I couldn’t agree with you more.  While we’re arguing over strategy, these churches are reaching people with the gospel and what’s most important is that the gospel is being preached. 

Just because a church isn’t flashy doesn’t mean that they are preaching the full counsel of God’s word or that they’re members are spiritually mature Christians (gray hair does not equal - spiritual maturity). 

I’ve known just as many spiritually immature believers in traditional styled churches as I’ve known in contemporary settings.  In the end every one will have to give an account for themselves.

So why were you offended?  Was it because there is some question about the integrity of the mega"church" movement?  Are they truly leading people to conversion to Christ or are they wooing them to a crowd or a cause or a concert or…

Actually, megachurches can be quite inspiring, enjoyable and motivational, but is the movement as a whole truly producing persons who have changed sides from the world to the Kingdom of Jesus as Savior and LORD?  It’s really not about getting people to say they are following Christ; it’s about leading people to forsake self-interest to obey the King and advance His presence in a broken and blind world. 

I don’t see much of the institutionally organized “Christian” culture behaving much differently than a typical business enterprise in the general culture.  Any good business manager who claims to be a Christian can supervise the typical American congregation today.  But management is not evangelism or discipling or pastoring or any of the spiritual activity that characterizes a spiritual Body. 

I’m not going to knock any religious organization on the basis of its size.  What I refuse to do, though, is ignore the general trend of the American culture that has accompanied the rise of the mega"church" model.  It has not been a transformative influence, but an accommodating one and I think that was the point of the movie that incensed you.

Maybe we need to quit inviting people to say a prayer asking Jesus into their heart and have them declare a commitment to Him as the absolute monarch of their lives.  It’s really not about an addition of God to our lives; its about a change of allegiance.  Try preaching that to the typical American crowd on Sunday and watch the crowd thin out fast. 

We don’t need a model that “works” to count bodies or conduct programs.  We need a model that doesn’t focus on “Kingdom growth of our own” but on non-provincial Kingdom growth.  It belongs to the King, not His subjects.  All success is His success.  He is building His Church and calls us to serve Him everywhere, not just at the box on the corner and certainly not in some standardized program that ignores the wonder of an individual soul. 

Bigger, yes.  Better?  What is this American fixation on size?  It’s really starting to get boring already.  The “big” guys and the general culture brag about it and the little guys sneer at it.  Good grief.  It’s enough to make Jesus go to Korea or Africa or South America or something.  Now do you want to talk big?  The thing is, why don’t Americans don’t call their puny 20,000 member congregations small in comparison to those monsters.  And who’s really building the Kingdom by the standards of the Church abroad?  Maybe we should attend some seminars that they are conducting.

Dean,

You wrote, “It’s really not about an addition of God to our lives; its about a change of allegiance. Try preaching that to the typical American crowd on Sunday and watch the crowd thin out fast.”

I have served as an associate pastor in one church that grew from 300 to 500 and another that grew from 400 to 900. In both churches, “a change of allegiance” is exactly what was preached.  I am now senior pastor of a church of 100.  I’ve been here 8 months, this is exactly what I’m preaching and we are beginning to see the first signs of growth. 

The argument that megachurches must have replaced sound biblical preaching with entertainment to attract people is nothing but a straw man.  I’m sure you can find some examples of large churches that have, but then I could point out many that haven’t.  But then, what is the point of such a discussion?  I’m with Todd, praise God Christ is preached and people are saved!

Thanks for the feedback from all.  I accept it with grace.  Although I certainly understand the reaction to so-called criticism of the mega-church model.  I rejoice for anyone who exchanges self advancement for Christ centeredness.  But I doubt that mega churches are doing it any better than smaller ones and they typically use far more time, finances and effort to accomplish that. 

For me, it’s more a matter of stewardship than size.  I’m not switching arguments here.  It’s just something I neglected to mention before.  Of course, a soul is worth more than the universe so it doesn’t matter how much we spend and are spent.  But I’m just curious.  Pragmatically asking, are mega-churches satisfied with the return on their investment of human and material resources?

