Part 1: Operational Models
this essay has been described as "dense" and "thorough"
Family,
When I was about to leave for college, I asked around my worship team for recommendations of churches in Denver. Everybody said Red Rocks Church.
So, on the first weekend at Mines, I looked up the directions to Red Rocks Church, drove to Lakewood, and found a seat on the left side of the room. Worship was wonderful (and loud), but I was taken aback by what happened after the second song.
A projector screen was lowered in the middle of the stage as the band got off the platform. And a Red Rocks pastor began preaching on the projector screen.
But he certainly wasn’t there in Lakewood.
I was confused. When I looked up Red Rocks Church, it gave me directions to this building. So, why isn’t there live preaching here? Isn’t this the primary campus?
Where was I?
I came to learn that the Littleton campus is the primary campus, and the other locations across Denver (and Brussels) stream the message from Littleton. However, I was a sucker for live preaching - it felt more real, like a true, spontaneous offering guided by the Holy Spirit.
So, a few weekends later, I went to the Littleton campus. Imagine my shock when, after the second song, a projector screen was lowered in the middle of the stage as the band got off the platform. And a Red Rocks pastor began preaching on the projector screen.
But he certainly wasn’t there in Littleton.
Where was this guy?
Over time, after having served on the worship team, I began to learn about the complex operation machinery that enables a weekend service to happen. Red Rocks, along with many similar American megachurches, is highly invested in an efficient operational model, which allows it to host more people without dramatically decreasing the quality of its operations. I would argue that this operational model actually increases the quality and efficacy of the church’s reach, though not everybody would agree.
The projector screen lowering in the middle of the stage is just one artifact of this operational model. This first characteristic of the American megachurch is a well-defined, culturally ingrained operational model that permeates throughout the expression of the church. While this can take many forms, most megachurches follow this model.
If you haven’t read my Part 0: Why the Church essay, it provides helpful context.
Executive Leadership Teams and Campus Pastors
The fundamental idea of the operational model is that there are multiple campuses under one executive leadership team. Instead of one massive building, the church adopts a multi-site model, where each campus is small, and the campuses are geographically dispersed throughout a region. Each campus will have its own campus pastor (CP), though the CP is generally not a teaching pastor. Instead, CPs are in touch with the daily and weekly activities of their campus, which includes meeting with or counseling people from their congregation and managing the staff at their campus.
On the other hand, the executive leadership team sets the theology and vision for the church. A subset of the executive team are the teaching pastors, one of whom will preach on the weekend and whose preaching is shared to all campuses. Though pastors from the executive team will visit campuses, they are not “stationed” at any specific campus, and many of the day-to-day duties traditionally associated with a pastor are handled by CPs.
There are certainly similarities to denominational models within the United States. A denomination (like the Baptist Church, Assemblies of God, etc.) will have a consistent theology shared across many churches. However, the American megachurch is a more condensed model of a denomination. Unlike a denomination, megachurches will share staff members and other resources, not just a similar theology. Furthermore, every campus within a megachurch will share essentially the same culture.
This distinction can likely be attributed to the fundamental operational model of an executive leadership team, such that every campus is guided by the same vision and expectations set by that group. The feasibility of the executive team managing every campus is only made possible by the delegation of responsibilities to CPs. Denominations do not follow this operational model.
So, the fundamental idea is that the executive leadership team is a shared resource between every campus of the megachurch.
Scale Economies
Now, once there’s a team being shared among campuses, the question becomes: what else can we share?
The answer: a lot.
This operational practice closely aligns with the notion of scale economies. I use the word “economy” not in a financial sense but rather in a resource sense. Scale economies dictate how the cost per unit of something is reduced when resources are shared.
Some might already grimace at the idea of so logically analyzing the operations of a church. Isn’t there something sacred about the mysterious workings of a church?
I disagree. The Bible, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament, shows that well-defined and efficient operational models are not antithetical to God’s desire for the Church. Furthermore, a decrease in spontaneity is not inherently less holy.
First, I’ve written on this topic in an essay about logic within religion (The Paradox of the Jointly Spiritual and Systematic). Order and logic are not at odds with the beauty in religion. In fact, they help emphasize each other.
Second, the Old Testament (in numerous places) describes practices that increase the efficiency of Israel’s undertakings and decrease distractions that would make it difficult to encounter the Lord. Of course, the Lord can encounter anybody at any time in any place, but there is always the impetus for the Church to consistently behold Him, which depends on the practices of the church.
One of my favorite examples is Jethro advising Moses after receiving the Law at Mount Sinai. At the time, Moses was individually discerning and imparting the judgment of God for every possible legal dispute for the entire nation. Jethro suggests a federated judicial system, where lower judges discern lower matters, while great matters are brought to Moses directly. This operational model means “[the other judges] will bear the burden [of judging] with you” (18:22).
In this way, Jethro upholds God’s position of Moses as His prophet while “also helping Him find a faithful and workable way to have others bear the burden of judging people” (ESV Commentary). There is nothing against Israel finding an efficient way to behold and discern the Law.
