Jump to content

Talk:Megachurch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Note also that megachurches attract participants through an array of recreations services, with singles clubs, softball teams, summer camps, study groups, and such. These create a social network for the church members that many find lacking in contemporary urban society. 209.99.30.178 October 15, 2003

I also concur with the above. Well said! Excellent points raised. --avnative 23:01, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Ah, but Cho's Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul fits 12.500 people, making it one of the largest in the world. The MegaChurch is certainly not uniquely American anymore; and perhaps it never was, considering the size of many of Europe's largest cathedrals. Bold and energetic churches with strong leaders will always attract masses of people. - JayZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.212.89.87 (talk • contribs) 18:44, October 15, 2003
Never been there. :) I also understand that there's an impressively large church in some West African country, the Ivory Coast I believe. If you've seen these churches or know something of their history, feel free to add it. -- Smerdis of Tlön 03:36, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
South Korea is known for its megachurhces I believe the article should be reworded. I believe there are at least three over 100,000. My church infact recently had a visitor from the second largest church in Korea which had something like 350,000. 12.220.47.145 23:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs more substance; should most of it really be a long listing? Maybe move that to a list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.8.51 (talk • contribs) 06:05, December 7, 2005
I tend to agree. The article was based initially on the external link, which discusses mostly megachurches in the USA. It appears that churches that meet the physical dimensions definition are quite common outside the USA as well, and the article says next to nothing about any differences between them. For this reason, I added the limited geographic template. Tend to agree that the list should spin off into its own article, and that the article needs to discuss any significant differences between US and non-US megachurches. Smerdis of Tlön 16:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Shutdown Controversy???

[edit]

Why is this included on this page? Does this have anything to do with megachurches in particular? If not, this segment should be removed (which I think it should). Akhenaton06 10:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this could be included in a section about criticism of megachurches' catering to pop culture trends in order to increase membership, all in the name of "accessibility" and "relevance". As a section on its own, I agree it's not worthy of inclusion. Staecker 13:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It has been all over the newspapers, at least locally, here; mostly as the result of a Lexington KY megachurch closing for Christmas. It's an issue that is bound to arise every seven years, on the average. The usual explanation given is that these megachurches are fairly large employers, hiring professional musicians, stagehands, traffic cops, and so forth; and they want their employees to be able to travel to and spend time with their families in fulfilment of their Christmas obligations, something they can't do if they must work on Christmas Day. It has little to do with "accessibility" or "relevance" AFAICT. Smerdis of Tlön 14:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But many churches, not just megachurches, "close their doors" on holidays, even when they do fall on Sundays. I agree with Akhenaton06; I'm not seeing how an issue that comes up once every 7 years (as was stated) warrants its own section. Badbadb 02:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important to step back and take note because of the utter, utter, utter irony of a church closing its doors on Christmas. Badbadb - Christmas is not just a holiday, unlike something like Labor Day or Veteran's Day, at Christmas you're supposed to be in church! (Catholic lecture over - but seriously I hope that people are not under the impression that the 'holidays' are supposed to be family time where you spend good "quality time" instead of doing mundane things - oooh, like church) Not that it is a particular thing to note for megachurches, and I fully understand the logistical problems that having such a large church open on Christmas. Maybe Staecker is right. But I'm a Catholic, and British, I like things manageable - and I don't mean to sound judgy - but stagehands? at church? I know we have altarboys, but still - lol. America is a whole other country (and South Korea as well).--86.143.48.116 22:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAF - I can see where a twice a year churchgoer may have a problem with the Christmas 2005 closings, but as a regular attender of megachurches, I can attest to the following rationale for the closures:

  1. The overwhelming majority of people who help out during the services are volunteers. This includes the ushers, parking staff and people working the nursery and children's services. It's hard to find volunteers willing to work on Christmas day and it's also difficult to predict just how many folks are going to show up. If the turnout was small, they would have been needlessly putting out their most loyal volunteer staff.
  2. Every church I'm familiar with that did close offered some sort of candlelight service on Christmas Eve that often extended past midnight. Attending these services on Christmas was always the tradtional norm when I was a child and the turnout was always better than any services that were offered on Christmas day.
  3. Because of the amount of high-tech equipment and the potential of vandalism being high, these churches do not have the luxury of keeping their doors open at all times the way many traditional churches do.

