Megachurches, Megabusinesses

Forbes.com ^ | September 17, 2003 | Luisa Kroll

[luckymom]

"In my opinion a preacher wearing a Hawian shirt is disrespectful."
I mean no disrespect to you, but I don't think Jesus wore a suit and tie.

[luckymom]

It's so good to have your input to this discussion having been in the Saddleback community yourself. I would like to attend a service when I'm in that area, and I find it interesting when people make such rash judgements against a growing and thriving Christian church without ever having stepped in the door! Welcome to Seattle, you might try City church in Kirkland. I've never been there, but had the pleasure of hearing one of their musicians. If the church is as good as she was...! See www.thecity.org

[mrs tiggywinkle]

**He refuses to take a doctrinal stand and therefore has doctrinally ignorant members. A gospel preached with no foundation will be heard different ways by each listener **

He, as in Chuck Smith?

As far as doctrine goes, CC maintains the following:

Calvary Chapel has been formed as a fellowship of believers in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our supreme desire is to know Christ and to be conformed into His image by the power of the Holy Spirit. **We are not a denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only their over-emphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ** We believe that the only true basis of Christian fellowship is His (Agape) love, which is greater than any differences we possess and without which we have no right to claim ourselves Christian.

There's more if you'd like me to share...

[ppaul]

Mega churches are about men first and God second or third...

Not necessarily, sister.
There are a whole lotta "man-centered" small congregations out there who love their doctrine
and theological arguments more than they love Jesus.
I am am not sure size has anything to do with it.
Pretty much, if a church is growing, it will become large.
If it's 'deader than a doornail' - well, it will stay nice and small.

[The Grammarian]

You do realize that the majority of your beloved old hymns are set to the tune of barroom drinking songs of their day, don't you?

Actually, quite a few were written specifically by composers of the day. For example, multiple Charles Wesley hymns were set to tunes composed by the composer of "The Messiah," George Friedrich Handel. www.cyberhymnal.org would give you a pretty good idea about how many of these songs actually have "barroom tunes." (One thing I've noticed recently was the fact that I have often heard the line about hymns being set to barroom tunes parroted, but have never really heard any credible source from anyone who's said such a thing. Are there any, I wonder?)

[The Grammarian]

Calvary Chapel has been formed as a fellowship of believers in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our supreme desire is to know Christ and to be conformed into His image by the power of the Holy Spirit. **We are not a denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only their over-emphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ** We believe that the only true basis of Christian fellowship is His (Agape) love, which is greater than any differences we possess and without which we have no right to claim ourselves Christian.

So instead of belonging to a denomination that might have a doctrinal standard, they make up their own (denomination AND doctrinal standard) and then claim that those other denominations overemphasize theirs--this, when in reality most (at least, most mainline) denominations' churches barely preach or teach their own doctrines anyway!

What Calvary Chapel really means by this is that they will disassociate themselves from other churches, claim that those other churches are dividing the Body of Christ, and then go right on preaching whatever they want to, which will, no doubt, be just as divisive, and then deny that they're really teaching anything that might be controversial.

[Lexinom]

First, I need to qualify my earlier statment. The Reformed position is that anything in worship which is not mentioned in the NT is forbidden. The Lutheran position is anything that is not explicitly forbidden in the NT is allowed. Both Lutherans and Reformed Christians can agree that worship should be guided by the Word.

Of course you know that there is no Scriptural authority for that? Poor translation? I suppose you know that the Catholic church was pretty harsh with Luther over this - saying that it was proof that Luther did not TRULY adhere to Sola Scriptura, since it was WELL KNOWN that "Sunday Sabbath" came from decrees of the "Church" in the 3rd and 4th Century. Read Eusebius - or read the Laodicean or Nicean decrees yourself.

1. Sunday: There is support for the Sunday Sabbath in the NT. Can't get my Greek NT and lexicon right now because the baby is asleep and it would cause too much noise. Besides, it's not terribly relevant to this discussion on megachurches and their implications, imho. But if you really want to prolong the discussion I guess that's fine. Incidently, on what basis should one believe that a minority (like the SDA's or others rejecting Sunday) are in the right while the rest throughout 2000 years of church history were wrong all that time?

2. Respectfully, there is a very clear command to Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. "On it you shall do no work, neither you, nor your manservant, etc." You asked the question earlier regarding the law, "Which ones?". Why did God directly write some of His laws at Sinai on stone tablets - the ones destroyed by Moses in his righteous anger? That's a rather important separation, wouldn't you agree, between the decalogue, and the ceremonial laws. If the Law - moral and ceremonial - was all lumped together, why would not it have all been written down at once at that time? This is at least a clue to the answer between the divison between the ceremonial and moral law, but there are others here better equipped than I to treat this matter.

Do you think "Judaizer" a Scriptural term? I know it is printed in man-made headings in portions of certain Bibles - but that is a term coined by the heretic Marcion in the 2nd Century, so don't put yourself in his camp.

