Though there are huge crowds in our evangelical cathedrals, there is also an exodus (particularly by the young) out of the doors of these congregations. It doesn't feel quite real to have a message emphasizing how authentic and real the church is, given by a dressed down guy on a barstool center stage saying the right words but lit and broadcast by a gazillion dollar sound and lighting sytem. But the crowds still pack these big, resource-intensive churches.

We say we want people to live their faith 7 days a week, but on Sunday mornings, frequently, it is communicated in many churches that the best version of a vibrant expression of faith means being a spectator and writing a check or helping in the nursery.

It would certainly be an interesting study to learn what daily faith expression is like for those attending churches like Sanctuary that don't have Sunday morning as 90% of their raison d'etre.

Great post.

Wow, I'm very convicted about this. My wife and I have been questioning this very idea and we're members of a large mega church in Alpharetta, GA. We're in our late 20s and I am feeling more and more than the next generation wants authenticity on Sunday mornings and not just in small group.

I am glad...very glad to see this. I admit that I have attended a mega church and been blessed time and time again. But I have started interning at a church of 100, that pays a small fee and meets in a school. Is that not really better financial stewardship? Why spend millions building buildings, when you can spend millions in the fields of the fatherless, in programs for the poor, in helping single moms, in getting education for those without it and so on?

I think the churches of the future are going to be the ones that look at the faces of society and say come, let us help you. when god said he would make us fishers of men he did just that, but we are the bait, not the fisher. People are going to bite off on our actions, not our words and our fancy buildings.

The continued criticism of un-named 'mega-churches' at this site seems to evidence a "holier-than-thou" attitude that is becoming distasteful. Why must you always be a critic of someone else to establish your own credibility? Why didn't the article merely state that the control group (of 2 - I'm impressed) found "The Sanctuary" church to be of their liking? And anyway, isn't this exercise itself 'seeker sensitive' as in, "If we get rid of power-point presentations and our building, drink beer and plan a canned food drive, they will come"?

Having said all this; is not the purpose of gathering together as believers, to equip the saints spiritually so that they can go out to minister to the unsaved? One could find much to criticize of ANY mega-church or ANY emerging church and most average churches (by far the vast majority anyway). That's because all churches are filled with people who still struggle with a sin-nature. How could one read the new testament and not know this?

The Apostle Paul put it so well in his first letter to the church at Corinth when he said, "...I have become all things to all men that I may by all means save some." (ICor. 9:22)

No surprises here. I talk with "unchurched" folks all over the country and their observations are precisely the same as reported. It seems to me that perhaps we have drifted so far from biblical Christianity that the Holy Spirit is guarding those who are not yet a part of pop-Christendom from getting involved with it at all.

What is encouraging to me is that the majority of these people, while judgmental of organized religion, are quick to recognize true faith in action when they see it. What's more, I've found that many are quite open to the non-attractional forms of our faith, and more-than-a-few are coming to faith sans all the religious entrapments. But hasn't that always been God's way? While religious leaders were busy building their kingdoms on the backs of the workingman and the poor, God was born in a cattle stall to a young couple whom everyone accused of birthing out of wedlock. What troubles me is that we even have to debate this.

"Why does the majority of most churches' resources get funneled back...?"
1. There is massive power in tradition. Specially when there is scripture twisting to support it and institutional experts who benefit financially from the twisting deny there is any twisting going on. This has always been done in the Catholic church, and protestants have not cured this behavior, in spite of their sincerity and love for God.
2. God's people like it this way. Based on many conversations I've had with saints regarding this, they are repulsed when you show them what God's Word says about where giving should go - beyond the giver. 2 Cor 8 & 9.
3. Believers cannot seem to grasp the KEY STRATEGIC BENEFIT to kingdom building to getting the gospel to those who have never heard and have no one nearby to tell and live it to them. Believers are far too enamored by getting the gospel in verbal form only (usually one-way communication dynamic) to those who have heard it many times and have rejected it many times.

Mega-churches are not the only culprit. A church of 100 has the same economic system as the church of 5,000. The same percentages apply. Only 14% of giving on average goes out the door. Have you ever heard of a "capitol giving campaign" where all the giving goes beyond the givers church property line? I haven't. The "institutionalized system" is the culprit here. Believers are throwing of "denominationalism". They also need to throw off "institutionalizm". "Let us THROW OFF the things that hinder, and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run the race marked out before us...

It appears that the "megachurches" didn't, except for Sanctuary, meet the two pagans (and I use the term advisedly -- their other posts on their experiences clearly show they are believers, just not of Christ) "felt needs." Furthermore, the whole exercise seemed directed at how well the churches visited, institutionally speaking, evangelized non-believers. But, I would argue, it's not THE primary purpose of the institutional church to evangelize. That's one of the primary jobs of believers. I think the primary purposes of the institutional church are to worship, to celebrate community in Christ, and to teach and equip believers for the work of the ministry.

