Megachurches, Megabusinesses

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

[B-Chan]

That's WorshipTainment!^®

x

[B-Chan]

Which is better, a family come in their jeans and sing a praise chorus see a drama and get saved, or stay home because they refuse to wear a suit and sing a 200 year old song and listen to a hellfire sermon and never know the love of Christ?

The latter. The kind of ersatz Christ served up at the average Six Flags Over Jesus MegaChurch isn't worth knowing. The kind of salvation you can “get” is worth having. Salvation is a process, not a quick fix you get after a rousing game of singalong. At least at home your hypothetical family could pray in quiet solitude to the real Jesus.

And as for jeans: if jeans are the best you have, great – but one should always wear one's best clothing to go to Church, no matter how uncomfortable they may be in relation to jeans and sneakers.. We Catholics are taught to wear our best to Mass because we are coming into the Presence of the King; since we have Christ in Person at every Mass, coming into His Real Presence wearing less than our very best would be disrespectful.

"But church is borrrring,” the modern evangelical whines. My response: grow up and stop acting like toddlers who have to be amused all the time. The Lord asks only one freaking hour of your undivided attention per week, for Pete's sake! Is that too much to ask? Any adult who finds an hour of dignified and solemn worship to be boring has an attention-deficit problem and should seek professional help immediately.We would all do well to recall the example of the Apostles in the Garden – they got bored, too. Does the phrase ”Could you not tarry with me one hour?” sound familiar?

If one is faced with the choice of WorshipTainment® or staying home, then for the love of Christ please stay home. Better five minutes of real Jesus at home than ninety minutes of fake Jesus at the local megachurch.

[WillRain]

Sure, IF that were the case.

But you are proceeding from the completely irrational theory that someone who would not come to church because of the lack of general appeal is actually going to do any buisness with God at home...THEY ARE NOT!

So, we have the folks who take church seriously and go to do serious buisness with God - like you and me.

Then we have the group who for whatever reason does not take it so seriously and only comes if it appeals to them in some way - which I AGREE is not a noble or praisworthy position and NOT one the mature Christian should be found in - and they come to Saddleback or someplace because they are comfortable with it and find this "Jesus who is not worth knowing" you mention

And you have the crowd who stays home and does NO buisness with God of ANY sort.

And you presume that the 2nd group is WORSE off than the third?

I confess your logic escapes me.

AS BAD? Possibly. But even at that you dismiss the possibility that becoming acquainted with the "watered down" Jesus might yet use that as a gateway to the "real" Jesus.

WORSE? I don't see how that could possibly be so.

[WillRain]

So you suppose that because I don't arrogantly shout "I am written in the Lamb's Book of Life!" (Strongly implied: "...And you are NOT so there!") that means I'm not?

I reiterate. This thread is rife with folks who want cookie-cutter Christians who are all shaped the same way - conveniently, just like THEM.

It is exactly that sort of thinking which has led to Christians persecuting Christians all down through most of the last 2,000 years.

Pride is the root of all sin. And there's a whole lot of pride in this thread.

[safisoft]

This thread is rife with folks who want cookie-cutter Christians who are all shaped the same way - conveniently, just like THEM...Pride is the root of all sin. And there's a whole lot of pride in this thread

Have you considered that the people who are saying things that you do not agree with, are in fact expressing a desire to not look like everyone else - but like Jesus, the Messiah? Have you considered that it is pride they are speaking against? Be careful.

I know I do not want everyone to be "shaped" like me - except where I resemble Him. I want to be "shaped" like HIM (that is my most intense desire) - and if that is the "cookie cutter" you are referring to - then you need to consider these:

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." Romans 8:29

"Imitate me, just as I also imitate Messiah." 1Corinthians 11:1

"Therefore be imitators of God as dear children." Ephesians 5:1

"For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Messiah Jesus." 1Thessalonians 2:14

"And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end, that you do not become sluggish, but imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises." Hebrews 6:11-12

"Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good..." 3John 11

Maybe what you have read by some on this thread is concern for the Bride of Messiah... and an urging that she not be found wanting - but prepared.

[Lexinom]

Very well said. As a historic Protestant, I find myself closer to the Roman Catholics on this matter than to modern-day Protestants.

Consider this: If you truly are a Christian, if you truly have an ongoing sense of 1) your own sin and misery, 2) God's unspeakable, unmerited grace to unworthy sinners in Christ, and 3) the gratitude you are to express to God by willingly giving Him your whole life, then you will WANT to worship Him as the majestic King with your best, from that heart of gratitude.