Third, in his letter to Titus, Paul describes a model of governance that the churches should follow. There should be deacons, which attend to the administrative and physical needs of the church, and elders, who oversee the entire congregation through prayer, shepherding, and leading.
The distribution of this labor is intentional. There could be one person that does every role, but that is neither workable nor in accordance with the distribution of spiritual gifts. Instead, Paul advises a structure of people who oversee the church (like an executive leadership team) and a set of people who attend to the administrative needs of the church (like CPs). Of course, Paul doesn’t specifically endorse a multi-campus megachurch operational model, but the similarities are present.
Shared Resources
Since Scripture seems to endorse workable and efficient operational models for a local community of believers in a church, we can return to the original question: what other resources can we share?
American megachurches end up sharing enormous amounts of resources between campuses, which allows it to achieve the benefits of a scale economy without detracting from the purpose of beholding God. The benefits of this scale economy are shared among the congregants of that church. Here are a few examples:
Campuses share a common vision and culture set by a common leadership team that oversees every campus.
Campuses share expertise through staff members that have the opportunity to become specialized at what they do. For instance, a megachurch will generally share an accounting team across all of its campuses. A smaller church would likely not be able to support a dedicated accounting team at all. This expertise is present in operations, events, teaching, technology, etc.
Campuses share physical assets like furniture, banners, audio equipment, office supplies, etc.
Campuses share technologies like digital services (e.g. Planning Center Online), CRMs, WiFi administration, application licenses (e.g. Slack, Adobe), websites, etc.
Campuses share creative resources like graphics, social media, merchandising, etc.
Campuses share finances that are pooled across all campuses.
The benefits of these scale economies also appear in worship teams. Since corporate worship is live at every campus, then not every campus can have the same worship team. Instead, each campus must create and maintain their own worship team composed primarily of volunteers.
However, since there is less staff and resources per campus overall, that means a single campus can support more congregants than if they were an independent church with the associated overhead. Therefore, there’s a larger number of people to draw from, which means a larger number of dedicated, available musicians who can volunteer on the weekends (assuming that musicians are independently and identically distributed in the American population).
This volunteering scale economy applies to other ministries as well, including production, security, hospitality, kids, youth, prayer, ushering, greeting, and more. Every ministry that must be maintained by volunteers at each individual campus is supported by the scale economies of shareable resources throughout the megachurch network.
Data Driven
While there is nothing implicitly unholy about an operational model, there is a very strong American tendency to quantify the impact of an institution. Many American megachurches judge the efficacy of their operations based on the data collected throughout the church.
The expressed goal of a church, at least in many megachurches, is the number of salvations, though it could also be attendance, giving, or baptisms. However, from the perspective of a data-driven leadership team, a lack of salvations could be indicative of a lack of efficacy.
In most modern megachurches, sermons usually end with a salvation call. The entire congregation is asked to bow their heads and close their eyes to reduce public pressure. The pastor then asks if there is anybody who wants to make Jesus their Lord and Savior. If that’s you, you’re asked to raise your hand. This, in many churches, is considered to be the choice of salvation, and the number of raised hands is counted as the number of salvations.
A few months ago, I met a young man named Rob (not his actual name) in the lobby. Rob was new to church, and he really liked the music. I told him I was so excited he was at church and that I was very appreciative of his compliment.
I was incredibly excited when, next weekend, Rob put his faith in Christ. He raised his hand! There is nothing more exciting than a salvation. The pastor congratulated everyone in the room that raised their hand.
Next weekend, I was quite surprised when Rob raised his hand again. That’s ok, I thought. Maybe he just wanted to personally validate his commitment to faith even though there’s no theological significance to a repeated salvation.
And then he raised his hand again the next weekend.
And again after that.
Each time, the pastor congratulated everyone in the room that raised their hand. They were making Heaven more crowded.
But, from my perspective on the platform, I don’t think Rob is quadruply saved. He doesn’t take up four spots in Heaven. And, yet, because of the structure of the salvation call, the church believed that four unique people had been saved.
The propensity for this “repeated salvation” to happen usually depends on the clarity of the preacher. For instance, this is a very clear salvation call from a recent message by Doug Wekenman from Red Rocks Church in a message about intentionality:
… and the first step to living with intention is to make an intentional decision to make Jesus your Lord and Savior.
And at all of our locations, if you’ve never done that, I’m going to create a space right now for you to do that. To make today about what matters more than anything else. This decision, the most important decision you could possibly make. To make Him your Lord and Savior, where you simply just say, “Yes,” not by your works but by your faith. A little bit of faith is all it takes, in the amazing grace of this God, to say, “yes,” to the fullness of life He has for you. Which means Heaven forever, both then and there, and life to the full of meaning and intention in the here and now.
And there’s no catch. There’s no religion. It’s a relationship. If you say, “I want you God. Take my sin. Give me your righteousness. I make you my Lord and Savior.”
At every location, if that’s you, I want to invite you, with boldness, to raise your hand, in the presence of this church family, who could not be more excited for you if you do. Raise your hand with clarity on what the gospel is and confidence in who God says you are.
