By Chaplain Mike
This is all kind of off the top of my head, so take it for what it is — an impromptu rant.
OK, this may seem like a weird thing to talk about, but I’m going to anyway. I’m sure most people don’t even think about it; the status quo is simply accepted without question. But it has bugged me for years, and I have to just say it plainly and see what people think.
I don’t see why we need big churches.
I’m not saying it’s wrong to have a big church. It’s not a right vs. wrong issue. I’m not saying it’s bad to have a big church. It’s not a matter of good or bad. In most cases, I just don’t see the point.
I need someone to convince me otherwise. Because right now, I just don’t get it.
You might say it gives the church more opportunities for ministry. Really? What can a church of 1000 do that four churches of 250, by themselves or in cooperation, can’t do? What can a church of 2000 that four churches of 500 can’t do? And wouldn’t it be better to have four smaller churches, strategically located in local neighborhoods, intentionally focusing on ministering to their neighbors, than one megachurch that people drive 50 miles to attend?
I guess I could see some larger churches in city contexts, where large populations are packed in small areas, and where congregations can serve the needy among whom they live more effectively through their facilities and programs.
But honestly, when you think about it, the ministries that make a genuine, lasting impact in reaching unbelievers or edifying Christians happen person-to-person or in small groups. We have a grass-roots faith, a down-to-earth religion that exalts those who take a towel and wash the feet of their brothers and sisters. We serve a Savior who deliberately chose obscurity and whose story should teach us to distrust the “multitudes.” The first leaders in the church were not CEO’s but servants who walked the dusty roads of the Roman Empire, paid their own way by working in the marketplace, and met with their fellow believers in homes. The early Christians met and prayed as they ate meals around the table together.
How does having a church campus the size of Microsoft promote this kind of Christianity?
Break up the big churches, I say! Let’s start a grass-roots movement of planting neighborhood churches. Set a limit at 400-500 people, and long before reaching that point, start sending teams to start sister congregations in other neighborhoods. This will allow pastors to be pastors, personally involved in the spiritual formation and pastoral care of their congregations. This will allow Christians to have churches close to home. This will give churches a defined context for ministry and help them to have a real impact on their local community.
I’ve thought about this, and I can come up with only one reason for big churches — it is an awe-inspiring experience when thousands of people in a worship service sing hymns together.
Honestly, that’s it.
At the risk of sounding too cynical, I tend to think the main thing that big churches accomplish is to make their pastors (and maybe their worship leaders) famous. These guys (and they are almost all guys) end up getting on TV, writing books, speaking at conferences, and getting their names splashed all over the Christian (and sometimes the secular) press. Simply because of their ability to build big impressive churches, they are considered models for us all.
Most of them are gifted, dedicated, sincere, passionate people. They are great CEO’s and visionaries. But if these are their gifts, why aren’t they out there in the marketplace, leading companies and having an impact in the world? In my view, they could probably do more good introducing Christian ethics and integrity into the vocations of daily life and business. Imagine how much better our communities and institutions would be if people like this were using their prodigious gifts to serve the world in the world!
I just don’t see the reason for big churches. I don’t see that they can do anything that a bunch of smaller churches couldn’t accomplish much more effectively and in greater harmony with the ethos of Jesus and NT Christianity.
The Internet Monk Archives 
I agree with the post. I have, historically, belonged to or attended three “mega” churches. In each of them I was involved in some ministry or small group, or another. But I never got to know the Pastor personally, never had him in my home or knew that he was familiar with my life and struggles.
In the NT, it describes pastors as those who not only taught the congregation in whatever was the “church” building, but as those who “went from home to home” to minister to the flock.
I am so very blessed right now to be in a church like that. Last night my Pastor and our discipleship group came to my home. I know him as a human with faults, not a t.v. personality type to be put on a pedestal. And I know that he has that type of familiarity with almost all of our members (not yet with the newest ones, but he is getting there).
There is a reason that description of pastors is included in the NT church descriptions and I think it was to caution us against getting to a place where churches became so focused around a particular personality that they would simply grow forever in order to be centered around that same person.
Certainly I can’t disagree that a mega church can offer certain materials and financial benefits. But can’t the same be said of several smaller churches who work in harmony or support a particular ministry together? Thus allowing each of those churches to maintain a faithfulness to having a Pastor that is truly ministering to his flock, not just from the pulpit or a radio address, but in person?
For whatever my two cents is worth.
LikeLike
That church of Acts 2:41…apparently had too be scattered, to obey the heavenly mandate. Large corporate worship or cooperation is not the issue, however. If the functional units within the whole body don’t exceed the ability to mentor even the very meek and the internal processors, then, there’s only benefit to the greater pool of resources in a larger church. [I’ve found that small group process begins to be lost in house churches beyond a dozen or so, and pastoral groups of no more than a hundred or so]. After that–if these elements remain the fundamentals to the whole, the sky’s the limit–it’s a non-issue–as long as we don’t forget the imperative that Christ gave the very first disciples. That’s a huge caveat, BTW.
LikeLike
This is from Wikipedia:
Yoido Full Gospel Church is a Pentecostal church on Yeouido (Yoi Island) in Seoul, South Korea. With about 1,000,000 members (2007), it is the largest Protestant Christian congregation in South Korea,[1] and the world. Founded and led by David Yonggi Cho since 1958.
How’s that for a Mega Church!
To their favor, Dr. Cho is a strong proponent of small groups. Small groups are a way to grow churches in local settings. Members in a small group meet to study the bible or some other activity which promotes spiritual unity in Christ.
I myself favor smaller LOCAL congregations. I am part of a denomination that in times past was more commuter oriented, that is, the church met at place A and EVERYONE went there. Even if it meant a two hour drive — one way!
LikeLike
As someone who has been a member of three large churches since 1987, I am not sure that I agree with you.
If you disagree with the premise of the large church, then what do you do with the church at Jerusalem in Acts 2:41 where they had 3000 members? I think a lot of this discussion is centered more on personal preferences for church size. I was saved in a large church and have been in large churches. I have also been in small churches as well.
There are pros and cons to both. In a large church, you obviously would have greater resources (money, people, etc), but also in a large church, people can be apathetic or lazy because they assume that someone else will do what needs to be done because of a plethora of people.
Small churches provide a greater sense of community, because the group is smaller and it is easier to know people on a more personal level, but conversely, sometimes there are a lack of available and willing resources (people) to get things accomplished. Also, sometimes in a smaller church, people seem to know everything about everyone and sometimes there is no privacy or discretion.
Again, I think it is more about personal preference. If it was a Biblical mandate, then we would have to ask the question about Acts 2:41
LikeLike
I agree with Ethan M. – there are many good things that small and big churches do! why criticize or put God in a box? He works where people can be reached – some people are reached there, others on a street corner, who cares. If someone’s getting saved, discipled, growing in Christ in any way, well, let it happen!
To the people who are bothered by thoughts of why this or why that, or is this right/wrong/needed, etc, etc, need to get busy doing Kingdom work in the way God has called THEM, and let the rest up to God!! 🙂
LikeLike
1) When somebody talks about how “Godly” they or their One True Church are, keep one hand on your wallet. “How Godly I Am” is the Mark of Narcissus, admiring his own reflection unto death. One of the marks of Saints in my church has been they are the most conscious of their own sins & imperfections, and are more likely to suffer from depression than anything else.
2) Then there’s the theoretical end-state of Protestantism (which your example of “McLean Bible” is approaching): MILLIONS of One True Churches, each with only one member, each denouncing the others ex cathedra as Heretics and Apostates.
LikeLike
Are you referring to Christian Zionists re Israel or that Death To Homosexuals law attempted in Uganda or Third World Prosperity Gospels or all of the above as type examples?
LikeLike
Still wonder whether the overhead expense of a place to HOLD those large mega-church gatherings is a wise use of their resources…
LikeLike
That would make Dispensationalism the Fourth Form of Social Darwinism, after the original (Yuppieism — Survival of the Fittest between Superior and Inferior Individuals), Marxism (Competiton to the Death between Social Classes), and Naziism (Competition to the Death between Superior and Inferior Races).
Looks like the tradition of Christian Knockoffs of mainstream fads has been going on a LONG time:
“Dispensationalism — Just like Marxism, Except Christian (TM)!”
As in: The Free Market must prevail. Let your will say: the Free Market must be allowed to prevail!
Last time I heard that almost word-for-word was from our local newspaper — the one whose editorial page worships Ayn Rand and channels John Galt. I’d be a bit more sympathetic if their type example of “The Free Market Economy (TM)” WASN’T Victorian England.
LikeLike
Actually 50% of Christians in the U.S. attend churches larger than 400. About 10% of Christians attend a Mega Church (> 2000)
LikeLike
In the Byzantine era, a large church on a hill would cast its shadow over a city and just like the sick hoped to be healed by having St. Peter’s shadow pass over them, the Christians at the time felt protected by being in the shadow of a large basilica. A large building would be in order in a large city centre anyhow (because each city only had one church).
For me, its not about the size of the church, but what the church is used for. If the size of the building is meant for the healing of masses of Christians, this must be good. If the size of the building is modeled after western entertainment venues and “worship” is more like a sing-along rock concert and the preacher is projected on a big screen – this is a problem. I don’t even think I have to say why this is a problem, do I? Church was never meant to resemble a Super Bowl half-time show. There is no need for all of those people to be in that one church, because there are so many other churches and locations for that kind of worshiper attend. If there was only one church in each city, I could see it getting big, but this is not the case anymore (sadly). Imho, churches of this size and style are spreading the delusion that bigger is better and richer is more blessed. Lord have mercy on us. We are weak enough as it is – why add greater temptations when we are meant to be worshiping God?
LikeLike
I take it we’re not including the likes of Saint Peter’s Basilica here, but my two cents’ will follow.
A church can have a thousand communicants and still remain as small and compact. I refer to mainline churches that have four or five services on a given Sunday. The only reason these services feel compact is that we work around a polyglot community. Central UMC in Manila, the Philippines, is an example. They are a big church (though puny compared to the other megachurches in the neighborhood) but they manage to keep things small, and there seems to be no membership drive (at least when I last visited).
LikeLike
What percent of Christians actually attend a “mega church” ? Probably not more than 1%. And yet what an influence they have! What they really can do is promote change, make news, and use the media. The pastor of that church can get on the news at 11. The pastor of Assembly of God in Po Dunk cannot.
Mega Churches represent the Capitalist, “Survival of the Fittest” model of church. They may not believe in evolution, but they are the product of it. But there is plenty of room in the church ecosystem. And besides, who knows the mind of the Spirit?
LikeLike
I am not prepared to defend the whole notion of a mega church, but…
You ask, “What can a church of 2000 that four churches of 500 can’t do?”
Here are a few things that we(avg. weekly attendance 4000+) have done in the last few weeks.
Hosted a funeral that was important in our community that was attended by 1500 people.
Provided the local Sheriff office a place to host a Safe-Child Seminar.
Hosted the regional women’s conference and men’s conference that was cosponsored by dozen of area churches, but only we could host it.
Allow several of our specialist staff members to provide free training and equipping to area churches.
Give away curriculum that we have written to dozens of churches because we pay someone full time to write curriculum.