I think complaints over the closures are a bunch of foolish sniping by people who seldom go to church, or just have a problem with this type of church in general. The megachurches are as imperfect as any other church. We will get to experience the Perfect Church in eternity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.253.203 (talk • contribs) 23:46, June 23, 2006

If you have a reference for this information - for example a church newsletter - this info would make a valuable addition to the article. BreathingMeat 20:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from McChurch?

[edit]

The article Criticisms of Mega Churches recently turned up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I was also aware of the material at McChurch. I would propose merging both of those pages here, after editing for NPOV. The McChurch material strikes me as somewhat better, in that it cites its sources; while the Criticisms article was forked from an article about a specific megachurch and consists mostly of quotations. These would probably be better summarized with links or citations to the source material, and factored into the McChurch criticisms; they cover similar ground, IMO. What say ye? — Smerdis of Tlön 15:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - The article criticisms of Mega Churches just redirects to Mega Churches. I think they may as well be merged because the title "McChurch" is pretty much self-evident that it is "anti-Church"--86.143.48.116 22:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see what the McChurch article has to offer - it seems to be a precis of one tendentious article which is as much against protestantism/evangelicalism as against Megachurches. User:MartinTurner 19:02 January 25 2006
The article McChurch should be merged into the article for Megachurches. Perhaps a section called "Termonology" for megachurches should be included. McChurch is not the only derogatory term used for megachurches. There is also the term "Six Flags Over Jesus" emphasizing the entertainment oriented aspect of these churches. That term can be found when googled on the internet, and it is used in the Don Henley song "Little Tin God" from his 1989 album End of Innocence, therefore the use of that term is also verifiable.Gregory Y 05:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'McChurch' is a negatively loaded term in itself and if Wikipedia is going to be NPOV then it would be appropriate for it to be merged. 'McChurch' is just a nickname given to megachurches, and doubtless the issues that it raises would be covered in the critisims section.--Luccent 20:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Six Flags Over Jesus" was the title of a short story written by Lewis Schiner and published in Asimov's Science Fiction in 1987. This may be the first use of the term. The story is about a Christian-themed theme park, not a church, but had the same idea of mass entertainment with a poor veneer of Christianity. [1] 68.170.150.97 13:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

[edit]

Please merge this content from a deleted article in where possible.

Many Christians have expressed concerns with Willow Creek, Saddleback Church, and other Megachurches. Critics raise issues with certain aspects the churches, citing a 'Walmart-esque' business model, a humanist worldview, unconventional worship styles, and Eastern influences. The "seeker-friendly" movement has been the subject of much debate. Those who criticize these churches assert that they are more interested with, and catering to, people's (often self-centred) "wants" rather than their real "need," that of Jesus Christ. The business model of Megachurches has been compared to that of major corporations in a recent Business Week article for their market-driven philosophy. Ingrid Schlueter, a prominent Christian radio host has said, "Of all the trends I've observed, the explosion of the "seeker"-centered megachurches is one of the most disturbing," citing the extensive use of entertainment and performance in church services. External Links

Thanks. Harro5 22:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added these stuff on to the page. I've had a look at some of these links and I think they're quite good. Skillmaster 05:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if anyone else wants to put some 'nice' links about Mega churches. I don't particualarly want to cos I think its a bit creepy. :)--86.143.48.116 22:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article was deleted for a reason: this great big list of non-NPOV links is just not helpful. I have re-removed them. I suggest you use a couple of the better ones to improve the referencing in the other parts of the article, and in other related articles.BreathingMeat 05:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed several of the links that were not working. Also, I agree with BreathingMeat that all of these "criticisms" are far from NPOV. CarverM (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The only thing left for criticism is something Al Sharpton said? Who cares what Al Sharpton says? Is this an article about megachurches or Al Sharpton's agenda?

