Megachurch!

Marketing savvy and jumbo parking lots have combined to produce a new breed of big churches.

“Can you see any reason why our congregation can’t average 100,000 at Sunday morning worship?” questioned the 43-year-old pastor of a relatively new congregation averaging nearly 4,000 in attendance. “If churches in Korea can do it, why can’t we?”

After discussing the nature of his congregation and their goals, I asked, “How much land for parking do you own?”

“Slightly over 60 acres,” was the immediate response, “but some of that will be needed for the new sanctuary.”

“You can’t reach your goal with so little parking,” I explained. “Sixty acres will give you approximately 9,000 parking spaces. Even with three worship services on Sunday morning, you’ll need at least 15,000 to 20,000 off-street parking spaces. If you use 15 acres for your new building, you’ll be short 8,000 to 12,000 spaces.”

Subsequently, that congregation purchased another 60 acres of land. Welcome to the world of the megachurch inspired by megadreams!

The Emergence Of The Large Church

The most frequently asked question about this contemporary phenomenon is “How many megachurches are there?” No one knows exactly, but the most useful estimate is well over 1,000 and growing. A reasonable guess is that the number of megachurches has at least tripled, and more likely quadrupled, during the past quarter-century. While some insist that an average worship attendance of at least 3,000 is needed to qualify for entry into the classification of megachurch, for this discussion I use a more generous criterion of 1,000.

The majority of today’s megachurches either were founded since 1955 or they have relocated to their present meeting place since 1965. While a few can trace their origins back into the nineteenth century, most are relatively new. At least 150, and perhaps as many as 200, of today’s megachurches serve what is largely or entirely an African-American constituency.

Today 1 in every 300 Lutheran parishes qualifies as a megachurch, as does 1 in every 200 Southern Baptist churches, 1 in every 600 United Methodist churches, 1 in every 100 Assemblies of God congregations, 1 in every 400 Nazarene churches, 1 in every 250 congregations affiliated with the American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A., and 1 in every 300 churches that carries the word Presbyterian in its name. The emergence of the megachurch is one of the four or five most-significant developments in contemporary American church history.

A Megalist Of Reasons

Perhaps the second most-frequently raised question about megachurches concerns the reasons behind this relatively sudden phenomenon. Dozens of reasons can be offered, many overlapping.

Among the more obvious are (1) the gradual disappearance of those generations of denominationally loyal churchgoers born before 1930 who preferred the intimacy and spontaneity of life in a small congregation; (2) the growing number of people who commute 3 to 40 miles to work and thus find it easy to commute 5 or 10 or 20 miles to an attractive church; (3) the improvement in the quality and safety of urban and suburban highways; (4) the expectation by many that a convenient off-street parking space will be available at the end of the journey; (5) the growing demand for higher-quality physical facilities, preaching, music, nurseries, teaching, and youth ministries; (6) the freedom of younger generations to ignore denominational labels and shop for a church that meets their needs; (7) the recent rapid increase in the exodus of people born since 1945 from Roman Catholic churches into evangelical and charismatic Protestant congregations; (8) the simple fact that most Americans born after 1940 grew up in a world of big institutions, including public schools, employers, shopping malls, and medical clinics; (9) the capability of large churches to design and staff a huge range of specialized ministries; (10) the power of the critical mass—the 26-year-old, never-married adult looking for a spouse is more likely to be successful in that search in a singles ministry that includes 1,200 people than in a group of 9 singles; (11) the shift in priorities in many long-established congregations and denominations from people and needs to institutions and tradition; (12) the focus on attendance in megachurches contrasted with an emphasis on membership in the long-established congregations (in scores of megachurches the average worship attendance is double or triple the membership total, while in some long-established smaller churches the membership total may be double the worship attendance); (13) a more-persuasive public-relations and advertising program in megachurches than in smaller congregations; (14) a sensitivity and responsiveness to “the market” as opposed to smaller congregations being driven by tradition; (15) the refusal by an increasing number of municipalities to grant permission to long-established congregations to increase their off-street parking or to expand their physical facilities because of complaints from the neighbors; (16) the decision by a growing proportion of that group of three to seven million Americans who have been attending two churches every week in order to have their religious needs met to switch to “one-stop shopping” at a megachurch; (17) the search by millions of people born in the 1942–67 era for a Christ-centered church that offers Bible-centered preaching and teaching ministries; (18) the capability of the larger churches to offer a broad range of choices, not only in the times for worship, but also in how they can be engaged in doing ministry—the megachurch uses a smaller proportion of volunteers’ time and energy in maintaining the institution; (19) the inability of the vast majority of Protestant churches in the late 1960s to welcome the Jesus People, many of whom helped form the nucleus for what subsequently became a megachurch; (20) a greater preference for a faster pace for corporate worship; (21) the shift toward the theological Left by many pastors, while most of the churchgoers born since 1955 are theologically more conservative than their parents; (22) the satisfaction gained by members when they learn that 20 to 35 percent of their contributions are allocated to missions, benevolences, and community outreach compared to the 10 to 16 percent that is typical of smaller congregations; (23) the inability or unwillingness of the vast majority of long-established churches to accommodate that growing number of self-identified charismatic Christians who seek a church with a prayer-and-praise service; (24) the trend in American society toward larger institutions, including grocery stores, hospitals, universities, and units of local government.

