Proliferation of Mega-Churches

[jim1130]

ben_dy:

As most of my life has been spent in the southern states, I first began to notice the building of non-denominational ‘mega-churches’ (the first to seat 10,000+) in the early 1970’s, usually located in ‘white flight’ suburbs where, initially, land was cheap and whole communities were being developed and homes snapped up as quickly as they could be completed. It seemed to be then - and, as I somewhat kept up with the movement even now - that these churches arose out of a sort of ‘cult’ built around one dynamic, charismatic, highly personable preacher, definitely of the evangelical mold and sometimes very close to fundamentalism, who was not only a dynamic speaker with the whole of the New Testament (and portions of the Old) committed to memory - and also one who was highly organized, and if not a financial wizard then having an almost uncanny ability to hire those who were and to woo away from other churches assistant pastors and staff who shared his goals.

However. what I have observed is that the ‘cult’ surrounding the founding pastor could last for decades but, except in rare circumstances, it would eventually flounder or the pastor who was not a young man when he started his church and for reasons of age alone would need to retire and his replacement - no matter how well groomed for the job - would lack some of the qualities that led the membership to grow so large as to be able to establish the mega-churches in the first place, or there would arise doctrinal differences among certain members so that they split off and erected smaller buildings not leaving behind enough members to support the mortgage and upkeep of the mega-church. Within 2-3 decades the mega-church would either be sold outright and torn down, find itself still able to function although with a 12,000 seat church drawing only 2,000 or so members each Sunday, be sold to another non-denominational organization with it’s own dynamic, charismatic, highly personable preacher, sold to an established denomination who would renovate the building so that it served a smaller congregation without having embarrassingly empty pews, or simply forfeited to creditors who would likely exercise one of the already mentioned scenarios or, better yet, find a buyer who would buy what was standing, tear it down, and build a mega-new-car-dealership.

I suppose that some may have lasted, just none of which I am personally aware. The large, but not overly large, churches of established protestant denominations that were ‘downtown’ in the southern states did not fare well under white flight to the suburbs, I have to add. Some did last, with members willing to make a 60-80 roundtrip drive to church every Sunday. Diocesan cathedrals did a bit better - as there were already Catholic communities that had been built nearby cathedrals, these family homes stayed in the family - but there was still a big, big difference in cathedral attendance in 1967 compared to 2003: the pews packed in '67, even though the Catholic population had exploded due to the great influx of carpetbagger northerners beginning in the late 1970’s. That explosion led to the very fast building of new suburban parishes (often which still feature some of the most hideous ‘spirit of Vatican II’ architecture that can be imagined (and some that is better just left alone in the imagination as it could result in nightmares).

So, no, I really don’t share your fright. The non-denominational mega-churches seem to come and go within a matter of decades. And for Catholic churches there is first the matter of not losing membership (which I think, as the late Holy Father seemed to think) is a matter of on-going participatory catechesis, as well as the realization that as (in many locales - not some place such as Manhattan) urban sprawl continues even fairly ‘new’ parishes may need to be abandoned in order for a ‘newer’ parish to be established to meet the needs of both the ‘older’ a newer community…

Thank you for your response. I suppose this is part of the me-first crowd that says, “I feel religious today. What suits my taste?” I suppose we should appreciate that these people are acknowledging God, but my fear increases if these “pastors” use the pulpit (stage, actually) to promote political agendas that serve the congregation and pastor’s immediate needs. I am also afraid that these environments may fuel an anti-Catholic bias as well as an anti-Judiac bias. Again, I may be over-stating, but I cannot help but think that these churches are not necessarily for anyone’s benefit except for the pastors who can pocket all the money.

 

[DJgang]

Something I want to share.

A Mega Church in my area has just purchased about 2000 acres. Guess what? They are going to build a church and community.

In this community, everything will be there for them and they will never have to leave. Grocery store, retail stores, schools, etc. I am assuming you will have to be a “member” to live there. They have supposedly already sold lots for homes. What’s even more scary is that all the surrounding “big cities” have tried to annex property surrounding this mega church property, because they believe there will be a boom in retail . Scary!