I think that people are attracted to different things, and some find glitter attractive and some find it annoying.
I think to wring our hands and drum our fingers on our lips and say, "oh my, how can I be something to all people" is really stupid. All that is going to happen when churches cater to "everyone" is everyone is going to leave.
Now, if a church says, "hey, we need to refocus our vision on G-d's mission" then more power to them, and everyone else get out of the way.
But to say mega churches are the cause of the downfall of faith...yeah, that's ascribing to much credit to the mega'churches influence.
Besides, I've been to big o'l mega churches that was humming and thriving with life, and I've been to small churches where...well, to he honest, I've seen more spiritual life in a mortuary. I don't think it's the size that matters, but rather the content...the character of the people inside that defines a living church or a dead church.

This post is exactly right to point out that churches without flash and pizzazz can still definitely show people who Jesus is. Small churches do not have the resources to put on a fancy Sunday morning show. They should be who they are - equipping their people to serve and showing the community Jesus by serving them. Many not attracted to the slick production will be attracted by them.

But I do question the implication that the majority of young people and unchristian people are not attracted to quality Sunday morning programming. I do not think we can make that conclusion based on the opinions of these 2 people.

My experience is that more young adults and nonchristians are attracted to megachurches and cool emerging churches than poor social justice churches. But I would be thrilled to be wrong.

The sample size of two is inconclusive. But are there statistics about how many people are coming to Christ in megachurches vs. small-churches that are more oriented toward social justice? There are many sociologists people out there doing research on this kind of thing: Gallup, Barna, Christian Smith, Christian Schwarz (Natural Church Development), Lilly Endowment, Baylor survey, denominational stats, and the Alban Institute.

There is still a place I think for quality Sunday morning programming (welcoming, music, and preaching) for the purpose of drawing in new people and equipping the Christians. And yet it is easy to spend all of a church's resources on the Sunday morning show.

May the Spirit of God give us eyes to see what he is doing through the variety of church forms.

It's not fair to point blame at mega churches alone. Institutionalism in general is the problem. Unfortunately institutionalism is the result of one of those imperfections of human nature. It is our tendency to relegate responsibility and duty to something beyond ourselves as though an organization somehow thrives without our human involvement.

Few movements of the church have been ill-conceived. Most began as passionate and compassionate outreaches born out of the desire to see God glorified.

Many of the most revered academic institutions, which were once bastions of the faith, are now promulgators of atheism and immorality. Likewise, when churches lose sight of their calling to be the hands and feet of Jesus--feeding the poor, clothing the naked, healing the sick, housing the homeless, caring for the elderly, etc.--and instead, focus on their own physical desires, and attempt to draw people by means of appealing to their aesthetic and sensual tastes rather than by challenging them to join them in their struggle against social injustice, and in their passion for loving others and helping them to find the same hope they have found through Christ, the end result is dead institutionalism--man-made religion as opposed to God-breathed faith.

When Jesus said that we cannot serve both God and mammon, he certainly was thinking about the masses of people who were starving and living in abject conditions who could have been greatly helped if the religious leaders of his time had utilized their wealth to confront these social tragedies rather than spending it on temple gold and other adornments.

Is it no wonder that Jesus' message resonated so well with the poor? Is it no wonder that so many are today lamenting about the the same disconnects between the church and the Gospel that existed in Jesus' time?

Rather than choosing sides in this argument, can't we just honestly admit that our human nature, as always, has missed the mark? Then, can we not collectively work on solutions to turn this thing around so that the Church can actually earn the respect of the masses rather than wasting our energies on a better marketing strategy?

Surely the time has come.

As a behavioral psychologist "in another life,' gotta admit that this floats my boat! I can still remember when SIU at Carbondale (IL)was sending "stooges" (experimental psychology students)into mental hospitals. This is a major blast, and long overdue! Has nobody really done this before?
And yes, Phil, we all heard you the first time, a couple of weeks ago.

As much as I agree with the idea that money would be better spent on widows and orphans than on multi-million dollar facilities, I wonder if the choice is that simple. Would the money be present at all if not for the facility? In other words, is having a "flashy" show necessary to attract many of the people who have the money?

Take Willow Creek in suburban Chicago, for example. Hybels and company have been attracting Chicago businessman for 25 years now with a carefully crafted blend of entertainment and truth.

It costs a lot of money to maintain--there is no doubt about that. But the facility doesn't absorb all of the money. Willow sends millions back into the community. In fact, a few small groups at Willow contribute more (financially speaking) individually than entire inner-city churches.

But I don't think you can say that, if Willow didn't exist, the money used to build its facilities would have instead gone to the poor. More likely, it would have gone to Jaguars, Chop House steaks, and Chicago Bears season tickets.

Haha, Barbi,

I'm surprised anybody got anything out of that mess I posted yesterday. I must've needed more coffee cuz it's nigh incomprehensible.

I am confused though... You write: "we all heard you the first time, a couple weeks ago." The blog post I responded to originated on the 7/23. I posted on that day. So pray tell where did you hear me on this subject a couple weeks ago? And, if it was on a blog other than this one, why would it be redundant for me to enter the conversation here (however poorly phrased -- gad, i still can't believe I posted that yesterday without proofing)?

