![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
What’s Wrong With Megachurches?
I know I’ve spent a great deal of energy being very contrarian over the years. And I’ve always clung to that as being a worthwhile valid way to think. But more an more, I’m seeing the futility of hanging onto it. Sometimes it’s very useful and powerful as a mental tool, but a lot of times I also just end up spinning my wheels when I could be having meaningful conversations where everybody gains something new.
Toward that end, I’d like to formally open a topic that everybody seems to have an opinion on - even people who really technically shouldn’t at all (ie, non-Christians). That topic is megachurches. It seems like people almost universally see them as evil. Or at least the people who I talk to. So then who is it who is going to these things, supporting them and making them so popular? And why do they remain? What need do they fulfill? In the comments to an earlier post, Jeremy puts it all on the table:
i guess i’m starting to realize that a lot of the arguments against megachurches are pretty empty, especially since nobody here has ever *been* to one. it’s like, everyone’s saying stuff like ‘they’re too commercial,’ or, ‘they’re too impersonal,’ but what does that really *mean*? *how* are they too commercial, and if they are, why is that a problem? *how* are they too impersonal? are they too big? why can’t someone have a valid spiritual experience in a big crowd of fellow believers? are we requiring people to interact one-on-one with clergy now?
can anyone articulate an anti-megachurch argument that leads somewhere instead of just rehashing tired old anti-fundie cliches? and, more importantly, is there any good reason to do so, when none of us even attend megachurches? why are they such a big deal?
So let’s sit down and hash this out, without resorting to cliches, mindless attacks or classic fallback arguments. If megachurches are so bad, why are they? Are they bad for you, or just bad? If they’re bad for you, how do you know? Have you ever been to one?
- Starbucks Megachurches!
- What’s The Difference?
- Similarity in words
- Is Gnosticism Corruptible?
- What’s cooking?
- Prev: Omniglot!
- Next: The Map is Not the Territory! Or Is It?
December 9th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
You know, if people almost universally see megachurches as evil, then asking what’s wrong with them could be seen as a contrarian question.
Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing!
December 9th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Uh oh, I’ve been found out! I guess I’m trying to be contrarian in a way that’s less negative is what I meant.
December 9th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
“Leela, there’s nothing wrong with anything.”
Okay, so most of my comments are merely Futurama quotes. Crucify me! Truth be told, I actually love some of the mega-churches, over in Great Britain anyway. The atmosphere is truly palpable in those places, and you can get an almost magical/mythical high if you’re receptive. They also feel more real, for some reason. Like those people who attend ‘em actually believe in what their preaching. Or maybe it’s just the history and architecture of these churches that impresses me so much. At any rate, even if I lived over there I doubt I’d become a part of the congregation.
December 9th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
I don’t think I’m in a position to judge whether they are good or bad, since a) I am not a Christian, and b) I’ve never been to one. It may just fall back to the idea brought up by the “Is Science-Fiction Occult?” thread — that materialism distracts from the spiritual path that, ostensibly, the religion of Christ is intended to promote.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
I agree that this is a common underlying assumption. But it may just be that: an assumption. I’d like to explore and maybe explode these assumptions. Can anybody come up with either a good explanation as to exactly how materialism distracts from spirituality? If you decide to take on that challenge, also please play Devil’s Advocate and come up with reasons why materialism might actually promote spirituality.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
I was just checking out a church called the Greater St. Stephan Church (http://www.greaterststephenfgbc.org/) which is listed by Wikipedia as megachurch in New Orleans. As my wife is From NOLA, I’ll be there over Christmas. I may get a chance to check it out, but my goal is to hang with the Bishop of the LCC there.
If I get to GSS, I’ll post a report on my Blog.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
This goes back to the basis of what you view spirituality to be. If you view spirituality (and more importantly, YOUR spirituality) to be something extending beyond the reaches of material things (ie your body), to perhaps be something of another dimension or another reality, then materialism will only draw you away from that.
If you view spirituality to be just a greater understanding, an understanding that goes beyond or transcends science and rational thought, then perhaps materialism isn’t so bad. What I mean by this, if you view the soul or consciousness to be a form of energy, and understand the integral relationship matter (materialism) and energy (spirituality/conscious awareness) share, then materialism only becomes evil if one neglects the other side of the relationship, the energy.
