![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Mega-Churches & Mystery
I had another bit from Jordan Stratford’s interview that I thought I’d open up into it’s own discussion. Jordan in this passage is talking about how the fire of the Spirit has gone out of modern Protestantism, and goes into a bit about mega-churches:
There is no deeply resonant myth in guitar masses, big screen tv’s, mega-church mega-missions, or applied pop-psychology. […] Only those traditions which are sombre, iconic, and dimly lit create space for Hermetic reflection and illumination. Glossalalia, interpretive dance masses and Kumbaya are just embarrassing for everybody. And if your congregation is larger than your high-school grad class, flee.
I guess I have a few questions about this. If there’s no deeply resonant myth or mystery in the mega-churches, then why are they so freaking popular? Maybe it’s a kind of myth and mystery we just don’t recognize or understand? Why does religion necessarily need to be “somber, iconic and dimly lit” in order for it to be effective? What biases lead to such a supposition, and are they biases that other people share? What is religious mystery? And can mega-churches partake of this mystery?
- Church unleashes cell-phone jamming technology
- Syncretic notes
- The Mystery of the Accidentally Published Blog
- Starbucks Megachurches!
- Mystery Animal in Baltimore County
- Prev: Tuning the Brain Radio
- Next: Telling You What To Do
August 25th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
i think the problem is that overall, gnosticism holds that the ‘mystery’ cannot be revealed, only experienced. a religious mystery is a religious experience that cannot be transmitted from person to person– it must be “had.” these megachurches, on the other hand, don’t transmit any kind of ‘mystery,’ they serve to explain it all to you and for you so you don’t have to worry about it.
certain atmospheres work to instill this sense of ‘mystery’ in people, and have since we came out of caves. darkness, or dim lights, mysterious candles, rituals are there for a reason: they work. they’ve worked for a loooooong time. religion doesn’t *need* to be “somber, iconic and dimly lit,” but it should at least (imho) establish a different “space” that’s symbolically apart from everyday life. a mountaintop shrine, a basement chapel, etc.
think of it this way– without trying to rationalize it, which appeals more to one’s spiritual side, a dark grotto with a cool and mysterious looking black statue of a woman nursing a child, surmounted by candles and filled with the sound of rhythmic chanting, or a giant warehouse packed full of people and lit with flourescent lighting? having experienced both, i’d say door “A.” there are spiritual trappings that raise the soul, and have for a long, long time. maybe it’s because our brains are programmed to find comfort in womb-like places or on top of mountains, or maybe it’s nothing at all.
as to why they’re so popular, my guess is that it has a lot to do with their convenience and the “bigness” that makes them sort of self-perpetuating, like avalanches. plus, a looooot of it is, in my experience, far more political than religious. ‘oh, you’re a conservative/republican? come on down to our church! we’ve all read “Left Behind!”
August 25th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Says who? Maybe these people are really experiencing something. Who am I to judge their experience? From the outside, it probably seems to people that gnosticism is nothing but explanations, you know?
Why can’t their popularity be explained by effectiveness? Or that it simply works for these people?
August 25th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
They are effective, emotionally very effective. And being in a large group of people allows people to simultaneously feel like they’re a part of something big, a movement even (this in particular is amped when the political bent and the religious perspective dovetail as they do in the stereotypical Benny Hinn type megachurch, especially when the two things together DO seem to be a growing movement); the other thing is that in large groups, if ya have the right flash and glimmer, the right preacher who knows how to push the right emotional triggers, it becomes very very easy to just give yourself up to the mass. And as part of a mass group you have the freedom to emote and feel with abandon (although it can often be abandon of only a certain flavor) in a way you can’t do at the office or on the street or even at home, plus you have the safety and anonymity of the big crowd. The shit is very effective in creating those big feelings–just look at huge stadium rock shows or the Republican and Democratic National Conventions or any large enough pep rally. It gives people something they need–a feeling of unity and huge permission to cathart. Personally, I tend to be on guard about this kind of mass catharting thing because it’s too easy for it to be manipulated to whatever ends the ringmasters or cheerleaders want. People are highly suggestible in these scenarios.
But I don’t deny their power or that they can be benign or even beneficial for people at different phases of their lives. However, I also feel one should not get too comfortable vibing on the crowd without stepping away to see where the crowd is going and how good it will be for you in the long run.
August 25th, 2005 at 10:15 pm
Megachurches have always seemed very psychicly oriented to me. The feeling I get from going to a mass is far, far different from the feeling I get when I go to a service at a megachurch.
It’s very easy to get emotionally wound up at a megachurch service, and they’re very, very entertaining. Flashy lights, loud music, loud preaching, they’re a nice way to kill an hour or two, I suppose.
The mass, on the other hand, with the candle light, the icons, the incense, the vestments, and the liturgy, is a place for connecting with the spiritual.