 

[ben_dy]

DJgang:

Something I want to share.

A Mega Church in my area has just purchased about 2000 acres. Guess what? They are going to build a church and community.

In this community, everything will be there for them and they will never have to leave. Grocery store, retail stores, schools, etc. I am assuming you will have to be a “member” to live there. They have supposedly already sold lots for homes. What’s even more scary is that all the surrounding “big cities” have tried to annex property surrounding this mega church property, because they believe there will be a boom in retail . Scary!

Hmm…

That’s rather crossing into one of the modern definitions of ‘cult’ - is there a charismatic, authoritarian leader leading this group?

 

[mark_a]

jim1130:

The proliferation of the non-denominational mega-churches in this country actually scares me (In an interesting perspective, the competition among these churches smells of evolution, that only the strong will survive). We’re talking about 10,000-20,000 seat auditoriums where some dynamic speaker assigns responsibility to speak the truth on behalf of Christ. Is this feeling (that the appearance of mega-churches is scary) shared by other Catholics? Or am I just seeing “the glass is half-full”?

One Catholic Church in my area is considered by our local newspaper to be a mega-Church.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Another proof that whatever you like in non catholic churches, you will find in the CC. If it’s mega church you need, welcome to St. Peter’s Basilica.

in XT.

 

[DJgang]

ben_dy:

Hmm…

That’s rather crossing into one of the modern definitions of ‘cult’ - is there a charismatic, authoritarian leader leading this group?

Sorry that I have negeleted this post.

Yes there is…everyone around too seems to feel the “church” is rather “cultish”. At least those who ARE NOT charismatic.

Ben noticed that you were from B’Ham…I’ll PM you with this church information so you can look into it also.

 

[ben_dy]

DJgang:

Sorry that I have negeleted this post.

Yes there is…everyone around too seems to feel the “church” is rather “cultish”. At least those who ARE NOT charismatic.

Ben noticed that you were from B’Ham…I’ll PM you with this church information so you can look into it also.

DJ-

Got it - as you know - and will be asking around…

…is it just me or is the scary word, in all talk of mega-churches, not so much as ‘huge’ (St. Pete’s certainly is that!) but charismatic when it’s used to define both the personality of the leader (or possibly plural ‘leaders’) of these churches when a distinctive - that is to say charismatic - leader is also combined with the secondary meaning of the word (to quote from the American Heritage dictionary, 4th edition) “Of, relating to, or being a type of Christianity that emphasizes personal religious experience and divinely inspired powers, as of healing, prophecy, and the gift of tongues”?

I fully realize that there are charismatic movements within the Catholic Church - I have never been in a parish where there were such movements taking place but I have been in dioceses and one archdiocese where there were small groups which would gather with the approval of the Ordinary: I never kept up with such groups but they seemed to be short-lived as they seemed to make a ‘splash’ when first formed but then never heard from again.

But I realize that I may have - no, that I do have - a personal prejudice when it comes to the word “charismatic” as I made the mistake one summer (as all good Catholic boys who grew up in the south in the early 1950’s likely did as well) of having a crush on, dating, and attending a ‘service’ with a pretty young girl who described her church to me as being, amongst other things, ‘charismatic’. It was not a ‘mega-church’ in terms of seating capacity - if people had actually tried to seat themselves (and there may have been a few moments when that was attempted) it would have been standing-room-only. If you’ve never had the real-life experience you can catch a glimpse on television (or maybe watch Elmer Gantry and think of everyone being a dancing, singing, shouting, praying, preaching Elmer - in a building with no air-conditioning, in July, in Alabama. The details aren’t important. What was important to me then, and what is important to me now, is that it didn’t “feel” like worship. It felt like something I couldn’t describe until August 18, 1965 when, at the age of 27, I was in Atlanta. At a Beatles concert.

It was that night that I realized that what I had experienced nine years earlier was exactly as arieh0310 describes - “It is like a rock concert for God.” - and exactly what was missing: as Ryniev asked, so I asked, “Where is the Sacredness? Where is the Worship? The Sense of Awe?” and as RiverRock observed, “They don’t even know about sacredness and awe. Never heard of it.”

