I am going to comment that the discussion over "mega" churches is pointless, for two reasons. First, we can never come to an adequate definition of mega. All the mainlines are in the millions, so each one is mega if you add up all the adherents. Ah, but you say they meet in small groups. Well, yes, ranging from a handful to several thousand (some individual Catholic, Presbyterian and Methodist congregations number well over 2000, megachurches in their own right). Second, bigness is frankly not a criterion of anything that matters. There are fine big churches and there are sorry tiny churches. So, again, what is the point of the whole size discussion, except to reinforce certain caricatures folks hold of massive scam services headed by plastic-haired televangelists?
Lighten up, Larry.
1. While the study's definition of "mega" was arbitrary (and apparently excluded Catholics by some design), and while the data was structurally bound to be imprecise, it gave some insight into who these megachurch people are. (And I DON'T agree with the presumption of many that nondenominationals are inherently megachurchy; the white, metropolitan and satellite-city are, but I've seen endless numbers of tiny, minority-dominated non-dom churches.)
2. All subsequent comments about how mega meha is were made in jest.