Megachurches, Megabusinesses

Maybe churches aren't so different from corporations. World Changers Ministries, for instance, operates a music studio, publishing house, computer graphic design suite and owns its own record label. The Potter's House also has a record label as well as a daily talk show, a prison satellite network that broadcasts in 260 prisons and a twice-a-week Webcast. New Birth Missionary Baptist Church has a chief operating officer and a special effects 3-D Web site that offers videos-on-demand. It publishes a magazine and holds Cashflow 101 Game Nights. And Lakewood Church, which recently leased the Compaq Center, former home of the NBA's Houston Rockets, has a four-record deal and spends $12 million annually on television airtime.

Welcome to the megabusiness of megachurches, where pastors often act as chief executives and use business tactics to grow their congregations. This entrepreneurial approach has contributed to the explosive growth of megachurches--defined as non-Catholic churches with at least 2,000 members--in the U.S. Indeed, Lakewood, New Birth, The Potter's House and World Changers, four of the biggest, have all experienced membership gains of late. Of course, growth for them has a higher purpose: to spread their faith to as many people as they can. "In our society growth equals success," says Scott Thumma, faculty associate at the Hartford Institute for Religion Research. "And religious growth not only equals success but also God's blessing on the ministry."

In 1970, there were just ten such churches, according to John Vaughn, founder of Church Growth Today, which tracks megachurches. In 1990, 250 fit that description. Today, there are 740. The most common trait that these churches share is their size; average number of worshippers is 3,646, up 4% from last year, according to Vaughn. But they also demonstrate business savvy, with many holding conferences (47%) and using radio (44%) and television (38%), according to a 1999 survey conducted by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research. The average net income of megachurches was estimated at $4.8 million by that same survey.

Churches are exempt from income taxes. But in some cases they do pay an unrelated business income tax on activities not substantially related to the church's religious, educational or charitable purposes. (Churches do pay payroll, sales and, often, property taxes.)

*Catholic churches are not tracked for this study. This is all 2003 attendance data and represents total weekend attendance for each congregation. Source: Dr. John N. Vaughan, Church Growth Today

Technology also plays a large role in helping these giant churches communicate with members and keep track of them. Many provide a transcript of the weekly sermons and an events calendar on the Web site as well as sell products, such as books and CDs. They also allow members to post prayers and donate online. Almost all (99%) have Web sites. "Cell phones, e-mail, complex phone systems and the Internet all enhance the way megachurches work," says Thumma, faculty associate at the Hartford Institute.

Helping churches grow is a business in itself. There is even a publicly traded company, Kingdom Ventures (otc: KDMV - news - people ), whose sole mission is to help faith-based organizations get bigger. In its latest 10Q, the company did disclose that it's received a subpoena from the Securities And Exchange Commission relating to its stock and transactions. Founded in 1999, the tiny company operates 12 subsidiaries and claims to work with 10,000 churches on everything from fundraising to event planning (it provides speakers and artists for events) to upgrading technology by helping sell new audio and visual equipment and sound systems. "One of the reasons megachurches are as big as they are is because they use the technology of today," says Kingdom Chief Executive Gene Jackson, "We can help smaller churches become big with technology."

If that doesn't help, they may steer folks to a new book they are about to publish: PastorPreneur, which is hitting Christian book stores this month. The book teaches pastors to think like entrepreneurs; for instance, encouraging them to set up strategic partnerships with nonchurch groups and to use event marketing to draw in new members.

For a lesson in marketing, religious leaders would do well to study the success of Bill Hybels and his Great Barrington, Ill.-based Willow Creek Community Church. In 1975, he and members of his student ministry went door to door asking residents what kept them away from church. Hybels then crafted his services to address their concerns, becoming one of the first pastors to use video, drama and contemporary music in church and encouraging a more casual dress code. "Hybels really showed that churches can use marketing principles and still be authentic," says Michael Emerson, a Rice University sociology professor who has studied megachurches. Willow Creek, which has a staff of 500 full and part-time employees, is renowned for its conferences and seminars that teach other churches how to market themselves as well as for its "buzz" events, featuring well-known personalities such as country singer Randy Travis, NASCAR Champion owner and former Washington Redskins coach Joe Gibbs and Lisa Beamer, widow of Sept. 11, 2001, hero Todd Beamer--all intended to attract nonchurch goers.

Media has helped spread the message, particularly for Lakewood Church, the largest megachurch in the U.S. In 1981, Joel Osteen, son of then-pastor Joe Osteen, quit college to set up his father's television ministry. The services eventually aired in 140 countries. He also advertised Lakewood on local television and on billboards throughout Houston where the church is located. After his father passed away in 1999, Osteen became pastor and expanded the church's media strategy.

Like most churches, Lakewood's broadcasts had been relegated to the very early Sunday morning shows. Lakewood instead decided to target the top 25 markets in the nation and negotiate for timeslots on the four top networks between 8 A.M. and 10 A.M., rather than working with just one network. It also agreed to increase its budget for airtime to $12 million from $6 million. Its program now can be seen in 92% of the nation's households.

As for the services themselves, Lakewood makes sure to put on a grand show. It has a 12-piece stage band, a lighting designer to set the mood and three large projection screens. The technology will be even more spectacular when it moves into its new home in the former Houston Rockets' stadium "We really want it to feel like a concert," says Duncan Dodds, Lakewood's executive director. Something is working: Church attendance has grown from 6,000 in 1999 when Osteen became pastor to 25,060 today.

Pastor Rick Warren, who founded Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., in 1980, has deftly used technology as well as marketing to spread his message. His Pastors.com, which reaches 100,000 pastors worldwide each week, has e-mail forums, archives of all of his sermons from the past 22 years and a place to post prayer requests. He also sends a free weekly newsletter, Rick Warren's Ministry Toolbox, to pastors. When it came time to launch his book, The Purpose Driven Life, last year, Warren used Pastors.com to invite churches to participate in a "40 Days of Purpose" event (to correspond with the book's 40 chapters). The 40-day-long event attracted 1,562 churches and was kicked off with a simulcast broadcast to all those churches. Some 267 radio stations ran a "40 days campaign" during the same time period. And a CD of "Songs for a Purpose Driven Life" featuring well-known Christian artists was also released. From the start, the books and CDs were distributed in mass-market retailers such as Wal-Mart (nyse: WMT - news - people ), Costco Wholesale (nasdaq: COST - news - people ), Barnes & Noble (nyse: BKS - news - people ) and Borders Group (nyse: BGP - news - people ). It quickly became a New York Times bestseller and has already sold 5.8 million copies, outselling Billy Graham and making it one of the most successful book promotions in Christian publishing history.

No doubt, churches have learned some valuable lessons from corporations. Now maybe they can teach businesses a thing or two. Companies would certainly appreciate having the armies of nonpaid, loyal volunteers. "The business world would love to have that kind of fellowship," says Vaughn.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.