Free eBook

Why Corporate Church Won’t Work – Mike Breen

• Linda Stanley

  As much as I respect Mike Breen, I disagree with his assessment of the Church. I think there will always be room for all kinds of churches – mega, organic, corporate, missional and whatever other kinds of churches develop in the future. That’s the beauty of the Church. 

• http://dtreat.pip.verisignlabs.com/ Dave Treat

  Brilliant, Mike. I was on staff at Willow Creek for nine years and saw the good and the bad… many people coming to Christ, yet the “genius with a 1000 assistants” culture was strong. It leads people to see their “ministry” as that of spear-carriers for the “real” ministers (staff and clergy) rather than seeing themselves as missionaries/pastors in their own right. I would be careful with the “Family” metaphor, as it usually degrades to an “all about us” mentality. If you’re in, you’re important. If you’re outside the “family” you are second-class and a lower priority. Your emphasis on “extended family” is a great one… but my experience warns that you’ll have to constantly emphasize the “extended” part.

• Steve

  Well… 9 years and no fruit?? I have seen so many people come to Jesus, I wonder where you were in those 9 years….

• Steve

  I meant: …. people come to Jesus at Willow Creek….

• http://twitter.com/andrewtlocke Andrew Locke

  I like Hirsch’s understanding of the place of all of these “different kinds” of churches. His understanding of the 40% and the 60% is helpful…current church (centralized, conventional, corporate, etc.) actually does serve many people well, but because there are many more kinds of people than there are churches, it is geared to reach only about 40-50% of the populace. That’s its maximum on its best day. Many people will never set foot in or stay for long in that environment (this is a “post-modern” development that has emerged because of trust issues and personal worth issues). There are approximately 50-60% of the populace that just aren’t wired to do well and flourish in that environment. We need to be reaching them too and missionally strategize effective forms that will reach these folks who, btw, have incredible movemental potential as many of them are creative types and/or are natural status quo resistors. Biblically I see space for as many different “forms” as there are cultures, as long as we do not change the content of the form.

  ~a

• Anonymous

  I believe the only way to make disciples is to imitate our Lord and follow His word on how to make them. Regardless of the approach we use, if we are not following biblical principles (and obeying biblical commands) we are not going to be successful. Jesus said, “A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher.” (Luke 6:40)  Effectiveness and efficiency won’t matter either, if we are trying to make disciples in ways not prescribed by the word of God. We should look to see how He and the Apostles made them and then imitate their behavior (1 Cor 11:1).

  One example of this would be the great commission, seen in Matthew 28. There, Jesus tells us to make disciples, “teaching them to observe all that I commanded.” How much of our ministry is designed to do that – to actually teach one to obey our Lord?

  Let us seek God’s ways of making disciples in 2012 as shown in His word. Then we might be “successful.”

• Pingback: My Dream Church | thisweconfess

• Ridgetopper

  “often we have churches that are great at making disciples, but not
  terribly effective at mobilizing these people into God’s mission in the
  world”

  I didn’t realize you could separate being a disciple from God’s mission.

• Cevin

  Like your graph, but would like to re-claim the word organic. Rather in the quadrant label organic I would label it house/small groups – which can at times be individualistic and isolated or loosely connected if not a part of a vibrant network. Then the quadrant you labeled movement – I would call that organic. Part of my thinking here is that the corporate and house/small group quadrants would both be based on structures, and to some extend hold to the idea if we create the right or best structures then we will produce better disciples. It becomes an external pretense we hope will lead to internal transformations. When you speak about extended families – naturally growing and en-grafting others in – this really has more to do with organic and reproduction – lives impacting lives through love, deed and association around the greater purpose of being the church to each other and the Gospel to the world. This Gospel would be his message from our mouths, our examples towards each other and loving works to all; being a very important part of the real display of the power of Christ. The relational capacity of the church in making and growing disciples should far out stripe any structural containment, and this happens when we move towards the natural spiritual possession given to each one of us to be growing disciples and make disciples. So kind of asking the question here – I see another article focused somewhat on structures, and wonder if by contrast you are also presenting a structural solution rather than follow Jesus – become better disciples – and make healthier disciples. Healthy means organic and reproductive. I would also have to make clear that when I say make disciples I probably intend quite a bit more than when you say “great at making disciples, but not mobilizing them.” That already denotes to me some areas of concern in such a disciple making process.

  I loved your analysis and way you have presented it and will make use of it. I am still questioning for myself if suggesting tweaks from a structural analysis will give us the end result we want – or would it be more helpful to focus on becoming and making better disciples who are given a more challenging and practical New Testament ecclesiology that is free from or at least allow to beg the question of the Christian culture and structures they are a part of. What structure in each context will best serve the ministry of the Gospel? Are we serving and resourcing the life of our structures or allowing them to conform and transform to serve the church and her mission? Seems at times people can be more loyal to groupings, corporate or small, even to the point of defending them, and we all get side tracked from what God created us in Jesus Christ to do. How can we not continually and constantly evaluate the structures in our lives and our churches to see if they are on track with building up the body, equipping the saints, and carrying out the mission of Jesus to seek and save lost souls.

• Pingback: Abraham's Footsteps

• Pingback: The “Secret Sauce” Our Churches Are Missing - Mike Breen | Verge Network

• Bryan

  This is a great discussion. I agree that we need to be making mature disciples and the “corporate model” doesn’t do the best job of that. But we are also in danger swinging the pendulum back to the other side. The focus on leadership came when we realized that pastors can pastor but they also had a responsibility to run an organization. And yes the church in America is an organization. We receive funds and have a responsibility to disburse them in an effective manner, we have a need to connect and communicate with our communities in an organized fashion. 

  So we swung the pendulum. Towards leadership and away from pastoring and discipling. It is good that we are going back to those things. Buts lets not forget why leadership focus became a church model. 

  I have pastored at churches that can pastor and disciple but can’t administrate. Those are frustrating. I have pastored at churches that can lead but don’t disciple. Those are disapointing. 

  There is a need for both. At the same time, in the same church and I am excited that we are learning to do that.