Release 4 pastoral residents into ministry service at church all under 500 because we have a full time pastoral development staff role and can afford to host one year resident as a gift to the Kingdom of God.
Host the county adult basketball league because all the school gyms are taken.
Pay to bring in seminary level training that is available to dozens of area churches because there is not a good seminary in our region. (okay, probably a network could do this, so I should have left it off but let me tell you these kinds of network are hard to maintain but if we just do it, everyone appreciates it.)
And that is just in the last few weeks. It’s a good questions, but it does have an answer.
There are great weakness to churches that have a large weekend service, but believe me we know and teach that church happens in small groups. I am not saying it is the only way and if I had to pick between one church of 400 or ten churches of 400 I would probably choose the later. But I am also convinced that healthy mega churches are a gift to the kingdom.
I will make one final comment about our cultural moment. There are many people who shop at Walmart, and Lowes, drive across town to the mall, and the cultural experience of the mega church is highly relevant. Just as Paul secured a public (and probably large) hall in downtown corinth for his public teaching, I think that the mega-church service finds it biblical warrant not in the house church experience but in the Hall of Tyrannus and in the Temple experience of the very early church.
That’s my 2 cents.
LikeLike
Why do we even think the church holds together anything more than cultural and social gatherings. I don’t think Jesus even notices the churches. He is to busy with hearts.
LikeLike
I’m late to the conversation, but I have several points, from some of the comments.
Sometimes, even small Catholic churches have a hard time working together. Pastors can always choose to downplay what the bishop says.
I like the idea that smaller churches can make it easier to get to know the other people, but if they don’t have a history of new comers, it is challenging. Most groups are set in their ways, and you have to fit to them perfectly.
Larger churches, more opportunities, but you can get lost in the crowd, even if you are doing your best not to. At one Baptist church with a very good preacher, we used to make it a game to try to get him to speak to us.
The best church size is whatever works for all involved, and makes it easy for the stranger to become a part of them. (assuming that the stranger wants to. I respect and understand those who just want to be anonymous)
LikeLike
I’m saying they did not have much choice. However, in the post I do make the point that most of the significant things that happen to us with regard to our faith happen in smaller, more personal settings.
LikeLike
Olsteen is a cow.
LikeLike
Debra, I hope you will keep participating.
LikeLike
They both have a structured, utopian eschatology. Non-dispensational Christianity also has an understanding of history and an eschatology (Jesus returns, new heaven and a new earth, Satan destroyed, etc), but it’s not so chiseled-in-stone as the seven ages of dispensationalism or the outcome of a classless society in Marxism.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Darwinism, Marxism and dispensationalism all appeared about the same time. Lots of ideas were expressions of social Darwinism in that period.
Nietzsche said some fun eschatalogical and Darwinistic things too: “The Superman [Ãœbermensch] is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the Superman shall be the meaning of the earth!”
As in: The Free Market must prevail. Let your will say: the Free Market must be allowed to prevail!
LikeLike
I’ll have to admit, I was amazed by the gathering of the diverse religious bodies at the 9/11 commemorations. One of the best things W did was to redefine the whole concept of Judeo-Christian to a more commonly shared description of people of faith.
It was amazing to me to see Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Christians et al all joining together to support each other in attempting to heal and to understand. I saw the beginning of a redefinition of the American civil religion there, and I appreciated it.
LikeLike
what do you mean by reaching out? In my area I would be hard pressed to come up with one church of any size that didn’t have a food pantry. Quite a few participate in PADs (the moveable shelter I mentioned above), a few run soup kitchens–especially the Salvation Army. If you mean service projects like cleanup parks etc. then the Catholic church youth groups do that as well as the Episcopalians (and probably others). I guess you would call the Catholic churches up here (Chicago) mega churches they mostly have 2-3000 parishioners (though maybe 400-500 on any given Sunday if you add up Sat eve and all the other masses).
I know a Baptist church (IMB) that has a barbecue on Sunday mornings and invites all in the neighborhood (or just passing by, they invited me and Spikey my dog once) to drop by and eat while listening to music and preaching. In fact, me and Spikey have been offered food and water by the IMB Baptists, the Quakers and the UCC! Our Sunday morning route has a lot of churches on it!
LikeLike
And I’m sorry you’re sorry Mike.
My opinions come from 46 years living as a daughter of a preacher. We all have them…opinions, that is. Using my name in the manner you did speaks volumes to me. Thanks for revealing yourself to me.
LikeLike
Temple B’nai Shalom in Fairfax, VA shows another side to that though. They do a podcast of their Shabbat and holiday services. This podcast reaches around the world to people serving in the military, to people in areas that don’t have a synagogue convenient to their location, a lot of rural areas don’t have enough of a population to support a one.
LikeLike
So you are saying that the early churches limited their sizes due to physical limitations and not a desire that a small group was the best way?
LikeLike
Which is what happens in many mega churches. They come together for Sabbath praise and worship and then disburse into smaller groups for more intimate time with friends.
LikeLike
Your right.
I should have said that most mega churches truly function like a consolidation of several smaller churches. The congregation meets as a whole for praising and worship, but the real work is done by the smaller cell groups where those who want to connect can with others can. No different than a Sunday school group, but a bit more intimate and personal. The mega church offers people who are unsure the opportunity to go and be exposed to the gospel without being put on the spot for a commitment. This can be both good and bad. It is bad in that you have the potential for believers who never fully mature or develop. It is good when you have those who have been damaged by other churches coming and finding healing.
Small vs. large in size should not be the issue. The issue should be if the gospel of Jesus is being proclaimed and taught. Of course that leads into denominational issues where people cant agree which one is better.
LikeLike
Some of the fundamentalists are also dispenstationalists. The structure of that theology resembles Marxism.
In what way, Ted? While recovering from a control-freak Church of Hal Lindsay, I used to joke that the main difference between Christians and Communists was they quoted different Party Lines, but you’re the first other I’ve seen making a similar comparison.
LikeLike
(All hail Plankton…I mean Glenn Beck!)
Cute, Dumb Ox. Here’s another.
LikeLike
You want to see comments take off, never mind “Megachurches or No” — just say “Evolution” or “Homosexuality” and you’ll hit 100 in the first few minutes!
LikeLike
Yeah. The present archbishop was so asleep-at-the-switch when the Pedophile Priest scandals went down that local drive-time radio refers to him as “Cardinal-Pedophile” or “Archbishop-Pedophile”.
LikeLike
Maybe that’s why the new guy is Opus Dei? After all, what better iron hand in the velvet glove of ultimate control…
Self-flagellating Albino Monk Assassins and all!
LikeLike
Sadly, the only thing that seems to bring churches together is crises and/or tragedies…
Or a common enemy like “Secular Humanism (TM)” — why do you think “Christian” these days means “Culture Warrior”?
It’s like how Mohammed partially defused the me-against-my-brother, me-and-my-brother-united-against-our-cousin, me-my-brother-and-my-cousin-united-against-the-Other, to-the-death blood feuds of Arab tribal society — by redefining all Muslims as one tribe/family and redirecting the blood feuds to the Infidel Outsiders.
LikeLike
There were larger gatherings, obviously, but those were special occasions. They typically would have taken place in the temple courts, or in similar venues in other cities. As Chaplain Mike has noted, the regular meetings of the church in houses would have been limited to maybe 100 people.
LikeLike
True enough but the other side of the coin is that of the 1000+ facebook friends my church has, perhaps 25% actually go there. Maybe another 25% live closely enough to attend at some point, but the other 50% are scattered around the nation and the globe. And really the only cost is the person’s time who keeps up with the fb page.
It is interesting because having an internet congregation of this size — many of whom are totally disconnected from the membership, the physical building and locale — was not something we set out to do.
LikeLike
My experience is a little bit different. I work at a pretty large church but I’m a member of another church that’s only about 1/5 the size.
The larger church has more mission activity going on in the aggregate, but if it you look at it on a per-capita basis, the members of the smaller church are a lot more active.
The larger church is an organization that spends a lot of time and money simply maintaining itself up to the country club standards the members expect, where the smaller church is more of a movement and if the roof starts to leak because the money went to feeding the homeless, well we’ll just put a bucket in the sanctuary.
LikeLike
Those are wonderful points and accurate. My only concern is that many people give off the impression that in essence it’s a sin to be an introvert. I strongly disagree with that, although it can be a problem if taken to extremes.
I’ve also seen people in small churches who hide their true selves quite well for decades. I think the only way any of that really happens is in a small-group of some kind, which at this point is pretty common in both large and small churches.
LikeLike
Hi Ted,
Thanks for recognizing that my comment was tongue in cheek. You raise an interesting parallel with school amalgamation. Our little school of 200 is now a school of 600. Is it better? I am not so sure. Our little community of 25,000 was amalgamated against our wills into a city of haf a million. Is it better? I am not so sure.
I agree with Chaplain Mike that bigger is not neccessarily better. But neither is smaller.
I have been involved with a couple of small rural churches of less than 70 people that were effective witnesses for Jesus Christ. Within a few years one was a church of 300 and the other was a church of 700. I have also been involved with small urban churches who were not effective witnesses for Jesus Christ, within a few years both closed their doors.
I know, however that there are good churches of all sizes and bad churches of all sizes. For me personally, a church of 200-400 feels like home. Your experience may differ.
LikeLike
I am a long time internet monk reader, but first time commenter. I agree with what most people on here are saying. My church is part of the Acts 29 network. We have about 200 people who regularly attend. Our vision from the start was to plant churches. And two weeks ago we planted our second church.
LikeLike
Kate, you said that beautifully!
LikeLike
Sadly, the only thing that seems to bring churches together is crises and/or tragedies like 9-11 hurricanes Katrina and Rita and maybe WWII (I wasn’t alive then, so I don’t know how being at war, esp. for Europe, brought the people and Christians together).
But I suspect walls come down, communion and prayer are shared, and people just seek to be with others who belong to Jesus.
LikeLike
Passive aggressive much? The sarcasm only serves to antagonize people. Please cut it out and start engaging with what people are actually saying. No one is saying that we have to limit church size because God only works with a couple hundred people at a time. It’s not an arbitrary cutoff point, and it isn’t just to serve small-churchers’ personal preferences. There are a lot of thoughtful reasons to go for smaller churches over megachurches, many of which are mentioned in the comments above.
LikeLike
So . . . you can go watch TV while drinking coffee?
That sounds lovely and relaxing. I imagine that after one of these sessions people leave feeling de-stressed and glad they came. But is that church? Is that worship? Does entering the Living Room or the Video Cafe instill you with a sense of the presence of the Almighty God?
LikeLike
dumb ox,
Some of the fundamentalists are also dispenstationalists. The structure of that theology resembles Marxism.
And if they are also political/economic conservatives (a safe bet) they likely will embrace free-market capitalism, which resembles Darwinism.
And if they believe along with some of the neo-conservatives that the market MUST be allowed to prevail, they would probably enjoy Nietzsche.
But they wouldn’t admit to enjoying Nietzsche.
LikeLike
“3. Most people like being anonymous.”
First off, I am solidly in that group of people. It always makes me nervous when people I don’t know want to shake my hand, talk to me, or (yikes!) invite me to any kind of social interaction other than sitting next to them at church.
