A new study examines Megachurchgoers; that is, those who attend congregations of 2,000 or more people:
Compared to attendees of a typical Protestant church, people who attend megachurches are more likely to be young, single, more educated and wealthier, a new survey reveals.
The majority of megachurch attendees (62 percent) are under the age of 45 whereas less than half (35 percent) of those in a typical congregation fall in the 18-44 age group, according to a megachurch report by Scott Thumma of Hartford Institute for Religion Research and Warren Bird of Leadership Network.
The report – “Not Who You Think They Are: The Real Story of People Who Attend America’s Megachurches” – is based on data from a national survey that drew 24,900 responses from 12 carefully selected megachurches across the country. It is claimed to be the largest national representative study of megachurch attendees conducted by any researchers to date.
With more than 5 million people worshipping at megachurches – Protestant churches of 2,000 or more weekly attendees – in a typical week, Thumma and Bird sought to provide a look at who these worshippers are, why they come and why some stay. . . .
They found that in addition to drawing more young adults, megachurches tend to bring in more single, unmarried people than a typical church. Nearly a third of megachurch attendees are single compared to just 10 percent of a typical congregation. The vast majority (80 percent) of those in a typical congregation are married or widowed.
Megachurches also tend to draw in a lot more new people compared to the typical church. Over two-thirds (68 percent) of megachurch attendees have been there five years or less while only 40 percent of those in churches of all sizes joined the church recently. Almost half (45 percent) of attendees of a typical church have been there for more than 10 years.
Although megachurches have nearly twice as many new attendees, most of the new people are already Christians and came from another church. Seventy-seven percent said they have been long-time committed Christ followers for seven or more years and only 2 percent said they are not a follower. Also, 18 percent had not attended church for a while before coming to the megachurch and just 6 percent said they never went to church previously. . . .
Additionally, megachurch attendees are less committed financially than those in a typical church with 32 percent saying they contribute nothing or give just a small amount when they can. While a third of both groups give a tithe (10 percent of income) or more, the megachurch giving figures are overall significantly below those for churches of all sizes.
Although their contributions are small, their level of giving has actually increased since attending the megachurch. Forty percent said they were giving more at the megachurch than at their previous church.
Other findings show that almost half (45 percent) of megachurch participants said they never volunteered and only 60 percent participate in small groups.
So, do any of you go to megachurches? Does this data hold true? I don’t understand how there can be significant pastoral care in churches of this size. If you are one in 2,000, how can you and your pastor even know each other? What can you conclude from this data?
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 88 comments… read them below or add one }
It’s the old “Microsoft” argument: sell something inexpensive that lots of people need at a low price and you have one wealthy pastorproneur. But the customer service rating is usually pretty low. My experience has been is that there is next to no personal interaction not only with the pastor, but with other laypeople. It’s like a supermarket, and it is totally unlike any early Christian church I’ve read about where they shared eachothers’ burdens and joys. The megachurch is a wonderful manifestation of North American, post-modern consumerism. There is also total Confessional confusion: joining such a church is like opening a box of chocolates – you never know whatcha gonna get.
Sardonically yours,CL
Here, to me, is the most disturbing fact from the research:
Seventy-seven percent said they have been long-time committed Christ followers for seven or more years and only 2 percent said they are not a follower.
It would appear that the mega-churches are catering to bored Christians looking for a “change of pace” or “something new and exciting” rather than actually reaching those who are not Christians.
I don’t think these people know, or care to have pastoral care.
I ownder about things like confirmation, etc. It is the perfect Sunday morning church, the rest of the week to myself set up. Though the fact that most of them are single may indicate that many of them are trying to find a Christian to have a relationship with and possibly marry, and will probably move on to another church if and when that works out. The bigger the pond the higher the chances are you catch a fish to your liking. A smaller congregation typically doesn’t have many single adults.
McCain, actually, it’s 6% of the megachurch population that were not Christians before they joined the church. The 2% you mention is the population that has not (yet?) begun to follow Christ.
Before jumping to too many conclusions, it would be good to compare the megachurch statistics to those of smaller churches.
It’s conceivable that only 3% of small church members were not Christians before they joined, and 2% are still not Christians. I have no idea if that’s true or not (it could be 20% and 1% for all I know), but we do need to know that before we start criticizing statistics.
In my own small church (~60), 100% of the congregation was already Christian before joining. Quite a few people have begun to follow Christ, but these have happened as part of various outreach programs and they have joined other churches.
Having gone to all types of churches, I have found that mega churches often have a team of elders who interface more directly with the congregation than the pastor. It is just impossible for a single person to relate to 2000+ people, but the church is divided into small groups, each with a lay leader. The division between lay and clergy is simply not there. Some of this isn’t bad, in my opinion. With such a high rate of pastor burn out, I think it’s a good idea to employ the use of deacons/esses and lay leaders, even in a smaller church.
