Tags
Ministry Tools
Add Your Church's Job Opening
Submit Your Resume
Church Staff Tools/Articles
Related Posts
Share This
Megachurches are biblical
Megachurches are biblical. In fact, the first megachurch was the church in Acts 2, according to Rick Warren.
In a recent article at The Christian Post, Rick said:
“Christianity for 2,000 years has had large churches, including the very first one…the first church in Jerusalem was five times bigger than Saddleback.”
In fact… most people, according to Warren, said that the first church grew from 120 to over 100,000 people within 20 years.
But not everyone likes a big church. In fact, Warren says that really the only people that really like big churches are preachers:
“You need to understand this, pastor: nobody really likes big churches. The only people who like big churches are pastors because we like to preach to a large crowd. People don’t go to church because of size. They put up with size in order to get the benefits.”
I found this part of the article interesting:
Saddleback Church has had consistent growth over the past 30 years, according to Warren. Last year was the congregation’s “greatest year” with record numbers of baptisms, small groups and missionaries.
The key to Saddleback’s growth, and to the first church in Jerusalem’s growth for that matter, is growing larger and smaller at the same time, he said. Large group worship and small group fellowship (meeting from house to house) are described in the book of Acts.
Small groups are not an option, Warren stressed. They serve as the basic cells in the body of Christ
“One cell (a church body without small groups) that gets bigger and bigger; there’s a word for that: it’s called cancer. You don’t want to be a cancer,” he said. “A healthy body is made up of large group worship, small group fellowship.”
via Warren: Megachurches, Multi-Site Venues Are Biblical | Christianpost.com.
What do you think? I was always brought up to think that a healthy church is a growing church… yet most churches in this country are NOT growing. Most are stagnant or in decline. Why?
| Share |
“People don’t go to church because of size. They put up with size in order to get the benefits.” Contrast that ugly truth with this beautiful truth. “I did not come to be served but to serve.”
The American megachurch is less a model of the biblical church and more a model of consumer “me-ism” when it meets Madison Avenue’s discovery that Jesus is marketable.
Wrong. Rick Warren is a false prophet as described in the great Apostasy of the end times. It is not about “US” but about “GOD”. People need to wake up and read the Word. Better represented in the KJV, NKJV, and NIV. 2 Corinthians 11:12-15, Galations 1:6-10, 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and 2:11-12.
I think that a big church celebrates consumerism, and I contend this is a good thing.
Why?
Because those “consumers”, if they are in a church that encourages “small” involvement… guess what they become… they become those who came to serve. I see it here ALL the time.
Consumer Christianity is an airbrushed gospel that seeks to hide the hard work and suffering real to any Christ follower. Drop the glitz and glamor and see how many who come for the show fall away.
I don’t like the way I said that.
I didn’t mean to say that consumer christianity, long-term, is anything but a bad thing, but I’d rather have those consumers in the building listening to our exhortations to get into a group and do the Christian life with others, and to get into the Word and to get serving others and sharing your faith in tangible ways… than just staying home and sleeping in…
I do celebrate consumerism this way. “Come as you are… but don’t stay that way…” We have seen so many consumers become servers here.
Absolutely first rate and copper-bottomed, gnetemeln!
To suggest that the Jerusalem church looked ANYTHING like today’s mega-churches is humorous at best, dishonest at worst.
The church in the 1st century was under persecution. They met in homes. The “Jerusalem Church” was not a local church by today’s definition. It was a collection of house churches, or churches that met secretly in synagogues or other venues. The closest thing we have to describe this is a city-wide network of small churches (for lack of a better term, “house church” can be used but I use that term loosely).
Having left the “brick church” two years ago to join a house church network, I have concluded that small groups are no substitute for house church. They are different, particularly in the way they are led.
It’s all “God’s Church” and I make no claims that house church is the way to go for everybody. However, the mega-church should make us concerned about the health of American Christianity. It lacks intimacy, the leadership is mostly focused on growing their own influence, and the evangelical movement is at risk due to the concentrated attention on a handful of leaders. The gross amount of money spent on buildings and programs is, from my perspective, shameful.
I like Rick Warren because he thinks out loud and creates conversation. I also feel that he is very sincere about furthering the Kingdom of God. But, like Driscoll, this need to defend the mega-church model by tying it to the 1st century is not helpful. I would rather they stated the obvious: the mega-church is a model of church which has grown out of American culture. American influence is now exporting this model globally.
You have a point. Fact is, the church has gone “big box” just like retail has. Economics of scale. I think that you can argue pretty solidly, however, that a big church isn’t “inherently bad”. Too many people say that. The Acts 2 church was huge from its first day!
