Cutting the Cord: Are Megachurches
Birthing the
In
recent months the conversation on Out of Ur has explored why increasing numbers
of Christians are opting to pursue Christ apart from a local church. The
discussion began with Kevin
Miller’s review of George Barna’s new book, Revolution. And, similar themes were addressed by Dave
Terpstra in his post on why
the spiritually mature leave the church. Church leaders; however, are no
longer the only ones interested in this issue. Time Magazine ran a story on March 6 titled “There's
No Pulpit Like Home” discussing the changes occurring in American
Christianity and the rise of house churches.
Interestingly,
the authors suggest it may be the megachurch advocacy of small groups that has
fueled the house church trend:
[The megachurch] is made possible by hundreds of
smaller "cell groups" that meet off-nights and provide a humanly
scaled framework for scriptural exploration, spiritual mentoring and emotional
support. Now, however, some experts look at [small groups]--spreading in parts
of
The
Time article also explore the
ideas of George Barna’s book, Revolution,
including Barna’s beliefe that in 20 years “only about one-third of the
population” will rely on conventional congregations for the spiritual
development. To balance this radical forecast Time spoke with Jeffery Mahan from the Iliff School of
Theology who agrees that a significant shift is happening in the American
church, although it may not be as dramatic as Barna suggests.
American participation in formal church has
risen and fallen throughout history, he notes, and after a prolonged post--World
War II upswell, big-building Christianity may be exhaling again in favor of
informal arrangements.
The
“big-building Christianity” that Mahan refers to was another intriguing aspect
of the article. It seems the mega-facilities the modern church has used to
attract “seekers” may no longer be a draw for spiritually hungry Americans. The
grassroots activism of house churches combined with their minimal institutional
overhead may prove enticing to a new generation of socially active Christians.
Golden Gate Seminary's Karr reckons that
building and staff consume 75% of a standard church's budget, with little left
for good works. House churches can often dedicate up to 90% of their offerings.
Karr notes that traditional church is fine "if you like buildings. But I
think the reason house churches are becoming more popular is that their
resources are going into something more meaningful."
All
of this makes me wonder--is the house church movement a reaction against the megachurch, or the logical
outcome of the megachurch?
In
the end the significance of the Time article
may not be found in its content, but in the existence of the article itself.
The American evangelical church’s cultural and political influence can no
longer be denied, and as a result the secular media is paying attention to
church trends that once only intrigued pastors and denominational leaders. This
much is certain, whatever direction the church takes in the years ahead (mega
or mini) we’ll have plenty of secular scrutinizers documenting our journey.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/03/cutting_the_cor.html#more