Also, as a young person, it is disconcerting to walk into a Lutheran church and find your self to be the ONLY single person under 80. Lucky for me, when I came to a Lutheran church five years ago, there was one other single person and I married him. hehe
I think the significance of the 6% figure — the number of people brought in who had never gone to church previously — is significant in that it seriously calls into question one of the arguments used to bring megachurch priniciples and strategies into “traditional” churches. Quite often we’re told, “But this is the way to reach the unchurched!”
But when 94% of the megachurch membership is instead taken from the ranks of the previously churched — often cannibalizing the membership of established churches — that “we have to do things this way in order to reach the lost” argument is shown to be quite weak.
I also am confused about the second-to-last paragraph of the quoted article. If 40% are giving more than they did at their previous church, doesn’t that mean that 60% are NOT giving more, i.e. more than half are giving the same or less? In which case, the preceding sentence draws an opposite and wrong conclusion.
Some of the reactions here seem a bit “knee-jerk.” It is true that there are legitimate issues with the polity of megachurches, and the attitude problems that all congregations face are amplified by their size and influence.
Still, there are some compelling reasons for Christians to organize and worship in such a manner. (There must be, since so many are gravitating toward megachurch.) I don’t speak as an expert, but I wonder if the decline of the mainline/synodical churches in resources and unity has played a part. Doctrinal considerations aside, (“megachurch” is really a polity, not a theology), large congregations serve as a sort of “mini-synod.” Put simply: the greater the resources, the more you can accomplish. Additionally, a person can feel more connected to the decision making process than they would by the distant affiliations and conventions of the older model.
True, an independent and even arrogant attitude can result, but that is another discussion. Is it possible that a mega-congregation (mini synod) is a more effective polity in this culture than the older model of affiliation?
I grew up in a large church and have attended 3 large LCMS churches (weekly worship attendances of 1000, 2200, and 900) in my life. I’ve also pastored three smaller churches of 100-150 in attendance. I’ve had the opportunity to teach to classes of 150 confirmands and 3 confirmands, so my thoughts are based on all these observations.
The people in smaller churches do seem to have been members of their churches for much longer, on average, than the larger churches, and I didn’t notice any lack of catechesis or quality thereof related to church size.
In the larger churches, I’ve noticed that while everybody doesn’t know the same pastor, there is usually some sort of connection to at least one pastor. Pastoral care and the ministry of Word and Sacrament is supplemented with small groups, which function to help people grow by studying God’s word, providing and fostering a close environment for prayer, and developing friendships where people can “stir up one another to love and good works.”
People also seem to set up a straw man in saying that a large percentage of people come to megachurches from other Christian churches, and not through evangelism. While I believe it’s true that many people church-shop, a fair number of these people come to these churches because they’ve moved to the area from somewhere else.
Also, as a 30 year old pastor in a church with a median age of 65 (no exaggeration, that’s what the call documents said), it’s a struggle for me and my family to build relationships with other people my age because there isn’t anyone else our age who attends the church. Turns out that before I came, all the people with children (at least the ones who still attends church) moved to the larger ELCA church in the next town because they have children’s ministry and a youth program. I’m not surprised by this. When we were at larger churches, we assimilated much faster and developed deeper friendships because there were people our age we could relate to.
To their credit, the small churches I’ve been a part of have been quite financially generous. In my current church, only about 10% of the membership does not contribute financially, and overall the per capita giving ranks in about the top 5% nationally. Of course, you’d never know it because we don’t have as many givers as the larger churches, and thus we don’t have huge buildings.
Also, I remember reading that the Lutheran congregation in Hönigern (now Poland) in the mid 1800s that stood up to the Prussian union hosted over 2000 worshippers.
Having gown up in a Mega Church I’d say that I have great relationships with several pastors. I did not know that Senior Pastor well, but the community and the relationships with the other members are strong.
Caveat: In a mega church you have to make the effort to get in evolved, it doesn’t just happen. But on the positive side there are generally lots of ways to do that.
Jeff Samelson #6, this is exactly what I was talking about in #4. Before we start talking about how horrible it is that megachurches have only 6% of their population made up of people who were not previously Christians, let’s take a comparison look at smaller churches to see if 6% is bad or good in comparison.
Maybe 6% is awesome because smaller churches only have 2% made up of previously non-Christians. Maybe 6% is horrible because smaller churches have 20% of their members as previously non-Christian.
A well-attended faithful congregation is to be lauded. Good relationships with pastor(s) as faithful preacher/teacher and father confessor are great. I don’t think that’s what we mean when we’re talking Mega-church, though. Too often these super-sized churches’ worship and ministry turns into Christianized entertainment and childcare with a depth of theology at about the level of veggietales.
If I was a layperson and could find a big faithful Lutheran Church which catechized the faith in Word and Worship from cradle to grave without “programming” my family to death, I’d be all over that.
By the way, I would not be unhappy if my own congregation grew larger. I guess we just don’t seem to be what the consumers want. Oh well.
WebMonk, please don’t read things into my comments that I haven’t actually said. I didn’t call it “horrible” that megachurches only have 6% previously unchurched. I praise God for their 6% and I’ll praise God for any other church’s 1% and I’ll praise God for a church that’s losing members as long as they are faithful to Him and His Word.