There is criticism on megachurches. Why was it all deleted except for that? Is wiki going to PCism? Then don't treat it like it's supposed to be about Christianity. Atwhatcost (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tax-exempt controversies

[edit]

I added this part. I've seen it on new shows and read it elsewhere, but I don't have a citation on it. If someone could provide, it would help.Rt66lt 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is only relevant to the USA, and should be quoted as such. There are as many megachurches outside the USA as in it, and the article should be updated to be global. (as seen below) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawesi (talk • contribs) 23:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize notice

[edit]

It's now more than a month since the addition of the globalize notice, and the specific problems raised then appear to have been answered, along with many others. So, is it time to remove the tag? Andrewa 01:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Category:Limited geographic scope. Andrewa 21:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the globalize notice. The list of megachurches spun off from this article seemed to cover a large number of Asian and Australian megachurches. Several portions of the text, mostly quoting data taken from the Dr. Scott Thumma link, continue cover US-only statistics: "African American denominations", mention of the Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God, and so forth, seem to suggest that the article covers only US megachurches. Would like to know what denominations Australian and Asian megachurches are affiliated with, if any, or whether they are their own denominations. Smerdis of Tlön 20:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Houses of Worship?

[edit]

Is this a strictly Christian phenomenon, or are the equivalents in other religions?Schizombie 06:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I used to attend a megachurch in England where weekly congregations were routinely around the thousand mark, and that was undoubtedly built before the 1950s. I believe the current building was started in 1077, actually, by which time St Albans School had already been going for over 125 years, and it was extended to its present capacity in the 19th Century. It is neither evangelical (in the modern sense) nor Pentecostal, it is mainstream Anglo-Catholic (although on the one hand the present Dean is openly gay and on the other Pope Adrian IV used to worship there). Just zis Guy you know? 23:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic megachurches

[edit]

Should the Catholic phenomenon of huge parishes (aka Megaparish, McParish) similar in sizes to megachurches be mentioned in this article?--67.149.66.59 16:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should I mean church is a church. In Louisville, Ky. my hometown we have 4 parishes in Loisville that have more than 3,000 in attendance. These parrishes challenge diocesan authority the same way a lot of mega protestant churches affect local denominational authority. On the "mega church list" there are a few catholic parishes listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.101.179.35 (talk • contribs) 19:21, August 20, 2006

Citation data

[edit]

Here is some information from the Oxford English Dictionary concerning the term megachurch in case anyone wants to use it cite or otherwise revise unsourced statements in this article. The information is drawn from the "Draft Revision June 2001" online edition of the O.E.D.[2]

The term megachurch is found under the entry mega-, comb. form. Megachurch is mentioned within the third set of meanings under that entry (bolded text is for emphasis, not part of the original):

"3. Used as a prefix to denote something of great size, quantity, importance, or excellence, as megabank, -bash, -bid, -building, -business, -city, -deal, -event, -exhibition, -festival, -firm, -game, -hype, -liner, -mall, -market, -merger, -project, -resort. megabitch n. derogatory, an extremely malicious or treacherous woman. megacarrier n., a very large travel company, esp. an airline. megacentre n., a large out-of-town shopping centre. megachurch n. U.S., a church with an unusually large membership, esp. one preaching a conservative or evangelical form of Christianity and also offering a variety of educational and social activities. megadecibel n. [< MEGA- DECIBEL n., as if from MEGA- 2] fig. and hyperbolically, a supposed unit of extreme loudness; an extremely loud sound, an extremely high degree of noise; freq. attrib. megadose n., a very large dose (of a vitamin, drug, etc.), spec. a dose which is at least ten times the recommended daily intake; also in extended use. megahit n., an extremely successful film, television programme, song, etc.; freq. attrib. megamachine n., (a) a social system dominated by technology and functioning without regard for specifically human needs; (b) a very large or powerful machine; a network of machines. megamedia n., the mass media regarded, collectively, as a large and powerful organization; freq. attrib. megastate n., (a) any of the larger states of the United States; (b) a large and powerful republic or federation of states. megatechnics n., extensive mechanization of a society with a highly developed technology. megatrend n., an important shift in the progress of a society or of any other particular field or activity; any major movement."

