim with the following statistics taken from FTS.

• Churches under 3 years old have a member to conversion ratio of 3:1 = 3 members to 1 convert.
• Churches under 3-7 years old have a member to conversion ratio of 7:1 = 7 members to 1 convert.
• Churches Over 10 years old have a member to conversion ratio of 87:1 = 87 members to 1 convert.

I wonder if the term convert equals a functioning disciple in the church, a church member or a “decision for Christ?” Given that our denomination has lots of “old churches” it appears that the new emphasis will hopefully inject new life into the movement and reach more people.

All of the men i spoke with have a great passion to reach the lost. (There were no female planters – a shame!) Yet no one questioned why older churches are so ineffective on average. Instead we spent the next two days walking through a program to “guarantee a successful” church launch. The quick outline goes like this.

1. Start 5-8 home groups to train your core members for a year.
2. Raise 223,000 dollars to cover building rental, staffing, and purchase what you need.
3. Focus on children because if the children are happy, the parent(s) will return.
4. Advertise, advertise and do it some more.
5. Plan on a launch event of between 200-300 people.
6. Be a “big church” from the start.

I call this type of emphasis on “Bigger is Better” the Pamela Anderson Syndrome.

Pamela Anderson, a beautiful woman who has achieved much success and fame by pandering to the notion that sex sells. In the entertainment industry, maintaining the image of an idealized woman is to guarantee oneself fame, fortune and future work. Ironically, the progress of her career can almost be tracked by the size of her bust line.

When her career slumped, Pamela made herself look like an even bigger star and sex symbol than her competition.  The competition for attention lead her to augmented her breast size and increase her image in a highly consumerist industry. The motto “The Bigger, The better” seems to apply here.

In the church planting intensive we never looked at the philosophical implications behind the methodology being suggested. They presented the matherial as the best way to plant a church. But is it? We turn out churches that remind me of children on steroids. Physically they look well developed and mature but in reality they are still children.

I do not deny that this approach still works in major parts of the American cultural environment. A highly touted church my denomination started seven months ago is now running two services and has about 275 - 310 people. Their children’s area teems with video game stations, games and activities to captivate the children. It works to attract families but at what cost?

I have serious reservations about short-circuiting the early growth stages of a community to look big and attract a crowd. As our culture changes, this mode of church has begun to fall flat and eventually will become ineffective. The rise of the emergent church only demonstrates this trend.

If i wanted to build a church according to the yardstick of building, bodies, and budget i’d plant a Pamela Anderson syndrome church. In an emerging context, the desire to return to our calling and make disciples of the nations becomes apparent. When we consider church planting from the disciple making perspective, I become dissatisfied with the bigger is better approach to Christian community and churches.

Why are “old churches” ineffective at reaching the lost? Best Guess, they are effective at building a congregation while remaining ineffective at making disciples. “New churches” have energy, drive, and can attract a crowd. But if they do not emphasize disciple making they are fated to become like the ineffective churches they left behind.

As I look at cultivating a community I cannot escape the imperative of making Disciples of Christ. How fast the community grows become irrelevant compared to the disciples we produce. Best of all this does not require a new church. We can re:vision existing churches toward the discipleship imperative. It remains a slow process but one that is necessary if a church seeks to sustain genuine growth and continue to be effective.

BTW: I do not like the term Non-Christian, Church Plant, nor discipleship as they all have too much cultural baggage attached to them. Any suggested replacement language?

Comments

[Matt Brennecke]

I thought you were going to explain that churches were turning to scantily clad former baywatch models to lipsynch worship songs.

Seriously, I wonder if the ratio has any real usefullness in planning. Billy Grahm crusades "save" thousands every year, but only 3% supposedly stay.

What method did the early church use? It seems to me that they just lived life honestly, loved one another, had answer for the hope that was in them, and people were added to thier number daily.

[dan]

It would seem to me that doing church planting this way is likely to miss all the benefits that it is actually going after. In my experience, in a smaller environment, people realise that the community is fragile and take greater ownership if you like of the inclusive and welcoming aspects of being church.

In older small churches, the same understanding of the fragility exists, but it is accompanied by a rigidity of functioning that is difficult to change. In a smaller/younger church things are flexible and people are willing to try different things.