Personally, the problem I find with mega churches and materialism (and most ‘isms for that matter), is that people get too caught up in them, viewing them as an end all. It’s like saying that a linear line is the most basic and fundamental geometric figure in existence, and thus everything can be solved through linear understanding. If one sees things that way, no wonder they have problems with infinity. For me, there is more to understanding than linear models. A linear model would have one hell of a time rationalizing a circle, because it has an infinite number or tangental lines (and thus infinite points), and at the same time, it has one or no lines.
So, in sum, your view on materialism depends greatly on your view or understanding of spirituality.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
So, in sum, your view on materialism depends greatly on your view or understanding of spirituality.
Well yeah, I think that’s pretty much a given, isn’t it?
December 9th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
how so? can’t one view spirituality as something extending beyond the reaches of material things without being ‘drawn away’ from the spiritual by the material? can’t one, in fact, transcend the material to the point that it no longer has an effect, or has a positive effect, on one’s spiritual progress? and, who are we to determine whether someone’s spirituality is “too” materialistic?
but, some people also get too caught up in the ethereal, intellectual, immaterial side of spirituality and tend to think of themselves as superior to people who, say, attend megachurches. you could level the same argument against any religion or philosophy (or, for that matter, choice of soft drink). why does this criticism, then, apply to megachurches and not to, say, occultism?
and, which “people” are the ones who see them as an end-all? is this really an honest assessment of everyone who attends mega-churches, or even the majority of attendees? that’s a pretty broad brush-stroke, there. i’d prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt instead of declaring those who attend megachurches “too caught up” in this, that or the other thing.
December 9th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
I don’t think megachurches are necessarily “bad” intrinsically. It’s just that the situation so often seems to turn out that way (and I have been to a number of them).
Because they’re so huge, they seem often to appeal—of necessity—to the least common denominator in their midst. As a result, there is rarely anything “cutting edge” about their homogeneous message, nor can they often allow for much “fresh air” from the outside—the novelty of which might offend their monolithic base.
So there’s nothing really “wrong” with megachurches per se, I just learned not to expect too much from them.
December 9th, 2005 at 6:37 pm
People often level this criticism at various things. But I see it as a positive. It’s not the “lowest common denominator” so much as it is the core things which we all share with one another.
Why does everything (or anything) need to be cutting edge?
Why do you need fresh air from the outside if you don’t see there being anything wrong on the inside?
December 9th, 2005 at 6:55 pm
I’ve actually been in one of these things, and find them a little bit frightening. Something about the electric guitars and big screens makes it hard to be in touch with the numinous. It is impossible to hear the “still small voice” with Ned Flanders shouting at you through a raspy microphone.
This isn’t to say that I think these things completely worthless. But I think they have ignored the contemplative and inner-facing half of religion for the ecstatic and external half of religion. I just feel like there should be a balance.
December 9th, 2005 at 7:00 pm
“Can anybody come up with either a good explanation as to exactly how materialism distracts from spirituality? If you decide to take on that challenge, also please play Devil’s Advocate and come up with reasons why materialism might actually promote spirituality.”
I think those are very pertinent questions, Tim. They touch on our everyday lives.
First, on the positive side, I think “the material universe” can promote spirituality because the sensory immediacy of it can “shock us awake” in ways that more classically “spiritual” and “intellectual” pursuits cannot. Here’s the first example in that regard that comes to mind.
In the Old South of the 1950’s, the notion of black people marrying white people was “frowned upon” (to put it in the mildest possible way). Most southern people were immersed in this idea culturally, intellectually, and spiritually.
BUT—A Ha!—what happens to you IF you’re a white guy AND you fall in love with a black girl?
CULTURE SHIFT, that’s what! Spiritually, and in every other way.
Here’s an example of the material world coming to the rescue of the world of the spiritually intransigent. (Note: this is “the material world” working on behalf of the spiritual, not “materialism” which implies its own intransigence.)
ON THE OTHER HAND, the material world can also distract from spiritual pursuits because it offers the willing mind THE ILLUSION that what is manifestly “material” or “physical” is “real,” while all else is simply unreal. Once one has started to drink THAT Kool Aid, the material world can become a labyrinth, so captivating and alluring that it takes on a significance that it really doesn’t deserve.
That ancient Gnostics “had a problem with” the material world flows out of at least two issues that I can think of right now, and maybe a few more: “distraction” and “attachment.” While, as we have seen, the material world can be a catalyst for spiritual change, it can also “distract” us from that change in the long run, to whatever degree that we become “attached” to “the thing itself” and not to the lesson the material “thing” brought into our awareness in the first place.
