4 Comments to 'The problem with mega-churches'
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'The problem with mega-churches'.
:: Trackbacks/Pingbacks ::
No Trackbacks/Pingbacks
The problem with mega-churches
Posted By katie allison granju
A local Presbyterian minister who has just started blogging over at WBIR.com says the new, super-huge churches with gyms and daycare centers and coffee bars have it all wrong:
One of the biggest mistakes that the American church is making today occurs when preachers preach for their audience and not for the sake of the Gospel. I see too many churches falling into this life-application, life-style series, and life affirming type of preaching. It makes the hearers the center of the preaching, instead of Christ. It makes the congregation the focus of the message, instead of Christ’s ministry. It makes modern Christians the reason for the sermon, instead of the Good News.
And the trouble is this: American Christians don’t see it happening. They turn out in their thousands to hear Gospel charmers and narcissistic preachers who will stroke their egos and pander to their desires. Instead of being humble and becoming servants, the church audiences become proud and arrogant, spoiled and indignant (just visit any restaurant after mega-church members finish worship and you’ll see how badly they treat their servers).
May 9th, 2008
Well. I don’t know which local Presbyterian preacher this is. I don’t like that Scottish guy. I don’t like John Calvin. Francis Schaeffer can paddle across the Styx in a leaking boat for inadvertently creating the Christian Dominionist monster in the United States.
With that said, I have to fully and wholeheartedly agree with the Presbyterian preacher who said what you just posted—even if he might be that Scottish dude. Jesus is the center. Jesus is the Word. As the Apostle Paul said in the scriptures (and I paraphrase), if we can keep our eyes set on Him and Him only, we’ll do all right. It might not be eloquent, but it’s damn good theology.
Hi Aulder Guy - yep, it’s the Scottish guy you don’t like. But I am so glad that we agree on this issue. Mega churches are milking the Gospel for what they can get out of it, rather than sharing it.
Oh, it is you—just as I thought. They tell me that my ancestry is Scottish on my mother’s side. Her maiden name was Durham but the family legend claims that it was Duncan before the change.
I guess I don’t like your preaching because you often sound too much like the fundamentalists down at the megachurches. People have tried to define Christian fundamentalism in all sorts of ways. However, the best definition I ever saw was this one:
“Christian fundamentalism is a form of the Christian faith from which all love has been drained.”
A couple of years ago, I worked for a business in Knoxville. While not stupid enough to say it out loud to its employees, it was one of those cold and calculating businesses that expects its employees to check their soul, conscience, and faith at the front door before entering the building. It was the type of business where a lunch time Bible study might develop, just so long as it focused entirely on those parts of the Bible that encourage employees to work hard and be loyal to their employers. But what about all of those Biblical responsibilities of love, loyalty, mercy, kindness, etc. that the employers must have for their employees? I feel sure that all of that would have been most unwelcome in my workplace.
I guess my point here is that there is a lot more to the gospel of Jesus Christ than God is mad at you, and he is going to rip your guts out with a rusty razor unless you repent and follow Jesus PDQ. If that alone is the “good news,” it sounds to me more like a threat from a child abuser in North Knoxville than a message from the Jesus that I have always known and loved.
There is a lot more depth and breadth in the gospels than just this, and I find that (with a few exceptions such as the United Methodist Church) most churches today ignore all of that depth and breadth—especially the evangelical and fundamentalist churches.
As you know, John considered himself to be the disciple who loved Jesus. The gospel of John is in many ways an ode of love written by someone who deeply loved Jesus and was deeply loved by him. The text exudes it. It is probably my favorite of the four.
However, several years back, I went into a Christian bookstore in West Town Mall and browsed several new books that were basically tarring and feathering the whole idea of “Christan love” and running it out of town on a rail. The message was that love cannot be trusted. Love is very hard to define—what is love—they would say? (Sounds a hell of a lot like Pontius Pilate to me). My favorite put down of love from the people who write such books was, “Love is by its very nature permissive and has no proper place in a Christian discourse that should be defined solely in terms of moral standards.” Now doesn’t that just beat all?
Another statement I often hear from fundamentalists goes something like this, “Oh, yeah. Christian love? As far as Christian love is concerned, I define that as simply imparting an evangelical message to a lost person. I have no responsibility of love for that person beyond that one simple act. Otherwise, most of these people are just worms, and the Bible instructs me to stay away from them. I could never invite one of them over to my house just to watch a football game” Now, isn’t that a fine and pitiful thing?
Then there was this all time—all time—all time—favorite that I actually heard from a representative of the Gideons. It was delivered at a church in Nashville one morning as I sat in the congregation, and this individual was describing a Bible handout program being conducted in concert with a medical missionary effort in Africa. Here is the quote as best I can remember it across the years: “You have to understand that the real reason we have built this jungle hospital is to lure the native populations in so we can preach the gospel to them. Frankly, we don’t really care what their medical needs are or even whether they live or die. We are there first and foremost to hand out Bibles and preach the gospel.” Yep!!! The love has been drained dry.
I think the single most important thing the universal church needs to do—and your Scottish sermons/devotionals need to do—is GET THE LOVE BACK. It is time to drop the rules and do as th Apostle Paul commands in the scriptures—with an eye always on Jesus—operate solely from the principle of love. You may recall that he refers to it as the “better way.” Sometime during the past 40 years, the church issued “love a one-way train ticket to oblivion and made sure it got on the train. People like you and me need to find out where that train is and rescue the love before it reaches oblivion.
Duncan is a great Scottish name, but Durham is also well respected amongst the Scots.
One of the hardest things that the world doesn’t wants to hear right now is the Gospel. It is about love, but it’s not about indulgence. Too many people want the love of God to be boundless on their terms. God’s boundless love occurs after people meet His terms.
Even John’s Gospel, which I also love, has some harsh things to say about belief. Chapters Three and Six in particular deal with these matters.
As for me sounding like a mega-church preacher, I guess I tell it like it is, warts and all.
Thanks for your comments.
God bless you.