However, when I think about it, I’m pretty certain I don’t have the right to remain anonymous like that. Getting to know people, and BEING known by others, integrates you into the Body of Christ – and is often fraught with self-consciousness, awkwardness, and embarrassment. I suspect the deep-down motivation for many “anonymous church-goers” is pride, specifically the form that insists on holding itself off from others – retaining its status as a unique individual free to criticize and observe from without, uninvested and unencumbered.
But I don’t think I’m allowed to do that, honestly. Becoming known is a humbling experience, because you become one of the group and “fitted in” to the group. But aren’t we all called to be one Body? Being humbled is unpleasant, but according to the Bible it’s good for you. An anonymous member contributes nothing, shares in none of his or her fellow members’ struggles, rejoices in none of their triumphs, and leaves the church behind when they drive out of the parking lot. Anonymous members are consumers. But the ideal, Biblical church is made of people who care for and are invested in each other.
LikeLike
Same here.
LikeLike
It is scary indeed, and most assuredly true. Who is Rick Warren, for example, if not the mini-pope of his own sect of Christianity? Particularly when you look at how much power and influence these ‘pastors’ have overseas with the leaders of whole nations.
LikeLike
In a way, extreme fundamentalism IS a watered-down message. Liberalism adds human effort to the gospel. Just for fun, tell your fundamentalist friends that they’re a bunch of liberals! They’ll probably come unglued!
LikeLike
bureaucratic. And please don’t blame the misspelling on my small-school education…
LikeLike
People obviously care about this more than you do. And believe it or not, what we think about the church and how it functions matters. I said in the intro that it’s not about good/bad or right/wrong. It’s a question of how we approach being and living as the church. I’m looking at it from 30 years of pastoral experience and studying, Debra. It’s not inconsequential. I’m sorry you find it boorish.
LikeLike
I abhor the video off-site model, but others are doing it with multiple pastors, which could mimic the parish system. Blanchard Road church in Wheaton, IL is an example of this.
LikeLike
They did leave and start their own churches. They were from all over the world, and returned to their homes. The early church did not have large “congregations” as we know them. They had no buildings, and the largest rooms in homes throughout the Mediterranean regions would likely have held a maximum of 100 people.
LikeLike
Mike, you sound like one of those bone-headed wrong-thinking proponents of school consolidation for rural areas that have perfectly happy school systems that turn out well-educated students and enjoy local control and parental involvement and creative fund-raising activities and local donorship.
The solution to this system? Ruin it! Schlep the kiddies off by bus to a mega-school where they can be socialized into the “Real World” and save taxes in the bargain. And control the new, faceless, beaurocratic system from the Regional School Union, an arm of the State Capital, from whence cometh All Good Things.
You boneheaded? Naw. I know you. But your tongue-in-cheek argument sounds like those uh, people. Even though you’re not one of, uh, them.
LikeLike
I erred in my comment. I shouldn’t have painted all “big churches” with the same brush.
That size of a church is not what makes them faithful, or not.
LikeLike
Coming out of extreme fundamentalism, I’d say it’s OK to water down their message.
LikeLike
And I don’t mean Saturday morning door to door annoying evangelism.
LikeLike
I’ll submit I have never found one of those churches. Not once. The only churches I have ever seen that are actively reaching out to their neighbors in Christ’s name are megachurches/satellite churches.
LikeLike
I read the first 70 or so comments, then skipped to the end…so here’s my two pense.
Having spent 5 years in a “house church” comprised of at maximum 60 people (which I’m sure at least one member/elder is lurking and reading this, keeping tabs), the last thing I want to do is be in a church of less than 300 (the church I was in previous was around 600, and before that was 150). The idea of community is a great thing, but in a group larger than 15-20, it can become deadly. House churches in general are guilty, I’d say, of ignoring the gathering of the believers. It’s all fine to say that the early church met around tables in people’s homes, but they also regularly gathered in the Temple/synagogue as the larger church. There was a gathering of all the house churches in the area in one location, with all the pastors being first amongst equals, taking turns leading, and no one “bishop” largely in charge of everything.
Now, do I like megachurches? Not really. I briefly attended a church of 2000 for a while. That type of atmosphere is fun with friends, but yes, largely anonymous. I’m becoming a fan of the satellite church movement, spending most of my Sundays visiting the various satellites around the area and meeting people, getting involved in small groups.
Basically, I don’t see super-megachurches having a purpose any longer. They existed until the satellite ministry could truly take off.
But home churches ain’t much better if they don’t get out of their independent shell and actually commune with everyone else.
as if that will happen
LikeLike
And the other question here is the pastor as shepherd or CEO. The CEO of a large corporation – umm, I mean church – is an entirely different beast than the shepherd of a small congregation.
Of course, there are ways to alleviate the issues this tends to raise, but if the CEO is off limits to the peons in the pews…
LikeLike
Maybe it has less to do with size or numbers of churches than with leadership. The mega churches are led by strong charismatic leaders (most I would suggest are moral and godly) but it is hard to get a group together if they struggle with finding strong leaders. This seems to be why multi-site churches do well–they have that strong leader with vision who can empower people to do ministry. That is hard to do with four different churches with four different leaders.
LikeLike
It suggests a place big enough so you don’t have to turn people away when you reach your preacher defined cap.
Everytime Jesus taught it was packed. The building, when indoors, had more people in it then it was designed for. People would stand outside to here. The original mega-church for that time period.
What church would tell God that they wanted to limit the people that they could effectively reach? Sorry God, we don’t want to accept any more.
LikeLike
ALL people need to hear the gospel – even little churches in rural areas. If a little church is doing their bit – reaching out to their neighbors in Christ’s name, supporting each other, etc. – then they are accomplishing the mission of Christ in their own context. No reason to go lusting after size and impact and rock bands, or whatever passes for a ‘successful’ church.
If it’s possible to link up with other churches for mission, to serve others – then little churches should try to do that. But there is no one model to follow – serve the Lord where you are, with what you have!
LikeLike
This is an interesting dialogue but ultimately I’m not sure that size matters. Is Christ proclaimed? Do people in the congregation love the Lord with all of their heart, soul and mind? In my experience, these things cross the borders of congregational size. I have found good, but not perfect churches, with small congregations and large congregations.
I attend a church of about 2,000. It would be too large for me if not for an adult congregation, some would call it a Sunday School class, of about 40. Real church happens there. The larger congregational setting has some good stuff but I need more dialogue and interaction to make worship and teaching meaningful. The current evangelical model, maybe post Reformation model, that centers on the senior pastor and makes the sermon the focal point of the service simply does not work for me any more. I’m not saying it’s wrong but I need more personal involvement and don’t simply want to feel like a spectator.
LikeLike
I forgot, the Holy Spirit stopped moving like at Pentecost. My bad.
LikeLike
It could be argued that both large churches (out of necessity) and small churches (out of desparation) may be tempted to water down their message in order to attract a crowd. I have seen more examples of this in small churches (<100) , rather than large (500-1,000).
LikeLike
Yeah, that was an interesting article. Much props to Chan, says I!
LikeLike
Right! I always do that! I don’t know why…
LikeLike
“If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?”
LikeLike
“Beck even received some form of endorsement from the Vatican.”
Can you provide me with some info on that, because the very little I’ve seen about Glenn Beck makes me think he’s not so great on Catholicism – in fact, isn’t he an ex-Catholic or something? Ignorance is bad, I know.
“That means Beck controls those millions of Catholics by proxy.”
*snorfle* Actually, I’d love to see millions of Catholics controlled in some form, either by proxy or not. As I saw online somewhere, “Don’t agree with organised religion? Welcome to Catholicism!” Seeing as how even the Pope doesn’t have that absolute level of control over us all, I really don’t see some obscure (to me) American tv show host doing any better.
As for Los Angeles, I have to say that trying to herd the kind of cats that come with a putative 4 million plus archdiocese composed of multiple ethnicities makes my head spin. Maybe that’s why the new guy is Opus Dei? After all, what better iron hand in the velvet glove of ultimate control than one of the scary secret new order that’s replaced the Jesuits as bogeymen du jour?
😉
LikeLike
Umm… he HASN’T been keeping track of it all, which is why the Archdiocese has been getting in trouble.
LikeLike
It’s Osteen….Joel Osteen. At least get the man’s name right as you insult him.
LikeLike
Part of the problem is that evangelicals are convinced that the world will be reached with the gospel through technology and electronic media. That requires an incredibly expensive overhead, which demands a large, centralized infrastructure. Focusing on reaching people through mobile communications actually forces the church to be more imobile, forced behind walls of giant broadcast and internet complexes. It’s very counter-intuitive.
I once heard of someone who had a dream of farmers out in a large field for harvest. First, the farmers used giant, complex combines, which broke down and became clogged with weeds. Next, they sent out individuals to gather the harvest by hand. To those who have ears to hear…
LikeLike
Any church that preaches the Gospel and administers the sacraments is effectively extending the Kingdom of God. Shame on us if we impose our contemporary, man-made, American ideas of success on an enterprise that belongs to God alone.
LikeLike
I just don’t get it. 🙂 Please take this with the humour with which it is intended.
This is not at all kind of off the top of my head, so take it for what it is—a contrarian rant using Chaplain Mike’s words.
OK, this may seem like a weird thing to talk about, but I’m going to anyway. I’m sure most people don’t even think about it; the status quo is simply accepted without question. But it has bugged me for years, and I have to just say it plainly and see what people think.
I don’t see why we need small churches.
I’m not saying it’s wrong to have a small church. It’s not a right vs. wrong issue. I’m not saying it’s bad to have a small church. It’s not a matter of good or bad. In most cases, I just don’t see the point.
I need someone to convince me otherwise. Because right now, I just don’t get it.
You might say it gives the people more opportunities for ministry. Really? My experience in small churches is that the workers get burnt out, and that most small churches have ineffective or non-existant outreach. What can four churches of 50 do that one churchof 250, by themselves… can’t do?… And wouldn’t it be better to have one church,… intentionally focusing on ministering to their neighbors, and with the resources to do it be better than four churches who are unable to extend beyond their own immediate needs?
I guess I could see some smallerchurches in rural contexts, where small populations are packed in large areas, but even then, I have found that larger churches are much better able to impact the extended community among them. I am reminded of the grain silos out on the prairies where each one needed to be in commuting distance for the farmer’s horse and buggy. Indeed many of these small rural churches have become silos, isolated from each other and their respective communities.
Am I alone here? Half of our churches have less than 75 people. Are they effective in extending the Kingdom? No!
For the record, most of my last 15 years have been spent in church plants or churches smaller than 75 people. It has been quite refreshing to have spent the last three years in a church of 200 where I didn’t have to do all the work!
LikeLike
The common goal being support of the Bishop’s office? Just kidding.
LikeLike
3000 people believing means a 3000 -person event at a building designed to be occupied 3000 people every Sunday? That’s weird. Don’t think it says that part in Acts.
Nate
LikeLike
I can’t answer for everyone but I attended a multi-site in Utah called Alpine and it seemed to work very well. The pioneering pastor had a vision for this and for churches to not get bigger than 500. So they’ve broken off and now have two sites at about 500 each and believe they are ready to add a third.