For the cited usages of megachurch found below the information provided above, the O.E.D. has the following known instances of public usage:

  • 1984 Washington Post 3 Oct. B13/4 The modest country church has been replaced by ‘Christian networks, corporations and multiministried *megachurches’.
  • 1992 N.Y. Times 4 Jan. 26/5 Occupying huge ‘campuses’ with up-to-date structures, megachurches provide an array of religious, educational and social activities tailored to the different needs of youths, single people..and simply individuals sharing particular interests from macramé to hiking.

This is enough to validate or invalidate a fair amount of the first third of the megachurch article. One thing that I do not note in the data provided here, though, is any sort of mention of two-thousand or three-thousand congregants/members being the magic number necessary to define what is and is not a megachurch. That claim needs to either be cited (not likely) or revised. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Concern

[edit]

I have a concern about the "Criticism" section. It is getting rather long, and as there is no real "praise" or "affirmation" section in the article, it is starting to make the article give undue weight to the concerns of critics. Does anyone else share this concern? How should it be addressed? The relevant standard would seem to be WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Other discussion (essays, etc...) includes Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance and Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism in a "Criticism" section. GRBerry 00:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is an "undue weight" issue. I can think of plenty of subjects where no one would expect there to be an equal amount of criticism and praise in the article - I'd say this is one of them. The idea of having a Christian Church that is larger and glitzier than most sports stadiums is inherently controversial, and is pretty much doomed to be heavily critized. I doubt there are many independent, third-party sources for people saying "Megachurches are great!" other than people who attend them, but feel free to go Googling for them and add them to the article if you think it'll help. wikipediatrix 00:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the content of the section is all relevant, well cited and NPOV. These churches are changing the way that people worship. As such, they are going to be heavily critisized from many quarters. I also think that some of the benefits are touched upon, such as their ability to produce highly polished services, their appeal to young people, and the means to attract very inflentuential pastors. I feel that the article is failry well balanced, but not very well written. Cacophony 03:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I share the original concern, and while I am inclined to leave the majority of the section in tact because of the lack of third-party work done in this area, the comment about Megachurches being influenced by business tactics ending with "and Eastern influences" is not only unsourced and incredibly vague, it also seems to be serving no purpose other than representing a biased jab at Megachurches. That is to say, anyone "without a dog in the fight" will have no idea what that statement is supposed to mean in the context of this article, because the statement necessitates a familiarity with the position from which the critique is made (i.e., "'Eastern' influence is 'bad' or, at the very least, 'not normal' in the Christian church," which is, of course, a biased criticism and, further, not representative of the facts). As such, I have flagged the statement as non-neutral, though I feel as if it should be removed altogether unless more writing is done to justify its being there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izak.santana (talk • contribs) 17:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Receiving credit when credit ain't due

[edit]

There is a theme in Wikipedia. Place a reference to "African Americans" into as many articles as it is generally possible to do. Even megachurch employs the theme. I never before heard of an "African American megachurch" until the appearance of Wikipedia. What on earth is an "African American megachurch?" GhostofSuperslum 14:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whether for good or ill, worshipping congregations remain one of the most segregated aspects of American society. Predominantly-African American churches are in most cases readily distinguishable and thereby of note in both religious and racial contexts. --Dystopos 02:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected from List of megachurches

[edit]

Following the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of megachurches, List of megachurches redirects here -- the page history is still available, if anyone wishes to make use of it, in the course of expanding the encyclopedia. Luna Santin 23:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Liberal issues"