This is awesome, at every location, all over the world, in living rooms all over the world.
Let’s go, make some noise! Lift up some praise, because Heaven’s getting more crowded as we speak.
It’s certainly possible that a salvation call with less clarity might be confusing. If the pastor is unclear about whether this is a charge to put one’s faith in Christ with phrases like, “If you feel far away from God,” or, “If you’re tired of doing life your own way,” then individuals who have already professed their faith in Christ might raise their hands.
While this is seemingly innocuous, it contributes to an inflated number of salvations within a church. Since most megachurches adhere to a theology where individuals are unable to lose their salvation, such that there is a “once saved, always saved” mentality, these hand raises do not make Heaven more crowded, and yet each hand raise is counted as a unique salvation.
Therefore, when does Rob stop being a number and become a person in need of discipleship?
Megachurches try to smoothly navigate this transition. People who raise their hands during salvation calls are encouraged to seek prayer, to tell a staff member, to join a life group, etc. The church is obviously concerned with creating an opportunity for discipleship, but the process of discipleship is not quantifiable. It may take a substantial period of time, on the scale of years, for it to click within someone’s heart that what they’re missing is being captured by the beauty of Christ.
Here is a point of substantial tension. A data-driven church wants to maximize the quantifiable impact that they have on the Kingdom of God, so it’s helpful to count the number of raised hands at the end of a sermon. However, there is also the impetus to remove any religious or dogmatic roadblocks, to fling open the gates and diminish any stigma associated with salvation, so salvation calls are made extremely approachable. Regardless of the possible quantification, the eternity of individuals in the room is at stake.
In this way, these weekend services are intentionally crafted. The messaging and wording of the salvation call are intentional. The songs and the lyrics of the worship are intentional. The culture and branding are intentional. The length of service is intentional. The lobby music is intentional. The way pastors enter onto the platform is intentional. Everything is intentional to remove stigma and preconceived notions about what it means to be a Christian.
Everything is intentional to make Heaven more crowded.
Prepared Offerings
A friend once described this intentionality as a “prepared offering” as opposed to a spontaneous “freewill offering,” both of which were part of the sacrificial system in the Old Testament. There is something special about an intentional and crafted offering, but there is also something special about a spontaneous offering, one that is messy and perhaps unrefined. The Spirit can be present in both.
However, the Church’s primary goal is to make disciples. The work of the Holy Spirit in believers should produce fruit, even if that fruit is unobservable from the perspective of data. An American megachurch, focused on a data-driven approach to salvations, might unintentionally de-prioritize discipleship because the church is entirely focused on quantifiable metrics like raised hands or baptisms. The fruit of believers, of those who behold God and are captured by the beauty of Christ, will almost certainly require more than weekly attendance at a service that one perceives to be “cool” and “exciting.”
And, yet, there is nothing preventing true discipleship within a megachurch. There is nothing preventing the beholding of the beauty of God. There’s also compelling reasons to believe that the removal of religion and dogma - the intentional removal of culturally stigmatized aspects of churches - make it easier for believers to truly behold Him.
Because of this, many megachurches are described as “seeker” or “attractive” churches. The intentional dismissal of dogma and association with traditional churches makes it easier for those with church trauma or without church experience to feel comfortable in the church. Furthermore, this seeker-oriented structure is generally more attractive to younger people. It is difficult to find an American megachurch that is neither young nor seeker-oriented (though they do exist).
The tragedy of the megachurch operational model is not the model in itself, but rather the unintentional fractures it creates within the church community. Traditional churches scorn an operational model that deprioritizes doctrinally important religious practices for existing believers, while attractive churches dismiss the association with “religion” because it conveys a stigma to non-believers.
This creates an unnecessary divide within the Church.
The Bride of Christ should not be split on implementation. The Bride of Christ should not be split by generation. Christ expects one Bride, not a thousand different in-fighting denominations. This raises the question: Are people missing out on discipleship because of how churches segment and specialize themselves, or is this merely an expression of the personality of Christ?
Personally, I’m not certain that there’s a clear answer. It’s an uncomfortable tension to sit in, especially as someone who serves at a megachurch. However, I’m regularly reminded that how well I play piano on Sundays is not the activity of chief importance. Only the Holy Spirit has the power and ability to create disciples that bear fruit. It is, of course, an honor to be used as a vessel of that mission, but the Holy Spirit is certainly not limited by the number of interesting inversions or borrowed chords I use during a weekend.
And, instead of becoming distracted by cultural influences on the church or the propensity for quantifiable metrics within the church, I have the opportunity to behold Him. A megachurch with a sturdy theological foundation and a desire to help others behold Christ in no way prevents me from feeling confident and expectant about the work the Holy Spirit can do throughout the church.
So, the next time a projector drops in the middle of the stage, I’ll be reminded that it is an artifact of an institution and a prepared offering, but by no means is it a detraction from the Gospel, from the work of the Holy Spirit, or from the beholding of Christ by the Church.
Here we go,
Isaac
This essay is part of a collection that synthesizes my McBride practicum: