Talk:Megachurch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Christmas Shutdown Controversy??? 2 Merge from McChurch? 3 Criticisms 4 Tax-exempt controversies 5 Globalize notice 6 Mega Houses of Worship? 7 Krispy Kreme 8 Catholic megachurches 9 Citation data 10 NPOV Concern 11 Receiving credit when credit ain't due 12 Redirected from List of megachurches 13 "Liberal issues" 14 Pandora's Box 15 Southernism? 16 French version led to "Lakewood Church" 17 Added POV tag again 18 Christian-exclusive term?

Note also that megachurches attract participants through an array of recreations services, with singles clubs, softball teams, summer camps, study groups, and such. These create a social network for the church members that many find lacking in contemporary urban society. 209.99.30.178 October 15, 2003

I also concur with the above. Well said! Excellent points raised. --avnative 23:01, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, but Cho's Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul fits 12.500 people, making it one of the largest in the world. The MegaChurch is certainly not uniquely American anymore; and perhaps it never was, considering the size of many of Europe's largest cathedrals. Bold and energetic churches with strong leaders will always attract masses of people. - JayZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.212.89.87 (talk • contribs) 18:44, October 15, 2003

Never been there. :) I also understand that there's an impressively large church in some West African country, the Ivory Coast I believe. If you've seen these churches or know something of their history, feel free to add it. -- Smerdis of Tlön 03:36, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

South Korea is known for its megachurhces I believe the article should be reworded. I believe there are at least three over 100,000. My church infact recently had a visitor from the second largest church in Korea which had something like 350,000. 12.220.47.145 23:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This article needs more substance; should most of it really be a long listing? Maybe move that to a list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.8.51 (talk • contribs) 06:05, December 7, 2005

I tend to agree. The article was based initially on the external link, which discusses mostly megachurches in the USA. It appears that churches that meet the physical dimensions definition are quite common outside the USA as well, and the article says next to nothing about any differences between them. For this reason, I added the limited geographic template. Tend to agree that the list should spin off into its own article, and that the article needs to discuss any significant differences between US and non-US megachurches. Smerdis of Tlön 16:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas Shutdown Controversy???

Why is this included on this page? Does this have anything to do with megachurches in particular? If not, this segment should be removed (which I think it should). Akhenaton06 10:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that this could be included in a section about criticism of megachurches' catering to pop culture trends in order to increase membership, all in the name of "accessibility" and "relevance". As a section on its own, I agree it's not worthy of inclusion. Staecker 13:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been all over the newspapers, at least locally, here; mostly as the result of a Lexington KY megachurch closing for Christmas. It's an issue that is bound to arise every seven years, on the average. The usual explanation given is that these megachurches are fairly large employers, hiring professional musicians, stagehands, traffic cops, and so forth; and they want their employees to be able to travel to and spend time with their families in fulfilment of their Christmas obligations, something they can't do if they must work on Christmas Day. It has little to do with "accessibility" or "relevance" AFAICT. Smerdis of Tlön 14:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

But many churches, not just megachurches, "close their doors" on holidays, even when they do fall on Sundays. I agree with Akhenaton06; I'm not seeing how an issue that comes up once every 7 years (as was stated) warrants its own section. Badbadb 02:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is important to step back and take note because of the utter, utter, utter irony of a church closing its doors on Christmas. Badbadb - Christmas is not just a holiday, unlike something like Labor Day or Veteran's Day, at Christmas you're supposed to be in church! (Catholic lecture over - but seriously I hope that people are not under the impression that the 'holidays' are supposed to be family time where you spend good "quality time" instead of doing mundane things - oooh, like church) Not that it is a particular thing to note for megachurches, and I fully understand the logistical problems that having such a large church open on Christmas. Maybe Staecker is right. But I'm a Catholic, and British, I like things manageable - and I don't mean to sound judgy - but stagehands? at church? I know we have altarboys, but still - lol. America is a whole other country (and South Korea as well).--86.143.48.116 22:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

FAF - I can see where a twice a year churchgoer may have a problem with the Christmas 2005 closings, but as a regular attender of megachurches, I can attest to the following rationale for the closures:

