The church I grew up in, for example, provided significant financial support for needs in the local community, regardless of whether they were members/attendees, as well as a gym, basketball court, plays, classes, clubs, and various other community events and facilities—most open to the public, not just members. Many megachurches provide exactly the sort of facilities and programs you see progressives arguing should be provided by government, and they manage to do so largely without public funding. Progressive activists , however, tend to be suspicious of—if not outright hostile toward—religious groups that perform these services, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
UPDATE: To be perfectly honest, there are conservatives who don't like megachurches either. I have a semi-bad attitude about them, but I think it's because of a couple of things. One, I'm guilty of the same fault Suderman attributes to liberal critics: I've never been to a megachurch. I instinctively don't like bigness, and the kind of megachurch services I've seen on TV turn me off. But as I learned last fall when reading "Applebee's America," megachurches really are all about small groups. Which makes sense to me. Secondly, the spectacle and emotionalism I associate with megachurches is not necessarily the fault of the size of the church, but is a worship style that doesn't appeal to me, but which could be found in much smaller Evangelical and/or Pentecostal churches. Point is, the disdain for megachurches based in ignorance is not just something many liberals have. I'm going to make it a point sometime this year to visit one or more in my area, and see what's going on. I have a feeling that a lot of the community-building that I, from my crunchy-con perspective, long for is happening at megachurches, and has been happening for a while. I just have such an instinctively negative reaction to church-as-rock-concert that I have been guilty of prejudice against megachurches.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
The megachurch we went to had a small contempory Christian service, but its most popular services were liturgical.
That being said, we did find this King of the Hill megachurch video hilarious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtI2pa2m5cg
I certainly cannot speak for all "megachurches," but I can enthusiastically support the current church my family attends in the Atlanta suburbs of Alpharetta. We have been fortunate to avoid the criticisms listed here (some by posters who admit to never participating in such a church):
Our pastors preach the Bible, no more, no less, and they absolutely speak the truth in love on the hard issues;
There is absolutely no cult of personality (trust me, I have seen this happen in the smallest of churches!);
Having lived here for just a couple of years, we thank God for the true community we have enjoyed - families who live close by as well as those a half-hour away - with whom we've shared life every day of the week;
Our family and marriage have benefitted more from our participation in numerous "small groups" than 40 years of Sunday school classes - we learn to be vulnerable, transparent, therefore accountable, and thereby growing in our Christian walk;
We do not attend for the "convenience" of several services, as our children's small groups meet at one particular service;
Prior baptisms done by choice after a conversion experience absolutely "count" - there is no requirement to be baptized again.
Having grown up in more traditional Baptist-style churches, I admit that the "style" of the worship service was an adjustment. (Our church did a sermon series on this very topic a while back called "You've Got Style," which I recommend.) But to every week be awed by God working in this environment, to see and hear the testimonies given by people to be baptized,who would never have darkened the door of a more traditional church, about how they have developed a personal and growing relationship with Christ, is a real privilege. The bottom line by which to judge any church is not the size or style of the church, but whether it is effectively serving as the Body of Christ.
Elizabeth: That may be the problem. Most of what I think I know about megachurches comes from that King of the Hill episode.
When people say hard issues, they often mean homosexuality and a abortion. I remember one Evangelical Church I attended that hit on those two issues twice a month. Having returned to the Catholic Church, I think I've heard homosexuality discussed once and that was immediately followed up by a longer discussion on divorce. I hear abortion prayed about more often. Typically we'll have one or two sermons on it in a year. The point is that a lot of folks pat themselves on the back saying that their church engages in hard issues. Most of the time, those hard issues don't effect members of the congregation. A hard issue is a Catholic priest talking about the evil of contraception. I have heard several stories of parishoners interupting the sermon and arguing with the priest. Many are attacked after the service for talking about it. We don't want to offend our donors either, but when was the last time you heard a sermon about using God's resources to build a McMansion?
We don't want to offend our donors either, but when was the last time you heard a sermon about using God's resources to build a McMansion? Oh no you di'int! *snap*
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.