Posted on 12/11/2013 9:44:41 AM PST by Gamecock
In the future, the 1990s and early 2000s may well be called the “Megachurch Era” by ecclesiastical historians. Suburban commuter culture, television broadcasting, the Internet, the book publishing industry, the rise of self-help gurus, digital media technology, and the contemporary sounds of Jesus People music all provided essential ingredients for enormous churches with a plethora of programs. All that the ingredients needed were men with the vision, initiative, and charisma to muster together like-minded individuals for a common purpose: planting, building, and increasing a congregation (well beyond the previous conceptions of a “large congregation”).
And those men came. Churches with multi-site campuses, parking garages, jumbo-trons, award-winning praise bands, laser shows, tremendous charities, political endorsements, and even in-house coffee shops sprang up across the nation. Thousands of people—unchurched, disenchanted, or pushed out of liberalizing Mainline congregations (or stringent fundamentalist ones)—flocked to these new watering holes. The droves started having offspring as smaller congregations dwindled away. A new way of “doing church” was in town, and it seemed to be primed for being the ideal model for pastors to emulate if they wanted their congregations to survive the coming millennium.
However, critics of this ecclesiology came to the forefront. They complained of shallow theology, entertainment over discipleship, emotionalism, cults of ego, lack of accountability, giganticism (in terms of architecture, size, and theology), consumerism, the prosperity gospel, lack of reverence, therapeutic spirituality, and a host of other spiritual maladies. Most devastatingly, many of the megachurch’s harshest critics came from its own children. In addition, the majority of Americans that remained in smaller congregations also tended to sympathize with these critiques. Indeed, it is almost a truism now to hear a diatribe about the apparent evils of megachurch-style religion.
The glamour of novelty has disappeared. The very term “megachurch” invokes an immediate reaction in Christians: disgust, a balanced shake of the head, or admiration. And this is where the question lies for the religious thinker, “Has the megachurch lost its luster?” Very few in the United States balk in abject horror or astonished wonder at the idea of the megachurch any more. In other words, the megachurch recoil in the Christian world has finally calmed down. Megachurches are there; we know what they are about; we debate their merits and demerits; we make big life decisions based on our convictions. This does not mean that there is no error here, but it does mean that the megachurch has become a normalized piece of furniture in the room of faith.
So what will be the future ecclesiastical landscape? I think that the megachurch will be a fixture in religion for the foreseeable future. However, it definitely won’t be hailed as the definitive “way of the future” in any sense. Some will continue to function as normal. In the larger scheme of things, some of these will act as “feeders” to other Christian congregations in the area, thus furthering Christ’s kingdom in a more roundabout way. I saw this firsthand in the DC area. Seekers, the curious, and nominal believers can come to enjoy a show, hear a sermon, remain unperturbed in the enormous crowds, and enjoy the energy and facilities of a megachurch. However, if these same people want depth, they will be referred to small groups. But, more often than not, hungry Christians will begin to attend smaller congregations with more robust, less open theologies and more engaged membership care.
It seems that other megachurch congregations will, in fact, transform. As this fascinating Christianity Today article reports, New Life Church of Colorado Springs (formerly under the leadership of Ted Haggard) has begun to alter its approach to pastoral leadership, worship style, churchly layout, and even the methods of charity work. New Life Church is starting to look more like a more traditional “large church,” the kind that was a common sight throughout the church’s history.
Time will reveal the destiny of the megachurch movement. God only know its full fruits and meaning.
Again, I am not going to condemn any particular structure. While I think there may be some who are preaching something totally contrary to the teachings of Christ (such as those who preach the so-called "prosperity gospel"), I wouldn't want to characterize all for the errors of some...unless I absolutely knew that this was the case.
I am cautioned in my thoughts by the words of St Paul:
Phil 1:14-18 And many of the brethren in the Lord, growing confident by my bands, are much more bold to speak the word of God without fear. Some indeed, even out of envy and contention; but some also for good will preach Christ. Some out of charity, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. And some out of contention preach Christ not sincerely: supposing that they raise affliction to my bands. But what then? So that by all means, whether by occasion, or by truth, Christ be preached: in this also I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
So unless I have some evidence to the specific issues with a particular person, I am happy that Christ is preached one way or the other.
Megachurches had luster? Who knew?
I go to a big church and, after watching David Barton on Andrew Wommack’s show for two weeks around Thanksgiving (awesome, watch it for free on AW’s website), I need a church willing to get more involved politically. Big churches are too afraid to offend people.
You nailed it.
In my area, the mega-churches are social clubs, not churches.
Okay Gamecock that GIF is like major creepy! That looks like the Great Pit of Carkoon, in Tatooine’s Dune Sea, where Jabba the Hut condemned Luke, Han, and Chewbacca to a slow death in the belly of the Sarlacc.
Wish we had a like button :)
That sounds like a church with a serious problem. And a real need to purge the roles. 150 families with 400 regular attenders would be a healthy, self supporting congregation.
That's just the 115 acre main campus. Don't forget the Prosper and Dallas locations. Although I don't think they have football stadiums, do they?
Speaking of coffee shops, First Baptist Dallas switched from Starbucks to Community after Starbucks made homosexual marriage a 'core corporate value'.
The theology at Village is pretty good, for Baptists.
If they have a football stadium, who would notice? There are so many sports stadiums in those parts, it’d get lost.
I think it’s a little larger than the Catholic football stadium at JPII. - but a fraction of the size of Allen or Southlake.
I’ve been to a mega church in Rochester, NY, called The Father’s House, and it has all the bells and whistles as described in the article.
However, it also has an awesome preacher who is sound theologically and abhors mediocrity in a person’s or church’s spiritual life.
He’s no Joel Osteen, that’s for sure. (Nor any other charismatic preacher)
The body of Christ is not an institution. It's an organism, not an organization.
When a denomination is based all around the founder or an individual, then yes, what will happen is what you've seen happen.
That's why the church needs to be founded on the Word of God and have godly elders and deacons and a godly pastor. That way it's not all hanging on one person.
There are many non-denominational churches which have successfully passed the baton in regards to leadership are are still as solid as when they began.
It's just that nobody notices those. They all point to the big name televangelists and use them as the example of what can go wrong, broad brushing all churches as if the exceptions are the norm.
They're not.
Nice to see your name on a post. I haven’t seen you around for a while. I pray all is going well!
I think in the debate between "institution" and "charismatic individual," you just came down on the side of an institution, because that's exactly what you're describing.
No. Not an institution. An ASSEMBLY of believers under the protection of God given authority. I suppose that we could start up the debate again of the real meaning of the word that was translated as *church* but that topic has been well enough discussed.
God established authority for oversight for the nurturing and edification of the saints (believers) but did not establish an institution with rules and regulations. We are, each and every one of us, to be out in the world preaching the gospel and making disciples. We are ALL ambassadors for Christ.
While some within the church are specially gifted in preaching and evangelizing, that by no means exempts the average believer from doing his part. They were not given to the church to be paid or hierarchical positions with a church government. Preachers and evangelists in the early church were not given to be the leaders of the church but the proclaimers of the gospel.
I don’t see anywhere in Scripture that the business model is to be applied to the church. Our faith in Christ for salvation is a personal thing, not a corporate or institutional thing.
I don’t need to join a church to be part of the body of Christ.
Take this for what its worth. In the book of Revelation Jesus writes letters to seven churches. Of the seven churches there only two which Christ had nothing bad to say against. (Smyrna and Philadelphia). Those were the smallest of the seven churches.
Smallest in number of members or actual Christians?
Smallest congregations.
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.