Maybe I’m being overly humbug-ish (an admission - that 1965 Beatles concert was my first ‘rock and roll’ concert - but it wasn’t my last!) and we could certainly start a new thread about what is and is not appropriate for the time we gather to worship at the Mass and what is and what is not appropriate for worship outside the Mass.

The only point that I’m really trying to make (and taking a long time making it!) is that what scares me so much about mega-churches is not so much their size, and not so much that what goes on inside of them may be the same across the country, but rather that one word - charismatic - seems, in some if not many cases, is used to describe both the ‘leader’ of these types of churches as well as some of the practices. When ‘church’ consists wholly of ‘good feelings’ something just seems wrong. Someone else could likely explain it better but knowing that God loves me (and you! I have staked no claim on God!) so much that He was willing to take on the human form and to endure pain and death so that I might find salvation, I am ecstatic - I am happy to be loved so much by one whom I am so small in comparison. But I am also full of sorrow, that I am such a sinner (and I am!) and it takes both those emotions - both of those feelings - to be able to even begin to worship God, I think.

It doesn’t stop there, of course, but (again) that’s not the topic of this thread.

What frightens me about this proliferation is that they seemed to be charismatic both in their foundation and their worship. I do not believe that either is indicative of a Christian church. Not an early Christian church where doctrine taught was accepted by faith until those who could explain came along and unlike any pre-20th-century church that called itself ‘Christian’. It may be wholly unique to the American culture (or cultures heavily influenced by ours) but it doesn’t, I’ll repeat, have the sense of a ‘Christian church’.

Charismatic & Cult? That’s sure what it ‘smells like’…

 

[foolishmortal]

The bad thing is that there is always such a church around. When you start dazzling people with modern oohs and awes, you’ll never be able to satisfy them. We have to be in this world but not of it and our churches should reflect it. Read “Ugly as Sin” for a better analysis of architectural problems of the suburban church buildings. I don’t believe the author is a traditionalist. The good catholic liturgy, music and art are definitely not contemporary in whole. I don’t think people truly respect their new dazzling shows–not deep down. It may soothe their modern(ist) sensibilities, but Catholics are nonplussed, I think. I don’t think they believe they are getting much useful info. from sermons these days–not many hard truths they may hear more of from an evangelical group (as wanting as those may be, they’re something).
I think there is a desire for Club Prot amongst Catholics who aren’t getting the truth but care more about fellowship anyway. Jesus didn’t come to bring us fellowship, but things like the truth, division and the sword (at times). If you want to be Protestant, do so because you feel they have the truth. That is why I said that Protestants have a healthy sense of “at least I’m not Catholic”. They know what’s very different from themselves and it limits their relativism. I don’t think we hear enough how we are different from the Protestants and why what we have different is so special—so, those catholics with modern sensibilities (which exclude tough teachings we still hear about from the Church like no women priests, no married priests, no gay marriage or any kind of remarriage) drive them to the Protestant churches. Our Catholics don’t hear much about the positive things either–like the beauty of what happens in Mass or what saints contributed to knowing God, thus, it’s some "no"s and some happy feelings and probably ought tos.
There went missionary zeal as our missionaries are circled by the Protestant evangelist missionaries in previously al Catholic nations

 

[ben_dy]

jim1130:

The proliferation of the non-denominational mega-churches in this country actually scares me (In an interesting perspective, the competition among these churches smells of evolution, that only the strong will survive). We’re talking about 10,000-20,000 seat auditoriums where some dynamic speaker assigns responsibility to speak the truth on behalf of Christ. Is this feeling (that the appearance of mega-churches is scary) shared by other Catholics? Or am I just seeing “the glass is half-full”?

Found a ‘list’ of ‘mega-churches’…

Is YOUR church on the list???

