John Armstrong has a thought-provoking post on parsing the critiques of the mega-church. I have too many times been critical of the mega-church for several reasons (one of which Armstrong points out below). While it is true that the possibility for superficiality is higher in a mega-church than a church of 100 people, it does not necessitate that. What are your thoughts? Before you comment, read the excerpt below (even better, go to the article).

Excerpt:
Why do people attack megachurches? I am not completely sure but I know why I once did. I felt they were, generally speaking, not faithful to the gospel. I also felt that they lowered the standards for moral formation and discipleship. I do not see hard evidence that this is true at all. Most of those who attack the lack of gospel clarity in the megachurch do so because they believe that they alone, and their few zealous friends and followers, preach the gospel faithfully. They reason semething like this—if you preach faithfully you will not, in most cases, draw huge crowds (because so few are being truly converted today). So, these people conclude that these megachurch pastors do not preach the gospel as faithfully as I (we) do. This is not only patently false, it is rooted in unadulterated sectarianism and pride. Some of the biggest promoters of this mode of attack are themselves the pastors of large churches that draw thousands of smaller church pastors into their influence by constantly attacking the megachurch. (I know this since I have been in these very same circles and preached this very type of message, to my shame and deep regret!) I ask you, very seriously: “What true good does this do for expanding the kingdom of Jesus?” (emphasis original)

Previous ArticleNext Article

This post has 10 Comments

10
  1. I think that for the most part it’s not mega-churches that we speak against. Instead, it’s the behavior and (lack of) doctrine that often accompanies them. Like televangelists, the landscape of megachurches is wrought with moral and theological failures.

    Large numbers provide an excellent opportunity for “Christian” to join the church and yet remain relatively anonymous. The large numbers alone often can speak volumes about whether or not a church carries out biblical church discipline on a regular basis.

    Not to mention the seeker-sensitive approach that often accompanies these churches.

    The sad truth about the world we live in is that if the majority is in favor of it, it’s probably wrong. That’s why these numerically successful churches are often spiritual failures.

  2. It has been my experience that mega churches are just churches: ultimately no more and no less. They deal with all the same gaff as smaller churches, but because of their visibility they endure more hostility. Willow Creek is an example of a mega church that has a wonderful witness and huge impact. Is it doing its job perfectly? No. But then what church is? I can also look to our local mega church (doesn’t everyone have one): the pastor admited to plagerizing rick warren for two years and the only thing he got for it was a short vacation during which the church people decided his moral failure couldn’t outweigh how nice he was. So, good example and bad example of mega church behavior. As to the possibility of superficiality: as a pastor in a church of around 100, I can assure you that superficiality is not confined to mega churches. Churches are churches are churches: mega or otherwise: stuffed full of sinners, held together by grace, always on the verge of death and life. kudos to Armstrong for confronting the narrow jealosy of churchleaders who should care for their flock and not for the size of it.

  3. I have concerns about community in megachurches. How does the pastor pastorthose he doesn’t know? Do I want to attend a church where I can’t occasionally have a private meeting or even go to lunch with my pastor? To me, that’s not community.

  4. I read or heard about how Bill Hybels started Willow Creek by having a firm produce statistics on what turns residents of the southern suburbs of Chicago from attending church. He modeled Willow Creek after what he learned. You could look at it as bringing the Gospel to people where they are. I’ve always found Southeast pretty boring, but Springdale and a lot of East End churches have similar worship styles. It all just seems so superficial to me. But regardless of my personal tastes, we should be grateful that Southeast is a witness in Louisville to the Gospel and in defending issues like marriage. I’ll also give props to the Easter Pageant :) Perhaps if not for the mega-church movement, many of our neighbors wouldn’t be in church at all.

  5. That’s not at all how Willow Creek started. Willow essentially started from a Bible study held before a band practice that became so popular other people started coming to it. The the pastor of the church announced he didn’t want some of “those people” coming to his church, so the band, young Bill Hybels who was leading the Bible study and the attenders rented out a movie theater and began meeting there. Read the book, Rediscovering Church for more info.