What was unique to me about this was they had an “on site” pastor doing normal “pastoral duties” of tending the flock with the teaching pastors rotating from each church which allowed for diversity in preaching/teaching and much less ego centered. They also were involved in pastoral ministry in each church but they were in this role secondarily to the “on site” pastor which kept them connected to the congregation.
LikeLike
Absolutely right!
We are so programmed to think about success in terms of size, numbers of people, money, reputation and “buzz.”
In scriptural and historical terms, a successful congregation is one where the gospel is clearly and frequently proclaimed, where the body of Christ grows in knowledge, wisdom and love for one another. Where worship is orderly and reverent and respectful. It is one where the body responds to the needs of its members and the wider community as it is able.
If we focus on what is important, we may see success in congregations of 10 people or a thousand, growing or shrinking, young or old, rich or poor.
God grows His church, not us.
LikeLike
I’m sorry you’re having that experience with that church. It sounds like no Christian venue is exempt from being abusive. I guess it wasn’t that way for me because I didn’t get involved at all; I just attended. I never gave anyone there my phone #, email, etc. I don’t do Facebook or Myspace, and screen all my calls. You can get a new email account, and a different phone number. Seriously, I’ve done this.If you decide to try somewhere else, a suggestion: go anonymously to a place with lots of people, be very noncommittal, and give no personal information. The plan is to keep God in the picture, while not allowing people to hurt you while you heal. That doesn’t mean you can’t be friendly while you’re there, but when a well-meaning staff member tries to introduce you, you politely bow out. Then, when you’re stronger, be very cautious (and picky) about whom you relate with. I’d start with one person, wait 6 months, then add one more person. In the meantime, no service, no groups, no involvement. After horrible abusive experiences, you really have to be proactive about protecting yourself, while not shutting God out. He understands. It’s not His fault these people were idiots; in the Scriptures it’s clear that Jesus did “not trust Himself to them, for He knew what was in men’s heart’s”. He had a few close friends, carefully picked, and ministered to the rest. Forgiveness is the way to heal, but remember: Forgiveness is free, trust is earned. We’re commanded to forgive, but not required to trust anyone but God. Sorry it’s so long- may God heal and restore you!
LikeLike
A bit harsh but I agree with the observation overall. Look at last week’s posts from CM on spiritual formation. Great posts and good interaction but I doubt one hit 100+ responses with most probably half that. In the end it’s not about the #’s but it is sobering to see what get’s the most responses. I’m thankful for Imonk and Jesus Creed as well as other sites that are willing to continue posting on issues of life and faith that may not be popular.
Perhaps, blogs can develop their own “mega church” mentality if their not careful!
LikeLike
Yup. Pentecost was brought about by the Holy Spirit at a specific time for a specific purpose. Its not something that you can re-create or simulate.
LikeLike
Is the real issue size or theology? Why are people joining? If the reasons is that Christ Crucified is preached every Sunday, the we know that it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ that is doing the work. If the local church is not preaching Christ Crucified every Sunday but something else, then what is bring the people in? Is it the Gospel or something else such as emotions, activities or social gathering?
LikeLike
I’m not crazy about mega churches but I wonder if God loves them more than we think. After all, aside from a few that may be glitz and non Jesus centered, the Gospel is preached and the Spirit is bringing about new birth. Yes, I know a lot of these folks are believers bouncing from one church to another but I suspect this can also be just as true of smaller churches.
What bothers me is when churches seem to set about to become a mega church. They may say it is for the sake of the kingdom but it often becomes an end in itself. My sense is, that the Spirit has been at work for a time and season to allow some churches to grow extremely large. But we should not make this the rule for how God wants to work everywhere (cloning vs. birthing). We are also seeing a resurgence of the house church movement. Perhaps, part of this is reactionary to the impersonal mega church. But perhaps, it is just the Spirit blowing how and where it wills. May we seek to be Spirit filled, Jesus shaped people in community, devoted to loving God and others whatever our size may be.
LikeLike
Interestingly, he was criticized by other megachurch pastors for doing that.
LikeLike
That sounds like israel before the Temple fell.
LikeLike
I heard somewhere that multi-site churches were the hot new thing. How does that square with this rant?
LikeLike
At pentecost, 3,000 people believed right? Isnt that hard to do if you limit all of the churches to 500 members in size?
What if the apostles would have followed it up with, “now most of you need to leave and start your own church. We have reached our maximum capacity”?
LikeLike
The largest church I’ve attended decided that building a sanctuary large enough to hold the entire membership was poor stewardship of space since that would only really be used once a week. They decided to have multiple services in an area that could be used for multiple uses throughout the week. Their initial “sanctuary” was built the same size as a typical gym so it could be converted for other uses if they continued to grow. When I left the area they had broken ground on a larger space and planned to cut from 4 services (3 Sunday, 1 Saturday night) down to 3.
LikeLike
Really? This is the question you ask, and you have over 100 comments? That’s disappointing. At one time I came here to read interesting discussions of spiritual matters. This sounds like the transcript from a quilting bee. Gossipy, judgmental jibberish. Its like the musician up the street who played in a chrstian rock band for years, but is no longer touring seems to be very jealous of the new chrstian singer who lives down the street with his multiple Dove awards and very large fan base. I see that played out daily on my street and can be amused by the hypocrisy. This, however, coming from the IMonk site is not funny at all. We can’t simply lift one another up in Christ and move on to other matters? This is petty, mindless stuff, and I expected better from you.
LikeLike
Pastor turnover is not a problem that is unique to large churches. It can often be worse for small churches since the pastor is often nearly the only leadership. I’ve seen small churches split within a few months of a new pastor coming on board.
In some ways it can be easier on larger churches as they can usually have associate pastors fill the pulpit for longer periods of time and they have lost less of their overall leadership. The need to fill the position isn’t as pressing and they can take their time filling the vacancy. If they do get someone weaker it’s likely to result in a gradual decline rather than an instantly empty church.
LikeLike
“I’m sure examples exist where, at the peak of a superstar pastor’s career, he voluntarily resigns to serve in some humble, more-or-less anonymous capacity elsewhere.”
Example: Francis Chan.
LikeLike
This has been the actual strategy of church planting here in New Orleans and it has made the Baptist churches here in the city more resilient. Williams Blvd Baptist Church is the main sending and sponsoring church I know of that has been diligent about using the planting model in the city. I know of at least three church plants they were connected to, and I was a member of one prior to Katrina.
LikeLike
And when it does, it’s haphazard, unexpected, and we don’t know what to do with the result “Geeze, Tony/Mary…..maybe you could teach Sunday school or something….have you thought about kid’s ministry…â€.
Or “What am I going to do with a hundred ushers?”
LikeLike
Really? Is that any more terrifying than millions of evangelicals wearing their Glenn Beck chum-bucket mind control helmets, nodding in mindless agreement to everything he says? (All hail Plankton…I mean Glenn Beck!). Beck even received some form of endorsement from the Vatican. That is truly scary stuff. That means Beck controls those millions of Catholics by proxy.
LikeLike
Here in Houston there are a series of “Assistance Ministries” throughout the area. These are all supported by the local churches. I think that the one in my neighborhood has 19 supporting congregations. These span across many denominations, including one Jewish synagogue; a Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints; and a Church of Christ, Scientist.
Additionally, there is a “Interfaith Hospitality Network” organized through the Assistance Ministry that houses recent homeless families who are on their way to supporting themselves again. Each church in the IHN houses the families for a week at a time. All support during that week comes from the hosting congregation. Currently there are approximately 14 churches in our network so each church hosts roughly once per quarter.
These ministries do actually work across congregation and denomination lines. Sadly, there is significant opportunity to do more, but I do not see it happen often.
As an aside, we have two churches of different denominations in our area that qualify as “mega-churches.” Neither is the largest contributor to the Assistance Ministry (only one is even listed as a partner congregation), and I do not know if either participates in IHN. (Not trying to be judgmental here, it is just an observation.)
LikeLike
I’ve always figured there’s an optimum size for a church (“church” as in single congregation), and a church can be too small or too big. Too small in the example of one-family house churches (which are in danger of drifting off into Cult City) or the dying rural churches my writing partner has to pastor, too big in the example of First Megachurch of Disneyland.
Humans have an optimum “troop-size limit” of around 150-200, the average maximum number where your mind can recognize them as individual people instead of “just a statistic”. Keeping congregation sizes in the low three figures would keep it the size of a nomad tribe and turn it into a “tribe” in the hindbrains of its people.
That said, I am leery of “plant a church”. The rural area where my writing partner pastors has a church steeple at pretty much every crossroads — you’re never out of sight of one. Most of them are dying on the vine, too small and grey to survive, and few of them are even on speaking terms with one another. The population can’t support the number of churches they’ve got — And they’ve got expats from the big cities always moving out there and planting more! And more! And more!
(Sometimes I wonder if this is just fleeing the Big City and getting Back to Nature with a Christian coat of paint — Evangelicals seem to have a hatred for the cities and view the countryside as some sort of Rural Paradise of Moral Rectitude. HIlarious when you remember that “pagan” and “heathen” both originally meant “country hick” and that John’s visions of New Jerusalem sound more like an arcology mega-city than Pleasantville or Mayberry.)
And everybody in these threads has seen what happens when the battle lines are drawn and the “DIE, HERETIC!” anathemas fly. Plant church after church after church (especially in the fiercely independent milieu of Evangelical Protestantism) and what’s gonna keep them from just turning on each other in constant bickering?
LikeLike
@Isaac: copy that about sermon length vis-a-vis quality. Even my pastors good sermons are usually 20 or 30 min segments of his 50 min sermon. The rest is jokes and filler. Like David C. says, though, I’m sure individual experience varies, but most pastors who really dig a 50 min. opportunity are not going to pare down that message…. it’s like red meat or something.
GregR
LikeLike
“the Bishop of Orange”
That is right up there on the coolio meter with “Bishop of Hippo”.
LikeLike
Thanks Ted, I allow myself a FEW, very short rants here and there…..and then GOD says: “I hear ya…..did you ever get to your meditation on Phil 4:8 ?? Not yet, huh…..Ok…..”
LikeLike
Absolutely, GOD has never said: “Wow, this is not going well, why not just work on your travel and food itinerary and we’ll see ya in a few…..” So , sure, we start someplace, pray, and get started, Maybe that’s PRAY, start someplace, PRAY, and get started, and PRAY……. I think GOD is still opening up opportunities everyday to grow the Kingdom, it’ s just that it might not look like what you’ve imagined or expected.
GregR
LikeLike
Well, my Pastor is responsible to the Bishop of Orange, who is responsible to the Archbishop of Los Angeles (Primate of Southern California), who is responsible to Pope Benedict. We’ve got our problems, but maverick entrepreneurs working against each other isn’t one of them.
LikeLike
It’s a good rant, Greg. And even better because it’s a short rant.
LikeLike
In other words, an intermediate level of organization/heirarchy between Parish and Diocese. Your “large rural diocese” must be so large you’re running into “span of command” problems in your TO&E. (Rule-of-thumb in the Army is that a span of command of more than five sub-units becomes too much for a commander to handle.)