(If not, why not?)

hirr.hartsem.edu/org/faith_megachurches_database_pickastate.html

 

[SueKrum]

I went to one of these mage churches with my sister once. she left the Catholic church as a teenager. Anyway, it was so weird to me. I’ve been to some small baptest churches where it was pretty solom and for the most part reverent (that had “communion” at the baptest serveses I had been to i didn’t take it though) anyway, so that’s about what I was expecting at this church. we go in and my sister says, “you want anything to eat?” EAT??? I fast before mass!!! she bought some candy and coffee. Are we going to the movies??? we get in there and there’s a band playing music by the Beatles in there! I couldn’t believe it! where was “gather us in” or “let us build a city of God”? than a big movie screen roles down (I guess we were at the movies after all!) and this guy comes on giving his testamony. that was a powerful story and all, but then the paster comes out and talks about the fishes and the loaves and church was over. uhhhhhhh whatever! I remember several months later my sister talking to me about church and guess what they were talking about…drum roll please…the fishes and the loaves!

I don’t want to poke fun at non denomers, but that was the wierdest “church” servace I had been to. oh and they don’t call it church. it’s CT. Christian teaching! and people come in wearing ripped jeans and matalica t-shirts and saggy pants. oh man! I am all for “come as you are” but once you are a “mature worshiper” you should start checking youself beofre you go to church. no kneelers no one praying no gospil music at all, I was horrified. it was like a bunch of people who were once Cathlic said, "let’s create the total OPPASITE of a catholic church!

 

[manualman]

I’m surprised at the tone of many of the posts here. It seems everybody thinks these things are simplistically dismissable. In fact, reality is rather more subtle.

I grew up in the Chicago north suburbs during the rise of one of the original mega-churches - Willow Creek. My folks were in a Marriage Encounter group with some who were members there. I played with their kids and heard what they were taught.

In college, there were virtually no faithful catholic around that I could find, so I hung out with protestants (with many ups and downs) who mostly attended a church in the process of becoming a neo-mega church (Highpoint Church, Madison, WI).

I saw several similarities:

1. The teaching was extremely simple and clear: Highly focused, heavily Calvinistic protestantism.
2. Our sin and God’s mercy and forgiveness was front and center all the time.
3. Small groups were virtually a requirement.
4. Pastors were engaging, funny, warm BUT never wishy-washy about sin, repentence and discipleship. These places required you to identidy yourself as a christian in your WHOLE life. Not just where you spend Sunday morning.
5. Members were almost entirely converts from other breeds of christianity, including many catholics.

My personal opinion is quite different than many here. I think these churches are gathering places for those disgusted with the church they grew up in due to flabby teaching on faith and morals. No apparent decisive reason for existence. They flock to a place where there is clarity in teaching, hope in the preaching and fellowship that conveys hints of the communion of saints (though they’d die before calling it that).

These places have a serious appeal to cathlics. Especially those who suffer in parishes where the readings are the only proclamation of the gospel that ever gets heard.

 

[foolishmortal]

One thing I do like about some of these fundamentalist churches is that they can have 3 hours of the service itself plus small group discussion and what not. I don’t know if they all go for the whole package but there are so many of us who want EEMs because communion by one priest will take too long–like maybe 10 or 15 more minutes. Bring a prayer book, ok.

 

[SueKrum]

Yeah, it saddens me to think of how many catholics have left becaues of poor how do you say the word…catachesis? It angers me a lot too and I think our church, sad to say is sorda reeping what it sowed here in America. the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s were a rough time for the church and I think some of these “mega churches” are the fruit of that. that’s just my opinion though, and it could be way off since I was not allive during tha time. But I see it clearly in my sister. if she could understand what the church was really about, she would come running back and forget all about “Zenoth’s” that’s the name of her church. and a lot of folks here are wonderful people as far as I know. and I know they love Jesus and I’m glad of that. I was just amaized at their type of servace. it was TOTALLY different than any other church I had ever been in.

 

[ben_dy]

manualman:

I’m surprised at the tone of many of the posts here. It seems everybody thinks these things are simplistically dismissable. In fact, reality is rather more subtle.

I grew up in the Chicago north suburbs during the rise of one of the original mega-churches - Willow Creek. My folks were in a Marriage Encounter group with some who were members there. I played with their kids and heard what they were taught.

In college, there were virtually no faithful catholic around that I could find, so I hung out with protestants (with many ups and downs) who mostly attended a church in the process of becoming a neo-mega church (Highpoint Church, Madison, WI).