What is commonly thought to be the highest good in modern evangelicalism - getting people saved - stands at odds with the Biblical and historical understanding that the glory of God is the highest good, and is in fact the meaning and purpose of life itself.

[safisoft]

So, we have the folks who take church seriously and go to do serious buisness with God...

Then we have the group who for whatever reason does not take it so seriously and only comes if it appeals to them in some way...

And you have the crowd who stays home and does NO buisness with God of ANY sort.

And you presume that the 2nd group is WORSE off than the third?

Those exposed to "truth" (if indeed they are hearing it in such places) and yet do not take hold of it, are better off not hearing at all. In fact, they may think that they have escaped the flames, and rest upon that belief... instead of upon the One Who can rescue.

It is like boiling a frog... Start with the water warm, and they will never jump out - start with it hot and they will jump out immediately... "Warm" is a dangerous place for people as well...

"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing' —and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked — I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent." Revelation 3:15-19

[Lexinom]

Also well said:

Those exposed to "truth" (if indeed they are hearing it in such places) and yet do not take hold of it, are better off not hearing at all.

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more" (Lk. 12:47, 48).

[safisoft]

if you truly have an ongoing sense of 1) your own sin and misery, 2) God's unspeakable, unmerited grace to unworthy sinners in Christ, and 3) the gratitude you are to express to God by willingly giving Him your whole life, then you will WANT to worship Him as the majestic King with your best, from that heart of gratitude.

Very well said. We are not to be seeking experiences - but the One Messiah Who died for us... and He is worthy.

What is commonly thought to be the highest good in modern evangelicalism - getting people saved - stands at odds with the Biblical and historical understanding that the glory of God is the highest good, and is in fact the meaning and purpose of life itself.

And men like C.H. Spurgeon, and D.L. Moody who are credited as being leaders in modern evangelicalism, would shudder at what it has become = a mix of Charles Finney and Barnum & Bailey.

I believe what we are seeing is the same thing seen in the mid-1800s in the movement popularized by Charles Finney. Who said, "...a revival is not a miracle... It is a purely philosophic result of the right use of the constituted means." Some of the things he is credited with popularizing in the "evangelical movement": emotional prayers which addressed God in informal language, less formal music, advertising etc. for the "revival meeting".

Finney was a master of manipulation... He believed that revival was not something sent down by God, but it could be brought about if the right means were used. Finney believed that man was free to choose his spiritual destiny. He "invented" the altar call - so people could publicly confess the "decision" they had made.

[Lexinom]

The Guilt, grace, and gratitude model is taken right out of the Heidelberg Catechism, Question 2.

Wasn't it D. L. Moody who said "The place for the ship is in the sea, but God help the ship if the sea gets into it"?

One book I would like to get is David Wells' No Place for Truth, which treats many of these matters that we've been discussing.

[allthingsnew]

Opening line of Calvin's Institutes: "Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves."

[WillRain]

Have you considered that the people who are saying things that you do not agree with, are in fact expressing a desire to not look like everyone else - but like Jesus, the Messiah?

Yet you presume that Riick Warren is NOT intrested in conforming himself and his congregation to that image because it's not the image you see in your own church.

Maybe what you have read by some on this thread is concern for the Bride of Messiah... and an urging that she not be found wanting - but prepared.

By all means, be concerned. Reject the heresy of Mormonism, of the JWs, of the health and wealth decivers like Benny Hinn and Creflo Dollar...because the contridict the CLEAR TEACHINGS of Scripture.

But there simply is no clear definition in the Bible of New Testament worship. And the indications which ARE there do not conform to any major denomination.

The disciples in the first centruy had no organ, no stained glass, no church building at all. They seemed to have taken the Lord's Supper every week at least in some places. They held all things common more like a commune than a church in some places. They followed some Jewish customs at least in some places by not allowing a woman to speak in the church and requiring her to have her head covered. And it seems evident that several of these practices were NOT consistant even within the NT. Further, there is NO reference which says "You ought to wear your best clothes" or any of our other judgemental prohibitions.

Does your church conform to that entire list? Do you know of one which does?

Those exposed to "truth" (if indeed they are hearing it in such places) and yet do not take hold of it, are better off not hearing at all. In fact, they may think that they have escaped the flames, and rest upon that belief... instead of upon the One Who can rescue.

But you cannot have it both ways, either they are NOT exposed to the truth and thereby they are no worse of than the unhearing, or they ARE exposed to the truth and you minimize the ability of God's truth to change their lives and conform them to Christ.