And finally, the other thing that in my opinion sets apart new churches is that they are often characterised by a detailed thinking and understanding of the foundations and missional frameworks of the community. That is, they are created intentionally to address particular communities - the sort of analysis that becomes less frequent in larger communities.

I think I already said "finally" but I wonder also about the value of choosing church models on the basis of "converts" - it seems like the flip side of the church growth movement - the idea that bigger is necessarily better. Is a church with lots of new people coming through the door but which is not having any discernible impact on the least of these in the community effective or successful?

[Darren]

Matt: "...scantily clad former baywatch models to lipsynch worship songs." What a mental picture. LOL ROLF

Dan: i could not agree more. i tend to stand in direct opposition to the thinking that the basic planting outline shows. Rather than build a church, my vision is to cultivate a network of smaller communities that link together occasionally to worship and give back to the greater community we all belong to. This takes time, faith and an experiential understanding of just how fragile Christian Community is.

[Matt Brennecke]

If a group of people decides to organize as a group, they have a natural way of doing things that seems right to them as a group. If there are disagreements, a small group can make decisions through simple discussion (Ekklesia). Once a group has been together a while, they come to a point whre they have to either agree that new members of that group can discuss and debate about foundational group issues, or that they will prevent changes in the groups foundation.

I think most institutional churches make the second choice, to write down bylaws or put in charters or creeds that explain to new people what "we" believe. It would be very difficult in a large group to allow open group decision making, usually they end up with some authority structure in place to maintain the status quo.

I think the small new church draws new people because they really can participate, and what they think matters to the group. In an "established" church setting that flexibility is limited, and a "convert" must accept the group thinking right from the start. Members are more likely to tell the convert how it is than discuss things as equals. Since not everyone is open to this, this eliminates certain potential converts.

The reverse is true of small group settings. They are so intimate and open that some people will never be comfortable there either. They can also be rigid just because of the intensity of the individuals (or thier theology)that make up the group.

I think we make a serious error when we look at churches as the primary means of evangelism and attempt to plan the "perfect church". Churches are made up of people, and as such they are faulty. There is no one right way. Scour the scriptures, but there are very few specific instructions about meetings. Certainly not enough to justify being rigid about how we "do church".

[Jennifer]

I hope you don't mind me posting here but I just had a comment about it....I have belonged two two churches, one was not active in the way of generating converts and the other one fully based it's survival on converts. Both claimed to teach the true doctrine and claimed to be the one and only true church. In the church that didn't have missionaries, my life wasn't as regulated and watched as it was in the church that did have missionaries. In the missionary church I was a "convert" and therefore I always had members of the church looking out for me, and making sure I was doing what was right. In the church that did not have any missionaries I wasn't watched as closely and was free to explore. When I left that church, it was ok and the people where saddend but agreed that I needed to find my own path. However leaving the missionary church where I was a convent it was not so easy to leave. I had to re-locate, sever ties with the the members and basically fall of the face of the earth to leave. I am still battleing with the church headquarters to get my name removed from the records.

So, if I where to be asked which church I would prefer it is obvious I would prefer the first. However, I did enjoy the closeness of the second one and the sense of belonging, I just didn't like the feeling of being smothered and not haveing room to breath.

Good luck!
Jen

[john]

I believe God is moving against "formula church" or what we might rightly call man's church. He is tearing it down (Hosea 6). It must be torn in order to mend it, or reshape it - His way. My experience has been that real spiritual growth takes place in community with others with God as our center and focus. Our traditional church structures have lost that as our social communities also have lost much. Wolfgang Simson speaks of the DNA of church in his book, "Houses That Change The World". It is an organic growth, something that is alive that we pass to others. We do it in the context of family, friends and intimate community. It's natural, or perhaps super-natural! It does work to grow us personally and it will grow new churches exponentially. Were talking twiggy here, not Pamela Anderson. OOps aged myself. If us old fogeys love little church, the young folks should be ecstatic. It's freeing and yet brings me right up close with God. I feel more centered, it's about getting real with God.

[Chris]

The new church recruiting isn't working as planned because people have learned to think for themselves. In this world, it already seems like God either has a) no heart, or b) a sadistic sense of humor. Given what's going on around us, I don't blame people for being concerned with themselves (worshipping that false idol, baby) or just learning to get along without sitting, standing, kneeling times 3.

Sorry.
-Chris

[n huppert]

Do you really need to put a picture of large (nearly bare) breasts on a Christian site? What game are you playing?