The Real Reason?

That far-from-exhaustive list may be condensed into a few key variables illustrated by these two comments:

“Recently we began to expand our specialized ministries,” explained a staff member of the Wooddale Church in suburban Minneapolis. “We designed a mutual-support group for adults who are children of an alcoholic parent or have an alcoholic relative. It grew rather slowly at first, but after about eight or nine months the floodgates opened. In two months we went from 30 to nearly 200.”

From another megachurch member: “Why do I drive 35 miles each way twice a week? Because this is the first church I’ve ever been in where I found the sermon is always directed at the concerns I carry in my heart. I’ve been coming here now for five months, and I believe I could give you a complete outline of every sermon I’ve heard without ever looking at any notes.”

These two comments identify the central secrets of the success of many megachurches. The first is the focus on the religious and personal needs of people, with a high priority given to those who do not have an active affiliation with any church. In the 1960s this was described as “relevance.” Second is memorable motivational preaching. Third is an emphasis on quality, and fourth is the capability and willingness to design a multifaceted program in response to a broad range of needs.

The Problems Of Bigness

Like every other change in recent American church history, the rapid growth of the megachurches has aroused a host of critics. Most of their criticisms center on problems generally associated with size.

The most repeated—and misunderstood—criticism is obvious: the megachurch is a more-expensive operation. In most very large congregations, annual expenditures run between $1,000 to $1,500 per person (average worship attendance). In a few, expenses run as high as $2,000 to $4,000 per person when the costs of a pay-as-you-go building program are included. By contrast, in most small churches, annual expenditures average out to between $400 and $600 per person, while in middle-sized congregations that average usually is between $700 and $1,500.

On the other hand, in smaller churches the compensation for staff often runs between 50 and 60 percent of total expenditures, while in the very large congregations that proportion drops to between 25 and 45 percent. This means the typical megachurch has a larger proportion of its funds available for weekday programming, capital improvements, and missions. The typical very large church allocates 20 to 35 percent of total receipts to missions compared to 8 to 15 percent for small congregations.

Another problem for megachurches is that anonymity and complexity go up as size increases. Those who prefer an intimate and friendly atmosphere in which everyone can call every other member by name often find the megachurch overwhelming. Most megachurches try to compensate for this by structuring themselves as a congregation of congregations, classes, groups, cells, and fellowships. Much of the caring is carried out in and through these smaller clusters of people. Apparently the majority of the adults in megachurches are willing to accept anonymity and complexity in exchange for choices and quality. Some members even affirm the anonymity and the accompanying freedom that goes with it.

