Please enable javascript, or click here to visit my ecommerce web site powered by Shopify.

Why Corporate Church Won’t Work – Mike Breen

in ARTICLES, BLOG, COMMUNITY, MISSION

Guest Post by Mike Breen

The past few weeks I’ve been working with the 3DM Content Team on material for our new book on how to multiply missional leaders (coming out in April, 2012). I wanted to share a little preview of some of the things we’ve been discussing.

You see, I am absolutely convinced that 100 years from now, many books will be written on the phenomenon that is the late 20th Century/early 21st Century American church. And I am fairly certain that it will be with large degree of amazement/laughter that people, in reading about it, will say to each other: “You must be joking! Seriously???! People actually thought it was a good idea to structure the Church as if it were a business? Honestly?!”

Perhaps we don’t have the perspective necessary to see how funny or strange this really is, but I promise you, if you run your church like a business, it’ll never be a family and families are what have changed the world. Bill Hybels was right about the local church (as the Body of Jesus) being the hope of the world – just not as we are currently seeing it.

Efficiency has replaced effectiveness. Many churches are organizationally efficient, but we aren’t affecting the lives of people the way in which Jesus imagined a family would do.

We’ve created a corporate America-like church, somehow buying into a false dichotomy between a Leadership Culture which produces leaders and a Discipleship Culture that produces disciples. Here’s what I mean: In American businesses, it’s about moving people from A to B, but has nothing to do with ‘making people.’ We have one guy with the vision and a culture of volunteerism to help that one guy get his vision accomplished. It’s the genius with a 1000 helpers. So while churches may claim to have “leadership development programs,” what they really have are “volunteer pipelines” that are run by managers, not leaders.

In doing so, we run the campus, but don’t expand the Kingdom. We’re keeping the machine of the church running (which, much to some people’s chagrin, I think is needed if done in a lightweight/low maintenance kind of way), but doing practically nothing to expand the Kingdom.

This is what we’ve created:

Clearly there isn’t quite the black and white dichotomy as this matrix illustrates, but I still think it serves the point. 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 (yes, I’m overgeneralizing). Or, on the other side, we have churches that are great at moving people to do things, but are pretty poor at making disciples, creating a culture of volunteerism, implemented and run by managers of the leader.

What we need is a way of making and moving people so that as we make disciples, we release them into their destiny of pushing into new Kingdom-frontier.

FREE eBook, Simple Ways To Be Missional, when you sign up for our free email updates. Enter your email address below to download your eBook:

Corporate church doesn’t do this. Strictly organic church doesn’t do this. I would argue that in the whole of church history, there is one thing that does this, but is largely lost to us in Western culture.

EXTENDED FAMILY.

The Oikos.

A group of people, blood-and-non-blood, about the size of an extended family, on mission together, often times networked with other extended families.

Why the extended family?

  • Because it’s small enough to care, but large enough to dare.
  • Everyone gets to play.
  • Sociologically, people locate their identity within the extended family size (known as the Social Space). We’re hardwired for it.
  • To function well, it’s a beautiful combination of both the organic and the organized
  • It’s the perfect training ground for future leaders

I believe, with everything in me, that until we embrace this reality, we will continue to struggle to be the fully functioning Body of Jesus.

Why might this be so difficult for overachieving Americans?

Because as J.S. Bryan has said, Many men can build a fortune, but few men can build a family.

About The Author

Mike Breen has been an innovator in leading missional churches throughout Europe and the United States for more than 25 years, and leads 3DM, a movement/organization that is helping hundreds of established churches and church planters move into this discipling and missional way of being the church.  Twitter: @mike_breen

email

Tagged with:

  • 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. 

An Advocate For Movements Of Gospel-Centered Missional Communities
Copyright Verge Network 2012 , All Rights Reserved