An inconvienient truth about megachurches

Megachurches are a good deal financially. Where else can you get gymnasiums, day care, lavish pagenants and a high-tech music show on Sunday morning for a small tax-free donation? The DMN carried a story about 'green' churches a while back. Prestonwood Baptist listed their _average_ monthly utility bill at $250,000.

Rebeccat stated: "Personally, I don't know how you can call yourself a Christian (or a decent human being of any sort) and not be actively working to get our society to the other side of the racial barrier our ancestors have left to us."

Perhaps because there are other issues that some people consider more pressing. And also perhaps because not everyone sees the world the way you do (yet somehow they remain decent human beings!).
But good luck breaking the "race barrier." I sincerely hope your plane doesn't break up, which I believe happened to some before Chuck Yeager.

Some interesting perspectives on a Christian's personal effort to break the racial barrier can be read in:

More Than Equals: Racial Healing for the Sake of the Gospel, by Spencer Perkins (son of John Perkins, and now deceased from a sudden heart attack) & Chris Rice

Grace Matters: A Memoir of Faith, Friendship, and Hope in the Heart of the South, by Chris P. Rice (Hardcover title: Grace Matters: A True Story of Race, Friendship, and Faith in the Heart of the South)

It was a tough row to hoe.

What, just because diversity is difficult means it's morally WRONG?

But that would be the stance of people who ask people with black, brown or yellow skin to "assimilate" in a land with a 400-year history of racism ...

What unites them is shared religious belief, a conviction that crosses all ethnic and social boundaries.

This is evidence of a great leap forward even if what unites them is their ideology, meaning their diversity is purely physical. Next step: to work on diversity of ideology, class, and education level.

Dr. Putnam, I'm not trying to get on your case. I only cited the Henninger column to bring up the point about megachurches and diversity. I deliberately didn't comment on the rest of the Henninger column because I didn't want to get back into the argument everyone had in this space in June over the John Leo take on your column, which, as you pointed out, was mistaken. To be honest, I didn't go back and re-familiarize myself with the June thread here, and therefore didn't comment on Henninger's entire set of remarks about your work, because the only thing I was interested in this afternoon when I posted this was your finding about megachurches.

Anyway, if anyone wants to revisit that earlier debate, and read Dr. Putnam's defense of his work against John Leo's characterization of it, by all means do. Here is a link to that thread.

Anon. wrote: This is evidence of a great leap forward even if what unites them is their ideology, meaning their diversity is purely physical. Next step: to work on diversity of ideology, class, and education level.

People who go to a megachurch unite around a shared set of beliefs (or, if you like, ideology). What would be the point of going to a church where you didn't believe what was taught there?

What would be the point of going to a church where you didn't believe what was taught there?

The article contained references to more than church, and those parishioners (if that's what they're called in evangelical churches) have lives outside of that arena for a much larger percentage of their time than the time spent in the actual church. I understand that many megachurches include many amenities that encourage greater participation, so I do not know if the attendange pattern seen in the mainstream denominations is relevant here. Suffice to say that for one or two sessions a week, time is spent in community with church membership.

During time outside of church, there is time spent in work, leisure and mercantile pursuits. Each of these, in conjunction with academia, offer many opportunities for people to interact with others from diverse social and economic backgrounds, diverse races, political affiliations, education levels, creeds, and ideologies.

It is the diversity of ideologies that so often drives the wedge between groups today, it seems, whereas in the past, class, race, and gender were the dividing forces. Outside of the comfort of company that shares our ideologies, many feel that they are among enemies rather than merely among people with a difference of opinion. Whether that comfort zone is the church, the boardroom, the laboratory, or the univeristy, the difference between the idea is what separates, not race, nationality or gender.

For instance, an free-market economist is often most comfortable amongst other free market economists. Overhearing a conversation between two socialists, that economist would most likely not approach the two with an offer of friendship or a desire to build community with them. I would be hard pressed to locate an environmental activist that seeks out the fiendship and community with Weyerhauser employees or medical research scientists.

I suppose the same could be said for some parts of the economic question - the super-rich often don't have the opportunity to socialize and build community with the poverty-stricken, for example, but I don't get the sense that it's as volatile or as likely to produce such revulsion as reactions to diametrically opposed ideologies do.

To sum up, diversity of race and gender is easy now. Diversity of ideology is a lot tougher. Class and education are a struggle as well, but I think ideology trumps, sadly.

