Oliver, yes we will recognize it.

You state [it sounds like every evangelical megachurch I’ve ever been to?] Uh… try the statement of faith on their web site. Criticize the big evangelical churches all you want, but churches led by people like RW, Ed Young, Bill Hybels, et al seem to have statements of faith that at least acknowledge who God is, who Christ is, and what Man is. This “church” does not.

Also, [we are seeing in reality the complete destruction of christianity.] I beg to differ in a BIG way. Sounds like some stuff that has been said off and on throughout the last 2000 years of church history…

But I’m surprised we don’t see more of this kind of thing (Mile Hi, that is...), as people do like to make their own truth in this world.

Oliver and JOB:

I agree with both of you.  If we remove a mission statement or a description of the faith practiced, both systems seem to be identical to each other.  It’s like they followed a formula:

1.  Establish a building in a large, upper-middle class community.
2.  Equip said building with the latest in multimedia, sound, music, and technology.
3.  Find out what people want to have in a building like this in the community.
4.  Deliver said requests, with promises of finding purpose / direction / fulfillment / happiness.
5.  Deliver messages using modern topics and fads, including movies / books / television / games.
6.  Add a little zing by Incorporating elements of topics such as sex / drugs / rock n roll.
7.  Lather, rinse, repeat.
8.  Profit!

--
CS

JOB and CS,

Your reactionary negative comments are a little disturbing to be sure.

Why would a large church want to or need to distance themselves from the “stuff” that God uses to build his Kingdom in their midst, like auditoriums where people hear the Gospel, child-care facilities that often offer reduced-price care for people who can’t afford it, large screens used to tell stories that inspire people to find Jesus (much as Jesus used compelling stories, the “media” of his day), and even bookstores and media centers where someone can buy material to actually help them in their walk with Christ or help them to find Him? Preposterous. Every dollar spent on our church’s facilities is money spent on outreach in the kingdom of God, if the church spending the money is on a mission to bring the gospel to the lost, as many of these mega churches are (but Mile Hi is NOT).

CS,

Your statement of forumla is, with all due respect, ridiculous. I am part of a big church, the biggest in town by far, we are a church plant only 13 years old, and although we are not technically a “mega-church”, if you look at size versus population we most certainly are one. We are unabashedly seeker-sensitive and unashamedly purpose-driven. We most definitely did not follow a “formula” like you describe, and none of the folks working in those larger churches did either.

You are projecting motive on people who are working hard to, and succeeding to, reach people for Jesus (are you really intimately knowledgeable of these peoples motives? really?). Dangerous ground to be on, imho. As someone who proudly sets himself in the camp of some of the people you are obviously referring to, I’m actually a touch offended if you would be projecting the same attitudes and motives on me!

I don’t think you guys think about what you type.

Oliver, JOB and CS

Your posts show how little you actually know bout how churches start. They show a bias that comes across bitter.  They beg the question, Why are you here?

Neither Bill Hybles, RW had a large facility to start with.  They rented facilities for years and as their church reached more and more people, they then built.

Brian,

“I have to state once again my complete confusion as to why you continue to post here when you disagree with 99% of what is presented? “

Brian of course you will get your wish if you continue to ask people to leave your presence but I find it hard to believe that believers can’t exchange difference of opinions.  Geesh you guys are tough. This is the 2nd post I have commented on here. Anyway what was there to agree or disagree with in this post?  I am equally confused as to why my opinion can’t be considered independent of others. 

Peter,

My comment wasn’t “negative and reactionary”.  I think before I write and “negative” is subjective. I tend to think what I write is true. That’s how fights start haven’t we learned that by now?  Stick to the point of the post which is a non-evangelical contgemporay mega-church growing using the same methods as our evangelical ones use. 

And of course you can always drop me an email and we can exchange cell phone #.s i don;’t want to be accused of being a blogging coward and I wouldn’t say anything here that wouldn’t be said “personally”

JOhn

Leonard said,

“Your posts show how little you actually know bout how churches start”

This couldn’t be further from the truth. I know exactly how a mega-church starts, I was part of one from it’s inception. Perhaps this statement should have been rephrased with more respect.  Just keeping it real, hey Leonard email me and we can chat on my dime.  Still waiting by the way for anyone to take up this offer in this forum.

John

“All I hear from you and CS is negativity “

Negativity?  Again I offered a challenge to a mega-church or 2. How you see that as being “negative”, I don’t understand.  I think it’s suitable for some in this forum to label certain comments as “negative” or “bitter” so they don’t actually have to deal with them on their merits.  Anyway I read the post again and I stand by my initial comment as being very relevant in any conversation with those who have an open mind on the subject.  In fact I think that post was screaming for a comment like mine, CS. Olivers and others.