Todd wrote:

(and there’s the ‘church as a business’ model that ALWAYS comes up)

My response: You really didn’t respond to this, Todd.  You just used the typical spouse-like response “You always do that.” I’d welcome a reasoned argument for turning the Body of Christ into a human business.  Last time I checked, Jesus had not delegated His kingly role of adding subjects to His Kingdom.  We’re just the messengers, so for anyone to take the credit of humanly organizing church growth successfully seems to carrying a lot of hubris around. 

I don’t believe the largest differences in the Body of Christ are between liberals or evangelicals or even less between the
traditionalists and the contemporary proponents.  I believe the largest gap in the “Church” is between the institutional mindset and the organic view.  That’s going to be the pendulum wave of the emerging followers of Jesus.  It’s a paradigm shift in ecclesiology that is finally coming to fruition.

Todd, you also wrote:

OK… here’s where our rub will be the most, Dean…

“What I refuse to do, though, is ignore the general trend of the American culture that has accompanied the rise of the mega"church" model. It has not been a transformative influence, but an accommodating one and I think that was the point of the movie that incensed you.”

And this is the crux of the issue. What has the ‘megachurch’ accomodated/compromised on? That is where we differ. If it’s the issue of music, I think that’s a non-issue. I grew up being told about the “devil’s music” and how if the emphasis is on the second beat of the measure than on the first beat of the measure (where God intended it to be) that it would take control of our mind. (Seriously). Music is a tool, that’s all it is.

What other areas has the mega-church movement accomodated? The big answer here is that church is now comfortable, enjoyable… even fun. Critics say that Mega-churches meet peoples physical, emotional, and worldly needs. This is very true; and the meeting of those needs allows them to deal with people’s spiritual needs as well. The churches I spoke of still speak of sin and the need of a personal savior. The changed lives are real. I’m not sure why people feel the need to argue that.

And my response: Did I actually say that the mega"Church" movement had compromised?  I did say “accommodated” and I believe that is accurate.  Whether you believe that accommodating is the same as compromising is up to you.  I didn’t use that word.  I am concerned, however that the most visibly organized expressions of Christian assembly have no distinct difference culturally from the world around us.  We should have stronger marriages, deeper friendships, higher ideals and simpler lifestyles.  But statistics do not reflect well on us.

Am I the only one who thinks the greatest sin in the American “Christian” culture is materialism?  The illusion of the Laodicean church was that they thought themselves wealthy when they were starving spiritually.  Mega churches have not only accommodated the American ideal of materialistic wealth more than any other expression of the Church; they have glorified it.  Christian enterprise is big business. 

Is that what Jesus had in mind when he told us to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and preach the good news to the poor.  I don’t think this prominent aspect of church growth makes the Savior smile.  May I pose an honest question?  Do any financially destitute people actually frequent these mega-churches?  I never see any when I visit them.  Maybe they are just well-hidden in the suburban neighborhoods where these congregations thrive.

And no, contrary to your assumption that I’m quibbling about music, I actually like a much wider diversity of music and art and narrative than most people prefer to convey the message of Christ.  I don’t fit into any neat little stereotype you may have.  Sorry about that.  The Kingdom is simply too big to fit into the provinces that Americans call “churches.”

For what it’s worth, I do rejoice for every person who truly transfers allegiance from the world to the Lord and it doesn’t matter to me who He wants to use to point the way.  But we will still give an account of everything entrusted to us.  We can pour it into brick and mortar or people.  Seems to me that we choose the stubble over the gold too readily in this place and time.

Dean

BeHim responds: Then let’s test the “straw man” - Is what is being taught by Rick Warren and Joel Osteen the Biblical Gospel? I say NO! You say YES? We can’t both be right.

He’s right.  You’re wrong.  Simple as that.

...hear “Ten Shekels and a Shirt” at:
http://69.44.157.77/sermons/SID0290.mp3

I like to keep arguments like these simple.  I have one question for those who oppose contemporary churches or “mega churches”.