1. The overwhelming majority of people who help out during the services are volunteers. This includes the ushers, parking staff and people working the nursery and children's services. It's hard to find volunteers willing to work on Christmas day and it's also difficult to predict just how many folks are going to show up. If the turnout was small, they would have been needlessly putting out their most loyal volunteer staff.
2. Every church I'm familiar with that did close offered some sort of candlelight service on Christmas Eve that often extended past midnight. Attending these services on Christmas was always the tradtional norm when I was a child and the turnout was always better than any services that were offered on Christmas day.
3. Because of the amount of high-tech equipment and the potential of vandalism being high, these churches do not have the luxury of keeping their doors open at all times the way many traditional churches do.

I think complaints over the closures are a bunch of foolish sniping by people who seldom go to church, or just have a problem with this type of church in general. The megachurches are as imperfect as any other church. We will get to experience the Perfect Church in eternity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.253.203 (talk • contribs) 23:46, June 23, 2006

If you have a reference for this information - for example a church newsletter - this info would make a valuable addition to the article. BreathingMeat 20:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from McChurch?

The article Criticisms of Mega Churches recently turned up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I was also aware of the material at McChurch. I would propose merging both of those pages here, after editing for NPOV. The McChurch material strikes me as somewhat better, in that it cites its sources; while the Criticisms article was forked from an article about a specific megachurch and consists mostly of quotations. These would probably be better summarized with links or citations to the source material, and factored into the McChurch criticisms; they cover similar ground, IMO. What say ye? — Smerdis of Tlön 15:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Concur. I also noted this on the AfD page for Criticisms of Mega Churches. Which should be the actual final title, though? And which should redirect to the other?--TexasDex 18:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Concur. Merge into Megachurch. JGF Wilks 14:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - The article criticisms of Mega Churches just redirects to Mega Churches. I think they may as well be merged because the title "McChurch" is pretty much self-evident that it is "anti-Church"--86.143.48.116 22:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see what the McChurch article has to offer - it seems to be a precis of one tendentious article which is as much against protestantism/evangelicalism as against Megachurches. User:MartinTurner 19:02 January 25 2006

The article McChurch should be merged into the article for Megachurches. Perhaps a section called "Termonology" for megachurches should be included. McChurch is not the only derogatory term used for megachurches. There is also the term "Six Flags Over Jesus" emphasizing the entertainment oriented aspect of these churches. That term can be found when googled on the internet, and it is used in the Don Henley song "Little Tin God" from his 1989 album End of Innocence, therefore the use of that term is also verifiable.Gregory Y 05:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

'McChurch' is a negatively loaded term in itself and if Wikipedia is going to be NPOV then it would be appropriate for it to be merged. 'McChurch' is just a nickname given to megachurches, and doubtless the issues that it raises would be covered in the critisims section.--Luccent 20:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Six Flags Over Jesus" was the title of a short story written by Lewis Schiner and published in Asimov's Science Fiction in 1987. This may be the first use of the term. The story is about a Christian-themed theme park, not a church, but had the same idea of mass entertainment with a poor veneer of Christianity. [1] 68.170.150.97 13:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

Please merge this content from a deleted article in where possible.

Thanks. Harro5 22:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added these stuff on to the page. I've had a look at some of these links and I think they're quite good. Skillmaster 05:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone else wants to put some 'nice' links about Mega churches. I don't particualarly want to cos I think its a bit creepy. :)--86.143.48.116 22:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The article was deleted for a reason: this great big list of non-NPOV links is just not helpful. I have re-removed them. I suggest you use a couple of the better ones to improve the referencing in the other parts of the article, and in other related articles.BreathingMeat 05:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed several of the links that were not working. Also, I agree with BreathingMeat that all of these "criticisms" are far from NPOV. CarverM (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tax-exempt controversies

I added this part. I've seen it on new shows and read it elsewhere, but I don't have a citation on it. If someone could provide, it would help.Rt66lt 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Globalize notice

It's now more than a month since the addition of the globalize notice, and the specific problems raised then appear to have been answered, along with many others. So, is it time to remove the tag? Andrewa 01:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

See also Category:Limited geographic scope. Andrewa 21:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the globalize notice. The list of megachurches spun off from this article seemed to cover a large number of Asian and Australian megachurches. Several portions of the text, mostly quoting data taken from the Dr. Scott Thumma link, continue cover US-only statistics: "African American denominations", mention of the Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God, and so forth, seem to suggest that the article covers only US megachurches. Would like to know what denominations Australian and Asian megachurches are affiliated with, if any, or whether they are their own denominations. Smerdis of Tlön 20:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mega Houses of Worship?