I'm somewhat skeptical of the idea that diversity, in the end, can be totally worked out such that it truly does strengthen the bonds of different groups together. And to be honest, I think some of the previous posts sort of speak from a middle to upper class/educated perspective. For the person who works from day to day to maintain his standard of living, I imagine that diversity is of little concern. More importantly--one likely has a greater desire to be around individuals who are most similar to him.

On the other hand, I don't think it is entirely productive to live life completely secluded. It keeps a person on his toes. Then again, if we truly are dedicated to living life around people who are different, not just in the way they look, but also in their customs and beliefs, I'm skeptical that many people can really bridge that gap without also giving up something that is a part of their group (and dear to them).

Understanding that not everybody who posts here is a Christian, I still get puzzled when those who are start to discuss the topic of diversity in this way. Is it not true that for Christians, every single person on earth, no matter who they are, is a child of the same God as we are, and has to be treated as a brother or sister?

I know that even within some families, certain members are excluded because they don't fit the standards other members have set up. "My brother is the black sheep; he's broke/obnoxious/an alcoholic, so I'm glad he moved to Nevada." Or, "My sister married a black man/turned Protestant/is a lesbian and therefore I don't care to have her in the house." But the normal reaction to this would be "Dear me, that's a shame" rather than "Good for you!"

It seems to me that Christians should be coming from a position of reaching out to as many people as possible, rather than seeking to justify the degree of exclusivity we feel comfortable with. Granted that we are finite beings, we should still be trying to find the maximum amount of common ground with everybody.

The group I once belonged to justified their increasing exclusivity with the rationale that "Er, ahem, well actually the Bible doesn't mean that everybody is your brother. Only your fellow believers have to be treated as brethren." By this strategem, they encouraged people to break family ties as well as friendships. Their behavior showed that they didn't even consider fellow Catholics to be "brethren" if they didn't belong to this particular community. But I considered this way of thinking an aberration, and still do. Jesus very clearly sets aside boundaries between groups based on just the kinds of social custom we are talking about. I can't believe he intended us to put the barricades back in place.

Sig: It seems to me that Christians should be coming from a position of reaching out to as many people as possible, rather than seeking to justify the degree of exclusivity we feel comfortable with. Granted that we are finite beings, we should still be trying to find the maximum amount of common ground with everybody.

But Sig, ask yourself: what is the purpose of any particular religion? If it's to gather as many people in for the sake of gathering people in, what's the use? All religions make certain truth claims. Why would I want to be drawn to a Hindu temple to worship, if I am not a Hindu, and reject Hindu teachings? Why would a Hindu want to attend my Orthodox church, if he didn't believe in Jesus Christ? Most assuredly if a Hindu turned up at Sunday services, he would be welcomed. But he couldn't expect the church to moderate its teachings to make the religion more palatable to him. Nor could a non-Hindu expect a Hindu temple to downplay or change what is distinct about the Hindu faith for the purposes of marketing to a wider customer base.

A Christian church worthy of the name will be welcoming and kind to all who present themselves in peace and goodwill. But it will also have clear standards for membership in the community, like any other community. The minute it loses those standards, it loses its reason for existence, and the community will disperse from lack of internal cohesion.

To take a completely secular example: if the Democratic Party were to become more "big tent" on issues of importance to social conservatives, it would enlarge its membership and probably win more elections. But many Democrats fear that a Democratic Party too willing to compromise on some hard-core defining issues would no longer be a Democratic Party in a meaningful sense. Mind you, religions deal in ultimate truths, while much less is at stake with political parties evolving. Still, I think you can grasp the basic dynamic here.

I have something in common with Professor Putnam. An interview with the Financial Times (shortly after the launch of a society I used to chair) was my worst media experience too.

Rod, I guess I failed to adequately define what I was talking about. My post was responding not so much to doctrinal exclusivity as to social exclusivity. Naturally it's easier to form associations with those who are more like us, more compatible with us, more supportive of us. But, as a Christian, how does one justify assuming that privilege? Especially if it ends up disadvantaging others?

Even in questions of the faith community, I wonder if an emphasis on making sure that everyone toes the line and thinks correctly is really the most productive. I know that some other commenters believe strongly that doctrinal unity is essential to the survival of The Church (whichever organization is designated as The Church in the commenter's mind). But surely it has always been the case that each individual is at a different point in their relationship with God, and has different interpretations of a teaching, and different reservations about it. Is there a state of perfect conformity in belief, and if so, how would you know what it was? Christianity has splintered into a thousand factions precisely because people demanded utter purity according to their own lights, and it seems clear you can't ever get that in a church of more than one.