    Willow has done similar studies though after they were established. As a former member of Springdale, I can tell you that we surveyed the neighborhoods around the church numerous times in the 11 years I was a member. A smart church stays in touch with its surrounding community AND keeps an ear close to what non-believers are saying.

  6. Well, maybe Willow Creek was one of the first churches to do such extensive research on their neighborhoods, creating a model that is followed by churches like Springdale. I think I heard about it from some business podcast. I imagine most mainline Protestant churches don’t need to conduct much research since they already have a liturgy for worship and are pretty well established in the community. Of course, they’ve also lost something like 30-40% of their members since the 70’s. I grew bored with Springdale after about a year and went to an Episcopal church for a while, so I can’t relate to what so many of my friends like about Southeast or similar churches. I think it’s something of an eBay effect: people sell on eBay because the buyers are there (and vice versa); likewise, people go to Southeast because their friends are going there.

  7. I would just like to ask anyone out there if they’ve ever gone to a mega-church.

    I am a member of Houston’s First Baptist Church and have gone there most of my life. Yes, I do have major qualms with the church, but I don’t think they are because it is a mega church. I have GREAT community, better community than I had when I went to smaller churches of 1000 or less.

    I do agree that it is harder to get to know the pastor and if that’s something you need, then I would say a mega-church isn’t for you.

    I would also say to look at churches such as John MacArthur’s and John Piper’s churches, they both have very large churches and they both preach a very strong gospel.

    I honestly think if my pastor spoke as strongly as Piper or MacArthur, then some people would be bothered, but for the most part, I think the people would grow. I honestly don’t think a TON of people would leave.

    Those are my preliminary thoughts.

    http://leslie.blogs.com

  8. Hey!
    I’m new to this site, but I wondered what you think about Pastors using (plagiarizing) the sermons from some of the more popular mega churches. Quite frankly, I’ve been searching for a new church in my area and I’ve encountered the same sermons in all of them. One pastor didn’t even give credit to Andy Stanley for the sermon series he was preaching and it was delivered verbatim! I listened to the sermon on the I-NET and it was shocking how this young pastor used even the identical little anecdote from his teen years that Andy S.had used in the original sermon. Yikes! I’m having a hard time finding a church where a pastor still studies scripture for himself. Thank God for J. Piper! I listen to him often. I would love for anyone to respond to the whole issue of using packaged sermons. Thanks -CATE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

What Is Sunday Worship?

I’m gonna keep this simple, but hopefully not simplistic. As you consider your corporate gathering of believers (typically on the first day of the week), there are three ways to think about it. You can think of it as an event, a participation, or a transformation.

The Event Model can take on two modes: emotionally-driven or cognitively-driven. The emotionally-driven mindset, of course, could baldly mean that you show up to hear some great music and hear a message. You go to watch and experience something. The cognitively-driven mindset could mean that you highlight the sermon so much that it becomes the point of your showing up. You hear this a lot in evangelical churches that the sermon is the most important aspect of the worship experience. The problem with such thinking, though, betrays an onlooker mentality. That is, I go to church to observe and consider and think and have my thinking changed.

In this model, there is an I-Thou expectation of the worship service. I go to that. I consider that. I am separate from and participate in that. In other words, this kind of approach to the corporate gathering is apart from who I am. I go to there. I leave from there. Sure, we talk about taking the message home with us…but come on! You and I both know we forget what was said within 10 minutes of leaving the building. When we are confronted with traffic on the way to the buffet. And then, we get bored. Bored with our lives. Bored with our faith. We find greater joy in our team winning the game than in our eternal salvation won at the cost of the Son of God.

The Participation Model is a little bit better than the event model. This puts the onus on the believer to come to the service seeking to be engaged in other people at church. For all the talk about this being a need in churches, and people nodding their heads in agreement…this does not happen in reality. People cognitively ascend to this truth, but they don’t fully grasp this truth.