Is this a strictly Christian phenomenon, or are the equivalents in other religions?Schizombie 06:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but I used to attend a megachurch in England where weekly congregations were routinely around the thousand mark, and that was undoubtedly built before the 1950s. I believe the current building was started in 1077, actually, by which time St Albans School had already been going for over 125 years, and it was extended to its present capacity in the 19th Century. It is neither evangelical (in the modern sense) nor Pentecostal, it is mainstream Anglo-Catholic (although on the one hand the present Dean is openly gay and on the other Pope Adrian IV used to worship there). Just zis Guy you know? 23:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krispy Kreme

A friend of mine and I are both members of a mainline church that's so normal, it's out of touch. We call these megachurches' attendees "Krispy Kreme Christians," because I read somewhere that a megachurch near our town spends close to 20K a year just for donuts. More importantly, though, this is Religion Lite, or Burger King: Have It Your Way, not the Church's way. No lectionary, no discomfort, no challenge. Just feel good and rock along. Might as well watch a football game, at least you'll burn less gas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.136.88 (talk • contribs) 00:36, May 22, 2006

Words of a promising wikipedian: "because I read somewhere that..." --PabloMartinez 11:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unknown poster above has a good anecdote - I too have heard the phrase "Religion Lite", associated with discussions similar to unknown's remark about "...no discomfort, no challenge...". This, I believe, is the biggest popular criticism of megachurches (together with their "corporate mentality" for lack of a better way to say it) - not that they draw members away from smaller traditional churches as stated in the article.. Engr105th 21:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is simply misinformed opinion. I have attended several "megachurches" and in each one I have been significantly challenged to live out a life of discipleship and serve. Making an accusation such as done by unsigned and Engr105th could just as easily be made of one of a thousand smaller churches. To single out a group of churches simply because of their size is ludicrous. If you would visit any of hundreds of megachurches worldwide you would find great discipline and sacrifice on the part of their members. For example, in South Korea, members daily meet for early morning prayers; in Africa members are routinely reaching out and caring for the hurting in their communities. I could go on and on but I think you get the point: generalizations have no place in an encyclopedia. CarverM (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Carver, what I was getting at was to comment on some of the "criticisms" of megachurches. Thats not my 'misinformed opinion' - there are indeed criticisms of these churches, and theres a section in this Wiki article about them. It leads off that the main criticism is that megachurches siphon off members from smaller churches. My point was that I read more about the main criticsm being that Big Box churches, McChurchs, Krispy Kremes or whatever one calls them, are too entertainment focused and are run like corporations.... I have absolutely no "accusation" of any kind - my only intent was to contribute to the article...That said, what do you find are the main criticisms? Or - were you writing to deny (I suspect so, reading your post) that there are any criticisms of these establishments? Btw, if so, you are using your own generalizations:)... Engr105th (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my language is using generalizations that's why I placed my concern here in the discussion section instead of doing so in the article. I apologize if my tone was "accusatory", it is not my intent. With that said, most of the criticisms are from people in small churches (the majority of churches in the US are less than 300 in attendance) and have no basis in fact, they are simply opinions. If someone wants to assert that megachurches steal from other churches, cite a study. This is an encyclopedia and if I understand Wiki policies correctly these criticisms should not be included without citation. Lastly, I have informally studied several megachurches and find that there is great call to commitment and service. What many don't understand is that large churches draw a crowd and within that crowd are simply the curious but there are also many, many committed people. If you view a church only through the lense of the weekend service it is easy to cast stones as to the makeup of the crowd. However, if you cared to dig a little deeper you'd find the large percentage of people who take their faith seriously and are actively involved in the life of the church and the community around them. CarverM (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and Thanks for the clarification. By the way, you may have seen some on-line news articles recently about the current "shifts" ("fluidity" might be a better word) of religion in the US. The CNN article is http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/02/25/religion.survey.ap/index.html , and I read one in USA Today also that is a bit more detailed. Kind of interesting. If I recall right, the USA Today one pointed out that the fastest growing Churches are the non-denomination variety, which I think the mega-churches generally fall under. Regards, Engr105th (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic megachurches