Note: Figures indicate total persons in attendance at the major weekly services, including Sunday school, multiple worship services, and, in some cases, a Saturday evening worship service. Figures supplied by the churches. Used by permission of John N. Vaughan.

Hiring And Firing The Ceo

For many critics, the crucial issue facing the megachurch is accountability. Who will hold these megachurches accountable for their actions? To whom are the senior pastor and his staff accountable?

It used to be assumed that a congregational board of elders or deacons or a denominational committee or official would hold pastors accountable for their actions and teachings. Those systems are being eroded and are less and less effective. Ministers seem reluctant to hold one another accountable.

Increasingly, the real system of accountability is the marketplace. The erosion of institutional loyalties, especially among those born after World War II, has made it easy for unhappy churchgoers to seek another church home. Today’s system of accountability is being administered through the feet and pocketbook. The boring sermon, the uninspired worship service, the absence of initiating leadership by the pastor, the questionable moral behavior of a paid staff member, or the earned distrust of the administration of the finances motivates many people to disappear silently. This is not a new concept in our society. What is new is that the marketplace is now the most widely used system of evaluation by younger churchgoers. Accountability for the megachurch is determined by whether or not the people keep coming and giving.

The down side of this, of course, is the tendency to depend more on the market than the mission. Should a church formulate its priorities and design its ministries in response to the expressed needs of people? Or should the driving force be the Bible, the creeds, traditions, and priorities of the pastors? To some, the popularity and success of the megachurch represents a dangerous concession to the rampant consumerism characteristic of contemporary American society.

Suspicious Of Success

Much of the criticism leveled at the megachurch comes from persons who may have a vested interest in the more traditional small-to-medium-sized congregation. For many Christians born before 1930, part of their attachment to the smaller church is emotional. It is a shock when they discover their children are now driving long distances to go to a megachurch. Accustomed to the struggles associated with smallness, these critics tend to be suspicious of success.

Some officials and leaders of denominational agencies are also critical of the trend toward megachurches. For most of American church history, the majority of Protestant churches were affiliated with one of a few dozen denominations. This fostered a feeling of interdependence, and in some cases (most notably Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Reformed), also created a sense of dependency. The denominational agencies depended on the churches for financial support, and many of the churches became dependent on those denominational agencies for resources, a distinctive identity, and fellowship.

Whether they carry a denominational affiliation or not, most of today’s megachurches simply are not dependent on the denomination. While many continue to be the “cash cows” for the financing of denominational programs and staff, most do not display any need for denominational resources. This independence of the megachurches is perceived as a threat to the continued existence of denominational structures.

The third group of people threatened by this growing number of megachurches consists of the faculty and administration of some theological seminaries. In his doctoral dissertation, Richard Lee Olson found more than one-third of the senior ministers of megachurches did not hold a seminary degree (which in itself is worthy of concern). Will the future role of the theological seminaries be to educate students to serve that shrinking number of small churches that can barely afford a full-time pastor? Who will perpetuate the orthodox Christian faith if the large churches do not depend on seminaries for future ministerial leadership?

Even more threatening to some seminary educators is the growing pattern among the megachurches to identify their future paid program staff members from among their current corps of volunteers. Church leaders hand pick laypersons, then train and socialize them in megachurch culture rather than send them off to seminary. Will the megachurches, rather than the seminaries, be the primary source of both ordained and lay staff for tomorrow’s megachurches?

While seldom mentioned, another threat posed by the megachurch is a diminishing number of jobs for seminary graduates. Twenty congregations, each averaging 100 people, represent 20 jobs for ministers. By contrast, the megachurch averaging 2,000 usually will have only five to eight ordained ministers on the payroll. Where will the jobs be for tomorrow’s seminary graduates?