I agree that is a real challenge to build relationships in a large church. However, most big churches have a system of connecting people with small groups during the week. It must also be remembered that many of the so-called 'Mega churches' have mega programs in the community such as specific ministries for drug addicts, single parents, abused and poor. Some large churches have house building programs or give cars to single Mums. (Riverview church in Perth Western Australia.) Others sponsor hundreds of children in developing countries. A large church in Perth has established a children's home in Cambodia. Another gives $30,000 a year for another program in Cambodia. (NB a large church in Perth is only 1500 people).
Money spent on technical equipment is usually only so a quality program can be presented, although I do agree that sometimes it could be achieved on a lower budget. Why should God's house not have the best though? Was Solomon's temple built with the cheapest materials? A church building should glorify God and be designed to bring people to Him and keep them there!
I grew up in a small church - no-one knew we existed! I am now in a growing church of about 100. We have stepped out in faith, demolished all our existing buildings and built a community centre to share with the community.

Firts off, the assumption mega churches do not spend money on outside ministry is off. I have been involved with several mega churches and these have all given amazing ammounts to external ministry. In addition to that they have been huge labor forces in their community and in other places of need through short term and long term missions.

Another "off" assumption is that mega churches are run by ego-driven, type A, power hungry people. This is also not true in my expereince. Are some? Sure but in 27 years of ministry 99% of the mega church pastors I meet are just real guys, amazed by God's goodness.

Finally, in every mega church I know personally, people are coming to know Jesus. This is huge and very impacting on the kingdom of God and the community surrounding the church.

I am certainly willing to allow and invite input from those who do not yet know Christ and from those who have are not apart of the church in which I pastor I am not however inclined to let the assessment of my churches mission and ministry fall into the hands of people not open enough to the Gospel to give Christ a chance to redeem and change their life. Unwillingness to surrender to the authortiy of God and the love of God is not high on the list of traits that make for wisdom and discernment.

To see oneself from within, this is spirituality. To see oneself from without, this is clarity.

Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom and ministered to the poor, lame, maimed and blind. Then He selected twelve apprentices, showed them how to do these same two things. Next He sent them out to preach the Gospel and heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, care for widows and orphans, etc. The religious powers-that-were didn't go for that, so they had Him killed, but He rose from the dead, and just as He was about to ascend into Heaven He commanded those twelve apprentices to make more apprentices, teaching them to "observe" (DO in plain English, not "be spectators of") everything He'd taught the twelve to DO. What was that? Hmm... maybe it was to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom and heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, etc.?

"Winston Churchill once said, 'We shape our buildings, and then they shape us.' Too often a congregation is so anxious to have a nice building that the members spend more than they can afford. Paying for and maintaining the building becomes the biggest budget item. Funds needed to operate ministries must be diverted to pay the mortgage, and the actual ministry of the church suffers. The tail ends up wagging the dog." So wrote Rick Warren in The Purpose Driven Church. This raises the question, "What's the purpose of the church, anyway?" And if it is to DO the things that Jesus did as well as to speak God-talk, then the next question is: what's the shape of the building that best shapes us? See my book The Ministry Driven Church at agape-biblia.org/ministry.

I am certain that there are relatively few churches who don't have some degree of charitableness. Even the ones that the 2 non-believers examined, which received their bad reviews, probably have charitable programs. But, from my experience, most of that benevolence is but a token acknowledgment of their social duties as a religious institution when compared with the amount of energy that is spent on the physical plant and attractional programs.

Seriously, I have found no better teacher for learning to become the hands and feet of Jesus to our communities and to the world than for us to get out there and use our hands and feet. There is no more effective way to learn to love than to love.

The "Sanctuary" which was the one picked by the two non-believers as being the most authentic representation of Jesus, is obviously a church that has little regard for external appearances, but rather they find their spiritual fulfillment by loving and helping people in need.

I have met very few church leaders in my day who had no interest in extending the grace of our Lord to their communities. The problem as I see it is not from the heart, but from relying on institutional modes of extending that grace which have grown inefficient at best, and which bear little relevance to the our changing culture, and that can no longer keep up with the mounting social needs that exist globally.

I am wondering if we are focuing too much on the venue/money. I wonder if what these two young people found really attractive was the fact the 30 people were actually "doing" the work. They didn't write a check, pay someone else, do it once a quarter so they can feel good about themselves, but truly did it sunday after sunday after sunday. There was no hiding from the poor and if you went to their church, you interacted with poor people. The money did not exist to build " a church", the money existed to "be" a church. I feel somewhat the same way about all the money we spend on summer mission trips for our youth-so they can have a "spiritual experience" to fuel their lives. Seems so ironice we send them so far away and the poor live just down the street.

Wow, a lot of good stuff being said here, but I have to ditto what Trisha said and I've been saying it to our leadership for years...why spend money to send them so far away when they are right down the street. AMEN to that!

Lets stop for a moment. there is a reason that one chirch has thirty five members, and another church has a thousand. Thats the way most people (and I includes the leaders of most evangelical denominations) Want it. Most people dont have the energy to go to the thirty five member church. Whenn they go to church they want there seats comfy, and an up and running childerns ministry.