I believe the best spiritual approach to the material world is NOT repudiation, but “detachment” whenever, like a wave, the material world overcomes us.
December 9th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
It doesn’t. And you don’t. I am merely expressing why I don’t find the environment of those megachurches I have been associated with nourishing to me.
December 9th, 2005 at 7:19 pm
I used to be really into this idea of being detached and above everything. But then I realized that I was just sort of floating through life with nobody and nothing attached to me. And I don’t know, that just doesn’t work for me anymore.
People talk about the material world being an illusion all the time. But can anybody actually prove it’s an illusion? Maybe it’s the mind/interior world that’s the illusion… If you asked a deer in the forest which was illusory, I think you’d come to that answer. It seems like one of the only spiritual pursuits I can think of which aims towards that direction is Taoism, with the whole wu wei thing, where you simply play out your part in the natural order without forcing or pushing anything.
December 9th, 2005 at 7:32 pm
You’re right. I’m not advocating being “above” anything. Only keeping things, material and spiritual, in proper perspective.
December 9th, 2005 at 7:48 pm
I guess what I’m saying is that I’m no longer as sure as I used to be about what the proper perspective really is… or if it’s an issue that’s even worth me worrying about.
December 9th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
I’ve been to a few mega-churches. Church On The Way, Grace Community Church, and this one in Lancaster that my parents attend. They’re huge, but not anywhere near a Billy Graham rally or those churches you see on Sunday TV.
My problem with them is that they are too clean-cut. Granted, you’re not supposed to go to church in hospital scrubs or a bathrobe, but everyone is wearing a suit or a dress, and everyone smells nice and has really solid hair.
They have these enormous choirs with real singers. They have live bands or sometimes a playback CD player so that a junior pastor can get up and belt out a hymn or two. The lyrics are projected on a wall as opposed to being consulted from a hymnal, and everyone speaks like Ned Flanders.
But they’re not scary. A little square, a little nerdy, but certainly not oppressive. The sermons are a matter of taste– I’ve heard some good ones, and I’ve heard some stinkers.
I consider myself a church connoisseur, because my highly religious father did a lot of church-hopping when we were kids. I attribute this to my lack of interest in church, because we never had a chance to get rooted. My father always had some hair-splitting problem with the doctrine being taught, and soon we were off to another church.
I’ve been to Baptist, Pentacostal, Epsicopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian churches; I’ve seen small ones held in someone’s living room and I’ve been to the Crystal Cathderal for their Christmas extravanganza. I was welcomed warmly at every single one. Sometimes, I even met cool people.
Mega-churches aren’t bad. It’s the difference between seeing your favorite band play a small club vs. opening for U2 at the Hollywood Bowl. One is bound to be more intimate, and it’s usually the one where you don’t feel lost in a sea of people.
December 10th, 2005 at 5:28 am
Yeh, I hear that. I went to two Baptist private schools (from age 4 til I was “kicked-out” near the end of 7th grade). I’ve been to Baptist (in CONSERNVATIVE N.C.), Lutheran (with a female pastor), Large Methodist (2-3K at each sermon), and small Presbyterian (no more than 300 people).
I found the Presb. one to be the most appealing (also spent the most time there, even while going to school at a Baptist school). They had a good set-up. The early service was casual dress, modern songs, lyrics presented in powerpoint form, and even a “worship band”. The second service was more traditional, and Sunday school tried to bridge the gap. The thing I found most appealing was that they actually had a conscience (whether I agree with it, thats a different story). If anyone knows about the politics in Presbyterian churches, it’s setup a lot like Catholicism (with a committee instead of a Pope), and the church I went to actually went against some of the laws and rulings handed down by the ruling Presbytery.
That aside, my biggest problem with organized Christianity is its relative lack to adjust and grow. There is no search, it’s just, “read the Bible, pray, and be a good little boy (or girl)”. All denomenations follow that to some extent. The Mega-Churches are the worst because they’re the most political, the most strict, and the least open to new interpretation. What I need in a religion is a sense of fellowship with the need to search out the truth as a community. An open environment to discuss, grow, adapt, and find higher meanings and purposes.
I guess that’s why I like the ideas of gnosticism and specifically, Tim’s site. It’s a community working together, more or less, to discuss, grow, and as the whole point of this blog post was, to adapt one’s understanding and position towards a subject.