Should the Catholic phenomenon of huge parishes (aka Megaparish, McParish) similar in sizes to megachurches be mentioned in this article?--67.149.66.59 16:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should I mean church is a church. In Louisville, Ky. my hometown we have 4 parishes in Loisville that have more than 3,000 in attendance. These parrishes challenge diocesan authority the same way a lot of mega protestant churches affect local denominational authority. On the "mega church list" there are a few catholic parishes listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.101.179.35 (talk • contribs) 19:21, August 20, 2006

[edit] Citation data

Here is some information from the Oxford English Dictionary concerning the term megachurch in case anyone wants to use it cite or otherwise revise unsourced statements in this article. The information is drawn from the "Draft Revision June 2001" online edition of the O.E.D.[2]

The term megachurch is found under the entry mega-, comb. form. Megachurch is mentioned within the third set of meanings under that entry (bolded text is for emphasis, not part of the original):

For the cited usages of megachurch found below the information provided above, the O.E.D. has the following known instances of public usage:

This is enough to validate or invalidate a fair amount of the first third of the megachurch article. One thing that I do not note in the data provided here, though, is any sort of mention of two-thousand or three-thousand congregants/members being the magic number necessary to define what is and is not a megachurch. That claim needs to either be cited (not likely) or revised. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Concern

I have a concern about the "Criticism" section. It is getting rather long, and as there is no real "praise" or "affirmation" section in the article, it is starting to make the article give undue weight to the concerns of critics. Does anyone else share this concern? How should it be addressed? The relevant standard would seem to be WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Other discussion (essays, etc...) includes Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance and Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism in a "Criticism" section. GRBerry 00:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is an "undue weight" issue. I can think of plenty of subjects where no one would expect there to be an equal amount of criticism and praise in the article - I'd say this is one of them. The idea of having a Christian Church that is larger and glitzier than most sports stadiums is inherently controversial, and is pretty much doomed to be heavily critized. I doubt there are many independent, third-party sources for people saying "Megachurches are great!" other than people who attend them, but feel free to go Googling for them and add them to the article if you think it'll help. wikipediatrix 00:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the content of the section is all relevant, well cited and NPOV. These churches are changing the way that people worship. As such, they are going to be heavily critisized from many quarters. I also think that some of the benefits are touched upon, such as their ability to produce highly polished services, their appeal to young people, and the means to attract very inflentuential pastors. I feel that the article is failry well balanced, but not very well written. Cacophony 03:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Receiving credit when credit ain't due

There is a theme in Wikipedia. Place a reference to "African Americans" into as many articles as it is generally possible to do. Even megachurch employs the theme. I never before heard of an "African American megachurch" until the appearance of Wikipedia. What on earth is an "African American megachurch?" GhostofSuperslum 14:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Whether for good or ill, worshipping congregations remain one of the most segregated aspects of American society. Predominantly-African American churches are in most cases readily distinguishable and thereby of note in both religious and racial contexts. --Dystopos 02:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirected from List of megachurches

Following the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of megachurches, List of megachurches redirects here -- the page history is still available, if anyone wishes to make use of it, in the course of expanding the encyclopedia. Luna Santin 23:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Liberal issues"

I have removed the text regarding the focus or lack thereof on opposition to "liberal issues". It has been flagged for a while as uncited, and there has been a long-running disagreement amongst editors as to whether too little or too much attention is paid to these issues in Megachurches. It seems to be a matter of personal opinion. BreathingMeat 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pandora's Box

Ok this article is classed as a "start" I'd like to see it move to FA someday. I'd also like to see if there is a way to incorporate the list of mega churches. I have mixed feelings on this. It felt lik ebefor that list was put to bed that randomn no-mega-churches were sprouting up on the page. is there a way to include this list ... or maybe just number by state with out specific churches listed? Can we lock the list ... what do folks think. Is it worth including at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M-BMor (talk • contribs) 17:41, April 15, 2007

The Hartford Institute for Religious Research list is a fairly authoritative source for US megachurches and could be included by reference, maybe with the top 10 listed here. Other extremely notable churches could also be included in our own list, given that there is a source for the claim and with the expectation that we wouldn't want to expand the list past, say, 20 notable examples. (And it would be best if those were links to Wikipedia articles which were, in turn, well cited.) --Dystopos 02:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southernism?

