Four Positive Lessons From The Megachurch Movement

Last week I wrote an article on the “Four Unintended Consequences of the Megachurch Movement.” The article stirred some… let’s say discussion… particularly among those who find themselves still right in the heart of the movement and felt the need to defend that model of church. 

I would reply with the following: evaluation is not the same as attack. Indeed, it’s perfectly reasonable to consider the course of something after thirty years. No movement ever has everything figured out and to be unable to evaluate the unintended consequences (emphasis on unintended, i.e no evil intent) would be detrimental to the future of the church. It was just such an evaluation of the previous church culture that brought that model into existence. 

As someone who cut my teeth in the megachurch world and would still refer to our church as ‘megachurch adjacent; I thought it would only be fair to do a follow-up article on the four lasting lessons of the seeker-style movement and how they can be applied. 

Lesson #1: Relevance (so long as it’s combined with Biblical faithfulness)

It wasn’t all that long ago that the church was struggling to connect with the world around it. Church was boring and disconnected from the reality of everyday life. Tradition turned into rote practice, and doctrine turned into dead-orthodoxy, leaving people hungry and longing for something more tangible and sincere. 

The megachurch movement innovated in a few ways: a thoughtfully programmed weekend service complete with songs that built towards the message of that week, the use of visual media , and of course sermon series that hit life’s most difficult topics: sex, dating, marriage, money, work, family, stress, etc. 

When I first attended a church like this, it changed my perception of church entirely. I never knew that I could go to church and walk out being able to apply the message to my life immediately. There were many others like me, and the movement attracted millions of American evangelicals. That is no bad thing. 

To this day, I desire to pastor a church that speaks to people’s everyday lives. Once or twice a year, I pull out a catchy sermon series title and teach through some of life’s most relevant topics (I do primarily by expositing a single text that addresses such an issue). Such series are interspersed among longer verse-by-verse studies of books or chapters.

I believe that many of those originally in the movement were faithful to the word of God. Relevance is not contrary to faithfulness, so long as it is relevance to the lives of everyday believers, rather than ‘relevance’ to the wider culture, which usually is just another term for compromise.  

Lesson #2: Joy

He was always at the front door, he wasn’t an employee of the church, but for the first few months I thought he owned the place. He was there every week, he always had a massive smile on his face, and just like James instructed, “he showed no partiality.” He shook everyone’s hand. 

Walking into the modern church every week was fun. The people were happy, the greeters were smiling, the coffee was flowing and there was a tangible energy every week. No volunteer was doing so begrudgingly. They wanted to be there; it was the highlight of their week and you could tell. 

Such an attitude is contagious, and produced in me, and many I know, a wholesome desire to be at church every week. Even my younger brother wanted to attend; something that could not be said of any other church. We LOVED going there, and even talked about it on the way home, including asking who the band members were (and when would they try out for American Idol??) and what we had learned. It was joy on the way to church, joy while there, and joy on the way home. 

Here’s the thing: none of that is wrong, or makes those behind it insincere. Of course, some of this was intentional, the great marketers and leaders of the movement knew that people like to be happy and that customer service matters whether or not you were at Chick-Fil-A or church. 

Church was a lot like my golf game; you were excited to be there, started off strong, hit some horrible shots along the way, bought a snack at the turn, and then par’d 18 so why not come  back next week? It was the same strategy, except the snack at the start was free coffee and the par on 18 was the closing song that made you feel like a million bucks. 

After years of slightly discouraging, obligation-oriented church attendance, this was a breath of fresh air. 

Lesson #3: Freedom

It was freeing to be able to come as you are, wear whatever you want, and not have to feel like you were playing the church game. Those who were tired of pretending to be perfect when they weren’t, or who felt that competitive religiosity can be disingenuous, were freshresed by the concepts of vulnerability and freedom to admit mistakes, even from the stage. 

Though a new form of perfectionism later crept into the movement, it was wholesome that those who had a bad week could put on some jeans and a t-shirt, grab a coffee, slink into the back row, get encouraged again and go again. 

A church which recognized people’s humanity and frailty, and which had grace for those who worked shifts, were sick, and didn’t question their motives if they missed a week rather than assume they were a spiritual failure, was freeing. And not to mention the fact that a certain dress code, beyond simple modesty, does not imply greater holiness. 

There are downsides to this. A church which goes too far in that direction can lead to low commitment, a casual attitude towards the things of God, and a diminishing value on personal holiness. Some of this needs to be countered with a return to reverence, but let’s remember that unnecessary tradition is not always good, as even Jesus once said, an atmosphere and liberty in worship on Sunday morning is no bad thing.

#4: Accessibility

I remember when my best friend first moved to town in 6th grade. I really wanted him and his family to join our church, so I invited him to spend the night on Saturday, which he did, and came to church the next morning. They were Presbyterian; we were Pentecostal. But the family didn’t end up coming to our church. There was just something about it that could never quite get people through the door. In return, I later went to my friend’s church, and remember a very boring lesson that I couldn’t wait to be over. I never went back there either. 

Contrast this with my modern, megachurch experience. Getting people through the door wasn’t a problem. When we did advertising it worked. When we had Christmas service the whole city would show up (30,000 or so at the peak) and when we opened up new campuses, hundreds or thousands would show up on week one. 

Having been there for five years as an attendee before spending eight years on staff, I can assure you that these were not just church-shoppers or church-hoppers. They were, by a greater margin than I have ever seen anywhere else, unchurched, irreligious, non-Christian people. For a season, it really was true, that whoever you were, you could come to a megachurch and not be turned away by unnecessary church propaganda or culture. (I do not mean necessary truth, but Christianese, Sunday-best apparel requirements, excessive offering appeals, tuneless music, dingy buildings, stodgy people, and seventy-five minutes of content spread out over a two-and-a-bit hour service.)

Many churches on the other side of the equation, still have an accessibility problem. They may have great doctrine, tradition, and practice the sacraments in a meaningful way. The people may be joyful and the building clean, but for many reasons are still unable to grow a body beyond 40-50 people. I think the other side of the equation needs to acknowledge that practice, style, and culture can positively or unintentionally negatively affect accessibility to the everyman. 

Once again, this can be pushed too far. Not everything on a Sunday has to be for the benefit of the unsaved–church is of course for believers. But even Paul encourages us to be mindful (seeker-aware) of the unbeliever in our midst. Taking the time to explain something, and considering how it might be perceived by those new to the faith, is not inherently wrong. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the megachurch movement should not be entirely written off, even by those who have legitimate concerns. These lessons are at the very least worthy of serious consideration by all believers with a heart to honor God and reach the world around them.