With regard to your comments on Hindus and the Orthodox changing in response to the presence of outsiders--actually, religions do evolve in response to their environment. (Score one for Darwin . . . .) I'm willing to bet that even your Orthodox church behaves rather differently, and teaches in a different way, from the way it looked and taught in, say, 15th century Russia. Hinduism is definitely in the process of changing in response to democracy and modernity. Particular points of friction include the caste system, and gender inequities--both of which are not matters of faith as such, but social constructions that gained power through linkage to matters of faith. The manner of presenting Hindu belief in the West is way different from folk practice in ancient India. And this has come about in response to the presence of numerous Western inquirers, plus the modernization of indigenous believers. Christianity is evolving too. I realize many people think that's a bad thing, but it is happening anyway.

However, my main point was nothing so complex, but merely the observation that if all men are my brothers, it's a little weird to say "Hey man, I love you as a Christian but kindly stay over there on your own side of the tracks because I don't like your attitude and you're messing up my unit cohesion."

Rod, I absolutely agree that there are some standards of membership, but look at the variety of issues which Paul lists as disputable and not worth arguing much less rejecting people over: issues of food, our relationship and interaction with pagan religions, days of worship, manner of worship, dress. He even, while critisizing those who want to claim allegiance to various teachers, says that such things are of little consequence as long as Jesus is being taught and worshipped. The early church as recorded in scriptures practiced infant baptism, adult baptism, infant dedication, conversion of families, conversion of individuals, baptism by immersions, sprinkling, in rivers, pools and mud puddles, gifting of the holy spirit through prayer, laying on of hands, and spontaneous movement of the holy spirit. There were places where worship was rather rowdy and places where people were told to tone it down. For Paul the standard for membership seemed to be faith in Jesus Christ, transformation of heart and mind by the indwelling of the holy spirit, prayer and worship, an attitude of humility and servanthood to fellow man and moral living. In each and every case where church practices outside of this narrow core and the unity of the body of Christ came into conflict, Paul advocated for the unity of the body of Christ over practices, no matter how worthy or well justified such practices were.
Now, would various churches and particularly denominations lose something of what makes them what they are by restricting their non-negotiables to what Paul advocates? Absolutely. However, wouldn't that be simply giving up man's ways for God's ways? I simply cannot see, based on scriptures how Paul would have supported churches claiming authority by being able to trace leadership back to the apostles, or by restricting leadership by sex or by only legitamizing those who had said a particular prayer, or been baptisied in a certain way at a certain age, or by which days are kept holy or what practices of food or dress are acceptable and at what times or in what manner people worship or how the holy spirit is made manifest in a person's life. Yet, all these things are what make particular churches and denominations unique.
Perhaps we need to consider that if we go to Jesus like the rich man who kept all the practices and precepts of his faith and asked what further we need to do in order to gain salvation, the answer would be "give it all up - all the things which divide my body. Give them up utterly." How many denominations would be willing to do that and how many would walk away sadly knowing they could not do what Jesus asked?
Just some stuff to think about.

Daniel Henninger, author of article Rod linked to, is a senior member of Wall Street Journal editorial board.
WSJ editors are stone cold Open Border commissars, every year they publish the same editorial calling for a new constitutional amendment: "There should be No Borders".

In plain language, those boys are Post-Americans, America as we know and love is passe for them. John Fonte calls them Transnational Progressives or transis.

With Open Borders we get virtually unlimited amount of diversity. Putnam study proves that more diverse society is, less well it works.
A real problem for Open Border Commissars.
Hence Comrade Henninger is grasping on the straws of megachurches.

Do you religious guys really believe that Christian megachurches can solve problems of country with 100 million Mexicans, 50 M Chinese, 50 M indians, 50 M Muslims, etc, etc?

I love diverse restaurants as long as they are good. I love to visit diverse countries as long as they don't have charming customs of kidnapping foreign tourists.

In my residential block and in my work place I would like to take my diversity one small tablet a week.

mik_infidelos,

You are certainly right about Daniel Henninger (and the entire WSJ board) being serious liberals on immigration. They have zero respect for poor working Americans.

Regarding your immigration fears: relax. There was a good story in Invester business Daily yesterday about how Mexico is running out of bodies to send us. Diversity from illegal border crossings may just go away on its own, like the Canadian border. Rod, you aught to post on this, it's interesting and right up your alley.

Some highlights:

A recent Pew Survey of global attitudes revealed that 50% of Mexicans think emigration is their nation's No. 1 problem. It's not surprising, with one out of seven Mexican workers now living in the U.S...

But it left Mexico a strange place...As an homage to the missing workers, a Mexican artist now plans to create statues representing 2,500 missing emigrants in empty villages. It's clear Mexican culture feels the loss.

