For any of you who haven't read the insightful blogs of the Tall Skinny Kiwi, they are very thought-provoking. A friend tossed me a
Link to a great entry this morning (sorry I didn't read it back when it was written!) As good as the entry is, the replies are as good or better.
A couple of observations of my own:
1. "megachurch" often connotes size of congregation, according to church growth and planting mavens. Here we would have to agree that the term also connotes a philosophy, characterized by presentation, mass-customization, orientation toward perception by the attender (tell them what they think they need to hear, as opposed to what God wants them to hear according to His word). This is very similar to how the term "emergent" church was drawn out of theology, and yet often comes to denote ministry praxis (style of music, artistic/intellectual orientation of its participants, etc.). Those distinctions are critical, because we are not only talking about size of church, but also about what happens to our ideology when we get to that size (or conversely, keep it that size). There is one church in the Dallas area that is a megachuch by size, and yet emergent by approach. I think they are doing a remarkable job, and yet they themselves admit that it just gets more difficult to keep your eye on the ball with all those people coming through the door.
2. arrogance (of any ministry model) is a critical point here. Emergents are criticizing the megas for thinking they have the right way to do church. In many circles the emergents themselves are guilty of the same thing. The Bible calls it spiritual pride ("puffing up") and it brings no one into relationship with Jesus.
3. I have noticed many leaders in megachurches seem too busy and time-structured to be able to sit down and hear feedback about their own minstry from others. Unfortunately, I have seen emergents have a similar response, not due this time to busy schedules, but rather from a seemingly "single focus" on what they're doing as right. Neither is open to being challenged in their ministry praxis, but for different reasons.
4. It is one thing to say "that doesn't work for me (but I appreciate that God uses it to build His kingdom)," and "that's stupid (I can't believe anyone would think that God could use that with anyone)." Obviously it is our disenchantment with "the old" way that leads us to find "a new way." But it is erroneous thinking to feel that we cannot take anything from the old way and learn from it as we morph it and apply it to what we are doing. (To Andrew's credit, he does this later in the article when he mentions the pioneering elements in Willow's approach that have paved the way.)
5. People are different, and thus the need for different chuches. However, people are also the same everywhere--they need a relationship with God. In this regard we can get too attached to our ministry model and forget whey we're here in the first place.
One thing that's critical (and both megas and emergents might agree) is that we do need to fully understand our culture--how they think, what they value, and even how they learn and communicate. Jesus was the master of connecting to people right where they were, no mater where they were. Thus, any church of any size that neglects to study its culture in order to properly intersect it with the gospel does so to its own peril. As Ron Martoia says, "not only should we exegete the Bible, but we also must exegete our culture." This is only compounded when a church "creates a culture" within its own boundaries, and then starts meeting its own needs to the neglect of those outside the walls.