Growing, but Not Groaning

With a new $34 million building, a 6,200-seat sanctuary, 100 acres of prime real estate, and the largest Christian day-care center in the country, nondenominational Calvary Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, has become one of the fastest-growing evangelical megachurches today. A $22 million bank loan and monthly interest payments of nearly $200,000 have made Calvary the subject of much community interest—as have the pink stucco-and-glass outer walk, which prompted the irreverent nickname, “the Mary Kay Cathedral.” Under the leadership of Ross Rhoads, pastor since 1973, membership at Calvary has grown from 125 to more than 3,600. Rhoads spoke to CHRISTIANITY TODAY about his view of the megachurch.

You recently dedicated the largest nondenominational church complex in America. Why such a big church?

Growth just came. It wasn’t something we set out to do. God allowed us to be an attractive place for people to come to.

The reason we came to 100 acres was an ordinance that prohibited the building of any church with more than 1,200 seats. We already had 1,700 seats and were in three services, so that meant we either had to stop doing what we were doing or find a new site. So we were, in a sense, driven by the circumstances of running out of space rather than by a great plan of expansion.

Some churches faced with similar challenges might have chosen to plant a new church.

One of Calvary’s goals is not to duplicate what someone else is doing. We are seeing more small local churches being started in our area than ever before, so there isn’t a need to start another church. It’s not the death of the small church and the birth of the large church. People have different tastes.

There have been several media reports about the money involved with your project. Are you concerned about the cost of such a complex?

Any time a church grows or expands or does something other than the basic program, you do have a deepening of dependence on the Lord. The building of a church is a major capital concern, but what we have done is build a facility that will last us over the next many, many years. We were blessed because we were given the land (worth $5 million), so we didn’t have that purchase.

As a church grows, it has more resources and, of course, greater responsibilities. There’s a direct relationship between the growing church and the growing church’s capacity to do more things. When I came to Calvary, the missions budget was about $40,000, and now it is over a half-million dollars.

You list 13 ministers and an operational staff of 55. Are you a pastor or a CEO?

I am a pastor. I do weddings. I do funerals. I visit the hospital. As far as I’m concerned, I’m not different from any other pastor. The ability to be perceived as a caring, approachable person in a growing congregation has more to do with the personality, attitude, and commitment of the pastor than it does with size of the congregation.

The ministers of a small church and a very large church have the same problem: balancing the needs of the people in terms of being a shepherd and a prophet.

How do you see the role of the megachurch in America? Do you ever have any misgivings about it?

I have no misgivings. The parachurch had an era in which it was doing ministry on behalf of the local church. Now, I see the local church coming into ascendancy. The larger church has the people and the resources to provide a variety of ministries and services that care for the total needs of the family, which a smaller church cannot do.

By Kim A. Lawton.

Three Clouds On The Horizon

What is the future of the megachurch? Most likely we will see a continued trend of new, large congregations forming, perhaps churches that have been planted by another megachurch. There are, however, three practical problems the megachurch will face. The first has to do with pastoral succession. What will happen when that winsome senior pastor departs?

The historical record suggests that finding a new senior pastor often is more of a problem for those megachurches that depend on denominational seminaries and/or a denominationally administered pastoral-placement system. The issue of succession appears to be less disruptive when the congregation is free to choose from a broad range of possibilities in selecting a successor. In any event, it probably is unrealistic to expect theological seminaries to prepare people for these vacancies.

A second uncertainty is the yet-to-be-answered question regarding the generations born after 1968: will they be attracted to megachurches? There is at least a likelihood that the children of today’s megachurch members will want something new and different: small, intimate congregations!

Perhaps the most serious problem facing the megachurch is the increasing number of municipal officials who are adopting and enforcing land-use regulations designed to thwart the creation of new megachurches. These include restricting the amount of land a religious body can own, limiting the number of off-street parking spaces, creating special zoning districts for churches, and limiting the size of buildings designed as places of public assemblage. Sometime during the 1990s, the United States Supreme Court will be asked to rule on the constitutionality of these restrictions. That decision, rather than the marketplace, may decide the fate of future megachurches.