My point was simply that 6% is a much more modest number than the proponents of megachurch methodology would have us believe, and shows that those principles and programs are not the “magic bullet” for evangelism that they keep telling us they are.
To try to put it another way, those proponents are the ones making comparisons — “You’ll reach many more of the lost by adopting these methods than you will by staying with your small church, traditional models” — and the survey numbers show that “many more” is not actually true.
Jeff, how do you know that 6% isn’t indeed “many more”? That’s the point. You say that based on this survey of 6%, that megachurches aren’t reaching “many more” and that any such claims are not true.
How do you know?
Maybe 6% is truly “many more” than smaller churches reach. Possibly in a community with 10,000 people spread over 100 churches, 200 people became Christians in those churches. That’s 2%.
If a megachurch of 10,000 has 6% who became Christians there, that’s 600 people. That would 3 times as many people coming to Christ in megachurches than in small churches. That would easily qualify as “many more”.
The numbers could be reversed too. There could be 20% in smaller churches which would mean that megachurches reach less than a third of the people small churches do.
We can’t go around saying that claims of megachurches that they reach more people are false based just on these numbers alone.
They may be; they may not be; we don’t know.
If we want to really start complicating things, we would ideally want to figure out how many people become Christians in which church before moving around. Maybe there is a flow of new Christians from small to mega which would tend to skew statistics against small churches. Maybe the flow is reversed and way more than the 6% figure come to Christ in the mega, and then they flow to smaller churches.
Based on these very basic numbers, we can only draw EXTREMELY limited conclusions. Whether or not megachurches actually have many more people begin to follow Christ in them than smaller churches is NOT one of the conclusions we can come to.
A seldom mentioned problem with megachurches is that they are overwhelmingly homegenous: white. Are there any in the inner city? These churches then do nothing to impede the great segregation of Americans Christians each Sunday.
WebMonk, I’m sorry that I don’t have time to pursue this point of discussion further — perhaps other commenters may wish to pick it up.
Perhaps you haven’t been on the “receiving end” of the megachurch methods salesmen enough to understand the point I’m trying to make, or maybe I’ve just failed to communicate clearly. Because you’re actually making my point in a way when you say that we don’t have enough information to draw anything but extremely limited conclusions. I’m saying that the megachurch proponents make comparisons and try to sell wide-ranging conclusions when they don’t have the figures to actually back them up.
Dudes (and Dudestresses),
Mega-churches are like, totally cool.
You can wear your pajamas if you want. The pastor is just like us…totslly laid back with a cool Hawaiian shirt and flip flops.
Whoa…a grooving rock band that can really jam.
And everything is about how to become better Christians…it’s all right out of the Bible, man.
No religious stuff, either, like in those old fashioned chruches!
Dude…you gotta check it out!
Bass, there are a lot of factual errors in what you wrote.
“they are overwhelmingly homegenous”
While they are most certainly younger and mobile in make-up, within that, they are typically more diverse as far as race goes.
“white.”
Roughly 10% of megachurches are “black”. That’s a higher percentage than small churches. There are also a significant number of primarily Hispanic and Oriental churches.
“Are there any in the inner city?” (I assume that is a rhetorical question with the answer being “no”.)
Yes, there are a roughly equivalent number in inner cities. Most of these are older inner city established “First churches”. New or growing churches can’t physically fit in most inner-city areas, so the growing megachurches that get the most news are all suburban, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t numerous megachurches already in existence in inner-city areas.
A better question – is the mega church model Scriptural? Is our eclesiastical model primarily pragmatic, or obedient? If we are allowed, Scripturally, to “do church” any way we please (within reason), then what does the CGM model say about our goals? I think the model screams “We want lots of people and money and power”. Certainly, the model is not driven by concern for the souls of the constituants. There are many more and better models that can accomplish that.
Jeff, you’re comparing apples and oranges. Based on this one, single survey, you are saying megachurch claims are false. That’s a completely unfounded statement.
There are numerous other studies out there, far more extensive than this one which try to follow in more detail the issues we’re talking about. Those sorts of studies are frequently cited. When you talk about this study not supporting megachurch claims, you are comparing this very limited study to the larger and far more in-depth studies. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
This study has virtually NO impact on the claims and counter-claims about the efficacy of the megachurch model. You can’t use it to say they’re wrong, you can’t use it to say they right, and you can’t suggest that this study is representative of studies that do (or not) support megachurch claims.
There are several studies out there that strongly back up the claims of megachurches. There are also several studies out there that throw a lot of doubt on the claims of megachurches. I am quite aware of the advertising and claims of various megachurches and megachurch-oriented organizations. I deal with them as part of my work in my church.
You say megachurch claims don’t have the numbers to back them up – sure they do! They have lots of serious studies to back them up. There are also lots of studies that tend to counter the claims. The study mentioned here is in NEITHER of those camps – it has no impact either way and can’t be used to suggest megachurch claims are wrong (as you’re doing) or that they’re right.
(In referring to “megachurch claims” I refer to just the claims about megachurches reaching many more unchurched people with Christ than smaller churches, not any and all claims put out by megachurches or their proponents.)