Meanwhile, demographers calculate growth in Mexico's work force has already peaked. Political scientists have noticed key improvements in Mexico's long march to development.

Said UC Davis Professor Philip Martin in a 2004 study: "A combination of the sharp drop in Mexican fertility in the 1980s and 1990s, the potential for sustained economic and job growth in Mexico, and the winding down of the large-scale exodus from Mexican agriculture should reduce Mexico-U.S. migration after 2010."

Mexico's population growth peaked at 3.3% in 1970 and is now at 2%. In 1990, Mexico's government began encouraging illegal immigration — right when those born in 1970 began looking for work.

"There was a good story in Invester business Daily yesterday about how Mexico is running out of bodies to send us. Diversity from illegal border crossings may just go away on its own"

MAY? And WHEN? When our grandchildren are adults? And there are 200M first and second generation Mex immigrants in Estados Unidos?

Thing to remember: future illegal immigrants for the next 15-25 years are already born. Reduction in fertility rate today DO NOT impact immigration for the next 20 years.

"A recent Pew Survey of global attitudes revealed that 50% of Mexicans think emigration is their nation's No. 1 problem."

And so? The very same Pew study found that 44% of Mexicans would like to move to the Estados Unidos.

And there are 500 M of Chinese who would love to move here. And 300 M Indians and 100 M Arabs, etc, etc.

With exception of Muslems, there is no cosmic tragedy in all people movement. That is if you don't mind a good chance of civil war and certain disappearance of the United States.

Other than that, things are hanky dory. Just ask the greedy pigs at WSJ.

IMHO, difference is in approach and attitude. Those who are pro-diversity appear to be those who relish the "spice" of life. Humans are a collection of races, languages, cultures, religions, customs and lore, and exhibit a variety of expression in all of our endeavors. As one who enjoys diversification, I find joy and acceptance in that expression, but the ultimate comfort is the realization that at the end of the day, no matter what differences we have, we really are truly the same.

In Rod’s most beautiful post about Andrew Sullivan, he did reach a conclusion. Even though we may not adhere to all of the doctrines, and we often disagree in practice, differ on mores and rules, speak different languages, and sometimes we’re different colors, we are, however, all united by our shared humanity. Isn’t that really the point? And isn’t Christ the unifying expression of all of what we do share?

[Yes, I'm tired. My typos and bad grammar belong to me, and no other.]

While I consider my personal experience valid as a comparison point for the larger issues of community here, I must preface them by acknowledging that any analogy between Jewish and Christian congregations will quickly break down on a number of points.

When we brought our first child to the local Hebrew school, our "introduction" was interesting. My wife was raised Jewish but was not religious and had not done the bat mitvah; I was Jewish by birth, but not even raised as one. The rabbi, a man of infinite compassion and a wit a mile deep, worked with us to give us the basics we'd need to be members of his congregation, and left it to us to choose how much we'd partake in both the worship and social life of his community. My wife and I acquired Hebrew names (mine is a close literal translation of my given name, Elkhanan), and they appear on our children's Hebrew birth certificates and now on my daugther's wedding contract (ketubah).

Trying to keep this as brief as possible, I've never felt more welcomed into a gathering of fellow human beings. The services I've attended emphasized both family and community; at the end of every one, all the children present came up to the bema for the final prayer and song.

At no point did I or my wife feel pressured to become observant Jews. We easily entered into the rituals of life, the candles and prayer at sundown on Fridays, Passover seders, yahrtzeit candles, and when we attend services, no one looks askance at us.

I suggest that it is not about diversity, and never was. I suggest that it is about having a community, and making a conscious and deliberate decision to honor both the structure of it and the contributions to it that each member is capable of giving. From my POV, the rest is all about human ego, and nothing about God.

That is if you don't mind a good chance of civil war and certain disappearance of the United States.

Which US are you talking about, mik? The one where only WASP males have any authority or power, or the one where the governor of California is a German immigrant, and a first generation Kenyan is running for president?

I don't see much difference between the wholesale rejection of the illegals and the retail rejections of the European exiles after WWII (my parents being of the latter group). The sheer numbers of the illegals is a valid cause for concern on several points, but if you really want to break out of the paranoia label, you will need more than angry Latino rhetoric as evidence of an imminent conversion of the US to Estados Unidos. And, I would add from personal interest, why such a conversion would be a bad thing for anyone other than those WASP males.

John, nit noted; I'm shamefaced not just because I do know where he was born, but that I used to be able to hear the difference in the accent; I was talking to my Austrian-accented cousin just a couple of weeks ago. :-(