John

CS writes [You guys have to admit that there are some truths behind the formula that I listed above. ]

No I don’t. I do not think I’ve EVER known of a church that was founded solely on principles of method and practicality as you laid out. (I think you’re quietly implying that megachurches are founded for reasons other than spreading the Gospel, and I flatly reject such a notion.)

Did they think about what specific strategy and technology that they would use? Of course. That’s no different than deciding what hymnal and what version of the Bible to put in your pews.

CS, JOB, et al…

If you guys don’t see the “reactionary negativity” in your comments, but many others do, is it time to look at the things you say and the way you say them?

After all, if I’m told by everybody that I know that I’m a complainer, but I contend that I am not, but nobody (or nearly nobody) agrees with me, then perhaps… I AM a complainer!

JOB,

I comment on many, sometimes most. Yes.

A negative comment that is constructive is one thing. But you seem to make it your mission to correct all of us who would call ourselves “purpose driven” and perhaps “seeker sensitive” as well. Your comments seem very much constructed to do that, such as this one.

[ It would be interesting to see an evangelical megachurch or two remove their modern auditoriums, loud music, jumbo screens, media stores and a child-care centers.  Just rely on those statements of faith that are found on their websites. Then we can see where their faith really lies.] Did you really not mean something negative by that? Do you truly believe that these mega-churches have no faith? Do you believe they are all more dedicated to their music, screens, seats, and child-care centers? Your statement implies that very directly, and I’m not the only one, apparently, who thinks so. You honestly can not see why you are perceived as negative when you say things like that?

JOB writes [If a megachurch can be born without God (the one in the post) using the same mega-church methods we have grown to know I think it calls into question the methods.] No it doesn’t. There is no connection whatsoever.

I know of a VERY liberal church (I know of a few, but I’m particularly familiar with this particular one) which has a very “conservative” and “traditional” worship service, but wouldn’t even stop short of saying that all religions are the same and all people go to heaven. Does it call into question those traditional methods even though those beliefs are clearly not biblical? No, it only calls into question the particular statement of beliefs which is contrary to Scripture and basically all the creeds of the churches throughout the centuries.

The “methods” you mention of a large church with contemporary music, child-care facilities, big screens and big sound systems have nothing to do with their faith-statements or “message”. You seem to be lumping method in with message. (You’re not the only one who does.)

Stop offering childcare? Why? What would be the point, except to alienate those who worship with you who get to concentrate on worshipping God and hearing His word because somebody else was kind enough to take care of their kid for an hour or so.

CS,

Last time on this for me…

[South Barrington, IL, is one of the wealthiest suburbs of Chicago, with a median household income of about $170K.] It also happened to be where they lived. Oh well…

[2.  Equip said building with the latest in multimedia, sound, music, and technology.
Over time (not immediately, I’ll admit), Willow Creek has developed this type of worship environment.] So what! I know of churches that have spent six figures on a church organ.

[We’ve covered this before, but Hybels went door-to-door asking the unsaved what they wanted in a church, according to Time Magazine.] YOU’VE covered this before, where you take one quote from a secular publication to argue that this was Hybels’ entire M.O. in planting the church. It wasn’t.

[4.  Deliver said requests, with promises of finding purpose / direction / fulfillment / happiness.
Refer to #3.  Also include topics about “Financial Freedom” or “Secrets of Success in Turbulent Times,” for examples.] I’m still trying to figure out what’s wrong with preaching on ALL of our lives, including financial matters.

[5.  Deliver messages using modern topics and fads, including movies / books / television / games.
Their sermon, “Deal?” used the TV show “Deal or No Deal” for a drama title.  And a series was entitled, “The Gospel According to TV,” which gave plenty of opportunities.] I see nothing wrong with topical teaching. Jesus did some of that as I recall.

[6.  Add a little zing by Incorporating elements of topics such as sex / drugs / rock n roll.
Their series, “The Elephant in The Room,” included a sermon called, “In the Bedroom.” Others include, “Sex in the Suburbs,” and “Money, Sex, and Power.”] Okay, maybe we should let people learn about sex outside the church where people tell us that whatever you want to do is just fine.

Sorry, CS, I think you’re nitpicking again.

“The trappings are the same. The message is not”

“trappings” Those are the articles’ words, not mine.  There should never be “trappings” connected to the gospel. Everyone should agree with me on that.  So my question is are there churches that are using “trappings”? We should most definitely ask that question.