What proves that traditional styled churches are doing a better job at “saving souls” than contemporay “mega churches”?

After all, isn’t God the only one that can save souls?

The problem I see with Traditional styled churches is that they want converts to accept a style of christianity rather than the Christ of Christianity.

Its almost as if we believe that people are saved by simply adopting our “church culture”.

I believe that God can save anyone in a contemporary or traditional setting—but to persist on doing things the way they were done 100 years ago would be like a Missionary going to another country and persisting on people learning his culture and language before he could share the gospel in a way that they could understand it.

You see, rather It’s the missionaries job to learn the language and culture of the people that he desires to reach in order to reach them with the gospel in a way that they can understand.

Let’s stop trying to make the world understand us, and lets start trying to understand them --- that’s what I think it boils down to.

Traditionals persist on having the unchurched understand them, while Contemporaries are trying to find ways in which they can understand the unchurched.

PDL

GREAT sermon friend!  I heard this message about 10 years ago when I first came to the knowledge of my salvation.

Thank you for sharing.  The flood of memories and heart piercing understanding of this message (Truly from God) has been resounding symbol in my heart and head (may the lamb receive the reward of His suffering).

All Glory to God!

Here are some of my favorites:
[where the whole plan of salvation was to give intellectual assent to a few statements of doctrine. And a person was considered a Christian because he could say “Ah hah” at four or five places that he was asked. If he knew where to say “Ah hah”, someone would pat him on the back, shake his hand, smile broadly, and say “Brother, you’re saved!"]

[Humanism is, I believe, the most deadly and disastrous of all the philosophical stenches that’s crepted up through the grating over the pit of Hell. It has penetrated so much of our religion. AND IT IS IN UTTER AND TOTAL CONTRAST WITH CHRISTIANITY! Unfortunately it’s seldom seen.]
Ministers (pastors) will actually argue FOR IT… amazing.  But in the end, it is God who opens the eyes and ears of His sheep.

[And here we find Micah, wants to have a little chapel, and he wants to have a priest, and he wants to have prayer, and he wants to have devotion, because “I KNOW THE LORD WILL DO ME GOOD!"]
Or, in today’s terms, instead of “I KNOW THE LORD WILL DO ME GOOD!” it would be said:  “For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope.”

["I KNOW THE LORD WILL DO ME GOOD!” AND THIS IS SELFISHNESS !!! AND THIS IS SIN !!! And the Levite comes along and falls right in with it! Because he wants a place! He wants ten shekels and a shirt and his food! And so in order that he can have what he wants, and Micah can have what they want, THEY SELL OUT GOD! For ten shekels and a shirt. AND THIS IS THE BETRAYAL OF THE AGES !!! And it is the betrayal in which we live. And I don’t see HOW GOD CAN REVIVE IT! Until we come back to Christianity. As in DIRECT AND TOTAL CONTRAST WITH THE STENCHFUL HUMANISM that’s perpetrated in our generation in the name of Christ.]
AMEN!!!

[I’m afraid that it’s become so subtle that it goes everywhere. What is it? In essence it’s this! That this philosophical postulate that the end of all being is the happiness of man, has been sort of covered over with evangelical terms and Biblical doctrine until God reigns in heaven for the happiness of man, Jesus Christ was incarnate for the happiness of man, all the angels exist in the..., Everything is for the happiness of man! AND I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THIS IS UNCHRISTIAN !!! Isn’t man happy? Didn’t God intend to make man happy? Yes. But as a by-product and not a prime-product!]
How is this possible?  I submit because most don’t know/understand/believe God is the ONLY Sovereign Being in existence!