LikeLike
Joanie, in my corner of Maine we are doing the same thing among evangelical churches. I belong to an American Baptist church (ABC) and we often partner with four other like-minded churches, but those are Congregational, Episcopal, and Assembly of God. We normally don’t do much with the other Baptist churches around (too fundamentalist or too liberal). The two Congregational churches that we buddy with don’t do much with other congo churches either (most are REALLY liberal around here) and the same with the Episcopal church–there is another nearby, but they are on opposite sides of the current Episcopal train-wreck.
The ALPHA course is now underway, for example (a weekly evangelistic series) as a joint effort of these churches. Incidentally, all of these have about 50 to 150 people on an average Sunday.
LikeLike
So are all the classic Liturgical churches.
LikeLike
When persecution begins we’ll get something like this. Sadly probably not before.
LikeLike
I have to say, it strikes me that mega-churches would be (in other denominations) parishes of their own, and they would be broken up between several smaller churches with their own priests.
Then again, you have entities like the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, which lays claim to “It covers 8,762 square miles (22,430 square kilometers) of territory. The total Roman Catholic population, as of 2005, stands at 4,349,267 people living among a total population of 11,258,600”, which is frankly quite a terrifying prospect to me. That figure is pretty much the population of Ireland right there. How on earth the Archbishop can keep track of it all, God alone knows.
🙂
LikeLike
Oh, I totally agree. That’s definitely the reality. But just because we constantly see bad examples and bad results, doesn’t mean we should stop striving for the ideal. If we want to try to get to a Jesus-shaped spirituality instead of a church-organization based one, we gotta start somewhere.
LikeLike
I disagree Therese. I was deeply harmed by some experiences in Campus Crusade followed on by several situations at mega-churches. I’m an agnostic today but I can’t shake some of the people from the mega chruch I once attended. I get texts, phonecalls, Facebook messages, etc.. even while having pulled back , unfriended on Facebook, and trying to sever ties.
It’s a problem…
LikeLike
Olsteen inherited his church from his father. Hagee’s church is pretty much run by his son these days, too. I think that sort of thing happens quite often in the largest of mega churches.
LikeLike
fyi, Blackhawk is 4,400 in attendance on a weekend, all services, plus Downtown which just opened this fall
LikeLike
Neither of my last two churches owned their own buildings. Both of them either borrowed or rented facilities from bigger churches or (in the case of my current church’s current facilities) from a Christian school. My previous Church is on their fourth borrowed/rented space from other churches since they grew out of their initial home church setting. They’re about 20 years old and have an average attendance around 100 and have never been able to raise the funds for buying or building their own facilities.
My current church is about two years old in its current incarnation. They had been a member of the Episcopal Church for many decades prior to leaving and joining the Anglican Church in North America. When they were part of TEC, they owned an old building and had just bought some new land. When they left TEC, the diocese kept the old building but sold them the new land. While gathering the funds to build on the land, they initially were renting/borrowing a nice old building from a local Baptist church who only used it during the week. As the Baptist church needed to start using on the weekends again, they started renting from a local Christian School just a few weeks ago. With an ASA of around 200-300, it’s expected that they can start construction later this year.
A buddy of mine lives in an older part of town. On his street were two or three old churches. A few years back, one of them was selling their property and building for about $150,000. It needed a little work, but was a SWEET deal nonetheless. It sat around 150 people and would be ideal for a smaller church. I must admit, I was disappointed when my old church didn’t buy it (they didn’t like the location).
Finally, there are some steel construction companies that specialize in inexpensive church buildings. Every now and then I’ll look at some of the plans those groups have on their websites. Some of the designs are really neat, and you’d be surprised at some of the not-so-steel-looking facades they can put on ’em. In this part of Texas they’re very popular as entry-level church buildings.
LikeLike
My former church in Madison, Blackhawk Evangelical Free Church, has addressed bigness in an interesting way.
At the main church, on Brader Way, instead of everyone worshiping in one large venue, they have several smaller venues in one building. The venues are somewhat diverse in size, ambiance and musical style.
* The Eastside Live (in the Eastside Auditorium) has the live message and a mix of traditional and contemporary music.
* The Video Café (in the Westside Auditorium) has a video feed of that day’s message and has louder, more electric music with coffee available in the room.
* The Living Room (in the Gym) has a video feed of the message and a more relaxed, acoustic vibe.
They also meet downtown at the Majestic Theatre, which shows a video of the previous week Brader Way sermon
Each Venue has their own pastoral staff, worship team, etc. No venue is larger than 800 people. Teaching is done primarily by the Senior Pastor and the Teaching Pastor, but all the other Pastors also have preaching opportunities.
It is a fascinating church. Oh, and when we joined in 1984? Attendance was 140 men, women and Children. Chris Dolson was call to be the Pastor when we were about 400 in attendance.
And the preaching – seriously good. Very Haddon Robinson (which isnt suprising since both the Senior Pastor and Teaching Pastor studied under Haddon at DTS and Gordon Conwell
If your in Madison, check it out – whatever your predilection towards church size. It is certainly very interesting.
LikeLike
I’m an agnostic now but used to attend McLean Bible. First mega churches are too big and hard to get invovled with, also people are falling through the cracks. Mclean Bible is basically a business and follows a business model when they launch different campuses in Prince Williams County, etc.. All they are following is a franchise format, many of the campuses are not allowed a lot of independence. Dave Thomas of Wendys and Ray Kroc of McDonalds would be pleased to see how their business ideals have been fully embraced.
Its a classic mix of the Amercian Dream and Amercianized Christinaity right off Leesburg Pike in Tysons Corner.
Second the church is very legalistic in their programs, and teaching as well as divisive in the communitty. In the several years I went there I never heard much about grace, just the usual laundry list of do’s and don’ts, which really were never taught in the context of grace. Once a few years back I sent on of their pastors an email asking, “Why can’t McLean Bible work with xyz Presbyerterian or xyz Community Church especially if they are so focused on launching new churches?” The answer I got was basically, a “McLean Bible is commited to following the Bible whereas other churches are more liberal and not as committed to scripture like us.” I couldn’t stomach reaidng the whole email, it was too much bullcrap.
Like those who say they are “Godly”, “New Creations”, or “Walking with the Lord…” there are many churches that bite and McLean Bible does bite.
LikeLike
This may have something to do with some of my predispositions when it comes to things, but the best preachers I’ve encountered have been in traditional mainline and Catholic churches where they are forced to keep the homily in the under-30-minutes range.
How I’m defining “best” has to do with being Christ-centered, remaining true to the text, and having decent application thrown in. One thing that may lend what I’ve seen to fitting into that “best” category is their common tradition of using a lectionary and their tendency to base homilies off of the gospel text, that last part is not by any means universal. I know that when I get the opportunity to preach, the limits of lectionary, time constraints, and criteria to be Christ-centered force me to be much better at preaching than I would be if I was just given a platform to say whatever seems best to me.
All that to say, that 1) we may not have the same idea as to what makes “good” preaching and 2) my observance of the correlation between good preaching and small churches may have less to do with size and more to do with the expectations of certain faith traditions.
LikeLike
what Ken said
LikeLike
Believe me, after more than 30 years in small churches, I’m no romantic!
LikeLike
Notice I said “sing hymns” in the post.
LikeLike
agreed!
LikeLike
I think more often than not, its because we are being of the world, but with complexes like this we have to be in the world less. Not exactly the Great Commission at work.
As an adolescent int he 80, I was a part of a mega-church (3000). They actually built an auditorium to seat that many. The Senior pastor moved on to another mega-church, which was uncommon partly because there weren’t that many by comparison then. They are now a church of 500 swallowed up in that building. If it weren’t for the wasted wealth of a few people there, they would never be able to hold on to it.
I have 2 concerns about the mega-church.
1. to often (not always) they are personality driven. (like my example above)
2. Pastors of churches of 250-500 are for to often constantly beat up about not getting there,because it has often become the goal. Sometimes he is doing it to himself. Sometimes it is elders that were selected because of their apparent leadership ability based on their cooperate experience.
LikeLike
In my own general observation, small church pastors have a tendency to be “worse” preachers than Pastors of churches greater than 500 attendance.
Your mileage may vary
LikeLike
Please understand, I am NO fan of the mega-church. I think I’d rather sleep in on Sunday than bother attending one, unless Phil Keaggy was leading worship, then I’d make an exception. However, I think we are equally mistaken to romanticize the small church or even the medium sized church. How many of us have given the small church a shot, then left after 90 minutes feeling just as hungry and worse…..no one even noticed us. Each local body has their own issues and their own personality, their own way of doing things.
LikeLike
If this has already been said, I apologize.
I’ve not been able to define why, but I agree with your opinion.
Why does a church need a coffee bar for the youth building? Because it’s stylish?
There is a company here which advertises that it can handle your church’s “NASA-like multimedia needs.”
There’s just something distasteful about it to me. It reminds me of a corporation, or a franchise. It seems too focused on the temporal.
This is not what keeps people in church, or influences unbelievers for Jesus.
LikeLike
I totally agree – i just wish more people thought like this! I think people are simply addicted to newer and bigger everything. But we need more people to think like this and work towards this. And coming from a pastor’s perspective, it feels like the wal-martization of churches – with the effect that the “normal” small to mid-sized church pastor can’t compete with the big-box.
LikeLike
For all the talk about ‘reproducing leadership/ making disciples’, I think the ugly, bald, naked fact is: this rarely happens. And when it does, it’s haphazard, unexpected, and we don’t know what to do with the result “Geeze, Tony/Mary…..maybe you could teach Sunday school or something….have you thought about kid’s ministry…”.
The priority for the ev. church is clearly and squarely on the sermon. And then somehow, we are supposed to ingest, pray, and pop out leaders. OK, a little caricature, but bottom line, IMO: Dallas Willard your phone is ringing……our discipleship train is just not getting there, and there are not christian ADULTS on it when it does…. and we have little idea where it went anyway (chances are: to another church…..and on and on)
My apologies if this comes across as a rant: I would love to be more upbeat about this.
GregR
LikeLike
There are two reasons for which I’m grateful that “mega-churches” exist:
1) After being badly hurt by an abusive church/religious group (and believe me, the number of people out there with this problem is huge), it is a good place to be anonymous and heal. No one is is in your face, being intrusively “friendly”, demanding a boundary-violating hug, plucking on your sleeve to do more service when you’ve been burnt out on that, already, etc. It’s a place to hear scripture, participate in worship, and be around other Christians without a lot of demands. There is a time and place for that. The alternative is staying home and rejecting Christianity altogether, which is a big tempation at that time, anyway. I thank God for some of these mega-churches, although I don’t attend one anymore, and do see their drawbacks. Please tell what church does not have its problems?
2) I have known several people who wanted to “check out” Christianity without being targeted or overwhelmed by personal attention. They attended a mega-church anonymously and came to Christ that way. These churches played a part in that. Did the new converts feel the need to go elsewhere, later? Many of them, yes. But they are grateful for the large churches that felt safe for them while they were searching.
I guess the point is that these churches have a part to play in the scheme of things, and the Lord does use them. Who are we to judge another’s servant? Thanks for reading.
