(3) I may have had some support comparing church growth models with the first two components of capitalism, but when it comes to the third component, profit motive, I may lose a few of you. So what then is the profit for churches? I think that has to be dismantled some. But before I do, let me clarify that I think taking pride in the ministry your church offers is completely reasonable and beneficial. Okay that stated, there are two entities in the organizational church: general population and church leadership. The general population has many levels of involvement and investment of the church and will likely, at times, to take on the role of leadership, but I am differentiating the two by the executive leadership and the rest. The general population has a lot to gain by church growth. What they gain, however, is typically a greater sense of pride and more opportunities. There are many potentially negative gains the general population can experience, but there are just as many, if not more, positives. The one notable negative is that church growth becomes the primary strategy for sharing ones faith. The teaching is given that getting people to church is somehow the same thing as investing in someone’s life. That is not always the case, but assimilating becomes the goal of evangelism for many. However, the second group, leadership, has a lot to profit in church growth. From a capitalistic perspective this makes sense. The workers may benefit from business growth, but the goal is to profit the primary stakeholders. So what does church leadership profit? It would vary from church to church obviously, but there are a few that stand out. The most obvious and least dangerous is a sense of pride. Now obviously this can turn to arrogance, but taking pride in one’s church is hard to criticize. However there are two other profits that are dangerous. Even within the same organization, many in leadership use church growth strategies to create their ideal organization. This is linked, obviously, to the pride issue before, but it goes a step further takes the form of creating a territory. The other profit for church leadership can be financial. This isn’t the case for all and is occasionally an unintentional result that is enjoyed, but there is no doubt that many churches see church growth as an opportunity to raise more money. How churches use this money shapes its profit, but there are some churches that see significant raises in salaries and facilities as a result of church growth. Finally, there are a few insidious profits that take each of these to the next level with fame, empires, and great wealth, but I believe those are rare cases even if there are a number of pastors out there who secretly desire those things and have yet to make it happen.
(4) The final component of capitalism is private ownership. I will make this one short because it is linked with the previous component. Church growth strategies don’t necessarily require churches that have centralized leadership, but are often utilized by these types of churches. There is typically no private ownership in the church, but there is a hierarchy. Even if I believe that if the Reformation taught us anything it was that hierarchies are dangerous, it is not my point here to challenge centralized leadership. I simply want to note that centralized leadership is similar to private ownership and has intrinsic danger.
When western society gave the power of shaping society over to young consumers with the greatest degree of disposable income in the middle of the 20th century it opened the door a poststructuralist and identity development driven society. Adolescents and young adults define themselves by the clothing they wear, the music they listen to, and the food they eat. In a rapid and competitive market, young people are constantly pushing boundaries of their own beliefs and those who imposed beliefs on them. So the elements of their identity are shaped by the rapidly changing market. With the market place being driven so strongly by younger consumers, poststructuralism permeates society. Ultimately creating a society where we are:
· Defined by the products we produce and consume
· Unable to create intrinsic meaning
No comments:
Post a Comment