I saw several similarities:

1. The teaching was extremely simple and clear: Highly focused, heavily Calvinistic protestantism.
2. Our sin and God’s mercy and forgiveness was front and center all the time.
3. Small groups were virtually a requirement.
4. Pastors were engaging, funny, warm BUT never wishy-washy about sin, repentence and discipleship. These places required you to identidy yourself as a christian in your WHOLE life. Not just where you spend Sunday morning.
5. Members were almost entirely converts from other breeds of christianity, including many catholics.

My personal opinion is quite different than many here. I think these churches are gathering places for those disgusted with the church they grew up in due to flabby teaching on faith and morals. No apparent decisive reason for existence. They flock to a place where there is clarity in teaching, hope in the preaching and fellowship that conveys hints of the communion of saints (though they’d die before calling it that).

These places have a serious appeal to cathlics. Especially those who suffer in parishes where the readings are the only proclamation of the gospel that ever gets heard.

After reading what you wrote, my immediate impulse was to post a link to the latest news concerning one of the first ‘mega-churches’ to which many friends once flocked to and from which some left, quite shaken, while a few stayed and were not heard from again. The article is just about the latest sex scandal in the church, however, and as the church has rather lost it’s mega-church status having only 2,500 or so members now, I realized that I would have to get into a story that started in the 1970’s and once rose to staggering heights but, for various reasons, slowly began to lose membership and now has much less than one-sixth of the congregation it once boasted.

So I thought I was going to respond with an, “oh, yeah? You think these churches are so great, well take a look at this!” and my conscience suddenly kicked in and I realized two things:

1. My experience with mega-churches is largely limited to this one single church, and;
2. I don’t have very many close protestant friends who currently attend mega-churches so I should be the last person to comment on what they do or don’t offer to their members - I talk to a few friends and I watch what I see on television and it doesn’t look like worship to me.

So I think it would be foolish of me to attempt a rebuttal but I also think it would be foolish if I didn’t point out that it’s very unlikely that every mega-church is the same - were they, we would not see a number of them sprouting up in the same communities. Each one has to have, I would think, something different that they offer their membership but whether it is different doctrine, a more charismatic pastor, a greater variety of activities, I do not know.

You also have attended a mega-church for some length of time, it seems, while my information comes from friends who once attended and only a handful with whom I remain in touch who are still attending one or another type of mega-churches. The only thing that really surprised me in your message was the primary reason you give for those who leave their ‘home’ churches for the mega-churches is that “these churches are gathering places for those disgusted with the church they grew up in due to flabby teaching on faith and morals.” I have never heard anyone with whom I’m acquainted who began attending one of these churches give that explanation as to why they left ‘Denomination X’ for either ‘mega-Denomination Y’ or ‘mega-Nondenominational Z’’. I have heard reasons ranging from ‘better preaching’ to ‘great Bible study groups’ to ‘I feel like I’m actually taking part in the service’, etc. Some of the reasons I could see as valid - in the 1970’s there weren’t many Catholic (and I will focus on Catholic because that is a Church with which I have some experience!) parishes offering Bible study groups.

…continued…

 

[ben_dy]

…continued…

You were fortunate - and perhaps broad-minded enough - to experience that which I have never heard others describe, with one exception and that is a still-going-strong Southern Baptist mega-church, in offering their reasons for attending these churches.

Two things that I’m not quite clear about in your message:

1. Before your numbered observations, you say, “I saw several similarities” but it’s unclear to me whether these similarities are with orthodox Catholic churches as several items which you mention - “heavily Calvinistic”, for example, would obviously not be a similarity that a protestant church would share with a Catholic church, and;
2. Although it’s clear that you’re speaking of Catholic churches when you write, “those who suffer in parishes where the readings are the only proclamation of the gospel that ever gets heard” I’m not clear if you’re including or exclusively attributing to Catholic churches in the paragraph immediately following your list.