“Certainly, the model is not driven by concern for the souls of the constituants. There are many more and better models that can accomplish that.”
Well, that’s what the argument is about. Are megachurches fundamentally focused on numerical growth instead of focusing on spread the Word and discipleship? Are the other models (be they small church or home church) fundamentally better?
My own view is that they have dangers, but aren’t fundamentally opposed to caring for their members and spreading the Word. Small churches have dangers too. Megachurches have their unique strengths and weaknesses, and some of them seem to operate largely on their weaknesses (personality-driven, growth for power’s sake, etc) but there are also those that operate in their strengths (outreach opportunities, “benevolence” ministries, etc).
John #20,
Your first question is good. I don’t know the form of church government whence you come, of course, but as a “reformation” Christian I believe that is the right question. The polity of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, for instance, was unprecedented in Europe and was specifically adapted to function within the United States. “Is this scriptural” was the driving question in the debate.
I think you are unfair in your conclusion, though. You accuse fellow Christians of evil motives (desiring “power and money,” witout “concern for the souls” of their people) based simply on their form of polity.
I would rather hear you explain how the other models you mention do a better job than hear you question the motives of others.
I wonder if this issue with the “only” 6% of the membership having “never attended a church previously” may be a function of American religious participation. The converse of this statement is that 94% of members had at sometime attended a church. Of these, the article says 18% “had not attended church for awhile” before coming to the megachurch.
What I mean is, I wonder what the statistics are as to the general American population. My brief research this morning indicates that 76% of Americans consider thamselves Christians, while 15% have no religious affiliation, leaving only about 9% professing some other religion. But, I’d be willing to bet that many of the 15% who now have no religious affiliation DID attend church at one time, if only as children. The point being that it may be pretty difficult to find a lot more than 6% of people in any community who have NEVER attended church. And it might be about right to find 18% of any community who have not attended church “for awhile” (a pretty vague term). This would be especially true among younger people who spent their college years partying late and sleeping in on weekends, but sobered up when they got jobs and started families. Also, I hve lived in Milwaukee continuously since 1982 and during that time I have attended 3 different Lutheran Churches, but I don’t think I was “stolen” from the earlier churches by the subsequent ones. Primarily, each time I changed churches it was because I moved to a different part of town.
I guess what I’m saying is that the meaning of these statistics may be affected by the terminology used.
kerner – precisamente!
I remember going to hear the Easter choir perform at our local megachurch. There were only about 20-30 in the choir, yet the church had thousands of attendees.
It is my belief that it is easy to get by without serving in a megachurch.
That is my negative response. I’ll think of a positive response later.
My husband always calls the megachurch “the church of ‘What’s Happnin’.”
John #20
Saying that they are greedy is easy. But the fact is that all of those churches started small. They typically don’t grow to over 2,000 over night. Many are just regular pastors who are seeking God’s will every week, and God brings them a bigger flock. Then they don’t know what to do with it, but they build bigger buildings and hire more staff to accomplish what God has given them to do.
There may be some who are greedy, but if you are greedy you’d need your head checked if you become a pastor because of it.
And Dude, #18, you can sip your latte without having to worry about spilling on your hymnal, because Dude, there aren’t any! Really Rad.
Booklover,
Totally “sick”!!!
I do not attend a “megachurch”. But I am now aware of any scriptural teachings for or against them. Many of you on this thread who are arguing against them are making the same human wonkish arguments that some of the megachurch proponents/consultants make for them. If a church thrives/grows because the Lord blesses the ministry of a particular pastor or team who is seeking to do His will, fantastic! On the other hand, if a church becomes a megachurch because of the institution of some human-based marketing program, it is in for trouble. Let’s be careful about generalizing based on generalized statistics from an imperfect survey.
Young people are drawn to places where other young people congregate, particularly if they are single. Welcome to human sociology 101. That’s the way God made them! Nothing wrong with that. Some people go to church to be involved, which you can do at both big and small churches. Others don’t. True, it’s easier to hide in a big church, but no matter the size of the church 20% of the congregation tends to do 80% of the work.
Let’s celebrate every person of faith who is actively seeking fellowship with other believers on a regular basis.
Megachurches deny orthodox Christianity.
They deny the external Word of the Sacraments.
They deny that God chooses us.
They are “pride factories” or “despair factories”.
I believe that they are worse than nothing at all.
Not that God can’t work in those places (He can make the stones shout).
But so many of those poor folks get imprinted with a legalistic, ‘me centered’ view of Christianity, it is very hard to undo.
Wow, Steve @ 31, that’s the kind of generalization I was talking about @ 30. We have an LCMS church right across the street from our church that qualifies as a “megachurch” under the definition of attendance of 2000 or more per week. Sheesh.
DonS,
I guess by megachurch, I mean the large non-denominationl plants (they are everywhere around here).
Large denominational chruches (in my mind) are not in the megachurch category.
St Peter’s is not a megachurch. It’s a large Catholic church.