YES some will hear and reject it, so will they anywhere. Should we never share the Gospel with ANYone lest perchance they reject it and be found more guilty still? I know there is some hypercalvinism (such as in the Primitive Baptists) which holds this position - is it yours?

If not, then we do these folks no more harm by exposing them to the Gospel in a Saddleback type church than by doing so on the street or the mission field. More importantly, Scripture assures us that God's word will not return unto him void. So if we expose all we can to the Word then it will work in their lives as HE wills it. If, otoh, as you contend, they are getting little or no exposure to His word in these churches, then no harm has been done in terms of added guilt.

And as long as we are throwing Scripture about to back our points (a good practice) I might point out to you that Christ had a great deal to say about substituting the traditions of men for the ordinences of God. And except for the Saraments, virtually everything every modern church does is an Ordinence of men including singing anything other than Psalms, having a Sermon at all, the buildings we meet in and so forth.

[Lexinom]

They followed some Jewish customs at least in some places by not allowing a woman to speak in the church and requiring her to have her head covered. And it seems evident that several of these practices were NOT consistant even within the NT. Further, there is NO reference which says "You ought to wear your best clothes" or any of our other judgemental prohibitions.

First, the matters regarding women - headcoverings, non-eligability to teach - are in the Bible and there's no reason to not practice them today.

The matter regarding clothing: Wearing your best clothes comes from an attitude of the heart, not an explicit command about dress. Would you feel awkward in front of an important dignitary at some important ceremony donned with jeans and a teeshirt? Is not God not infinitely more worthy than any man of similar respect? So if we would do one and not the other, it is well that we search our hearts and plead with the Lord with one of the most difficult and humiliating of prayers, "Lord, show me myself".

[TexanToTheCore]

I would rather that someone in jeans come into our church to hear The Word than to stand outside and never hear it in recognizable form.

In regards to Megachurches being social clubs, there is some merit to your statement, but perhaps in ways that you have not contemplated. All of the Megachurches are committed to developing a Christian Community to provide accountability for members as well as providing a lifestyle of worship and reverence. In this they have been successful and that is a large part of their draw. One can spend all your time with Christians, sometimes in a contemplative mood, sometimes studying the Bible at a Saturday night Christian party, and at other times gathering together with instruments and voices to jam, both traditional as well as CCM worship music.

The last party we had, the children ended up in the middle of a circle of singing and playing parents, dancing to old time and modern hymns. Most were in jeans, some clean, others dirty from the logging contest we held earlier in the day. But I will tell you that it was worship.

This Christian Community is not apart from the outer community but is actively engaged in it, sometimes in an Evangelical mode, oftentimes in an intercessionary mode.

[Is2C]

"So, we have the folks who take church seriously and go to do serious buisness with God - like you and me.

Then we have the group who for whatever reason does not take it so seriously and only comes if it appeals to them in some way - which I AGREE is not a noble or praisworthy position and NOT one the mature Christian should be found in - and they come to Saddleback or someplace because they are comfortable with it and find this "Jesus who is not worth knowing" you mention

And you have the crowd who stays home and does NO buisness with God of ANY sort.

And you presume that the 2nd group is WORSE off than the third?"

I agree that the 2nd group is worse off because of the fact that they are being told that they are learning about Christ and how to be a Christian when in fact they are not. At least the 3rd group isn't living in a world of false pretenses.

[safisoft]

But there simply is no clear definition in the Bible of New Testament worship.

First of all, we are using different definitions of the word "worship" - I reject that "worship" is a "church-time" thing - it is a "all time thing" - Read Romans 12:1.

Next, "New Testament" gatherings IS defined - Read 1Corinthians 14. I am amazed at people saying this kind of thing what Scripture DOES define what our "group time" is supposed to look and sound like.

The disciples in the first centruy had no organ, no stained glass, no church building at all.

Wow. You are making my point.

They followed some Jewish customs at least in some places by not allowing a woman to speak in the church

Ah, if you are talking about this:

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." 1Timothy 2:11-13

Not a "Jewish custom" - Scripture - and it does not exactly say that "a woman is not permitted to speak in church".

Does your church conform to that entire list?

I don't "have" a church. Nor do I attend one. That type of thinking is like saying, "Do you attend your family?" or "When did you join your family?" I am a part of my family by the fact that I am a father. I am a part of Jesus' called out assembly by the fact that He has called me. You and I aren't even speaking the same language. You are talking about the modern principles of "un-church" (i.e. "it doesn't LOOK like my daddy's church, and doesn't SOUND like my daddy's church, which means I FEEL better about it all.") I am talking about following a Master that has called us individually and collectively.