If they do grasp a hold of this participation model, it often devolves into judgmentalism (others aren’t as serious about their faith as you are) or complacency (I asked someone how their walk with God is going and they gave me the cold shoulder). So what’s the problem with this model? Write simply it remains in the realm of I-Thou. That is, I bring something to you. I come to serve you. I am apart from and wholly different from you. At its root, it is simply another (albeit more spiritual rendition) of the event model. 

The third, and I believe more biblical model (of course!), is the Tranformational Model. This way of approaching the Sunday morning gathering sheds itself of the event. It doesn’t come in judgment of the service–I didn’t like that song. I liked the sermon. I really engaged with God this morning. Wow, what a wonderful time. Instead, it views Sunday morning as another step in my being conformed into the image of Jesus. It does see it as an event you come to. It is something we participate in. But preeminently it embraces the fact that over time we are being changed by the service itself. 

What does this look like? Well, it understands that every time we attend an event or participate in a service, we are slowly changing. You are much more different from the fifth football game you attended, than the first. You understand the language, the traditions, the cheers. 

So it is with a church service…and this is where it gets a bit thorny. With the typical evangelical liturgy (and it is a liturgy) of two fast songs, two slow songs, a sermon, and dismissal, we are slowly becoming consumers. Or better put, our already-ingrained consumer mentality is reinforced as we observe (and maybe participate). We watch the stage. We critique the songs–or what the song leader was wearing. We sit down and hear someone wax eloquently–or not. 

I fear that much of the problems we see in modern evangelicalism stem from us offering goods and services to people and not inviting them into be transformed. This fact is betrayed in much of the assumptions underlying decisions made on how the liturgy ought to roll. For example, since we need to be engaging and winsome in our communication of the Gospel, we need to play this popular radio song and do a Jesus juke to talk about how real love is only found in Jesus. Of course I’m not saying messages and songs ought to be fuddy-duddy and boring! Stop putting baby in the corner. 

What I am saying is that churches ought to be very clear in what they are shaping their people into becoming. We ought to understand that we are in the business of transformation–from one degree of glory to another. Not filling seats. Not being entertaining and relevant at the cost of depth. 

This is why at Christ the Redeemer, we have been intentional in our liturgy. We believe that the primary purpose of the Sunday morning gathering is the transformation of people. We have an explicit order to our service that follows the biblical storyline of Creation>Fall>Redemption>Consummation. Over time, people’s being is changed. It unwittingly becomes easier to say “I’m sorry, please forgive me” because you are trained to confess your sin every week. You more readily accept forgiveness because you are trained to hear God’s Word of Forgiveness to you after confessing. You more readily come to fellowship with God in spite of and because of your sin because you are trained that at the Lord’s Table you find satisfaction and rest for your souls.

Yes, Sunday morning is an event. But not merely so. It is something we participate in. But not merely so. It is preeminently another step in our being transformed into the likeness of Jesus. The primary goal of Sunday morning is our transformation through intentional liturgies.

Brief Thoughts on Church Membership (altogether incomplete)

I have been reflecting on the subject of church membership for the last few weeks. This stems from planting a church and having folks join who are members of existing churches. This also stems from folks who joined our church plant and have moved their membership–both issues had to do with distance to our new location and a desire to be involved in a more specific way to those who attend another church for purposes of ministry (both great reasons!).

My thoughts haven’t just been a result of circumstances. Rather, they come from a desire to think theologically about this issue.

First, I want to make clear that membership in a local church is the primary means of discipleship in the Christian journey. We make commitments to others to love and serve and be loved and be served by others. It is a beautiful and necessary commitment that we take way too lightly.