Guilt by association; I think you're better than that... Easter and Christmas have their roots in ancient pagan religigions like Zoroastrianism. Reformation Day falls on Halloween, which has an association with All Saints Day. God works in many ways.

The commands against beastiality...etc.

Already dealt with this, my mistake in not sufficiently qualifying an earlier statement about the Regulative Principle. Sorcery is forbidden in the NT, not sure if beastiality is mentioned, but God does not change and therefore neither does the standard for sin.

Jews did not, nor do they even now believe that keeping the "Law" "saves". It is simply God's standard. God's standards of righteous living do not change - if so, what makes you think He won't change them again... without telling you... AGAIN.

AMEN. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. God is immutable, and numerous texts prove this. This is a strong argument against dispensationalism, in fact.

[FourPeas]

My problem with megachurches is that i really wonder how many people in these churches...

And I suspect alot of people...

Perhaps you understand my statement...?

[Lexinom]

Yep. We sung one of the most famous of these bar tune hymns, A Mighty Fortress, at my wedding.

Now, permit me an illustration.

Is it unreasonable to assume you would feel less at ease if one of these creatures crawled into bed with you rather than the other? The two images evoke different thoughts and emotions. Yet they are nothing more than differing permutations of pixels on your monitor. Is it too much of a stretch to assert the same applies to music, differing arrangements of notes, tempo, cadence, and instruments producing the soundwaves?

God's Word call Abigail "beautiful" (1 Sam 25:3). If God's Word says it, it must be objectively true since God cannot lie. Beauty is not subjective, merely something in the eye of the beholder. Why would not the same be true of music?

[WillRain]

I'm not sure what all that means, frankly.

"Beauty is not subjective, merely something in the eye of the beholder"

Appears to be almost a contridiction with itself.

In any case, IF it is true that music is objectivly beautiful or not, then one has to ask "Who defines beauty in music?"
IF, on the other hand, it is in the eye of the beholder, then who are you to rail against someone else's taste in music?

Now, I believe there is an objective stadard for church or religious music - that it glorify God, or that it honor what he honors. But that is not a standard fo beauty, it's a standard of content.

All that said, I'd happily point to so called "music" which I find to be utterly useless no matter what the lyrics are, but I freely admit that is a matter of my own tastes. All the "mall churches" being blasted on this thread are doing is ministering to people with a worship style conducive to them actually, you know, worshiping.

What a shame that so many Christians insist that all Christians be cookie-cutter duplicates shaped - how conveniently! - just like them.

It seems to me that there is a pattern here:

Group A: All Christians ought to be just like me if they want to glorify God;

Group B: God has created a wonderful diversity of people and he can be glorified in an infinate number of ways from Black Spirituals, to litergeys, to Worship songs, to classic hymns, to Gregorian chants and a thousand more besides. Let us all find a place where our hearts can be attuned to God and worship him there.


Now, which of the two seems more likely to have an egotistical (i.e. MAN-centered) view of the situation?

[Lexinom]

"Beauty is not subjective, merely something in the eye of the beholder"

How's this: Beauty is not sujective. Beauty is not something which lies merely in the eyes of the beholder.

This is not about taste. Choosing which music you listen to in your private life is your prerogative. But it's not up to you or me to subject the worship of God to our "tastes". Look at Leviticus 10 and the account of Nadab and Abihu if you need proof that God will be worshipped according to His attributes.

Let me turn the question around and ask, Who are you to pick and choose after which which attributes of God public worship is to be patterned? God is indeed love, but is also holy, righteous, just, merciful, omnipresent, omnipotent. God is ALL of these, at once and in equal measure. Being a mere mortal, this is difficult for man to accept, who mirrors these attributes according to the Divine image in him but only in a shadow-like, limited way. He gets angry, then sad, then glad. He flits from the one to the other.

You are correct if you hold the position that no one can absolutize an aesthetic. No one said that worship music must exclude instruments or incldue only the organ or piano. But music whose character stirs the kind of emotions one might get from a television commercial (e.g. Jack Hayford's "Majesty") fails the objective test of fitting with the Divine character.

[Lexinom]

As a quick addendum, I must clarify that that man does not have all of the Divine attributes (such as omniscience), only the transferrable ones. Dr. Kim Riddlebarger said it best: "Man is like God in every way that a creature can be like God."

[Lexinom]

Look, for what it's worth, I was offended when I first heard about Reformation Theology, on the White Horse Inn radio program in 1994. It was particularly predestination that did it. I took it for granted that I had full control over my salvation, and hearing of this doctrine made me uneasy, and a little bit angry. But I had read Ephesians chapter 1, John 6:44, and Romans 9 before that and noticed that most of the sermons in the Pentacostal church I was attending were about faith. They never touched predestination in these verses, and all activies and sermons seemed to center around getting a blessing, etc. and other man-centric ideas.