I dunno Steve. Charismatic leader who says he speaks for God in matters of faith and morals and is the intermediary between God and mankind? Has even figured out a way to make his office complex an independent nation? Has long history of claiming that his organization is the one true church?Sounds like a mega-church to me.
Booklover @ 28: quibble: “there’s no hymnal to spill your latte on. Rad!” I know overheads are adiaphorous, but they drive me mad. They never appear with notated music; whenever I have to sing with them I can never sing along when I don’t know the tune. It makes me feel unwelcome and outside the “little inner circle” or the “megaflock” if you will. Churches should be teaching their people not only the hymns (and sciptural ones at that) and especially Psalms, but also musical notation.
CL
Doesn’t anyone look at primary sources anymore? In all of a minute or two spent Googling, I found the original report at the Hartford Institute for Religious Research.
As to the question discussed by Webmonk, et al., I’d suggest scrolling down to the section marked “Are Megachurch People Stolen or Saved?” There, you’ll find this paragraph:
Steve Martin: 31
“Megachurches deny orthodox Christianity.”
All of them?
That is quite the statement. None of them preach the gospel? None of them disciple? None of them follow Christ?
Jedidiah Maschke,
As for the Large Lutheran Churches of Poland during the Prussian reform. It is true the state churches of Germany, etc. used to have very large congregations. I’m still not sure that this was best. There was also an aspect of just that they were state churches. The pastor was the pastor, the people had little to know say in who that pastor was going to be. If you went to the hospital there was another Lutheran Pastor there for you, etc. The community was Lutheran, catechized Lutheran, you didn’t necessarily have to guess the confession of the stranger at your altar rail, if they were in that part of the country they were probably Lutheran or knew better than to commune at your altar. Things have changed in that regard.
Obviously, the “double quoted” stuff there is my addition. I forgot to close my block quote. Sorry.
You guys and gals may be right (and I wrong).
I’ve got to run.
Let me know what you come up with!
Jeremiah L. at #37. Perhaps some confuse “orthodox” with “high church” or “liturgical”. One could indeed adhere to an orthodox Christian confession AND belong to a non-liturgical church or even, heaven forbid, a “regulative principle” church. Lutherans, afterall, support the normative principle of worship.
Blessings,
CL
Ah, yes. Most mega-churches are not liturgical, but some are. But they are just considered big Lutheran, etc. churches. People don’t think of them as mega churches even though they fit the 2,000 person count that comprises the definition.
Denying baptism and the sacraments and the assertion of the ‘will’, to me anyway, is not orthodox Christianity.
Sectarian Christianty, maybe.
Whew! tODD, I’m impressed. I had barely made it a third of the way down the page.
I am also impressed by the frequency of people coming because of invitations from others. That’s one of their strengths, I think. I’ve been invited to megachurches multiple times, but I have never, ever been invited to a smaller church.
Interestingly, my (small) church has over the last couple years started a greater encouragement to invite people to church. Amazingly (sarcasm) we’ve had a lot of new people come. Huh. One would almost think there was some sort of connection!
There are lots of interesting items there, but another one I saw sounded so very right to me – worship style as a major factor. A surprising thing was that youth programs was lesser factor. They didn’t ask it, but I would love to see where theological stances would come on their list.
Steve Martin @ #43,
Good point. Lord’s Supper is celebrated so infrequently in mega-charismatic churches that it leads one to the suspicion that the Lord’s Supper would somehow be an intrusion to the latte-spilling, hand-waving, heads-held-high-to-view-the-overhead crowd. The “altar call” [Veith: you know I feel about the altar] is a most egregious example. “You come to the front, megaflock, present your bodies as living sacrifices and then receive God’s promises”. It’s absurd. And unorthodox, to be sure.
CL
43&45
I don’t know how infrequently you think they do it. I do know that the one grew up in took the Lord’s Supper as frequently as a typical non-high church.
It’s not so much the frequency, but rather their view of of it.
“Let’s lift one for good ol’ Jesus.”
That way, it is all internalized.
They despise the external Word.
One thing that does surprise me about this report was that I had always thought the median age of the megachurch goer as around 55.
Young people, eh? Now that’s tragic!
Steve at #43
It is a gross over generalization to say that all mega-churches “Deny baptism and the sacraments,” as your comment, suggests. Mars Hill is a prime example of a church that doesn’t deny baptisms and the sacraments. They baptized 54 people in one service, and turned the baptism into more of a community celebration of faith than I have ever seen at any Lutheran church. As for the sacraments, communion specifically, because we have already touched on baptism, though they don’t provide the Lords Supper every week, when Mars Hill does offer it, it is often much more meaningful than at a church that offers communion every week.
I feel like you are speaking from your experiences with a specific church, and your experiences are in every way as valid as mine, but your conclusion that ALL mega-churches are like this one is not valid. Yes, there are some organizations that call themselves churches that don’t preach the gospel and that deny baptism and the sacraments, but you will find these among small churches just as you will among mega-churches (though frequency may vary).
