A Church In Denial And Infatuated With Itself

A Church In Denial And Infatuated With Itself
I recently ran across a presentation by Gary Hamel, an author and management consultant who has been called "the world's most influential business thinker" by "The Wall Street Journal". Hamel advises Fortune 500 companies and writes for "Harvard Business Review". He is also a deeply committed Christian. In 2009, he was invited to speak at the Global Leadership Summit, an annual gathering of pastors and church leaders organized by Willow Creek Community Church. Hamel spoke with thoughtfulness and passion about the need for churches and ministries to change. Some of his basic arguments are found in this WSJ blog post. But if you can do so, please watch the full 57-minute video presentation; you won't be disappointed.

Hamel's main point is that our world is changing very quickly. The postmodern American culture has become increasingly hostile toward the church - not toward God and spirituality, but to organized religion in general and especially toward the attitudes and behaviors of evangelical Christians. This point has been made before by many others, and it is not really in dispute. If you have read the book "UnChristian" by David Kinnamon, you already know the spiel. Using quotes and statistics from Kinnamon and the Barna Institute, he shows that the church has a huge image problem today, especially among young people, and it's getting worse.

How are churches responding to this sea of change? Drawing upon his own insights from management and organizational psychology, Hamel argues that the response of local churches and denominations is woefully inadequate or nonexistent. As a whole, our churches show all the unmistakable signs of a company that is doomed to fail because it is stuck in the past and clinging to an outmoded business model.

Hamel freely admits that a church is not the same thing as a business. The true Church, the Body of Christ, is going to survive one way or another. But the local congregations and organizational bodies in which Christians worship and serve are in a dangerous position, because they lack many of the self-correcting mechanisms found in the marketplace. If a business or corporation underperforms, it will eventually be forced to change by angry shareholders or be taken over by a more dynamic and vibrant company. But a church or ministry that refuses to change can keep chugging along for years, run by leaders who become increasingly out of touch but answer to no one, until the whole enterprise becomes socially irrelevant.

One sign of danger is the stunning disparity between how evangelical Christians are perceived by others and how they perceive themselves. Consider this statement:

"Christian churches accept and love people unconditionally, regardless of how people look or what they do."

Nearly 80% of pastors agree with this statement, but only 20% of non-church members agree. That's a ratio of 4:1, an enormous gulf that shows Christian leaders are truly out of sync with the people that they are supposedly trying to reach. We might rationalize this by saying, "If only those people knew us personally, if they could see who we are and what we do, they would like us." But that is simply not true. Most non-believers in America do know who we are. The data indicate that they know us personally; they have come to our churches, have heard the gospel that we preach, have understood the message, and have rejected us. As David Kinnamon has said, "...outsiders' perceptions of Christianity reflect a church infatuated with itself."

Hamel argues that the greatest enemy of a church is not a hostile cutural environment but the organizational inertia that keeps it from adapting to a changing world. He predicts that the vast majority of churches in existence today will fail to reinvent themselves when necessary and will eventually wither and die. Yet pastors, church leaders and members will rarely acknowledge this. We live in denial, unwilling to admit that there is a problem until a crisis comes and it is too late.

I believe that Hamel's analysis is spot-on. Change is difficult for any organization, but especially so for a church. In a church environment, we are much more prone to cast issues in terms of moral and spiritual principle (right versus wrong) than in pragmatic terms (what works). Now I am not arguing that Christians should be pragmatic. We follow a crucified Lord who often calls us to lose in this world and to count the loss as eternal gain. But I have seen firsthand how difficult it can be for Christian leaders, virtuous and faithful people whom I admire, to vigorously defend their local traditions and refuse to entertain the possibility that things are not going well.

Hamel says, "Every organization is a bundle of habits." If you check in to a hotel room, you will inevitably find that the small bottle of shampoo has been placed by the sink, even though we do not wash our hair in the sink. Why do hotels do this? Just because. That's how it's done, and no one seems to question it. As Christians, there are certain timeless truths that we cannot change. But regarding how we "do church," shouldn't be willing to examine any of our local practices and change them as much as necessary to better serve God's kingdom? All too often, we seem to be worshiping our local traditions when we should be worshiping the resurrected and living Christ. It is especially tragic when the attitudes and practices to which we cling are precisely those that offend people and drive them away.

How much should churches and ministries be willing to change? As much as is necessary to serve God's kingdom. Here I believe it is critical for Christians to differentiate the timeless truths taught in Scripture from the extra baggage added by their own communities and cultures. Hamel does not attempt to do this because, as he freely admits, he has no pastoral or theological training. Personally, I believe that this is the point on which all of us - pastors, elders, and all members of a church - need to do some serious soul-searching, reflection and repentance. All too often, Christians have been willing to argue, divide, sacrifice our lives or even kill one another (figuratively or literally) over beliefs and practices which, when viewed from the standpoint of God's eternal kingdom, are truly not important. As Mark Driscoll has said, we need to wisely and prayerfully distinguish between matters that we are willing to die for, matters that we are willing to part ways over, matters that we are willing to argue about, and matters in which we should just tolerate a diversity of opinion. Clinging to non-essentials can keep committed church members happy as their organization slowly withers and dies.