BUT too often pastors and church leaders speak about church membership in very unhelpful terms. We speak about it being like a marriage. It most certainly is not. It is not a covenant either. Scripture speaks about our membership in the Body of Christ. The local congregation is a physical manifestation of that reality. Everything we do is in the context of local–geographically and temporally. My fear is that church bodies can begin to assume that members of a local congregation cannot leave. Much like the Hotel California, people are often guilted in staying. People are made to think they are being less committed to the mission of the Church (yes, that’s a large C, signifying the Church Universal).

We have a membership class coming up for Redeemer in a few weeks. I take great pains to help people see that our congregation is one among many faithful churches in time and space. We do not have a corner on the market of faithfulness. We are one very small player on the great stage of history. The more we recite this truth, the more humble and grateful we will become. Every time we say this, we are reminded that God’s purposes are much larger than us. We are reminded that we have certain proclivities and characteristics that may set us apart by way of trends and passions. We are reminded that there are many other brothers and sisters seeking to do the same thing as us–take up our crosses daily and follow Jesus (individually and corporately).

One of the things I make sure to tell people is that if they want to make a commitment to be a member of Redeemer, it ought to be based on it mission and vision. We try to keep it very simple, as you’ll see from our website. How we go about accomplishing these things are called our Core Values. That’s how we seek to accomplish the vision right now in 2018.

But the Church is an organization, but it is also a living organism. As with all organisms, change is inevitable. Indeed, it is desired. As human beings we necessarily grow and change if we are alive. It is inherent to the very definition of life. Change is beautiful. Inevitably, our church will grow as people are added to our congregation. This is beautiful because it enables and empowers people to contribute their gifts and passions to the whole, and for the whole to shape the particular person.

Over time, there may be people who have changes of convictions for how “to do” church. That is, they may disagree with our emphasis on church planting, mission, and mercy. They may disagree with our commitment to simplicity. At the end of the day, as a pastor I want people to be freed to serve and be served by others. If they are staying at Redeemer just because they made a commitment in 2018, that is not healthy. Rather, my desire is that they be involved. Intimately involved in the growth and development of our church. If they cannot do so, it is healthier that they find a congregation where they can faithfully live out their convictions.

This doesn’t have to be an ugly thing. Rather, it can be a very beautiful thing where we are again reminded and remind each other that we do no have a corner on the market of biblical fidelity. Jesus promised to build his Church. I get to be a small observer in that construction project–stone upon stone.

We want people to be a part of Redeemer who believe in the vision and mission and who want to play an integral part in seeing that vision become a reality in our small corner of the universe. So when folks leave, we don’t need to guilt them. Sure, we will miss folks as they leave, but may we depart to meet again.

Less Hype. More Humility.

Please. Embedded in our consumeristic culture, there is the assumption that newer is better than older–though I prefer aged beef and cheddar to new. There is the assumption that grand and renovated and powerful is preferable to meek and lowly and weak.

The church often adopts this form of communicating in an effort to gather people into its doors. “God is doing awesome things here at Church _______.” The fact is that God is doing awesome things everyday and everywhere. He’s sustained your life. He’s given you sight and hearing and legs. And if you have none or only one of these, he’s still given you life and a mind to engage the world around you. Truly miraculous. What is more, is God not also doing something in the old, decrepit church that meets faithfully every Sunday? Is God not at work in the mundane? Is the changing of laundry and washing of dishes and working through an argument devoid of God’s presence?

I see so many churches trying to drum up excitement about the latest outreach or project, when what our culture needs is the staying power and sobriety of faithfulness in the ho-hum drudgery of going to a job you hate or a marriage that is contentious. What we need is not more hype, but more humility. More service and less heavy-handedness. We need more gentleness and less power grabs.

If we don’t, what then becomes of the senior citizen who is tired? What becomes of the baby who is sleeping? What becomes of the unemployed and outcast and burdened? They are forgotten. They are seen as less valuable because they aren’t producing the kind of energy requisite for assumed faithfulness to the disciples’ call.

In reality, we need less loud voices and red faces and sweaty brows and more silence and calmness and a deep well of contentment.