What comes to mind when you think of the word “megachurch?”
For many people, they think of the label that their own place of worship has. For them, it’s a term that simply describes the place where they experience God, and also have many of their closest relationships.
For others, it creates thoughts of impersonal relationships, slick-haired, smiling preachers who only want your money.
Whatever thoughts that word evokes for you, I propose a change.
I think too many people get megachurch confused with the Prosperity Gospel, or with a place where church-goers can simply sit back and not be challenged by God’s Word. In some cases, I believe this is true, but in many more cases, that thought couldn’t be further from the truth.
Many of the fastest growing churches in America are equipping their members to further the Gospel across the world, and not just allowing them to fade into the background, so to speak.
So, why don’t we stop using the word “megachurch” and just call these large churches, “churches.”
We don’t call extremely small churches “minichurches” do we?
Thoughts?
Chris Ames says
Hmmm… petachurches?
Chase Livingston says
Sure 😉
Len Mason says
You will be hard-pressed to show me a mega-church that isn’t largely driven by the cult of personality. From my experience, many of those in attendance are there for the charisma of the person in the pulpit. Add to that the Pareto principle, and you can estimate that about 20% of the congregation is truly active. It also doesn’t help that the mega-churches put a lot of emphasis on “show” with huge multimedia presentations. Sensationalism and emotions are a big factor in mega-churches.
All churches have their negative points, to be sure. But I am pointing out the ones that are unique to mega-churches, thereby validating the moniker.
(I am not saying that there is no message. On the contrary, I grew up in a mega-church, back when that name did not exist, and we just called it church. 🙂 And there was a solid bible-based message almost every Sunday.)
Chase Livingston says
Is there anything wrong with this though? Just because they’re doing church a little differently than other churches, should we look down on them?
Jonathan Gardner says
People should probably take a look a this study. http://www.churchleaders.com/outreach-missions/outreach-missions-blogs/149051-another-look-at-megachurches.html
Len’s points about mega churches aren’t unique to mega churches. I’ve been to large, small, and the in-between sized churches, and Len’s points happen in them all. The worst personality driven ministries which I’ve seen, have actually been in the smaller churches. Most churches, regardless of size have VERY little activity from the congregation. Sure there are problems with some “mega-churches”, in their practices, theology, and leadership; but these are problems which happen regardless of the size of a church. These days, people will catch on very quickly if a ministry is just “fluff” and personality, and will leave. So large ministries have to be doing something right, in order to not just be maintaining large numbers of people, but to be growing as well.
In response to your comment Chase, no we shouldn’t look down on other churches just because they do things differently. As my Dad, who has been in ministry in various positions for 40 years often tells me, “Paul said the ‘Unity of the Faith’, not the ‘Unity of Doctrine’ (Eph. 4:13).
Chase Livingston says
Great article and thoughts. Thanks for sharing!
Raoul Snyman says
Absolutely, Jonathan. I’ve been in a few churches in my lifetime, and the situation is the same in all of them. About 20% of the congregation is involved and keeps the church running.
As you also noted, the worst personality driven churches seem to be the smaller ones.
James Brooks says
I’ll say an “amen” to the point about personality driven small churches – I’ve definitely been there.
Chase Livingston says
Great thoughts guys! I haven’t experienced this much myself, but it’s interesting to know that so many people see this.
Matt Brough says
As someone who pastors a small congregation (about 60 to 80 worshippers right now), I kind of like the title “mini-church” or maybe “nano-church”. But I’ve always been a Mac guy.
Not sure we should never say “mega”, but we may want to change some of what we say about very large Churches. Do we use the term “mega” out of envy? Do we use it pejoratively? Or are we speaking about brothers and sisters in Christ out of love?
Chase Livingston says
Very good points Matt. I believe that many times it’s used negatively, at least in my experience.
Matt Brough says
Agreed. Mega seems to be used in a negative sense by those I know who wished their own Churches didn’t have declining numbers. e.g. “At least we’re not a Mega Church.” It seems more about fear that more of “their people” will leave and go to the Mega Church down the road.