LikeLike
I’ll preface everything I’m about to say by pointing out that I’m a church-planting pastor with a church of around 70 or so (the Richmond Hill Vineyard Church). Our first Sunday was March 21st of this year…we started with about 32 or so. I’m a huge proponent of the parish church model (best articulated by Eugene Petersen I think). I was the Associate Pastor (and co-planter) of the other Vineyard Church about 30 minutes from us. That was seven years ago and it still only averages around 120 every Sunday. We co-operate all the time; we feed the poor, seek out the homeless, do laundry and watch kids for the working poor and participate with about six other denominations in a soup kitchen here in Richmond Hill. So…the whole issue of cooperation is not nearly as bleak as it may seem, though I can understand the perception.
All that said, I agree with David Carlson. There is nothing inherently *wrong* with big churches. They are not the rule, and I don’t suspect that God intends them to be, but they are for the most part a good thing and not a bad thing. Granted, they are largely a function of the right demographic and leadership that lends itself to “ranching” and not “shepherding” (ranchers create shepherds). In terms of intimacy, they range from extremes of faceless anonymity to big churches that function and feel like smaller ones…the key there is home groups (or life groups, cell groups, growth groups or whatever you want to call them). That’s true for any church over 100 though; there is no way, in the context of a Sunday morning celebration, that everyone is going to get all the minitry he/she needs, especially when it requires extensive follow-up.
Big churches can do things that smaller ones can’t. They can start asking “why not” questions instead of “how”. They can reach more people in more places by planting and resourcing churches that stand a great chance of surviving (I mean real church plants with actual pastors, not new campuses). Plus, how do you avoid it? When do you shut the doors and tell people that they can’t come? If you’re planting churches and still growing, what are you supposed to do to stop it? Let’s not pretend that we’re all trying to return to the “true” first-century church, the ideal of Jesus that we’ve all abandoned in the interim. I think that the Church General is what God intended it to be: dynamic, alive and flexible. There is a mosaic of Christian belief, as Roger Olson would put it. I don’t think it’s supposed to look like any one thing. There’s good and bad in it all.
Big church doesn’t have to be Wal-mart church. I don’t know that I’ll ever have a church over 500. I’d rather plant churches and stay mid-sized, but I’m not going to quit in despair if God grows something bigger. Until then I’ll continue to emphasize home groups and develop other leaders so that we don’t become a bloated, self-centered whale.
LikeLike
I’m not sure I’d see them as better preachers. In fact, some of the worst drivel I’ve heard has come out of the mouths of some of the preachers with the biggest churches. Olsteen, Hagee, etc. come to mind. They may be the most high-profile, but that doesn’t equate to quality in preaching.
LikeLike
You may be onto something here. Whenever I have friends or family that are looking for a church, they tend to default to checking out large, non-denoms because they just don’t know what else is there. Some folks have a loyalty to a particular denomination, and this changes things, but for the most part, the people I know flounder from one large generic non-denom to another until they get fed up and go nowhere. I’ve made it a point to start inviting friends and acquaintance in that situation to our smallish Anglican church, but many are afraid of liturgy.
LikeLike
I have noticed in a few of the “larger” churches that I have attended that the congregational singing isn’t all that good, especially when there is a good band with great singers. It becomes more of a performance to me than people singing to glorify God.
LikeLike
Some churches don’t work together. Others do. I suspect that in the context of Evangelical Protestantism much of the problem is that independent congregations are a fundamental part of the model. In a denominational model (keeping in mind that SBC frequently insists that it isn’t a denomination) there are more underlying assumptions in common. Neighboring congregations within the denomination feel no need to eye each other suspiciously for doctrinal failings, so they can more easily get on with the task at hand.
I belong to a urban congregation (ELCA, if it matters). We have a door ministry, giving out sack lunches daily. We have monthly sessions putting the sack lunches together. There is a suburban congregation in the same denomination which also prepares sack lunches and brings them to my congregation for distribution. I don’t doubt that we could get more congregations to do the same, but our limiting factors are storage space and people to distribute the lunches. (A limiting factor is not, alas, those in need of food.) None of this seems to me remarkable. We are called to help feed the hungry, and none of us thinks that what particular congregation we belong to is relevant to this call.
This also crosses denominational lines. I would have no reservations about forming a similar alliance with a non-ELCA congregation. But having a synodical structure creates lines of communication, making such cooperation within the denomination easy.
LikeLike
Good questions. I’m sure examples exist where, at the peak of a superstar pastor’s career, he voluntarily resigns to serve in some humble, more-or-less anonymous capacity elsewhere. But offhand, I can’t think of any. It seems more common that the pastor rides that big wave until death, insuring a successor suitable to himself is being groomed and waiting in the wings. And of course there are the dynasties, where the transition is seamless because nepotism predetermines that the young son will unquestionably take the reins. Having said that, personal ego and nepotism is by no means limited to mega-churches, although the practice gets less notoriety in small stand-alone churches.
LikeLike
With big money comes big overhead costs, which requires more big money. Long-term, it’s unsustainable.
LikeLike
I can definitely see your 2nd paragraph leadership. If there’s no real relational discipleship being done, then there are no “leaders” being reproduced. And by reproduced, I mean people going from the cycle of not Christian, all the way to in charge of caring for others. And churches won’t plant other churches without having a home-grown leader to send with the plant. Seems weird to “hire” new staff just to send them to the plant.
Churches WILL however “hire” staff for the main campus, under the main pastor of course. There’s no problem if you’re not reproducing leadership, because you can just import some.
LikeLike
I think part of the problem with getting churches to work together is fear that the other church will try to steal members from yours, and lets face it – most people in any new church came from other churches. Most church “outreach” is actually designed to knick members form other churches. One thing I am sick and tired of is people trying to recruit me for their church AFTER I’ve told them where I go to church (meeting). It rates right up there with Christians evangelizing other Christians.
LikeLike
“What is the balance between giving people what they want and trying to guide them into more Christ-like patterns of life that cut against the grain?”
But many of these large churches are just trying to get the people started on that path. Just getting them in the door to be exposed to deeper lessons is an initial victory. From the large settings, they are directed to more relational communites as are found in such things as small groups.
The large Sunday gathering is not the goal, it is just the beginning- and many of these churches make that clear.
LikeLike
One of the better comments I’ve heard from the “large-church” perspective. Thanks, Ken.
LikeLike
Of course, the irony for me about Danielle’s statement is that my denomination IS supposedly organized this way. However, most of the churches in the diocese really don’t play well together. Sad…and incredibly disappointing to discover, but true.
There is currently talk of organizing our large, rural diocese around “deaneries”, or regional units to enhance communication and collaboration. It will be interesting to see if that will make any difference or not. My guess is not all that optimistic…
LikeLike
Oh yeah, and when the church plant wasn’t successful, it caused massive emotional disruption. There wasn’t any really bad scandal or abuse or something, just the “failure” to become big. Massive depression.
LikeLike
I have a questions about many “mega” churches: Since many of these churches still have their founding pastors, what will happen to the churches when the pastor leaves? How many churches are built around the personality of their pastor? Does the pastor have such an emotional and maybe “ego” attachment to the church that they started that they would not be open to a call to another church?
LikeLike
“but that is very difficult in American culture.”
Which is exactly why the church is supposed to be counter-culture.
Methinks that the “difficulties” with having a small church are self-inflicted.
LikeLike
I was part of a church plant and the understanding was that our goal was to become a mega-church. It wasn’t even a question. In fact, enough energy was devoted to thinking about methods that would be most successful, that we didn’t really devote much time to becoming deeply interested in each others’ lives, or the lives of the community around us…except in as far we/they were “assets” in the reaching of this goal.
Interestingly, there was never any stated reason WHY we wanted to become mega- . It was just understood. And I can say with at least some conviction that the underlying reason for it was indeed that the pastor wanted to become successful and famous. We probably all did- want to be known as a “successful” church. It really makes me want to throw up thinking about it.
Nate
LikeLike
not arguing it’s right – just arguing why.
Although my argument about quality of preaching has nothing to do with style, and everything to do with quality. Bigger churches (over 500 by your definition in this blog post) have better preachers. More education, more experience, better professional skills at preaching
Of course, being a better preacher has very little to do with being a better pastor…..
LikeLike
“Now, if I could only find a church building that would be willing to let us use some space as we grow…”
Lee inadvertently explained the fundamental problem with small churches. It isn’t theological or relational. In the United States, the cost and difficulty of finding space that meets building codes is extremely challenging. It only works when able to use an older church building that a previous generation paid to build, but even then maintainance costs are horrendous. Some people try churches in homes/apartments, but that is very difficult in American culture.
It is a cycle, you need a strong leader and staff to attract the crowd to pay for the building to pay for the strong leader and staff to pay for the building to pay for the strong leader and staff……
LikeLike
While I can agree that mega-churches have potential problems I have to take issue with the idea that mega-churches exist to make their pastor’s famous. I think that’s the availability heuristic in action. We are most familiar with these examples because they are noteworthy, so we assume they are the norm, but if they were the norm they wouldn’t be noteworthy. Consider that any in the US any region with a population over 30,000 or so will likely have at least one church that could qualify as a mega-church. There are thousands of such places.
I’ve attended at some point 3 different mega-churches (>1500 people, near 3000 for one even after a church plant). None of the pastors at any of those 3 churches had ever published a book or hosted a conference and the services were not televised. They were excellent preachers however and that’s something I miss greatly where I’m at now. The one I attended the longest was aware of how important their teaching pastor was and they also realized that this wasn’t entirely a good thing. They did plant one church that seemed to be doing quite well with it’s own teaching pastor. The teaching was not remotely law-centered, prosperity oriented (they were quite strongly anti-prosperity theology) or money-centered. If I still lived in that area I’d still be there without any reservations. It had issues of course, but every church does. Of all the churches I’ve attended I’d say it was the least Churchianity oriented.
I am somewhat looking for a smaller church where I’m at now, but the preaching where I’ve been attending for a while is frequently painfully bad. Frankly the main reason we are there is that our 5-year old loves it – and the children’s message is actually quite good. It’s quite noteworthy when the “adult” sermon beats the children’s message.
I just think there are good and bad churches, size does not make either outcome more likely. In the case I am most familiar with, it was clearly a very good church that had grown because of that and was cognizant of the positives and negatives of that. Furthermore some people prefer large churches for very valid reasons. david carlsons note above about cliques not killing you is actually very relevant. Large churches usually have more diversity than small ones and have more places for oddballs to fit in. In some ways I feel that I have grown in self-confidence enough the be comfortable being an odd-ball in a smaller church, but it is still a slight drain on me and I’m certain many others would have difficulties.
LikeLike
The churches in my area, northern Illinois, work together, AND, across denominational lines. They all support soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and other ministries to the needy in our area. Protestants even support one of the local Catholic charities. So, it is done.
LikeLike
I like the “tithe” idea, Lee.
LikeLike
David, I don’t doubt people like them more. And I am fully aware of the problems of smaller churches, having served in them for decades. And I will admit that my rant is obviously idealistic and that I’m talking about this on a theoretical level. But I think the reasons you gave actually make my point stronger, because they do not represent the ethos of NT Christianity.
1. Better preaching. Yeah, larger churches have “better” everything on stage. In fact, what you see on stage is polished, professional, and . . . it doesn’t look anything like the real constituency of the church. Only go to large churches, and one gets the idea from looking at those on the stage that the goal of the Christian life is to be beautiful and talented. And to have a celebrity preacher we can brag about to others.