Ted,
“To suggest that the Jerusalem church looked ANYTHING like today’s mega-churches is humorous at best, dishonest at worst.”
You dare to criticize Rick Warren?!?
I agree, as if that was one megachurch with mulitple campuses.
Ken,
The most recent archeological digs have turned up massive plasma monitors that were sprinkled throughout Jerusalem’s many house-based groups. Through these, James spoke directly to the masses. Pastor James was able to lead each small group from a remote location, safely away from prying Roman eyes.
I understand that they had teams of scribes that produced the weekly small group discussion guides that were disseminated throughout the church. Each leader had to go through Small Group Leadership Training before they would be allowed to actually host one of these in their homes.
The church hosted medical clinics (sorry no anesthesia at this early date), wheat-growing seminars, men’s conferences, women’s conferences, children’s conferences, and special events detailing how best to navigate life under Roman law. Each year, James led a special month-long teaching focus on how to have good sex, and this drew hundreds of new people.
This was all made possible by a major funding campaign conducted sometime around the middle of the 40′s – I think it was called the “Life With Excellence” campaign. They raised millions in today’s dollars.
I could on… I feel like such a cynic. Please forgive me.
- Ted
We are all consumers, to label us in any other way is disingenuous. People followed Jesus to consume as well. To be appealing is not the unforgivable sin.
Now…I love Rick Warren…but…
I don’t think this is a very convincing argument. The early Jerusalem church seemed to resemble a modern-day cell-church model more than a modern day western mega-church model. The Jerusalem church seemed to be organized around the undeniable reality of the resurrection of Christ and its implications on their lives…rather than a large weekly event (this obviously can have major implications into issues of identity formation and what it means to be the church, etc).
These new followers of Jesus actually met in houses…and even went from house to house, engaging the residence of Jerusalem with the gospel…this incarnational impulse opened the possibility for the gospel message to infiltrate every nook and cranny…house and neighborhood in Jerusalem.
As they wrested through the transition from Judaism to “The Way” they seemed to have designated an area of the temple, to meet, discuss, and perhaps celebrate what God was doing in their midst.
Finally, as we all know they were scattered immediately following the killing of Stephen…this was the original mandate of Jesus (Acts 1:8)…to take the gospel message to Jerusalem, Judea/Samaria, and the world…but just like Christians today (myself included) they struggled to respond…and possibly turned inward.
I believe the church in Acts experienced exponential growth because they became a decentralizing movement that organized themselves around mission (success = movement), listened and responded to the Spirit’s leading (Acts 16), and embraced costly discipleship…not to mention that everyone who was a part of the movement seemed to have ownership of it.
Todd perhaps the problem is that in modern America the model for success is corporate America. Bigger is better! The other point is that much of what was taught to pastors in the 60s & 70s is absolutely useless as it relates to church administration because what was the church doesn’t exist. I love the church but seem to be out of sink with what we are doing. Somewhere many of us have lost our place & yet still seek to support. Well enough of this time to pray & move on. Blessings!
Oh, brother! Biblical, schmiblical. So is a church of 2 or 3. “Where 2 or 3 are gathered together, there am I in the midst of them.” It’s not either/or. Why do the leaders of both of these have to prove or defend themselves? Do they really have that poor of a self-image? Can we just move beyond the bickering children to something that truly matters–say, Jesus?
Seems to me that there is a great difference between THE Church of Acts and beyond compared to “a” church in a particular location in the 21st century. And multiple campuses? Are there not enough disciples who can be Spirit led to be servants on a small scale or are we bound by God to a few mega-personalities?
Rick Warren speaks….so what? Just because he says something does not make it true–or even close. When I was a kid, bragging was a sin. To say megachurches are Biblical is actually saying small churches are not Biblical. Rick, go grow me a megachurch in Black Jack, Texas. Go on…show me.
The average church in this nation has 100 members or less. Think about it.
Location, location, location. Warren is the CEO of many franchises, who call themselves ‘churches’.
Don’t drink the Rick Warren Kool-aid people. He puts his pants on the same way you do…one leg at a time. Now go and continue on in the work God has called you to do in your church–regardless of the attendance chart!
How do you know Rick Warren puts his pants on one leg at a time? Or that I do for that matter? Don’t jump to conclusions.
Good point Todd! I stand corrected. Hmm…perhaps both feet first would describe him best.
I have come to believe that while the first church in Jerusalem is one of the many “models” or types of churches we find in the Scriptures, it is in my opinion one that we should not hold up as an example to try to be like. If we look in Acts 1:8 we find that Christ commanded the apostles (the sent ones), “you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” They did see the first church start in Jerusalem, and continue to grow in Jerusalem, but they forgot about the rest of the commandment, it’s not until we skip forward to Acts 8:1 that we read that “great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.” Notice that the “sent ones” who were commanded to GO back in chapter one still didn’t go, even after the persecution in chapter eight. It wasn’t until the apostles heard that those who were scattered had brought the Word of God to Samaria that they went to see what was going on.
