A couple of weeks back, I asked the question whether it is better to have lots of smaller churches or one huge church in a town. This is a controversial issue, and the well thought out responses I got represented both sides of the argument.
I’m planning probably two more posts on this issue, one considering what unique challenges a large church must face, and one on what unique opportunities a large church has. But today I want to consider the two most common arguments I have heard from proponents of the “mega church”. I actually think these are fairly weak arguments, and that those who want to defend big churches could do with improving their case.
1. The World Takes Notice of Big
This is of course true to a certain extent. The big sports clubs get the media coverage, the big companies get noticed by the consumers, the big name celebrities get to publicly air their views. And so the argument for big churches runs something like this – our society has written off the church because it is perceived as dying. If people saw that there were many growing churches then the national media would be forced to report that something amazing is happening.
My problem here is not with individuals taking notice of a vibrant local church that they have come into personal contact with, but the naive idea that the media will gushingly enthuse about churches simply because they are big. In fact, I would say that most of the media coverage of large churches is bad news for Christian witness. For example, possibly the biggest UK church was given a damning review by the charities commission over financial mismanagement. Other more sinister examples could be selected from the national news archives. When a big church is reported on not in the context of a scandal, even then the tone of coverage can be highly cynical. I remember reading a few less than glowing reports in the national press on Abundant Life Church in Bradford after one of its members, Gareth Gates, shot to prominence in the UK. When the church is reported on in the media, it is rare indeed for it to be portrayed in a positive light. A mega-church that seems to me to be quite a good one – Mars Hill Church in Seattle – recently found itself on the wrong end of some harsh criticism. Other mega-churches in the USA came under Time Magazine’s microscope recently and didn’t exactly get a glowing endorsement.
We are of course called to be a city set on a hill – a light in the darkness (Matt 5:14-16). But how are we to shine? By simply being big? I don’t think so. Jesus is himself the light of the world. We shine best be being more like him. In doing so we may not get praise from the media, in fact we may be slandered. But we will impact individual lives who are touched by our love in the same way that Jesus impacted the lives of those around him. Let your light so shine among men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. It is by living out the counter-cultural Sermon on the Mount way of life that we will be noticed in the way that Jesus wants us to be noticed.
2. The Early Church was Big
This is another argument for “mega-churches” I have heard a lot. It follows from counting up the numbers of people in Jerusalem mentioned as being saved and calculates that the Jerusalem church was a “mega-church”.
The problem is, we simply don’t have that much information on how exactly they managed these huge numbers. There is good reason to believe that many of their meetings were much smaller affairs in people’s homes. Verses such as Acts 2:46 and Acts 5:42 are sometimes used to argue that they had huge central gatherings of all the Christians in the temple, but they do not necessarily prove that the whole church gathered regularly in large meetings. In fact, they point to regular small gatherings in people’s homes or public places, possibly headed up by leaders who themselves were under the apostles.
Also our modern western idea of what a church looks like has been so shaped by technological advances such as PA equipment and bands, that we can too easily anachronistically read back our own way of doing things into the first century. Their “big meetings” simply could not function in the same style as some of our conference celebrations.
Still, one good thing about the very early church was that for all the differences they may have had amongst them, there was just one church in each town. With our modern multiplicity of denominations, it is very hard to imagine how we could get back to that.
Again I welcome your comments as I think through these things.
I don’t think any supporter of the “big” church mentality thinks that just because a church is big, the “the media will gushingly enthuse about churches simply because they are big”. If anything I think it opens the said church up to greater criticism. The key problem for the church today according to Ern Baxter is not that the world hates us, but that they are indifferent to us! And he said that is worse. Because if the world hates us, then we are not only fulfilling the promise of Scripture but we are a problem and a challenge to them. When the world is indifferent to the Church, then we aren’t a problem and they really couldn’t care less about us.
I think that big churches cause the world to notice, because their presence upsets the indifferent mentality. While we as Reformed Calvinists 😉 know that pure numbers on seats doesn’t mean a thing, the crowd mentality always attracts attention. I played the Stoneleigh worship video to a non-Christian friend of mine and the thing he noticed was the thousands who were there.
As to your second point noting that the early church was big, I must confess I haven’t really thought through that. My thought process tends to follow a more Restorationist train of thought. Yes the 3, 000 saved on the Day of Pentecost I guess does constitute a big church. But if our vision is driven by awesome Scriptures such as “the mountain of God shall be established and all the nations will flow up to it” and “As surely as I live, ALL the earth will be filled with the glory of the Lord”, then that constitutes in my mind an idea of large, big, huge!!
I don’t really have a vision of mega church buildings! I get a thrill from the idea that the Gospel advances around the world with such fury that the Gates of Hell can’t stand it, and the only facilities big enough to house the converts coming in are sports arenas!!
some good points Dan. I guess this is the concern that many have – that a mega-church is so preoccupied with its own size that it loses the bigger picture of the kingdom advancing into all the world. And a small church with a “remnant” mentality can fall into the same trap too.
I’m coming at this from a slightly odd angle, forgive me.
I work in the UK as a voice & presentation skills trainer and amongst others I train priests and lay-preachers in using their Voice etc. so my interest is somewhat professional but biased 🙂
I’m not sure we do people a service by having too many (small) churches because, quite frankly, there aren’t that many gread (or even good) preachers to go around. Is it really a good idea to have small congregations (who might feel isolated because they can’t see each other) preached to by a poor preacher? The congregation’s experience of church won’t be good and some new-comers will undoubtedly be put off!
Yes, I know, it’s a single-minded point of view, but…..
Simon
Simon, you have a very valid point. I remember reading someone saying that a common factor in all big churches is a good speaker. He may not be an intellectual or a theologian or even an entertainer, but there is something that makes his congregation willing to listen.
So yes, some churches will remain small because their preaching (and often worship) is incredibly dull. However, it is a mistake to think that God only gifts the rare few in preaching and teaching. Its just that the gift needs to be worked on. Its not enough simply to have something to say – you need to be good at saying it too.