[edit]

I have removed the text regarding the focus or lack thereof on opposition to "liberal issues". It has been flagged for a while as uncited, and there has been a long-running disagreement amongst editors as to whether too little or too much attention is paid to these issues in Megachurches. It seems to be a matter of personal opinion. BreathingMeat 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora's Box

[edit]

Ok this article is classed as a "start" I'd like to see it move to FA someday. I'd also like to see if there is a way to incorporate the list of mega churches. I have mixed feelings on this. It felt lik ebefor that list was put to bed that randomn no-mega-churches were sprouting up on the page. is there a way to include this list ... or maybe just number by state with out specific churches listed? Can we lock the list ... what do folks think. Is it worth including at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M-BMor (talk • contribs) 17:41, April 15, 2007

The Hartford Institute for Religious Research list is a fairly authoritative source for US megachurches and could be included by reference, maybe with the top 10 listed here. Other extremely notable churches could also be included in our own list, given that there is a source for the claim and with the expectation that we wouldn't want to expand the list past, say, 20 notable examples. (And it would be best if those were links to Wikipedia articles which were, in turn, well cited.) --Dystopos 02:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southernism?

[edit]

I have a vague impression that I do not know how to define verbally that "the South", defined as the southeastern USA, is in some ways culturally distinct from the rest of the country, and that the personalities of Southern churches reflect that, and moreover that this phenomenon of "megachurches", which I first heard of through this Wikipedia article, is part of that. How are they distributed geographically? Are there any "megachurches" in northern locales like Boston, Minneapolis, Seattle, etc? Michael Hardy 22:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of the churches reporting more than 10,000 regular worshipers in attendence to the Hartford Institute study cited in the article 10 are located in California, 8 in Texas, 4 in Georgia, 3 in Florida, 2 in Arizona, 2 in Illinois, 2 in Indiana, 2 in Michigan, 2 in New Mexico, 2 in Oklahoma, 2 in Tennessee, 1 in Arkansas, 1 in Colorado, 1 in Hawaii, 1 in Kansas, 1 in Kentucky, 1 in Louisiana, 1 in Maryland, 1 in Pennsylvania, 1 in Tennessee, and 1 in Virginia. So to use census regions, we'd have 1 in the Northeast, 7 in the Midwest, 16 in the West, and 25 in the South. If you consider population (2005 estimate), that gives you 1 "supermegachurch" of 10,000 for the 54,641,895 residents of the Northeast, 1 for every 9,424,568 residents of the Midwest, 1 for every 4,268,195 residents of the West, and 1 for every 4,300,217 residents of the South. If one were to form a judgment based solely on that limited data, one could conclude that megachurches are a phenomenon of the South and West. However, some of the most staggaringly enormous congregations are to be found in the Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Argentina, Colombia, El Salvador, Hong Kong, South Korea, and the Ukraine. These examples may or may not conform to the cultural preconception we might have for megachurches, but the field of study is in its infancy and its terminology remains flexible. --Dystopos 23:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can add another super mega church (over 10,000 "worshipers") to VA, the McLean Bible Church in Vienna, VA according to the Hartford study now has over 12,500 members.FrancisDane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

French version led to "Lakewood Church"

[edit]

The French language link of this page actually links to "Lakewood Church". Is this appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atticuslai (talk • contribs) 20:40, June 5, 2007

Added POV tag again

[edit]

