John Armstrong has a thought-provoking post on parsing the critiques of the mega-church. I have too many times been critical of the mega-church for several reasons (one of which Armstrong points out below). While it is true that the possibility for superficiality is higher in a mega-church than a church of 100 people, it does not necessitate that. What are your thoughts? Before you comment, read the excerpt below (even better, go to the article).
Why do people attack megachurches? I am not completely sure but I know why I once did. I felt they were, generally speaking, not faithful to the gospel. I also felt that they lowered the standards for moral formation and discipleship. I do not see hard evidence that this is true at all. Most of those who attack the lack of gospel clarity in the megachurch do so because they believe that they alone, and their few zealous friends and followers, preach the gospel faithfully. They reason semething like this—if you preach faithfully you will not, in most cases, draw huge crowds (because so few are being truly converted today). So, these people conclude that these megachurch pastors do not preach the gospel as faithfully as I (we) do. This is not only patently false, it is rooted in unadulterated sectarianism and pride. Some of the biggest promoters of this mode of attack are themselves the pastors of large churches that draw thousands of smaller church pastors into their influence by constantly attacking the megachurch. (I know this since I have been in these very same circles and preached this very type of message, to my shame and deep regret!) I ask you, very seriously: “What true good does this do for expanding the kingdom of Jesus?” (emphasis original)