2. Bigger churches do more. But do they actually accomplish more in terms of delivering true spiritual formation, practicing pastoral care, and building genuine community, practicing genuine worship, and teaching people to live among their neighbors rather than organizing their lives around the activity center that is the church?
3. Most people like being anonymous. They may like it, but is this Christianity?
4. Cliques don’t kill you in a big church. True. And big churches give you the opportunity to avoid difficult relationships. So now we can build cliques that don’t kill us? I’m not sure that’s the goal.
5. People like big churches. I’ve struggled with this my entire ministry, and I still don’t have answers. What is the balance between giving people what they want and trying to guide them into more Christ-like patterns of life that cut against the grain?
LikeLike
The drawback to the megachurch is usually said to be lack of community, but I found this to only be true for those who weren’t actively serving in ministry. I attended a large church for six months before beginning to serve in youth and college ministry, and it was then that I made connections with people that were beyond casual.
The same is true whether you’re in a church of 100 or 10,000…if you don’t actively involve yourself, you’ll always feel as though there’s a lack of community in the church you’re in. If you stay on the outside, you’ll feel like an outsider.
As a pastor who has worked at a larger (2000 members) church, and is in the beginning stages of a church plant, I’m hoping to build a neighborhood church…the church I grew up in was the center of a rural community, hosting literally every event, sacred or secular, that was held. Maybe I’m getting older, but I’ve grown to long for a church where people know each other, where the pastor is accessible, and relationships can flourish. While there is a greater pooling of resources in large churches, and increased opportunity for bigger projects, there is something about the smaller church that captures individual hearts. In the plan myself and a very small group have put together, we desire to “tithe” the people in our congregation. Once we hit fifty people, we should be training at least five to start small movements themselves, in their own communities. It’s an optimistic dream, for sure, but if you can build communities that have common roots and cause, then church cooperation is possible.
Now, if I could only find a church building that would be willing to let us use some space as we grow…
LikeLike
I understand what you mean by this, but in my experience, I’ve almost found it to be the opposite. My wife and I were members of a large church in town for a number of years – It wasn’t officially a “mega-church” because attendance maxed out probably around 800 or so. But I found it was very hard to get to know anyone. There were definite cliques, and it seemed very difficult to break into any of them. I had a few people I would consider friends there. I played on the worship team, so they were fellow musicians.
Anyway, we now attend a much smaller church – we probably have about 200 attend on a Sunday at max. Our experience there has been much better. We have many more friends, even after being there for a short time. It does take more investment on our part, but I think there’s greater return, too.
I guess my point is, I don’t know if people actually like bigger churches better. I just think they kind of become the default for people. They go there because they don’t know where else to go. It’s kind of like the Wal-Mart phenomenon. Almost anyone you talk to about Wal-Mart will tell how much they hate going because of the lines or whatnot. But yet everyone still goes there now and then.
LikeLike
Isaac has made the main point. Statistical outliers are so large, all the numbers are skewed.
There are a handful of mega-mega churches led by strong charismatic personalities. There are a limited number because the right mix of charisma, leadership, timing, and money is very rare. Very few people have the right mix of charisma and leadership to develop the show based churches.
In my area of the Southern United States, the problem is different. There are a large number of churches in the 1000-3000 range that are able to put on a show, but have enough competition that none of them develop into the mega-mega churches.
LikeLike
I’m a big fan of the small church. It’s closer to being the family, or brother/sisterhood of God. You know everyone. Or at least you recognize that they go to your church.
Once, I was in Memphis and I overheard a conversation between two couples who were telling of their religious life. One man named his church (the local megachurch) and the other couple reacted with a pleasing “That’s our church too!” It was more like, “We’re from Ohio too!” They had no idea that they were members of the same congregation.
Churches do not need there own bookstores, food courts, ball fields, graphic design service departments, etc. If you have to take a bus from your parking spot to the church entrance, chances are it’s too big.
LikeLike
A couple years ago, Mike Bell did a post or two on this site relating to demographics in American and Canadian churches. If I remember right, the “average” church was around 100 people, but the “average” churchgoer was in a church of over 1,000. “Average,” of course, being a statistically irrelevant term that I’m using because I don’t have the article in front of me. Mike Bell’s piece actually did the statistics right with the various stats regarding mean, median, and mode for the various figures and categories.
But the point is that the huge churches (outliers in statistical terms) are SO huge that they skew all the numbers. The difference between the top <5% of churches in terms of membership and the next 5% is astounding.
LikeLike
“Simplify.” What a concept.
LikeLike
I’m in favor of that, in general. Though every time I mention something like this, my father (a very wise man) says something to the effect of, “Just remember that there needs to be more than just numbers issues in a church plant. You need leaders with callings, etc.” I think he’s right, though I suspect that you’d see more callings if there was more of a church plant mentality.
I heard an interesting statistic from at a church planting conference a couple years back. No matter what size a given congregation is, when asked what the ideal membership should be before a church plant, they give a number approximately 20% bigger than what they are. E.g. to a 5000 member church, they tend to think they shouldn’t plant until they reach 6000. That’s funny to me.
My denomination (Anglican Church in North America) currently has a real focus on church planting. In the last year or so our 800-some churches have planted almost 200 more. That’s neat. I know my pastor has a vision for planting one church in each of the surrounding towns (about half a dozen in total). But I’m not sure if there’s more than a general goal at this point.
LikeLike
Ok, CM was “below” when I started typing my comment…. 🙂
LikeLike
Big (~3,000) church I went to in college was trying to create “sister” churches in parts of town that didn’t have as good a witness as a way to moderate their growth. They got one going, but the pieces for a second didn’t fall into place.
I often wonder if part of the reason churches end up mega is that leadership doesn’t expect or doesn’t know what to do with growth. You’re at 200 attenders, and then all of a sudden you’re at 700 and you’re just sticking with the status quo.
That’s really my beef with the Evangelical American church in America right now: They don’t stop and think through why they do things (regardless of whether or not “there’s a buck behind it”). And that’s why I’ve loved my sporadic attendance at an Episcopal church over the past year: You can tell there is a reason for every part of the service. I’ve also thought of going back to a parish system too though. That seems like a good idea (if people could get over themselves and their preference for a particular color of carpet).
LikeLike
I think we need to be careful here. “Romanticizing” either the big or the small church is a common reaction that in many circles. We used to attend a small UMC that had, maybe, 250 members with an average Sunday attendance of closer to 100 adults. In that case 20 people did most all the work. I was the Director of Christian Ed, as a volunteer, and spent 80% of my time getting that 20% to volunteer.
Currently I am part of a four person paid CM staff at a church which averages a Sunday attendance of about 800 adults….and we spend 80% of our time getting 150 people to volunteer.
I grew up in the 1970s in a small town with a church on every corner. We had an ecumenical Easter Sunrise service that got cancelled due to weather about 50 % of the time and, I believe, their was a “Ministerial Association”, although outside of a monthly lunch meeting, I can not tell you what they did.
Chaplain Mike nails it below: Program Mentality, in my experience, can never really get a death grip on a smaller church. And don’t come to smaller churches for “programming for the whole family” anyway.
LikeLike
Oh, yes. Absolutely. The program thing is bad, bad, bad!
LikeLike
How sad. I’ve seen our local SBC and non-SBC churches do VBS together, prayerwalk their towns together, feed the men of our local mission for six months after a fire destroyed the mission’s kitchen, start churches, support church plants, pray for one another, help build new buildings and do renovations together, and much more. You have made me grateful for something I took for granted. Thank you!
LikeLike
In Maine, there has been a lot of reorganization within the diocese of the Catholic Church of Maine, due to the number of parishioners decreasing. So some buildings were closed or sold off and the bishop assigned one priest to cover a number of parishes that were formerly separate. He said these parishes should consider themselves to now be “one” even though they had their separate buildings to worship in. I found it interesting that in one town, there was concern among the parishioners because they had felt like a “team” with the non-Catholic churches in their little town and they were afraid that would be taken away from them in the effort to “make” them be a part of the other parishes that were formerly not a part of them. I think they were allowed to continue as they were, but also were asked to make an effort to be a part of an ever bigger “team” but I am not sure. So, this was one case where a number of churches were working together and they were not even of the same denomination.
LikeLike
why? lots of reasons
1. Better preaching.
2. Bigger churches do more – You can argue that small churches can band together to accomplish more, yet they don’t.
3. Most people like being anonomous.
4. Cliques don’t kill you in a big church – there are enough people you can find your own people you like to hang with..
5. Fill in the blank. Fact is, people like big churches. You may not agree with my reasons, you may not “get it”, but the fact is they do. They like them better than small churches.
LikeLike
http://www.amazon.com/Magnify-Your-Vision-Small-Church/dp/0966885309 is the link for it.
LikeLike
Have you read John Rowell’s “Magnify Your Vision for the Small Church”? Their vision is church planting, which they accomplished both in Atlanta and Bosnia. If I recall correctly he likens big churches to tumors — where the natural form of growth is mutated into something dangerous.
LikeLike
Are you referring to McLean Bible Church in the Northern Virginia area? Or is there a McClain Bible Church on the East Coast that I’m not aware of? I ask because I actually went to McLean a couple times a few years back.
Also, the megachurches=denomination analogy makes me ask: does that make the heads of those megachurches the popes of their respective “denominations”? That’s a scary thought. Protestants and Catholics might disagree on having one pope, but I think we can all agree that we don’t need a bunch of little popes running around.
LikeLike
“I don’t see why we need big churches.”
I don’t think many see it as a “need”, just a reality. People attend big churches for various reasons: they like the preaching/music, they like being with a lot of people, and they think “big” equals success. Now, if people are coming to Christ because of one of those initial reasons, is that a bad thing? Is “big” good if it helps bring certain people to the faith?
Even big churches that still plant, or go multi-site, still experience growth in the original church. So to stop having big churches, you are going to have to find a certain cut-off number, and then will have to tell all those new people that still want to attend that they are not welcomed.
LikeLike
I’m with you, +Alan. And I’ll take my hammer to schools, where the same pernicious elephantiasis is at work.
LikeLike
Your comment gives me hope, Joe.
LikeLike
We’ve got to learn to work smarter, not harder. One problem in churches big and small is a program mentality and the idea that we have to be a “full-service” church with activities going on all the time. It can easily turn into “churchianity” that will burn people out.
I say worship, care for one another, and equip people to live out their vocations in the world. Simplify. Church should be the antithesis of busyness.
LikeLike
As you pointed out, a megachurch with a lot of campuses is functionally a denomination. Mars Hill has been there for years, though they don’t like to think of themselves as a denomination (perhaps because there are plenty of Reformed Baptist denominations already?). But the reason a megachurch ISN’T a denomination is often because the lead preacher (whether it’s Driscoll or Osteen or whomever) does the lion’s share of the preaching and teaching on Sunday. Driscoll used to be a “no more than 200” kind of pastor back around 2001 or 2002 and then, obviously, at some point changed his mind.