I felt kind of like you do: "Why should we have to worship to organ music?" Why "put God in a box?" After all, those churches were "dead", and lacked the miracles talked about in the NT - one of the reasons I had joined the Pentacostals, what I thought to be a biblical church. These churches lacked spirituality, I thought.

Having grown up in a part of the country where the Dutch Reformed faith was strong, and going to private school with these children, I wanted to learn a little more about it so I ordered some tapes from CURE. What I found was a richness, a faithfulness to the Scriptures that far exceeded my expectations. My view of the world was turned upside-down, through a painful and emotional process. What turned it around was the Capernican shift away from the belief that the church exists to serve man, to it being the community of God's elect which exists to worship God. Contrary to what one might expect, I felt better about myself and was, in fact, freed from the tyranny of the Law through justification by faith.

I knew that God loved me because He brought me to Him through Jesus Christ as He revealed Himself in His Word. I became hungry and realized that the meager Pentacostal morsals would no longer suffice, and eventually, after an intense internal struggle, made the full shift. Praying to the Sovereign God for the first time, with tears, was like praying to a different God altogether.

This is just one man's story, for what it's worth... I share it only to demonstrate that I do understand and sympathize with your offense, since I once felt it too.

[Not A Snowbird]

Rick's teachings to the congregation and his teachings to other pastors and church leaders are two completely different things, and he does maintain that separation. On the one hand, he has a thriving church that is very successful in reaching the particular Orange County demographic that would otherwise be lost. On the other, he teaches his business model to other interested pastors and church leaders so that they can do the same thing. The are completely separate functions of Saddleback.

Again, I can only say that until one has visited Saddleback and really listened to what is said and done there, one cannot know what it's all about.

[Not A Snowbird]

Thanks, luckymom! I'm settled in a church in Auburn right now; it was difficult after attending Saddleback for so long to find the right one, but this one definitely works. Much smaller, of course! :-)

[sheltonmac]

Prove all things...

Nothing like getting back to basics when it comes to the truth. Unfortunately, too many professing Christians base their faith on feelings and experiences rather than the infallible Word of God.

[Liberal Classic]

I suspect that what you just said touches on the basis of Hinn's and other "charismatic" leaders' popularity. I think people go to have an "experience" of some kind. They want to go to some place where they can "feel" the presence of the Lord, instead of standing on what is written in the scripture.

[A.J.Armitage]

IIRC, there were tunes everyone knew that could have (almost) any lyric sung to them. The National Anthem is set to such a tune. So they weren't bar tunes specifically, but they were used in bars a lot.

[Lexinom]

I think people go to have an "experience" of some kind. They want to go to some place where they can "feel" the presence of the Lord, instead of standing on what is written in the scripture.

That appears to be the case. It's endemic in our culture. How often do you hear "I feel that..." rather than "I think..."? Outcome-based eductation, etc.

[Wallace T.]

I spent a number of years in a Presbyterian Church (USA) congregation whose liturgy could be considered "high middle," that is, pastors in robes with color changes according to seasons, repetitive prayers with pastor and congregational responses, repetition of the patristic creeds, Advent candles, Holy Week services, old hymns, etc. I have also attended Catholic masses, and Episcopalian and Methodist services with plenty of ritual and ceremony. In none of these churches did I hear the clear exposition of the Gospel. Other than the canned Scripture passage called for in the liturgical calendar or the church's "play book," there was little exposure to the teachings of the Bible. The sermons or homilies were vapid and often consisted of 15 minutes of "Jesus loves you." In the case of the PCUSA church I attended, the pastor was a flaming political liberal and the congregation supported charities that aided Marxist radicals in Central America.

Since we live in an era where "feeeeeelings" are paramount, mine were quite negative. I did not feel any closer to God after 50 to 70 minutes of mainline, liturgical Protestant or Catholic worship. I saw little other than a way to kill an hour or two of time on Sundays.

It is by God's grace alone that I became a Christian believer. At a crucial point in my life, I was exposed to the radio ministry of Vernon McGee and to James Dobson's "Focus on the Family." These radio ministries helped me on my journey far more than the liturgical rigmarole and vain repititions of the mainline Protestant and Catholic churches. For over a decade, I have been blessed by hearing the Gospel preached in Bible-believing churches (PCA, Southern and independent Baptist, and independent Bible) where worship was neither ritualistic nor seeker-sensitive, but reverent and centered on God's Word. Because I live in the Bible Belt (near Dallas, Texas), there are many Christian radio stations where the expository preaching and teaching of men like Chuck Swindoll, John MacArthur, and R.C. Sproul are readily available.

Mark 12:30 tells us that we must love the Lord with all our heart, all our soul, and all our mind. It is only through the mind that we may understand the Word, which John 1:1 states is God. Neither the tired liturgies of the mainline Protestant and Catholic churches nor the vapid stage shows of the "seeker sensitive" churches engage the mind. Evangelical churches based on Scripture alone can and do engage heart, soul, and mind.