megachurches and jerry falwell and relevant christianity

Shortly after Robert Schuller had the Crystal Cathedral erected in Garden Grove, CA in 1980, I was talking to a pastor friend about Schuller. "I am afraid that Schuller has finally met his Waterloo," my friend said. Perhaps my friend, whose church was very large but not as visible or influential as Schuller's, was hoping that Schuller would meet a speedy demise because of his overweening ambition. Nevertheless, rather than being the end of a ministry, the building of the Crystal Cathedral is now considered by scholars to be the beginning of the modern "Megachurch" movement in America. A "megachurch" is defined by the Hartford Seminary Foundation website to be one in which 2000+ people attend worship on a weekly basis, regardless of the membership numbers for the church. There are now more than 1,200 Protestant Churches in America which fit that category, double the number in 2000, and more are apparently on the way. The purpose of this and the next essay is to explain why the Megachurches emerged when they did and why they flourish in our culture.

Background Information

Though the modern Megachurch "movement" arguably goes back to 1980, the concept of the very large church is much older. For example, First Baptist Church in Dallas, under the leadership of WA Criswell (d. 2002) in the 1940s-1980s, had a membership approaching 20,000 people, with well over the requisite 2,000 for a modern Megachurch attending each week. Yet the concept really means something distinctive in terms of contemporary American Protestantism. I argue here that a Megachurch's roots are in a combination of Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism; its growth is fueled by the mobility of our society; and it finds its popularity in a focus on "relevant" Christianity that is preached from the pulpits and celebrated in hundreds of small groups that meet weekly in homes of members. Let's unpack each of these ideas.

Theological Indebtedness of the Megachurch

The Megachurch is a product of both the Evangelical revivals of the 1960s and 1970s and the re-emergent Fundamentalism of the 1970s. I differentiate the two as follows: Evangelicalism, to me, was a movement born in the 1940s by Fundamentalists who wanted a more culture-affirming and intellect-affirming faith while, at the same time, wanting to focus on the need for personal conversion or being "born again" as the central experience of the Christian life. Evangelical institutions that grew up or flourished in the 1950s were, for example, Youth for Christ, Young Life, Campus Crusade for Christ, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and the Billy Graham Evangelisitic Association. By the early 1970s a number of baby-boomers had been touched by this movement. The emphasis was on religion that needed to be felt--that is, on developing a "personal relationship" with God through Jesus Christ. Evangelicalism was a perfect counterbalance to the turbulent forces of the 1960s through its emphasis both on the certainty or firmness of faith while, at the same time, stressing the importance of a personal experience of faith. Though Evangelical leaders were usually Republicans, they downplayed any political role for their churches. Faith was the most important aspect of life. It consisted of developing a disciplined "quiet time" with God, witnessing for faith, having an active prayer life, and celebrating fellowship with other like-minded Christians. Evangelicalism bequeathed its emphasis on "personal religion" to the Megachurch movement.

On the other hand, Fundamentalism was a force in Protestantism which was culture-fleeing or suspicious of the dominant culture, stressed the inerrancy of the Bible and, like Evangelicalism, the need for a personal conversion to Christ. However, after the Fundamentalists were shamed by the Scopes Trial of 1925, where their hero, William Jennings Bryant, was successfully portrayed as an ineffectual and pathetic anti-modernist, they built their inner strength but stayed fairly distant from the political world of mid-century America. The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision of January 22, 1973, however, brought them out of their isolationism. They would, under the leadership of the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, VA, develop an activist, politically-interventionist Gospel which focused on themes that supported the political right wing. The root idea of modern Fundamentalism is "decline": i.e., America is in a perilous state of moral decline and that it can only return to its "former glory" by arrresting this decline. How to do it? Well, spend more money on defense, support Israel, oppose abortion and lend support to those who would support a "family values" platform.

When these two theological forces came together, they form a potent combination for the Megachurch movement. These churches would be based on "relevant" Christianity--Christianity that you can "use" in the workplace or the home. In addition, many of these Churches would become places supporting the agenda of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority (which incorporated in 1979). Though the religious antecedents of the Megachurches both stressed a revivalistic experience of grace as foundational to faith, the Megachurches have ever-so-slightly, and effectively, changed that focus to "relevant" Christianity. That is, in a busy and often crazy life, they would offer faith that was "relevant" to the daily needs of their parishioners. No longer would a dramatic conversion experience be necessary; it was enough that congregants would learn how to apply the Bible to their daily lives.

Conclusion

This helps explain the theological or ideological roots of the Megachurch movement. The next essay gets to other factors that fueled its growth.

2155