Chase Livingston says
For sure, I’ve found that as well. I wish churches would start thinking about why someone would want to leave and go to the “megachurch” down the road, instead of just speaking negatively about them.
Adam Shields says
I do not (and have not) connected mega-church to prosperity gospel. I connect the term mega-church with the size of the church, that is pretty much it.
We do have terms for small churches and like mega-church I think they are best used when talking about sociological aspects of the church.
I currently attend a mega-church. But my last church was less than 50. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. The problem isn’t the size in and of itself (although size does give some tendency toward different types of problems). You can have small prosperity gospel churches. You can have large prosperity gospel churches.
When I talk about my local church I call it my local church. I have never heard anyone use the term “my mega-church”.
When I use the term church, I tend to mean the church universal or the church of a particular geography, not my local gathering. If we want to use the more biblical version of the way that church was used, it is primarily those two (universal or all local gatherings of a particular geography.)
Chase Livingston says
Good to know, you’re one of the few people I’ve met that thinks that way. My point was that people who attend large churches understand that the stereotype isn’t true, but those on the outside seem to continually feed it, especially here in the South.
Adam Shields says
Maybe it is a regional thing. But I don’t think so. The south has more mega-churches per capita than any other area of the country. Maybe it is an urban/rural split.
Rural areas are where mega-churches are least likely to exist.
Chase Livingston says
Could be. Whatever the reason, I think if we get away from using the term, then maybe people will start to actually take a look at what the churches are doing, rather than just assuming there’s no depth to what they teach.
Matt Brough says
True we have very few “mega”-Churches in Canada, particularly where I am. Here, any Church over 1000 people (maybe even lower) still gets its fair share of negative comments. And that needs to stop. I also think it needs to stop the other way. I’ve heard folks who go to larger Churches say “if you’re not getting fed where you are, then maybe you should try our Church”. The implication can be that Church is only about getting fed (read, entertained), and if you don’t like organ music or your pastors voice, or the out-of-tune choir, then move on. Sometimes the call is to move on, but sometimes its to stay get on with God’s work where you are.
Adam Shields says
I doubt it. I don’t think language has much to do with it. People judge based on their prior church experience. They think that the way they grew up or where they first attended a church is ‘the way’ church is done. I think this is part of why it may be an urban/rural issue.
Frankly, urban people are just more aware of difference because they are exposed to a wider variety of people and cultures.
Tre Lawrence says
Great article, great commentary.
I have always associated the adjective mega with size of church. My first real church experience was at one in West Africa decades ago… and I think some points outlined here apply.
Chase Livingston says
Thanks for the kind words Tre!
Paul Clifford says
I wonder if the problem here is that we’re not using “mega” to talk about size, but in some pejorative sense. Some in small churches assume the gospel must be watered down in order to have that many people. Some in larger churches assume that those in smaller churches must be close-minded and judgmental and that’s what keeps people away.
I don’t think it’s that simple. There are tons of reasons why churches are the size they are. One might be that God wants each to be that size. A small church can be familial in a way a larger one can’t. A large church can be “safe” for people who don’t want to be noticed.
I’m part of a church that was small (100ish) when I came 11 years ago, but is now 3500 people. The church in Acts 2 was a megachurch from the beginning. Other early churches were small because of persecution or necessity.
Look at each church and don’t assume until you know for sure.
Paul
Jarrod Cartee says
I 100% agree with this. A lot of people think that Newspring, based out of South Carolina is an awful church just because its got more than one campus. They had to expand because so many people liked it.
Alianza Apostolica says
A humble man whose only possessions were a robe, sandals and wooden cane transformed the world thousands years ago with poverty and humility, and now the large church leaders (as you said) they call themselves blessed of Christ but surrounded by excess of luxury and money while a part of this world hunger dies?
True Christian Leader is giving and not expecting to receive; a true leader lives only to serve and help others to grow as person and Christian and those men have forgotten that.
The love of God is understood only when you work for your neighbor, God does not need limousines or mansions, he needs only honest men with a sacrifice spirit.