Part Two: Deserting its Missiological Call: When Mass-Marketing Method Drives Mega-Church Message

Part Two: Introduction to the Problem: Marketing the Church or Marketing the Gospel?
For Part One: Historical Antecedents, see the post directly following.

But somewhere between the genesis of McGavran’s missiological approach to Church Growth and the establishment of the modern, powerful mega-church model, something went awry. The predominantly missiological approach was replaced by a principally market-driven frenzy. The fervor the church once had for Voetius’ conviction to see the “conversion of the heathen” while maintaining “the glory of God” was replaced with a new enthusiasm to increase numerical growth by using ostentatious marketing techniques. These “clever methods and gimmicks…might proselyte people into false conversions through fleshly persuasion.”[1]

Furthermore, the church is becoming obsessed with meeting the felt needs of the church consumer. In his best-seller, Marketing the Church, Barna writes:

It is…critical that we keep in mind a fundamental principle of Christian communication: the audience, not the message, is sovereign. If our advertising is 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.[2]

With an elevated focus on self, the calling to be a missiological community that incarnates the Gospel message to a spiritual dying world is vanishing. The church that disregards its missiological calling will implode from its internal infatuation.

Admittedly, there are numerous churches that are clinging to the foundations of their faith and maintaining a strong missiological focus. Nevertheless, these churches are the exception rather than the rule. They are swimming upstream in a church ethos teeming with ministry practitioners who are eager to acquiesce to the surrounding culture. There is an escalating temptation in American culture to compromise the message of the Gospel in favor of the muddied waters of the modern method for Church Growth. The church is in dire straits unless it can reverse the hands of time and return once again to its missiological nucleus.

Too many North American churches are straddling the fence, with one leg firmly fixed on the foundation of their missiological calling, and one leg hesitantly planted on the ground of the popular Church Growth movement. These churches stand at the crossroads and two distinct voices beckon them to move forward, committing themselves fully to journey down one of two paths. The loudest voice calls them to commit to a market-driven approach of church ministry and growth. Market-driven churches “are identified by a philosophy of ministry intentionally designed to effect numerical growth…. More attention is paid to market strategy, business techniques and demographics than to New Testament instruction.”[3] The market-driven church uses gimmicks, tactics, and polished products that appeal to the consumer. It seeks to draw people into the church doors at all costs, even if the message is compromised in the process.

The whisper calling out to these churches challenges them to commit fully to a message-driven model of church ministry. Message-driven churches have a concern for doctrinal purity and move believers along a trajectory of deeper growth. The message is not amended to appeal to the ears of the audience; it is expressed with all truth, clarity, and conviction. Dr. John MacArthur writes:

[The Gospel message] is disturbing, revolting, upsetting, confrontive, convicting, and offensive to human pride. There’s no way to ‘market’ that. Those who try to erase the offense by making it entertaining inevitably corrupt and obscure the crucial aspects of the message. The church must realize that its mission has never been public relations or sales; we are called to live holy lives and declare God’s raw truth—lovingly but uncompromisingly—to an unbelieving world.”[4]

Churches that faithfully proclaim the Gospel are less focused on tactics to draw people into the building; they are more deliberate in shaping character so that the congregants reflect Christ when they leave the church building. Therefore message-driven churches are missiological. Instead of being internally-focused on meeting the felt needs of the congregants, they are externally-focused on living out the Great Commission, starting in their surrounding communities.

As an American reformer, my long-term goal is to encourage the American church to commit itself fully to a philosophy of ministry that is both message-driven and missiological, and to discard any market-driven tendencies toward which the church is leaning. I have identified three related ancillary goals, based on the predominant temptations that surface in the draw between message-driven and market-driven models. First, the church must promote biblical principles rather than business principles. Second, the church must focus on quality more than quantity. Third, the church must ground itself upon Word-centered truth while rejecting the method of world-centered entertainment. The stance mega-churches take on these issues is an expression of their philosophy of ministry, and it is essential that their approach is message-driven rather than market-driven.

Footnotes:

[1] John F. MacArthur, Jr., Ashamed of the Gospel: When the Church Becomes Like the World (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993), 77.
[2] George Barna, Marketing the Church (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1988), 51, quoted in MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel, 76.
[3] Gilley, This Little Church, 17.
[4] MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel, 72.