Steve Martin @ #47,
While I agree that the view of the Lord’s Supper is perhaps more important than the frequency, I would also add my voice of agreement with a man like Calvin who wrote that abuse of the LS led to its neglect in the Roman church of the mediæval era. Calvin and Luther (I’m weary of combining these two names on the matter of the LS, but I digress) argued with at least weekly observance. Their view was that the service of the Word led naturally and logically and most powerfully to the service of the sacrament; in other words, the preaching of the word, which is none other than the preaching of the law and forgiven sins through Christ, leads us to the foot of the cross, to Christ’s one sacrifice on the altar of that cross, and the reception of his Grace, flesh and blood at the table. The LS is a highly-concentrated form of the Gospel, as Augustine, Luther and others wrote. So… while the frequency of the LS is perhaps adiaphorous, infrequent celebration of the LS is a manifestation of its abuse.
Blessings,
CL
Crypto-Lutheran (@35)
I think this points out another interesting gap. I grew up around music, went to a church that uses real, live hymnals and can read music with a fair amount of accuracy. Therefore, having the notes on a page is a wonderful tool, IMO. At the same time, my wife did not have this type of upbringing and hymnals, other than providing words, did little to help her at first.
But the question that always struck me was do we discard hymnals based off of ignorance and a desire to not make people learn the “hard” things or can we keep them expecting people to learn what a musical note is?
Jeremiah L (@37)
While maybe not “all” of them do, one can easily find out what individual churches do and don’t say/believe by their statements on websites, etc.
Seems to me that if you really believe in something as important as a sacrament you’d be saying loud and proud everywhere you could.
Scott Hausman said: “when Mars Hill does offer it, it is often much more meaningful than at a church that offers communion every week.”
Is this also not a gross over generalization?
More meaningful for whom, I wonder? Certainly not more meaningful to God – which is the point after all.
But maybe Mars Hill communion is only called that and not really about Jesus for you, but about you and “meaningfulness” instead of, well, communion. I’m sorry to hear that, because I had thought they preached against that sort of pap.
Sorry,
I would also add that if the scriptural observation of the LS were considered incongruous with the preaching or with the liturgy (in other words, if the preaching or liturgy did not make us hungry and thirsty for God and his Grace) then there is likely a problem with the liturgy or preaching. I think this is the problem with the charismatic/megaflock. I also have difficulty picturing the seating of 2000 people and more around the LS table.
CL
Just realize that, in general (generalization, I know), Lutherans think EVERYONE despises the Sacraments and the external Word. That’s not just an issue of megachurches, and to use it as such is a bit disingenuous.
Leif at 51,
Sorry, I don’t understand your question. But I do think that each and every child should learn how read music. If that happened, they would begin to see and understand the depth and richness of western psalmody/hymnody. It would, at the same time, empower them to understand and import music from different cultures.
CL
Bryan at 52
At the Lutheran church that I have attended for the past 15 years, communion is offered every other week (well, every week, but at alternating services). The pastor welcomes us to the Lords table, the ushers direct us, row by row, to the alter where the elder gives us the body, the pastor gives us the blood, and then we return to our seats. There is no time given to reflect on why we are taking the LS, there is no remembering of the sacrifice of Christ. It is an over generalization, but we do use the same liturgy that other LCMS churches use, so though it doesn’t apply to all churches, it applies to some (hence the “often”, not “always part of what I said).
Bryan
And again, is the point of the LS for God or for man. I might be overstepping here, but we are told to do it “in remembrance of him.” If we did it for God, then would we be doing it so that He remembered Himself? I believe that we do it so that we remember his sacrifice. So it does need to be meaningful to us.
Scott said “There is no time given to reflect on why we are taking the LS, there is no remembering of the sacrifice of Christ.”
I’m not trying to be difficult so don’t take it as such but…
How much time do you need? I mean, I guess my point is aren’t you reflecting and remembering the whole time prior to going up? Or, isn’t that the point of a Holy Communion service?
Grr. Today has been a day of poorly worded sentences.
CL at 55.
I guess my point was that as we distance ourselves from tools that provide learning (ie. the hymnal) we lessen the demand on our intellect in terms of learning what things are for and why we do other things, etc. And as such sacraments, creeds, etc. become an aside to “worship”. At a certain point then, ignorance can become an excuse in and of itself. “I can’t read music, hymnals mean nothing then”, etc.
Scott Houseman at 56
Well for many years I have been under the mistaken notion that all of the communion liturgy was a meditation (and a very biblical one at that) on the deep meaning and indeed action of God in the Lord’s Supper. Silly me.
Scott at 57
Yes God does direct the Lord Supper to me, but He is the one controlling the action for me; not me and my meaningful imagination. If I believed that the Lord’s Supper was about me and my imagination controlling the action I would become a Baptist.
Sorry but that really does blow my mind: This is what the young people are being fed with? They must leave very very hungry indeed.
Bryan
I never meant to suggest that liturgy is bad, wrong, or unbiblical. I’m suggesting that it is not the only way to do things, and I think that you would agree with me. There is a reason that I haven’t left the Lutheran Church.
Never once did I say anything about imagine controlling the action, but that it is important to come to communion with the right heart, one that you can only have after a time of reflection.