and the most beautiful portion of the sermon (brings tears to my eyes even now, today):
[There alone in my bedroom AS I FACED GOD HONESTLY WITH WHAT MY HEART FELT, it seemed to me I heard Him say, “Yes, will not the Judge of all the earth do right? The heathen are lost. And they’re going to go to Hell, not because they haven’t heard the gospel. They’re going to go to Hell because they are sinners, WHO LOVE THEIR SIN! And because they deserve Hell. BUT, I didn’t send you out there for them. I didn’t send you out there for their sakes.” And I heard as clearly as I’ve ever heard, though it wasn’t with physical voice but it was the echo of truth of the ages finding its’ way into an open heart. I heard God say to my heart that day something like this, “I didn’t send you to Africa for the sake of the heathen, I sent you to Africa for My sake. They deserved Hell! But I LOVE THEM !!! AND I ENDURED THE AGONIES OF HELL FOR THEM !!! I DIDN’T SEND YOU OUT THERE FOR THEM !!! I SENT YOU OUT THERE FOR ME ! DO I NOT DESERVE THE REWARD OF MY SUFFERING? DON’T I DESERVE THOSE FOR WHOM I DIED?"]

Read that:  Do I (Jesus) not deserve the reward of my suffering?  Don’t I (Jesus) deserve those for whom I died?

Ladies and gentlmen, those who would be called pastors, YOU who are here, on this blog day by day, humble yourself and take 51 minutes of your busy life and listen.  Pray God open your ears and eyes to this message and that you would understand and know.  Please, I beg of you in the name of Christ, take a moment!  51 minutes of eternity!!!

[Two young Moravians heard of an island in the West Indies where an atheist British owner had 2000 to 3000 slaves. And the owner had said, “No preacher, no clergyman, will ever stay on this island. If he’s ship wrecked we’ll keep him in a separate house until he has to leave, but he’s never going to talk to any of us about God, I’m through with all that nonsense.” Three thousand slaves from the jungles of Africa brought to an island in the Atlantic and there to live and die without hearing of Christ.

Two young Moravians heard about it. They sold themselves to the British planter and used the money they received from their sale, for he paid no more than he would for any slave, to pay their passage out to his island for he wouldn’t even transport them. As the ship left its’ pier in the river at Hamburg and was going out into the North Sea carried with the tide, the Moravians had come from Herrenhut to see these two lads off, in their early twenties. Never to return again, for this wasn’t a four year term, they sold themselves into life time slavery. Simply that as slaves, they could be as Christians where these others were. The families were there weeping, for they knew they would never see them again. And they wondered why they were going and questioned the wisdom of it. As the gap widened and the housings had been cast off and were being curled up there on the pier, and the young boys saw the widening gap, one lad with his arm linked through the arm of his fellow, raised his hand and shouted across the gap the last words that were heard from them, they were these,....{go and listen!!!}

ROB WRITES:
Traditionals persist on having the unchurched understand them

BeHim responds:
I would say traditionalists (Christians) persist on having the unbeliever understand the Bible.

ROB WRITES:
while Contemporaries are trying to find ways in which they can understand the unchurched.

BeHim responds:
I would agree:  Contemporaries are trying to find ways to understand the unbeliever?

Do you see the problem?

Another follow up

Todd wrote:

“Critics say that Mega-churches meet peoples physical, emotional, and worldly needs. This is very true; and the meeting of those needs allows them to deal with people’s spiritual needs as well.”

And my response:
Churches do NOT meet needs.  People meet needs.  People may work together to meet the needs of others, but that is a different thing from saying that an organization does something.  I think this negates the whole size issue altogether. 

However, whenever most people talk about “their” church or someone else’s church, they seem to be more interested in how big they are.  Those who think they are big talk about how large their assemblies are and how those assemblies have expanded, not about whether the people are representing Jesus wherever they are. I recently asked an acquaintance to tell me about his church and the first thing he mentioned was how many people attended on the weekend.  He couldn’t even seem to comprehend that I wanted to know the character and behavior and attitudes of those who were attending.

I’d like to know who changed the topic of discourse from the Christ-like nature of the Church to the size of the congregations.  I think this has cheapened the whole idea of following Christ.  Jesus made sure he communicated the requirements of being His follower to the extent that the crowds disappeared and He wondered if even His own disciples would abandon Him.  When a church crowd thins in America, we call it failure.

