American Visions (5)

A vision of healing by faith
We are considering visions of America’s future that fall into what I’m calling the “over the rainbow” category of things as yet only dreamed-of. Besides the “politics of hope and change” another vision of the future emerged, at the end of the last century, from within that segment of the evangelical Christian community that orbits around what is called the “megachurch” movement, or, “new paradigm” churches.  

In his 1997 book, Reinventing American Protestantism:  Christianity in the New Millenium,[1] Donald E. Miller summarized his study of three major expressions of this phenomenon, which is rapidly becoming the benchmark form of evangelicalism in this country. Churches that cannot themselves rise to megachurch status are nonetheless patterning their approach to ministry after the better known exemplars in this movement, which provide training and materials to help churches of all kinds to become in some ways like them.  

Miller identified three primary characteristics of the new paradigm church movement, and these mark out the broad parameters of their vision for America as that was developing late in the last century. Together these three constitute a vision of America focused on the healing and renewing of individuals according to a view of Christian faith that borrows from aspects of historic Christianity, contemporary psychology, and leftover ‘60’s radicalism. 

Therapy
The first aspect Miller described as a therapeutic approach to Christian faith and church life.[2]  Individuals are drawn to new paradigm churches out of a deep sense of personal need. The new paradigm churches provide a context for facing up to one’s needs and finding healing and renewal through conversion to Jesus Christ. In these churches “the focus is on internal transformation,” on helping people find in a “relationship” with Jesus Christ the one who can meet all their needs and give them lasting peace and joy.[3] Conversion leads to an ongoing process of self-transformation as people learn to grow through their trials, deny their basic self-centeredness, and give themselves in service to others. The ministries of these new paradigm churches, from worship to study groups to programs of all kinds, focus on meeting the needs of people in the community by giving them “direct access to an experience of the sacred, which had the potential of transforming people’s lives by addressing their deepest personal needs.”[4] 

Experience
A second aspect of new paradigm churches is an emphasis on the experience of religion, feeling the presence of God rather than understanding dogma and reasons for belief. New paradigm churches, Miller reported, evidence “a certain exhaustion with reason,”[5] encouraging members to rely more on what they feel than on precise theological formulation: 

Many people told us that in the act of worshiping, they find their defenses and pretenses of everyday life vanish. They said that in communing with God, who knows the secrets of the human heart, feelings and emotions surface that are otherwise buried. Sometimes they get in touch with deep wounds inflicted by others; other times they return to personal failures that have been rationalized and repressed. Connecting with these memories and feelings and giving them to God for healing are important byproducts of worship.[6] 

Nontraditional
The third aspect of these churches is their strictly nontraditional character. New paradigm churches meet in converted warehouses, not formal church buildings. They sing contemporary music, not traditional hymns. They encourage free expression, bodily engagement, and even active movement during times of worship, as opposed to the staid demeanor characteristic of traditional churches. They call their pastors by their first names, and an air of democratic participation permeates all their activities. They do not belong to denominations but tend to stand alone or in loosely-coupled associations of churches. And they are growing in leaps and bounds, while traditional churches tend to be experiencing decline.

Miller concludes his study of new paradigm churches by saying,

In my opinion they have created a form of human community that addresses many of the crises of our late-twentieth-century postmodern culture, and they have also established a perspective that endorses change in their organizational structure. Drawing on their vision of the Holy Spirit, they have transferred authority from the socially constructed institution of the church to a divine presence, who can take them in unpredictable directions. What saves them from the potential chaos, the unpredictability, of a “spirit-led life” is their belief in the Bible as an immutable reference point and their conviction that all impulses and ideas should be tested in one’s ongoing relationship to a worshiping community.[7] 

New paradigm churches continue to spring up and expand all over America, many of them comprising congregations of thousands of members, the vast majority of them conservative in their political, social, and cultural inclinations. It would seem that the megachurch movement would be a voice to reckon with in the question of what the form of the American vision for the century ahead. 

Where’s the beef?
Many readers will recall the sudden and shocking admission of megachurch pastor Bill Hybels, early in 2009, concerning the state of his own, what many consider the “flagship”, megachurch. Hybels acknowledged that the staff and people of Willow Creek had led many people to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Thousands had found a home at Willow Creek and were actively involved in the various ministry activities available there. Outwardly, it looks as if the new paradigm model is being proved at Willow Creek. 

But Hybels, to his enormous credit, admitted that, for all their outward success, the staff and leadership at Willow Creek had not made many disciples. 

This complaint is not uncommon on the part of observers of the megachurch movement. Personally, this writer had an opportunity to work on a project with one of the better known megachurches, involving creating study materials for their thousands of small groups. I was to write the student’s guide to a DVD series on Christian worldview. I was instructed by the staff at the church, who had seen some of my work in this genre, to keep it simple and basic, as the people at this particular church would not be able to handle anything too deep. 

The megachurch movement continues to prosper, and small churches continue to look to them for resources and models of how to “do church” right. This way may lie a new vision for America’s future – especially for the future of the American Church – but it does not appear to be a vision that is able to achieve what, historically, Christian churches have always regarded as of the utmost importance. 

For Reflection of Discussion

1. What experience do you have of the megachurch movement, or what do you know about

megachurches?

2.  Do you think a therapeutic, non-doctrinal, and strictly non-traditional approach to church can secure the full treasure of Scripture and the blessings and achievement of our Christian past for the present and future? Why or why not? Or does this simply not matter?

3. What do you think Bill Hybels meant when he admitted that his church had not been very successful at making disciples? What is a disciple, and how do we “make” them? 

4. What can we learn from the megachurch movement to help create a more flourishing future for the work of making disciples?

5. In what ways are the three primary characteristics of the megachurch movement reflected in your church? In what ways are these helpful? In what ways are they not helpful?

For more information on this topic, get the book, Outgrowing the Ingrown Church, by C. John Miller, from our online store. Or read the article, “Welcome to McChurch” by Charles Colson.

[1] Donald E. Miller, Reinventing American Protestantism:  Christianity in the New Millenium (Berkeley and Los Angeles:  The University of California Press, 1997).
[2] Ibid., p. 21.
[3] Ibid., pp. 67, 71, etc.
[4] Ibid., p. 183.
[5] Ibid., p. 133.
[6] Ibid., p. 88.
[7] Ibid., p. 155.