It’s rare to read through a ministry publication today without stumbling across an article proclaiming the mega church demise. Apparently mega churches are doomed to die a slow, painful death as the younger crowd finds fellowship at Starbucks and avoids church altogether. A ministry friend predicted last week that some day the Crystal Cathedral will become a museum and Willow Creek a college campus.
But wait a minute. In our Darwinian culture, doesn’t success ensure survival? If so, mega churches may not be going away anytime soon. A recent survey by Barna and Church Relevance reveals that a larger percent of mega church congregations agree with the following faith statements than small church congregations.
Does this mean mega churches are doing a better job discipling than small churches?
As a result, could it be that smaller churches are actually more at risk?
It does seem to make sense that smaller churches, house churches, etc. could wander a little farther from the truth…they generally have less accountability and are probably made up of more progressive people that would be more likely to push the line.
But I also wonder how the research was done. What did the researchers define as a small church? It seems likely that some of those small “Christian” churches in the survey might not actually fit into the Christian category and therefore could have skewed the results for the rest of the small churches.
So, yes…mega churches may be “safer” according to this research, but they are obviously missing something when it comes to community and real-life connection. And as the mega church demise has shown, that’s just not going to work with my generation
I too question the research, but that’s not my main concern.
My biggest problem is the assumption that adherence to a list of doctrinal statements = success. There are thousands of small-town conservative-fundamentalist churches out there that would agree with these statements, but they are dying (some would call them dead already). Consider Charles Spurgeon’s ministry in London in the 1800s at Metropolitan Tabernacle. At its heydey, the church had 5300 attendees (it was a megachurch before megachurches existed!). This church would certainly ascribe to this list of faith statements – then and now. And yet, today, that church is only a fraction of the size as it once was. Adherence to a set list of doctrinal statements is neither a promise of a thriving, sustaining church and nor is it necessarily a sign of success, and it is certainly not a guarantee of true discipleship.
Given that most megachurches are often similar in theology, and one could easily find much smaller churches of the same theological stripe, there must be (many) other reasons why people go to megachurches or why they are considered successful other than theological persuasion. The most obvious, as it was in Spurgeon’s case, is the dynamic and charismatic talking head up front. The dangerous risk of many megachurches is that they completely revolve around the popularity of one man who has often done little in the way of deferring the attention or appointing successors. So, what will happen to Willow Creek when Bill Hybels dies? Will it be able to survive in the same building when its numbers are cut in half (I doubt it)? What will happen to the churches of Charles Swindol, John MacArthur, Creflo Dollar, T. D. Jakes, Joel Osteen, and Rick Warren when they die?
There are many other questions we could ask related to the “success” of a church: Will megachurches be able to sustain their massive budgets amidst the current economic downturn, since the attendees of megachurches on average tithe a lower percent of their income? Are megachurches at a greater risk of a devastating financial or sex scandal (in my opinion, yes)? Since only 55% of megachurch attendees ever volunteer, what will these churches look like in another generation, and what kind of Christians are megachurhes producing (ascribing to a set list of doctrines but completely passive?)?
Ashton,
I’m not sure how they defined a small church. Your concern is valid in that many small churches and house churches have leaders that get off track and into strange doctrines.
Regarding mega churches…the key is to do big small. If they can’t they will struggle. However, recent research shows many young people are indeed drawn to those mega churches that are learning to do it small.
Ed
Brock,
You’re raising a great point…what is success?
Its clear that mega churches have become a significant voice for good in their communities. And, they have introduced Christ to tens of thousands that may have never heard the good news. And that is important of course.
However, the big criticism has been their supposed lack of depth. Barna’s research shows that evangelical Christians are no different than society at large when it comes to premarital sex, pornography, honesty, etc.
Barna’s research also shows society at large has become rather cynical as a result of the perceived hypocrisy. The mega church/seeker sensitive movement has been blamed for much of this. That’s why I found the chart above quite interesting in that they seem to be as grounded in the foundational beliefs as any.
So is the mega church sustainable? And, what is success?
It would seem we first have to buy into the foundational principles in the chart above. But then Jesus also said, “If you love me keep my commandment.” That begs a number of questions like:
Are we keeping His commandments in daily life?
Do we have faith and works?
Are we sacrificial Christians or simply Sunday consumers of Christian services?
These may the deeper keys to success.
Ed