Making Room For The Megachurch

I have always been a strong denominationalist. I prefer a system of interdependence among churches rather than market sensitivity as the system of accountability. While the megachurches are attracting a disproportionately large number of people from those generations born after 1940, clearly they are not for everyone. For one reason or another, the majority of Americans still prefer churches that average between 150 and 700 at worship. (In 1989 an estimated two-thirds of all Protestant churchgoers worshiped with a congregation that averaged between 150 and 700 in attendance.)

And yet, one has to deal with contemporary reality. Although the warm spot in my heart is for the congregation averaging 150 to 175 at worship, the average size of evangelical churches in the United States has tripled or quadrupled since 1900. We live in a world of big institutions in which the marketplace is the critical point of accountability.

After 30 years of working with congregations, pastors, and volunteer leaders from four-dozen denominations, I am willing to set aside my denominationalist orientation and preference for smaller congregations and acknowledge the legitimate range of choices made available by megachurches.

I regret the fact that most of the larger and long-established denominations did not encourage the emergence of a thousand or more megachurches, but that is not an adequate reason to deny that alternative to those who prefer that size, type, and style of worshiping community. We ought to rejoice that in God’s providence the range of churches in our society includes lay-led religious fellowships, small churches, middle-sized congregations, large churches, and, yes, even megachurches.

Megamyths

Megachurches have made many mistakes, but they generally have learned from them. Unfortunately, the mistakes become the basis for some common misunderstandings about large churches. Here are some of the most prevalent myths regarding megachurches.

The I’m-just-a-number myth. While it is true that some large churches offer few options beyond the worship service in a huge auditorium, this is often not the case. Most of the American megachurches I have studied subdivide their congregations into small groups. The overall teacher/pupil ratios at these churches range from 1:5 to 1:15.

The building-is-so-huge myth. Boston Church of Christ now meets each Sunday morning in the Boston Garden sports center. At least eight American congregations already meet in 10,000-capacity auditoriums or are in the planning stages of building structures of this size. But unlike the long, narrow design of cathedrals in Europe and South America, the larger U.S. church structures are built with congregations in mind. They are generally constructed with the pulpit centered in either a circle or semicircle of pews subdivided into smaller sections.

The largest sanctuary in the U.S. is owned by the Crenshaw Christian Center, a predominantly black congregation in Los Angeles, California. Despite its seating capacity of 10,400, you can walk from the last row to the pulpit in 24 seconds.

The too-quick-to-build myth. Most large churches continue to offer more than one morning worship service. This allows continued growth in the present sanctuary as long as possible. Some churches have offered as many as five worship services (New Hope Baptist Church of Fayetteville, Ga.) and even six Sunday schools (First Baptist Church of Hammond, Ind.) to maximize growth through use of existing space.

Growing churches of any size that approach saturation of existing preschool, parking, and other building space with only one morning worship service usually make a fatal mistake in building a new building immediately. My annual research of the 500 fastest-growing churches in the U.S. indicates that the wiser decision is to use the same space for a second, and then begin a third, hour, if at all possible, before completing additional new buildings.

The trend-back-to-small myth. I am regularly asked if the era of large churches in the U.S. is slowing down. Some are shocked when told that churches averaging 2,000 or more in attendance are increasing in number at the rate of approximately 30 additional churches each year.

The bigger-is-better myth. Growing churches are increasingly learning that the real issue is the ability of a church to reproduce itself both organically and organizationally in a biblical manner.

A plateau is still a plateau, whether in a small or large church. While size may in fact be an indicator of significant growth based on obedience to the biblical mandate, size in itself (large, larger, largest, or small, smaller, smallest) is no guarantee of the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

The concept of reproducing the church within a small-group context is at the heart of megachurch growth. This means that a church not only grows large, but actually maintains its creative and innovative ability and desire to reproduce itself for kingdom and Great Commission purposes.

By John Vaughan, founder and director of the Mega-Church Research Center of Southwest Baptist University, and author of The Large Church (Baker).

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.