The original intent of this post was to suggest not that communion in small churches is inferior to communion in large churches, but to suggest that not all mega-churches prescribe to a previous commenter’s views on mega-churches and their theology.
With that, I take my leave, because this discussion has left the original topic of mega-churches.
Scott Hausman at 63
But didn’t your post imply that big meaningful churches like Mars Hill have more meaningful communion services when they have them than little churches? Didn’t you suggest that our “remembrance” was one of the most important things in communion?
I wonder what you mean by “right heart”?
And you’re right, getting back to large churches, in my opinion, they too often put far too many of the right hearts in the wrong place – a place where there is no altar, no pulpit, maybe a little of God’s Word sprinkled in along with just the right amount of non-offending sacrament. The banquet feast of Word and Sacrament available at a faithful church of whatever size far outweighs however many behinds grace the cushy auditorium seating.
To dive back at the article, I do find the 6% number intriguing.
What has always been a problem for me is “well, if they’re getting the message out…they can’t be all bad right?”. I’ve even thought of the megachurch as being justified as a possible “starter church” concept–the milk before the meat concept. But it seems that I was wrong if not completely at least in the majority of my logic.
If they’re on par with any other church with “reaching the lost” then they’re not really doing much of anything save spreading more fuel on the fire of anti-sacrament-feel-good theology, preaching to the choir, and indoctrinating the small number of people that they do reach into their own ways rather than the “openness” that may get talked about.
So, on that note, it seems debating/arguing the merits of their theology extremely worthwhile. Would I be wrong in this assumption?
Personal disclaimer: There are cushions on our pews at St. John’s – That really brings ‘em in! I highly recommend them.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to lead the discussion astray. The main thrust was to point out that the LS is the high point of the worship service. The LS is also an uncomfortable fit in a megachurch. What does this say about a megachurch – if the service can’t lead to a natural (and biblical) conclusion at the table, then the preaching is probably false teaching. The sermon should say “you are worthless in yourself. You are forgiven and therefore similtaneously a saint. Now to receive God’s unbelievable gift of undeserved love, come feed on his flesh and blood at the table.” Does this/can this happen in a megachurch? My observations lead me to a categorical “no”. To answer Veith’s question, I would say that pastoral care is then in serious, serious jeopardy, because to truly feed the congregation he must preach and FAITHFULLY administer the LS.
Cheers,
CL
Fr. McCain stated: “It would appear that the mega-churches are catering to bored Christians looking for a “change of pace” or “something new and exciting” rather than actually reaching those who are not Christians.”
Yes, not only that but they’re new to the megachurch and will soon be new at a different megachurch.
Mars Hill can baptize 275 every week and it still wouldn’t mean a thing to them, other than it is their public commitment to Jesus.
Big deal.
If they believe that Christ is given, that faith is given, that life is given in Holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper…I will eat my keyboard, one key at a time.
As for non-denom. mega-barn churches despising the Sacraments…it is true… they do.
They admit it, and are proud of it.
And I admit that I despise believer’s baptism and toasting good ol’ Jesus and conjuring up some sort of heartfelt rememberance of an event where I was not even in attendance.
Let’s call a spade, a spade.
Steve, I’m not sure quite what to say. You wouldn’t care if 275 people came to a saving relationship with Christ each week at a church because they don’t share your view of Baptism and the LS.
I can’t really say what I think of you.
WebMonk (@71), I can’t defend the way Steve is saying things at all, but come on. You’ve mischaracterized what he said.
tODD,
I appreciate that, sir.
WebMonk, you did not hear a word that I said.
I was speaking of their low view of Baptism.
Only the Lord knows the hearts of men. That He commanded us to baptize shows us just how much He thought of it. Other scripture shows us that it (baptism) “saves also”.
You have no idea (nor do I) of how many people that choose Christ by making a decision (believer’s baptism), really mean it…since “all men are liars”.
If the 275 baptisms at Mars Hill are of former Buddhists or pagans or Muslims, I cheer that. I don’t know about Mars Hill, but the megachurches around here mostly re-baptize other forms of Christians who have now made a more “personal decision.” I believe the preacher of Mars Hill is a former Catholic. I’ve heard his sermons on the radio and they seem orthodox, but I’m still nervous when baptisms are of former types of Christians. I think baptism takes when God does it the first time. Megachurches are happy to take former Catholics and Lutherans because they often make the best Sunday School teachers. They really know their catechisms and doctrine.
With non-denom. mega-barn type churches, God’s promises in the sacraments are meaningless (how can God be present in a bowl of water, or a piece of bread and some wine?)
…but man’s promises and sincerity are everything.
It’s all backwards.
Are they still Christians? Of course, we say that they are.
Do they understand the Sacraments. No they don’t.
So if the external Word doesn’t mean too much, then what does? The Word internalized.
The sincerity game. The performance game. The exhibiting the fruits game.
You end up with Pharisees, with phonies, or with people in despair.
Booklover @ 74: Only the Romans and the Lutherans know their catechisms? You obviously never met any orthodox reformed. -CL
Crypto-Lutheran,
met a few reformed people who have had their catechisms memorized. Never met an orthodox reformed though, they all turn out to be Nestorian. Their catechisms taught them to be.