Okay, I have zero problem that we all have a strong opinion on this issue. HOWEVER, I think we should all consider that a church community can be any shape or size…mega-church, house church, mid-size church, etc. God did not give us a prescriptive structure and blueprint on how to “do” church. We are called to BE the church! Whether we meet in homes or big buildings our focus should be on making Jesus’ name famous.
I really like mega church environments and do well within them, as I have for approximately one-half of my twenty-seven years in full-time ministry. Nevertheless, I do not derive my identity from the size of the church in which I find myself but the significance of my service as measured by my own obedience to current, specific, calling.
That said, let me be clear: the church at Jerusalem is not the model of a mature church as Biblically defined. In fact, if I hear one more conference speaker suggest that it is I think I’m going to throw up! Rather, it is the church at Antioch that provides the mature and healthy, complete package of a Biblical church as envisioned by none other than Christ Himself on the night before He died (John 17:20-23).
For instance, when Jerusalem takes up a collection it is for their own, internal, needs – “there was not a needy person among them,” (Acts 4:34). In contrast, the church at Antioch is the first to take up a collection for others beyond their own; this in spite of the fact that they, too, as part of the Roman world, would soon face the coming famine (Acts 11:27ff.). And in spite of Christ’s command to go (Matthew 28:19, 20), have you ever asked yourself why the folks at Jerusalem stayed – in all probability, to deal with the growing (homogeneous) numbers that, as Rick points out, were quickly evangelized and enfolded. Don’t get me wrong: I probably would have, too. If 3,000 people were added to our church in one day, we’d all be scrambling!
Nevertheless, and except for Philip (Acts 8), it is a fact that God had to use persecution to get the church at Jerusalem, i.e., what quickly became an internally-focused (homogeneous and mega) community of believers, to extend the love of God to others beyond their own ethnicity (Acts 1:8). Again, in contrast, the church at Antioch (multi-ethnic and mega) willingly sends missionaries to the world (Acts 13:1ff.). Why? Because the church at Antioch was the world (Acts 11:19ff.): therein, both Jewish and Gentile converts walked, worked and worshipped God together as one so the world would know God’s love and believe. It is this unity and diversity is what blew the world away (see Ephesians 3:3, 6, 14-21)! No wonder that three times in six verses (Acts 11:21-26) we read the phrase large (diverse, mega) numbers in connection with Antioch. And not only did they grow, they soon sent their very best to others – Paul and Barnabus – in obedience to the Great Commission, whereby they established additional churches/campuses. Is it any wonder, it was at Antioch that believers were first said to be like Christ (Acts 11:26)?
We should recognize, then, that there remains a significant difference between a church “building bridges to the community” and a church “being” the community. In such churches, missions is no longer a program, but simply “who you are.” Such churches can rightly be described as mature and biblical, no matter the size.
So we find the church at Antioch was multi-ethnic, mega (love driven numbers), missional and multi-site … and, therefore, the best model of biblical church (in my opinion); a very worthy vision to pursue.
Thanks Mark. Finally, a voice of reason and logic. I’ve been part of churches of every size and found good and bad in all. Nothing makes a church look worse than critical and cynical leaders regardless of it’s size.
I think that there is just Jesus. I think we like to turn the entire church/christianity/theology monster into something that is waaay more complicated than it ever was or needs to be. i wasnt and wont be redeemed by church structure or modern theology- all i know is that i met the man, jesus- and through the feel of his love- i am being changed. if you meet God- you cannot help but love him back- and in turn love others. Christianity is simple. It is just Jesus.
I don’t think mega- churches can be that healthy–and size does matter–it is apparent God puts “balance” into all of his systems—so with that in mind–a really small church is not the best, nor is a really large church–something inbetween is the best. Small groups cannot supply the needs or be a substitute for the community one needs to have as a Christian–especially since quite often when the church is too big-there is not enough people to supervise the supposed leaders who lead these groups–and some horrendous things sometimes happen—if a leader can keep on leading for many years he can become too powerful and so many people slip through the cracks and drop out instead of report what he did because usually the pastors ban together and cover for each other just because there are too many people to handle–so the leaders and pastors become these power monsters who aren’t able to admit when they are wrong and therefore they aren’t able to spiritually grow–a really unhealthy system that I don’t feel God is pleased with–the tower of Babel kept growing and God wasn’t pleased with that either–