The size of the crowd has never been the measure of the character of that crowd.  Some of these mega-fans need to set the example by telling their participants to shut up about how big they are and how big they are getting and show a lifestyle of self-renunciation, simplicity and sacrificial turning their backs on the values of the world.  The mega-church movement is a convenient target, not because of it’s size but because of its preoccupation with size.  Unfortunately, that is setting the tone for the everyone.

Many people without Christ have already dismissed this as shallow and not worthy of their lives.  If we want to lead people to Jesus, we had better have a greater offer than the chance to join some organization that provides a weekly opportunity to reinforce the values of a fallen world. I do not include all congregations in this assessment, but many of the mega-fans are feeding this “size = success” syndrome and they are the only ones who can straighten our the record.  How about it, guys?

Dean

Dean,

Quick comment (I have some catching up to do from earlier ones)… of course people meet needs and not churches… churches do nothing without people.  It is the church (small or large) that collectively allows people to reach needs… that’s what I meant.

One other point of contention. 

“The mega-church movement is a convenient target, not because of it’s size but because of its preoccupation with size. Unfortunately, that is setting the tone for the everyone.”

In all my readings (especially on this blog), I’ve never heard anyone from a ‘megachurch’ say how big they were; but I’ve heard literally dozens of comments from people outside that environment (including many ‘small church’ pastors), bemoan their size.

Some people bemoan numbers simply because they don’t have any themselves to speak about.  Others use numbers to, as you say, promote themselves.  But here’s my bottom line:

1.  Growing numbers do not mean God’s blessing or will, or that the church is even following God’s word or principles.  Even cults can grow big numbers.  In essence, growing numbers do not equal church growth.

2.  But the contrary to that would also need to be taken into effect… a healthy church should be a growing church.  I know there are some that disagree, but if a church is healthy, it should be growing in my opinion.  This is kind of a no-brainer.

My whole point is… who cares about size?  This whole blog or thread was started by someone outside the mega-church movement that attacked the larger churches.  Let’s all strive to be effective where we’re at.  Small churches, let’s be healthy and grow.  Large churches, let’s be healthy and grow.  And let’s rejoice together as God’s Word is spread and people come into the Kingdom.

If you don’t like your local megachurch, work all the much harder to make your church what God wants it to be.  Be happy the your God is the God of both your churches.

Just my 3 cents worth (since this was long, it has to be worth more than 2 cents!)

I’ll try to answer some of the other questions earlier so that you all can pick them apart as well. 

Todd

Pdl writes:The purpose of the meeting of Christians ie. church services is not primarily to evangelize the lost. It is to worship God, disciple believers and equip them to do what God has called them to do...which ultimately includes evangelism.

I can agree with that However the book of Acts would show us that people got saved at their gatherings as well, which did not include multi-media, but I believe was relevant to their culture.

Please don’t misunderstand me, I don’t believe that church needs to be a place of spiritual recreation.  But on the other hand I don’t believe it needs to be boring.  If we can make learning the bible interesting and exciting, then Why not? 

I don’t see anything wrong with using modern technology tools to share the same message in new ways.  Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, we’ve been changing our methods for years.  For example there’s no mention in scripture of Sunday School or of an organ being the preferred musical instrument - we adapted these as we went along and they were a blessing in their time and still continue to be a blessing to many.

Because of the recent increase in technologial advancements, it seems that our culture has taken us for a loop and we need to adapt as we’ve always done, except this time we may have to adapt a few things at once.

The very fact that we’re posting messages up on the internet reflects our changing culture.

I often ask myself if the criticism of mega churches is even an honest criticism or a way to verbally express jealousy.

Let’s always remember that not all mega churches are created equally in the same way that not all small churches are created equally.  There’s both extremes and we all know that extremes can be dangerous.

Instead of spending anymore time talking about this, let’s focus on making sure that we’re doing what’s right regardless of what level of ministry God has given us charge of.

If we honestly take a minute to think about this debate we’ll find that we’re starting to sound alot like the disciples when they were arguing over who among them was the greatest.

It was great chatting with you all...but I’ve said enough, so for me its time to move on.