I have a vague impression that I do not know how to define verbally that "the South", defined as the southeastern USA, is in some ways culturally distinct from the rest of the country, and that the personalities of Southern churches reflect that, and moreover that this phenomenon of "megachurches", which I first heard of through this Wikipedia article, is part of that. How are they distributed geographically? Are there any "megachurches" in northern locales like Boston, Minneapolis, Seattle, etc? Michael Hardy 22:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Of the churches reporting more than 10,000 regular worshipers in attendence to the Hartford Institute study cited in the article 10 are located in California, 8 in Texas, 4 in Georgia, 3 in Florida, 2 in Arizona, 2 in Illinois, 2 in Indiana, 2 in Michigan, 2 in New Mexico, 2 in Oklahoma, 2 in Tennessee, 1 in Arkansas, 1 in Colorado, 1 in Hawaii, 1 in Kansas, 1 in Kentucky, 1 in Louisiana, 1 in Maryland, 1 in Pennsylvania, 1 in Tennessee, and 1 in Virginia. So to use census regions, we'd have 1 in the Northeast, 7 in the Midwest, 16 in the West, and 25 in the South. If you consider population (2005 estimate), that gives you 1 "supermegachurch" of 10,000+ for the 54,641,895 residents of the Northeast, 1 for every 9,424,568 residents of the Midwest, 1 for every 4,268,195 residents of the West, and 1 for every 4,300,217 residents of the South. If one were to form a judgment based solely on that limited data, one could conclude that megachurches are a phenomenon of the South and West. However, some of the most staggaringly enormous congregations are to be found in the Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Argentina, Colombia, El Salvador, Hong Kong, South Korea, and the Ukraine. These examples may or may not conform to the cultural preconception we might have for megachurches, but the field of study is in its infancy and its terminology remains flexible. --Dystopos 23:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French version led to "Lakewood Church"

The French language link of this page actually links to "Lakewood Church". Is this appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atticuslai (talk • contribs) 20:40, June 5, 2007

[edit] Added POV tag again

Virtually the entire article is dedicated to criticism with only 2 sentences used as an introduction. Someone should start a radical clean-up of the article to expand it and balance opinions.71.204.43.208 02:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there's not much else to say about this subject. Flowanda | Talk 02:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't there used to be a lot more info? What happened to it? BreathingMeat 20:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's just easier to bash megachurches than to find balanced information... But could we please try to keep POV out of the information sections? "a person who combines flamboyant sermons with the organizational skills needed to turn weekly worship into a production number." Tell me this isn't biased. Having a service which is planned and runs to time doesn't make it a production number... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.101.26 (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC) After my comments were deleted - Oops... sorry, thought that a counter example or (my goodness) balance was a GOOD thing on Wikipedia. Why isn't the church in Acts an example of e mega-church? Define 'flamboyant' preaching... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.101.26 (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian-exclusive term?

I realize "church" almost without exception (except! perhaps among Christians!) denotes a Christian body... Church, however, does not exclude non-Christian bodies from the definition of "church" (perhaps on the basis of the original definition of ekklesia?)... so this seems to me to beg the question... what about non-Christian bodies who weekly have attendances in excess of 2k? The Belz Great Synagogue in Jerusalem, for example, comes to mind...and I have no doubt that any number of other synagogues, to say nothing of Hindu and Buddhist shrines, and possibly also muslim houses of prayer, see as many adherents in weekly attendance. If "megachurch" is an exclusively Christian term, this needs to be better clarified in the article, if not even within its lead... Tomer^talk 08:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)