“Mars Hill can baptize 275 every week and it still wouldn’t mean a thing to them, other than it is their public commitment to Jesus.
Big deal.”
Sorry, you guys are right; that’s a perfectly reasonable statement.
Webmonk,
I suspect sarcasm in your last statement. This won’t be a chastisement for using sarcasm, I like sarcasm.
However, one day, God willing, you will come to know the true meaning of Baptism and what is really happening there. At that point you will realize what a perfectly reasonable statement this is. The problem is from a Lutheran standpoint, that a baptism viewed as a public commitment to Jesus, really undermines the true meaning of Baptism, and borders on blasphemy, if it isn’t just down right blasphemous. This is especially true when it is the persons 2nd 3rd or 4th baptism, as if the 1st one did not take. As it is common these days for people to be rebaptized, or for congregations to baptize people who have already been baptized in Trinitarian believing churches, we are skeptical of their worth, even as a barometer for the evangelistic work that is going on in said church.
Hi Bror,
I assure you, I don’t follow the heretic Nestorius (but, as my “name” implies, I’m also a crypto-Lutheran.) Menno Simons, who spoke nary a word of Hebrew or Greek, was a Nestorian heretic. It was a result of his ignorance of classical languages and subscription to the mistaken 16th century scientific belief that the mother did not contribute to the genetic make-up of the child (ergo his reasoning that Christ not have a human nature). But Calvin was not a Nestorian and modern “orthodox” reformed churches subscribe to all three ecumenical creeds including the decisive Nicean. Are you making a reference to the LS?
Blessings,
CL
Hi Bror,
Sorry, just some clarification: could you cite the Q/A of the Heidelberg Catechism that teaches Nestorianism? You’ve piqued my curiosity!
CL
But hey, at least the reformed like to sing Psalms. Check out this perversion of the musical arts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV1dA4h19gQ&feature=related
CL
Crypto,
When you maintain that the finite cannot contain the infinite, you maintain the Nestorian heresy. When you maintain that Our Lord and Savior cannot be present in the Lords Supper according to his human nature, but only according to his divine, you maintain the Nestorian Heresy. Sure the two natures in Christ are distinct, but in the person of Jesus remain inseparable.
Of course the reformed do a nice job of backtracking on these in other areas, but…
Crypto,
For the record, Nestorius believed very much that Christ had a human nature. To say he didn’t have a human nature would make him Docetist, or perhaps Apolarian, but not Nestorian. Nestorious however did not believe that the human and divine natures were so united as to say that Mary gave birth to God.
Thanks, Bror. I thought that that was the tack you were on. I totally agree – which is why I’ve been trying to “switch confessions” for about 5 years.
I remain cryptically yours,
CL
Dan #23:
Good points. My observation is certainly inferential. However, in a more theoretical sense, any model reveals the goals of its adherents. In rocket science, for example, I need a rocket model that achieves 25,000 MPH if my intention is to reach outer space. Lets apply this to ecclesiastical models. The Mega-church model is designed to maximize profit and minimize risk. This is not inherently wrong, but in so doing the model may (and in my experience always does) supress or eliminate other, more important goals, including discipleship and Biblical preaching (a note on economics and critical constituency here: at some point all the building projects require a certain number of butts in the pews. This is where the watered down theology usually comes in). Now describing a better model is more difficult, because we first have to agree on what goals our model should embrace. I would argue that our model should (1) attempt to achieve the principles of the NT church, and (2) as much as possible try to utilize the methods of the NT church. The principles include preaching the gospel/discipleship, equipping the saints for the work of the ministry. The methodology of our model would include plurality of eldership, meeting corporately on the first of the week and house-to-house during the week, public reading of scripture, prayer, confession, expositional preaching, and singing songs, hymns, psalms. Now the second point is actually pretty important, because if God created the church, He probably had some pretty good ideas about how it should be run. I think it is incumbent upon us to at least try to implement contextualized NT methodology before coming up with our own new and clever ideas. I might add that many psychologists and philosophers have agreed that the message is inseperable from methodology (see, for example, Efrat Tseelon, Theory & Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 3, 299-316 (1991), cf. McLuan or Grossweiller).
Crypto,
For five years?
Perhaps you could Email me, Bror0122@hotmail.com, and tell me about this transition and what the obstacles are. Be patient though as I will be out of town most of this week.
Hi,
I would like to share with you a good ebook that’s free to help pastors and their wives with discouragement and burnout. You can find it at: http://www.stoppastorburnout.com . It’s quite helpful.
If you have pastor friends or even their wives, we are currently inviting pastors and pastor wives to join charter membership club for free for 2 months,you might want to share this with them. You may visit http://www.susandavidlifecoach.com/index.php/sponsors for more information.
We would also like to invite you to view our video on this topic at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miF-R0bCz0A.
Feel free to share this with your friends or people you care for.
Also I would like to connect with you through;
Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/susandavidlifecoach
Twitter
http://twitter.com/susanmdavid
Thanks,
Susan David