Virtually the entire article is dedicated to criticism with only 2 sentences used as an introduction. Someone should start a radical clean-up of the article to expand it and balance opinions.71.204.43.208 02:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there's not much else to say about this subject. Flowanda | Talk 02:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't there used to be a lot more info? What happened to it? BreathingMeat 20:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just easier to bash megachurches than to find balanced information... But could we please try to keep POV out of the information sections? "a person who combines flamboyant sermons with the organizational skills needed to turn weekly worship into a production number." Tell me this isn't biased. Having a service which is planned and runs to time doesn't make it a production number... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.101.26 (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC) After my comments were deleted - Oops... sorry, thought that a counter example or (my goodness) balance was a GOOD thing on Wikipedia. Why isn't the church in Acts an example of e mega-church? Define 'flamboyant' preaching... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.101.26 (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the unidentified commentator just ahead of me, have you ever been to one of the "services" at these so-called Churches? I have. They are production numbers that would make Radio City Music Hall blush. McLean Bible Church which is the one I went to with a friend does not perform weddings, baptisms or funerals. Hello? How can it be a Christian Church? FrancisDane (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I'd also like to add my opinion that the article is rather embarrassingly biased and needs a drastic overhaul. The one-sidedness of most of the article is quite pronounced, and the comments in the talk page (e.g. the one immediately prior to mine by Francis Dane) reveal the obvious prejudice ("Hello? How can it be a Christian Church?") and anecdotalism ("Have you ever been to one of the 'services' at these so-called Churches? I have.") used in order to write most of the "information" on the page. A phenomenon like modern Megachurches is incredibly significant in the world of religion, whatever your opinion is, so this article deserves much more than the blatant "begging the question" reasoning it is permeated by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izak.santana (talk • contribs) 18:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian-exclusive term?

[edit]

I realize "church" almost without exception (except! perhaps among Christians!) denotes a Christian body... Church, however, does not exclude non-Christian bodies from the definition of "church" (perhaps on the basis of the original definition of ekklesia?)... so this seems to me to beg the question... what about non-Christian bodies who weekly have attendances in excess of 2k? The Belz Great Synagogue in Jerusalem, for example, comes to mind...and I have no doubt that any number of other synagogues, to say nothing of Hindu and Buddhist shrines, and possibly also muslim houses of prayer, see as many adherents in weekly attendance. If "megachurch" is an exclusively Christian term, this needs to be better clarified in the article, if not even within its lead... Tomertalk 08:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-ecumenism

[edit]

Some authors have asserted that mega-churches are opposed to ecumenism, the movement dedicated to uniting churches. It would be interesting if the present article could look into these charges laid against mega-churches. [3] ADM (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage of Mega Chruches that are nondenominational is wrong

[edit]

I think the percentage of nondenominational churches is wrong. Go to the Hartford Seminary website HIRR. They list all the megachurches in the US by denomination. Off the top of my head I don't think that "most" are non-denominational but tied to the baptist, assemblies of God, etc. More and more of these mega churches are not liking the financial scrutiny of being part of a recognized denomination and are becoming non-denominational, meaning that there is no financial reporting of their activities to anyone. FrancisDane (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources (moved from "external links" section)

[edit]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Megachurch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Megachurch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

should be more about African Megachurches I think

[edit]

here are a couple of links -

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nigeria-megachurches-insight-idUSKCN0I104F20141012 https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2015/0724/Asian-African-megachurches-overtaking-US-congregations https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/sep/11/eat-pray-live-lagos-nigeria-megachurches-redemption-camp88.111.90.165 (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC) EE[reply]

Prosperity gospel

[edit]

Niteshift36 (talk · contribs) removed DaveDaRave19 (talk · contribs)'s recent addition related to claims that some megachurch pastors promote prosperity gospel. It's a simple concept and it was missing. I agree that not all churches are involved in this activity, but certainly many of the largest do. If it needs to be re-written, re-write it, but its addition was useful. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already added a "some" to it. 2 of the sources used talk about the same 2 pastors/churches, yet we're making it sound like it's the majority. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not "already", but I agree that it is more accurate to include it, but DaveDaRave19 reverted it immediately. @DaveDaRave19: its inclusion is not redundant in any way. I agree that the way that it's written makes it seem that all megachurches have this behaviour, which is clearly not the case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the second "some" so the sentence sounds less clunky.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That works as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Megachurch&oldid=1208220483"