A lot of megachurch pastors are functionally denominational figureheads without the formal apparatus. The advantage (I think) they feel this has is that their churches are less likely to become stultified institutions. The disadvantage is that these are often personality driven churches that won’t necessarily survive the death of the lead pastor or effectively pull off a passing of the torch in leadership. I would agree that today’s megachurches ARE positioned to take the role of denominations over the next twenty years. I think that is why so many Baptists have not taken a shine to Driscoll. They don’t want the future of Reformed Baptist thought to go the way of Driscoll, something Michael used to write about here and there. For my part, that megachurches are slated to become denominations became a reason to investigate, well, denominations. Michael also wrote about how some of the failures in evangelicalism could be a sign that people could plug back into more traditional denominations if the denoms prove up for it.
LikeLike
Right on, Chaplain Mike. I will never understand people who drive past several dozen fine, small, neighborhood churches to get to a megachurch on the interstate. What can some church 20 miles away do for people in MY neighborhood and community. Megachurches and satellite churches are about making empires, not disciples.
There’s something very wrong with churches in America today, and I think it transcends many of these questions about doctrine, politics, and how we “do” church. I think something’s wrong with our hearts.
LikeLike
The homeless shelters run by multiple religious community thing is common in the Chicago suburbs. It works such that every religious institution interested takes one night a week, staffs with volunteers, opens their doors to the homeless with cots and dinner, packs lunches supervises and performs other services (referring to mental health care facilities etc) to the population that shows up. I say religious institution because its open to all and I know of at least 2 synagogues that participate. Don’t know if any mosques or temples do.
LikeLike
Amen! Have been part of the same small church for my whole ministry ‘career’ and it is more than my community, it’s my family. And our pastor a true shepherd of his flock, not just the preacher. And our worship, though maybe not as awe-inspiring as thousands would be, has it’s own kind of gloriousness of the intimacy of family worshiping together.
Keep praying for the churches to work together over denominational lines – I’ve been a part of little things a few times, so I know it’s possible, but I’ve been working towards co-operation on a bigger level for years and have been met with a lot of resistance, mostly due to the competitive nature of the churches in our area. sSometimes I wonder if I’m in ministry or the marketplace.
LikeLike
I agree. No hope of being on the same page as particular doctrine, more of an attitude. I just changed churches after a prolonged period of thought and prayer. It was (to the first church) about the same as a member of an orthodox Jewish family leaving to join Al-Qaeda . . . or worse.
LikeLike
aaahhhh any “big church” like a mega church is more ofetn than not tickling ears and asking credit card details
LikeLike
I am thankful my elders have this philosophy:
– Get to 300 people and then plant a church.
LikeLike
Before I read any other comments, I’ll just say, I’m with you on this. I’d go farther, though, and probably just say it is a bad thing to have really big churches, and there are a lot of reasons for that. I’m even a part of one, and I still think that. I don’t think I have the energy to get all into it. I’ve talked about it a good bit in the past – not in a while. But yeah, break ’em up into 150 people chunks, I say. Where’s my hammer?
LikeLike
Big churches are all about ‘law’ (what you should, must, and ought be doing).
The law works (temporarily).
People want something that works.
Christ bids us to come and die.
“Gee whiz…I think I’ll take the religious ‘me’ project instead.”
LikeLike
I agree that megachurches can be a great place to go get lost in a crowd and not have to live in Christian community.
But, man!, I go to a church with about 300 attendees every week–not small, right?–but that means 50 to 100 people do all the work, but there seems to be so much work to do: ushering, greeting, being on committees (or even better “teams”), teaching classes, going to Wednesday night dinners and Bible studies, making flyers, working on the web site, serving on tech teams, making powerpoints, going to classes, going to men’s or women’s club meetings, sponsoring people on spiritual retreats–and now and then, believe it or not, we even visit the sick (I do this far less than I should). And this is in addition to having full time jobs.
So it seems that we either grow to 500 so we can have a few more hands, or we get smarter and do less as a church, or what?
LikeLike
Hmm. Generally, i have seen this to be true. I was part of a church plant that had multiple “partner” churches turn on us, and it was a demoralizing experience.
On the other hand, more than 30 churches in my suburb came together this summer and preached the same messages every sunday (largely on the nuts and bolts of being a good neighbor), worked together, joined ministries, and neighborhood block parties. It crossed denominational lines, and it got noticed.
Not really by the press, though i saw a little, but by random people in the community that I bumped into.
Churches can work together. Do church CEOs want to?
LikeLike
The church where my wife and I served as missionaries in Japan was set up this way.
LikeLike
Just to riff off something said above,
Might megachurches just not be taken far enough? Instead of a megachurch having 100,000 members, maybe it needs to have more like 100,000,000 members. After all, at the rate that some denominations are shrinking and some megachurches are growing, I don’t doubt that pretty soon there will be megachurches larger than many denominations.
Joel Osteen reaches more people every week than the entire LCMS if you count the people who download his sermons online. That might be a scary thought, but it points toward what might happen fairly soon in a much more general manner.
For example, Mars Hill (I’ve never been at one) might grow to 1,000,000 within the next twenty years. McClain Bible Church (just to hit the opposite coast) is another that has hit the 100,000 mark and growing rapidly.
Might the megachurches of today be taking the place of denominations tomorrow? How is a megachurch with a couple thousand “satellite campuses” spread around the world really all that different than a denomination? Unified leadership structure? Check. Unified doctrine? Check. Unified practice? Check. Unified name? Check. Working together? Check.
LikeLike
Interesting to think that one of the possible contributors to the success of the megachurch is turf wars amongst smaller congregations. Even if they do not work together much at least it would be nice if they sought to compliment each other (much like each member of a local body of Christ). Small town squares used to have several shops each offering valuable goods to the community. You would visit the butcher, the hardware store, etc. They worked separately but together to form a viable community. You got to know people who worked there and the few customers that may come the same time as you each week. Unfortunately, Supercenters come in and offer “one stop shopping”, all for a bigger bang for your buck. They “meet your needs” but something very communal and authentic is lost.
LikeLike
That is indeed a significant advantage of having presiding bishop-like structures overseeing and helping churches work together. Obviously that would require all the churches to agree to a single authority and a single set of doctrine. Not likely, but we can dream, like Chaplain Mike said.
There are signifcant drawbacks too, though, so I can’t say that a single, overarching bishop structure is the be-all-end-all solution, but it certainly does have its advantages.
Oh for the day when there is no more division or separation among God’s people!
LikeLike
Yes, that’s a great dream… and one we can pray together for. I actually have faith it is possible. Nothing really needs to change at the top levels of church hierarchy… we don’t need a merging of church doctrines, creeds, and traditions. All that is needed is for believers to recognize what/who the church really is… and recognize we are one body with one Lord. The discussions around doctrine, creeds, and traditions can make some good family discussions at some later point when we are mature enough to discuss with love and respect.
So yes, keep dreaming, keep praying, and looking for the unity that already exists.
LikeLike
After attending a megachurch for a very short time I have to agree with you. The biggest reason we left is because it wasn’t a congregation in which you knew anyone outside of the few in your small group or ever met any of the 100’s on their pastoral staff. I remember thinking how contrary all this was to Jesus’ way of personal dealings with people in simple encounters instead of what we were experiencing which was very unpersonal and extravagant. Before I had been open minded to the idea of mega churches now I know that I have no desire to ever plant or form one on the mission field.
LikeLike
Sounds like a good idea to me
LikeLike
My opinion would lean this way as well.
LikeLike
What a concept. Against the grain of all the entrepreneurs out there. Thanks, Danielle.
LikeLike
Arguably, everything you just wrote presents a pretty strong argument against churches run primarily from a local level. If everyone is organized under a bishop, perhaps it becomes more possible to imagine coordination behind common goals.
LikeLike
Right there with you, JMJ.
LikeLike
Webmonk, you speak the sad truth. One can dream in a rant, though, can’t he?
On the other hand, you might want to check out our post from a few weeks ago and the links contained therein: https://internetmonk.com/archive/it-is-happening
LikeLike
Maybe churches are too small. Maybe what we need is one huge, mega-mega-mega-mega church called The Church. Now wouldn’t that be nice. All brothers and sisters on the same page. Some getting together in clusters of five at a coffee shop, some in groups off five hundred. None of them seeing each other as the enemy or competition. One can only dream.
LikeLike
I meant to phrase this as a question, not a statement of fact. As a statement, it’s an opinion – my opinion, and perhaps others’ as well.
LikeLike
You silly person you. You talk about four churches of 250 working together and coordinating to accomplish what a church of 1000 can do.
Good luck with that. Good luck getting two churches to seriously work together.
The most I’ve ever seen is a shared Christmas play, and even that one was primarily by one church with a few people from other churches joining in.
Occasionally there will be a community Thanksgiving/Christmas/Easter service, but I consider that to be less coordination and working together than putting on a Christmas program.
I’ve heard of things like soup kitchens and homeless shelters which are supported and run by multiple churches, but I’ve never actually seen one.
At best churches will coordinate where they send their money together. I’ve never seen multiple churches working together – never. I’m sure it has happened, but I’ve never seen it, and I’ve been in a lot of churches as I’ve moved around, and I’ve worked with several different mission/religious charity groups.
And yes, I have been a part of the SBC at a couple different parts of my life, and I’ve seen them send their money to support missionaries and the larger denomination will run lots of missionaries, but I’ve never seen two SBC churches working together, even in the one time I was living in the midst of three smallish towns (<10,000 total) within two miles of each other and having four SBC churches – they never so much as acknowledged the others existed except when they bad-mouthed them.
Churches don't work together, so that right there is a great reason for larger churches.
LikeLike
Actually, the old parish system as I understand it involved a regional cathedral, where the bishop resided, and then a number of local parish congregations. The regular ministry was done in the local churches by parish priests. Special occasions were celebrated at the cathedral. Not a bad system. The “megachurch” cathedral had a defined purpose—to give oversight and serve as a resource for the smaller churches and to be a place for large gatherings.
LikeLike
An irony in my ecclesial tastes is that my least favorite churches are mega-churches while my favorite ones are Gothic Cathedrals. But weren’t the Cathedrals just the medieval version of mega-churches?
At any rate, I’ve done the house church thing and don’t really like it. It’s too easy to become overly insular. I think somewhere between 150 and 500 is a good size for the part of Texas I live in. And I think church planting should be the norm instead of building bigger buildings.
LikeLike
If the members aren’t interacting with each other and the Scriptures a la 1 Corinthians 11-14 and Ephesians 5:18-21 and Colossians 3:16, it’s not a church meeting/service. It may be a performance, it may be a lecture, it may a time of worship, or it may be something else, but it’s not a meeting of the Body of Christ as the Body of Christ. 🙂
YMMV, of course.
The picture looks to me like a conference, not a congregation.
LikeLike
It’s like the ol’ preacher said, “When it don’t make sense, there’s a buck behind it.”
LikeLike
Big churches make big money. What better way to prove the prosperity doctrine. How can a prosperity minister preach his or her doctrine if they haven’t prospered? Big churches let them do just that.
LikeLike
We had the meeting in the pastor’s home.
LikeLike
Interesting. As I was coming home from a church meeting last Friday, I was thinking the same thing. I was told by the pastor, formerly of a large church, that the group of 4 was usually double that size.
LikeLike
House churches, for the win!
I’m working on establishing a new monastic community in Kansas City. To each his or her own, but I really think that small community worship is the way to go.
LikeLike