In my opinion megachurches are not a great threat for christianity.
If we imagine the time in the past, when people were not able to read or write. They went to church pray and to strengthen their belive in god, but they also went there bacause of the architecture, the other people gathering together or because of the paiting on the walls.
These things were somehow special effects, in that time.

Today we have of cause better entertainment, like the media or discoteques. People stay at home watching the tele or they like to hear loud music dancing to it. So I ask myself why should the church stay the same when everything else does. Why shouldn’t they entertain and attrack more than in former times. Screens instead of pictures on the wall, big buildings made out of glass or rock music instead of latin corals.

Everything gets bigger, greater and changes from time to time.
The church not ?

A while back I was part of a Church which had around 10,000 folks on Sundays.

I am now part of a Church which has about 125 on Sundays.

I find both to be equally powerful. One has strength in numbers. (And being surrounded by that many people who all believe can really increase your faith!) And the other has strength in intimacy. Knowing people and being known is a great benefit for those looking to seek advice and grow.

As far as the 15 year old girl goes, it sounds like she used a phrase that others had used and she thought sounded good. I don’t know about her going to a different church from her folks, though. On the one hand, how many times have kids run from God because Parents don’t let them think and learn for themselves. On the other, I would definately make sure that what is being preached is the gospel of Jesus and not a watered down version.

Having said that, I do believe that a Sunday service is simply a tool given us by God to help us to be faithful in the long haul. It should not be the main source of spiritual input. That should come from the scriptures, parents, and godly friends.

I am glad I have found your site.

You said: “This critic may have a point, but what he and many other critics fail to do is acknowledge the strengths of megachurches“.

But actually the article was not intended to be an overall critique of megachurches. It was only intended to demonstrate how the message in so many seeker-sensitive churches has changed versus the message that was preached in previous generations. In fact, the article did not speak out against megachurches at all. There are some very large churches that preach a doctrinally-sound message. Also, some of the churches in the critique were not mega sized at all. I think the technical definition of that term is “2,000 people or larger”, if I remember correctly.

Thanks for allowing me to post here.