And as long as we are throwing Scripture about to back our points (a good practice) I might point out to you that Christ had a great deal to say about substituting the traditions of men for the ordinences of God. And except for the Saraments, virtually everything every modern church does is an Ordinence of men including singing anything other than Psalms, having a Sermon at all, the buildings we meet in and so forth.

I do not "throw Scripture about" to prove my point. But, thanks again for making my point - just different traditions! Sorry, I'll take the commands of God and you can keep ALL of the traditions.

[safisoft]

developing a Christian Community to provide accountability for members

I would be AMAZED to hear of a SINGLE "megachurch" that practices Biblical discipline and accountability. It is unheard of in ANY "church" today.

[WillRain]

First, let me say that I may have confused you with those who were putting forth the notion that the "new style" churchs were inferior to the more proper liturgical churches. If that is not the case, and you dismiss the old traditions along with the new then I have been approching your comments from an entirely wrong angle

First of all, we are using different definitions of the word "worship" - I reject that "worship" is a "church-time" thing - it is a "all time thing"

I agree. If you are not dfending liturigal services over more casual services then my reference to the word "woiorship" is misapplied. However, you should not - IMO - nitpick over what is a commonly accepted useage of the word to descripe a corperate service. It is possible for a word to have more than one useage.

Next, "New Testament" gatherings IS defined - Read 1Corinthians 14. I am amazed at people saying this kind of thing what Scripture DOES define what our "group time" is supposed to look and sound like.

Again we agree. However, that description does not begin to cover all the elements of modern worship in any gathering. Again I was speaking as if you were one of those trying to elevate one form of corperate "worship" over another.

Additionally, you have no evidence that Paul was defining the entirety of there service, only those parts which he mentioned. They may well have sang Psalms or hymns which - not being relevant to his point - were not mentioned.

Not a "Jewish custom" - Scripture - and it does not exactly say that "a woman is not permitted to speak in church".

Being veiled and silent in the congregation were most certainly elements of Synagouge worship

I don't "have" a church. Nor do I attend one. That type of thinking is like saying, "Do you attend your family?" or "When did you join your family?" I am a part of my family by the fact that I am a father. I am a part of Jesus' called out assembly by the fact that He has called me. You and I aren't even speaking the same language.

That's because you are playing word games and trying to impress me with semantics.

OF COURSE the prime meaning of "church" is the called out assembly of believers which one can not "attend" but just like the word "worship" it has a commonly accepted useage which you are undoubtably aware of.

You need not exert such effort to prove to the rest of us the purity of your use of the language. All you are doing is promoting miscommunication.

Lay your showboating aside and understand that ALL of us on this thread no matter what we are agreeing or disagreeing about understand the Biblical useage of the words "worship" and "church."

You are talking about the modern principles of "un-church" (i.e. "it doesn't LOOK like my daddy's church, and doesn't SOUND like my daddy's church, which means I FEEL better about it all.")

I don't feel any better about one than the other. I fact, my very point in involving myself in this thread was other posters eroneous (in my view) attempt to elevate the old over the new. It would be hypocritical of me to try to elevate the new over the old. My argument is they have equal vialidity.

I am talking about following a Master that has called us individually and collectively.

And with remarks like this you only serve to imply that only folks like you wish to serve Him. I can hope that such is not your intent.

But, thanks again for making my point - just different traditions! Sorry, I'll take the commands of God and you can keep ALL of the traditions.

Well, I'm glad you at least understand that I was making a point that had to do with competing - equally valid or invalid - traditions as opposed to tradition v. Scripture.

But your tone is still laced with arrogance. No one here, neither my literguical friends or those who recognize the validity of a more casual service, are placing any set of traditions superior to the commands of God.

But you are fooling yourself if you don't think that EVERY generation of men have traditions. Examine your practice of life and you WILL find traditions. They are not bad so long as they assume the subserviant role to revealed truth.

You have spent all this time arguing for points which were missed by the rest of us because they were so self evident they hardly needed saying at all.

[TexanToTheCore]

Actually, I didn't say Biblical Accountability, I used the word accountability, which I think is fairly clear.

What is your interpretation of Biblical accountability?

Bear with me here, as I am a relatively new Christian and have much to learn.

[NRA2BFree]

Thanks for the ping! :)

I've listened to several of these people and I don't have any problem with any of them. The good thing about knowing the Bible, is that you can discern the truth if a pastor is not preaching the Biblical truth.

I do believe the churches could teach the Federal Government a thing or two, :)