I would genuinely like to keep this discussion going and hope that I can better understand what you’re saying as I can see some appeal to a Catholic towards a mega-church like that which you describe. I may be reading you entirely wrong but you seem to be making the case that the mega-church (or, at least, the mega-church which you attended) offered more orthodoxy - even if of a protestant ‘flavor’ - than with some, admittedly, heterodox parish churches which might fit the mold of your post-list paragraph. We obviously have different points of view here and I’m also interested to discover if some of the differences might not be regional, as well - Alabama and Georgia, where I’ve spent the majority of my life - are much different than Illinois and Wisconsin in some respects and I’m wondering if there might be differences in culture that might define, as an example, orthodox v. heterodox Christianity as found in mega-churches in these states.

Let’s keep this one up - very thoughtful and thought-provoking.

 

[ben_dy]

foolishmortal:

One thing I do like about some of these fundamentalist churches is that they can have 3 hours of the service itself plus small group discussion and what not. I don’t know if they all go for the whole package but there are so many of us who want EEMs because communion by one priest will take too long–like maybe 10 or 15 more minutes. Bring a prayer book, ok.

I do hope I’m not the only one to note the satire!

I’m moving in three weeks and, in stopping in for a chat with my new pastor, found out they have a - gasp! shock! thrill! joy! - 24 hour Adoration chapel!

Of course when I find myself with a couple of hours to kill in Adoration to the Blessed Sacrament, I always like to bring along a good book - I’ve yet to complete that Da Vinci code book so maybe it would be a good one to bring along since it’s about religion and stuff like that from what I’ve heard…

 

[manualman]

I guess I better keep my non-writer day job!

Clarifications:

1. The ‘similarities’ I discussed were among the mega-churches I have observed (via their members).
2. I never attended any. Merely observed the members due to my folks choice of friends and my own during college. I was a weirdo that mostly associated with protestant evangelical, but always stayed catholic (and went to mass.)

The universal pattern I saw for new members was like this:

1. Nominal, but not very practising christian meets mega-shurch member.
2. Mega-mem gets to know the person, talks about his faith, eventually invites person to some event at the church.
3. New person sees impressive christian brotherly love, hears impassioned focus sermon on sin, depravity and salvation through Christ.
4. Person says to himself at some point: "My church was never anything like this. These people really know God and he is obviously present in them. I want this.
5. Person converts.

I would be willing to bet that the local mega you mention either had a change in pastor or that pastor at some point succumbed to a catastrophic temptation (did you allude to a sexual one)?

The achilles heel of these places IS how much they revolve around the person of the pastor. But these two that I observed, anyways, were NOT about entertainment and sermons to make you feel good about how you are now. Not what I get out of the people that I have known from these places at all.

I really think they are, in essence, a rallying place during the collapse of traditional protestant denominations.

 

[foolishmortal]

It’s interesting to me how Protestants who become Catholic don’t loathe their past church; but Catholics who leave the Church for Protestant denominations or groups who are practically Protestant on the far-left or far-right are bitter about where they came from.

 

[Lillith]

foolishmortal:

It’s interesting to me how Protestants who become Catholic don’t loathe their past church; but Catholics who leave the Church for Protestant denominations or groups who are practically Protestant on the far-left or far-right are bitter about where they came from.

My goodness…I had never thought about it before! You are right!

 

[foolishmortal]

Archbishop Sheen must not have heard the confessions of any that were the kinds in “Ungodly Rage” book by Donna Steichem. Maybe none of them repented to him.

I kind of feel bad at times criticizing clergy about things or fringe Catholics or bad art of them because it may make Protestants wonder what is different here.  I addressed that in another post.  I think, when they look to the Church, it's for the most right reasons should an enemy within or without destroy all the churches in Christendom--the deposit of Faith and obedience to the Magisterium that contributes to it as inspired by the Holy Spirit as evidenced that nothing has contradicted the Bible or Tradition since it was created as documented in the Bible itself.

Those who leave it don’t know what they are leaving due to bad catechesis, bad examples from authority figures (I can understand, but it’s still Prideful) or they don’t like what it teaches because it hurts their modernist-influenced sensitivities–in any case, they don’t know what they are missing in a cosmic way (that they are leaving the mystical Body of Christ). If they should know better, they may unfortunately find out what they missed in the worst way.