While I do sometimes miss the whole concept of having someone else or something else contain all the answers, I don’t think I could ever go back to believing that I must fear and submit to something that is probably an extension of my (or our) own ego.
December 10th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
Personally, the only factor involved is: would Christ invest millions of dollars into a custom building, sound system, or gymnasium? No, he’d obviously put those resources towards relieving others’ suffering, and so should Christians.
December 10th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
That’s really the only explanation that I can’t think of a clever deconstruction for…
December 10th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
I’ve been to a number of megachurches, my parents were avid attendees during my teenage years; I don’t detest megachurches, but I don’t personally care for their approach. It feels cookie-cutter, feel-good, and manufactured. They brag about the 1.2 million dollar sanctuary and the state of the art audio system… “Communion” is accompanied by gaudy powerpoint presentations and videos of the crucifixion alongside rock music and plastic cups… there’s no room for the numinous.
I ask myself the money question about a lot of churches, though. Would Christ really spend $1500 on a gold-plated silver chalice and $3500 on an ornate tabernacle? What about the vestments on the priest’s back? Easily another two grand or more can go into vesting a single priest, so the money criticism can fairly go both ways, and I tend to see it as a red herring.
Personally, megachurches don’t “do” much for me, so I don’t go. I like “microchurches.” I like knowing each of the members of my parish; I like not being just “the priest” or “the pastor.”
December 10th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
megachurch? anfield……………..
December 10th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
Silly questions:
If mega-churches are bad,
are Cathederals good or bad?
Are cathederals mega-churches?
If not, why not?
December 10th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
Well, some people seem to be defining megachurches as lacking in the “numinous”. Based on what they’ve said, I assume that cathedrals do have something numinous about them. But I haven’t seen anybody really explain what they mean by numinous, so I will leave the real answering up to them…
December 10th, 2005 at 11:23 pm
Those types of churches always just seem to conjure the image of the grandma with emphesyma and the oxygen tank watching the service on her little TV in the trailer park and sending a check every month off of her Social Security, I mean please, Creflo Dollar?
-tc
“send me your money”
December 11th, 2005 at 12:47 am
Tim,
Trying to explain the sense of the numinous is a bit like trying to explain the experience of Gnosis; It was +Hoeller (I think) who said something about knowing it when you encounter it.
December 11th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
I think the problem here is obvious: what the hell does “bad” mean? It’s such a general term that I can’t think of a way to adress it. I’m going to break out the sword of reason and cut it into something smaller and more manageable.
Is the sociology of these places bad? What’s a megachurch–how big does the congregation and the space need to be? If thousands of people attend services at the same place, but nothing else goes on, what is it? I strongly suggest reading the poorly-edited Architecture for Worship to at least see an arguement supporting the multipurpose semi-religious space.
I suspect that attending a megachurch would be fairly problematic. After any organization, be it a company or a tribe, grows to more than 150 to 200 members, it almost inevitably either fractures into seperate, distinct groups, or, in this latter day, becomes an organization unresponsive to individuals, difficult to manage, and increasingly conformist and bureaucratic.
Consider the example of work. I’ve worked in small settings and large ones, and the large ones are far and away more stressful. The pecking order becomes so large that it’s almost impossible to keep track of, hence constant risk of stepping on the wrong person’s toes–it generates tremendous anxiety in individuals who aren’t high up in the pyramid. For all intents and purposes, I consider that “bad,” and therefore consider a significant part of the definition of “mega-” anything bad. Likewise, the amount of resources a megachurch requires, and logisitic management–how high would the HVAC bills be?–offends my Low Impact Small Footprint sensibilities. If you pray at an altar in your room, or at your Hougan’s shed, you’re not re-configuring the ecology into an asphalt nightmare.
The one clear advantage to huge organizations is the chance for anonyminity. Don’t make any waves and you can hide out indefinitely: if you wanna cook meth, don’t shop for supplies at a small local-owned hardware store, but the night-shift clerk at to Wal-Mart isn’t gonna give you shit for buying naphtha without paint. Fuck, he doesn’t even know what naphtha is.
Now, obviously, the problems I’ve offered as examples are not going to port over to a “church” the exact same, but I suspect similar or analogous occurs.
December 12th, 2005 at 5:11 am
The problem mega churches is that that they have pockets big enough to hide a city council in