Bouncing off of some stuff that David Fitch said about mega churches

David Fitch posted recently about issues he sees among the Gospel Coalition (TGC). I'm not even going to begin to try to address who that is or what they're about. So just roll with that bit, OK? Fitch made 5 points that he feels the TGC is comfortable with that he thinks they shouldn't be. One of those is mega-churches. I've never been a mega-church fan, and I wanted to put my own 2 cents in regarding the issues he brought up on mega-churches. So the bits in quotie-boxes is what Fitch has said. The rambling monologue in between is from me.

5.) The Mega Church Still Makes Sense. [ <-- he's saying that's what the TGC believes.] Because of the above mentioned Reformed tendencies (exacerbated by American pragmatic evangelicalism) to individualize the gospel, to individualize the reading of Scripture, to individualize salvation, to separate doctrine from “way of life,” the Neo-Reformed do not see the problem of mega church for the future of church engagement with post-Christendom.

Whew! That right there is fodder for a gorgeous diatribe against the American individualism that reigns supreme in many congregations. *breaks out in a round of singing, "It's all about meeeeeeeeeeeeee... Jesus."* Megachurches certainly aren't the only ones that jump feet first into following "the doctrine of ME" but they're at the top of the list, in my book. With a staff the size of a small church, the congregants in many mega-churches believe that "church" is all about paying people to do what the whole church really should be doing. The role of the congregant is primarily to be "fed." (Sounds like something only a bunch of dumb sheep would believe. bahhhh, bahhhh)

Mega churches have worked well within Christendom’s modernity.

Worked well? What does that mean? They work well within modern day American individualist culture, sure. But do they work well within Christendom? I'd say that's debatable with a capital "D". ... unless "Christendom" means "a bunch of sheep drinking cool-aid." (OK, OK. I'm being a little too hard on MC's. All my snark comes out when I talk about this topic. Feel free to take what I say with a grain of salt. ... or with a Lik-a Stick of Fun Dip.)

Here the individual reigned supreme and the remainder of Christian culture lingered long enough to provide a foundation for masses of individuals to become Christians within large servicing organizations.

I'm not even really sure what he's saying here. But that's OK. I'm not trying to argue with Fitch. I'm just bouncing off what he says. (The more Fun Dip I eat, the more I bounce.) So I'm just going to run with that last bit - "large servicing organizations". That describes MCs well. They do provide services. And they can be really helpful services. MC's are able to provide programs and assistance in a way that little bitty churches just can't. There are serious advantages to being large, just ask the folks at Walmart.

But is "a large servicing organization" the same thing as "church"? I'm talking about church as the Bible describes it, not as we think of it traditionally or conventionally. Can you operate as a body, the body of Christ, when you're mammoth? I don't think so. At least, I've never seen it happen. I've seen it in small pockets within the larger organization, but never in the organization as a whole.  MCs, in my experience, are pastor-centric shows in which the congregation is called to participate, mostly by giving money and attending programs.

Then again, MCs are doing important stuff. Like I said, they've got the money and the resources. They can do stuff. What I don't get is why little churches don't pool their resources to achieve similar purposes? I'm not saying that the little churches should combine to create their own MC. I'm saying they can remain as they are, smaller groups of individuals who can really get to know each other and serve each other, but linked in with other such bodies in a way that they can provide some of that bigger stuff too - training and assistance - both to their own congregations and to others in the community at large.

Now however, with the lingering remainder of Christian culture gone, the gospel must take root in a social communal embodiment.

Like that wasn't needed before? OK, so here I am taking issue with Fitch even though I said that wasn't the plan. The gospel is embodied in Christ, and what is the church but Christ embodied on earth? The gospel must take root in a social communal embodiment not just now, in a post-Christian world, but always. That's how it works. That's how it's always worked.

Here is where the gospel can be seen, heard, understood, experienced by those completely foreign to our faith in Christ.

Yes, yes, yes. Exactly.

And it's not just where those completely foreign to our faith experience the gospel. It's where we experience the gospel as well. We are all foreigners to the gospel at heart. We are all continually being reintroduced to it, even when we think we've finally grokked it as deep as we can ever grok anything. No deep, theological, cognitive understanding can stick it to our understanding in the way that living it can.

This kind of communal embodiment is nigh impossible in mega sized organizations (although I think I’ve seen it at least once). Still, I see the Neo-Reformed enamored that good solid preaching and culturally relative apologetics will gather post-non-Christendom into its churches. I fear TGC then becomes a force for coalescing mega size preaching churches that preach to the already initiated. We in essence become a church that preaches to ourselves and in the process retrench from being expedited for Mission into post Christendom. (P.S. I still strongly believe in preaching!! As my writings and “the college of preachers” at our church will attest to).

This gets back to what I was saying about MCs having something of value. They do. That's why people flock to them. They might not be the best place for living in the midst of the working out of the gospel, but they're a great place to hear good speakers, learn through well written programs, and/or be involved in social justice issues as part of a movement rather than as an individual. MCs are a powerhouse of knowledge dispersal and social services. They do have strengths. They just operate more like an institutional organization than an organic organization. They run more like a business than a body. They're a good thing, but calling them a "church"... aye, there's the rub.