A “megachurch” is described as any congregation with 2,000 or more active worshippers. There are fewer than 2,000 megachurches in the United States; despite this, these congregations attract over 7 million followers. Megachurches have specific bonuses for attendees that make them more influential and popular among the deeply religious. However, megachurches are a relatively new concept in the American religious landscape. They first cropped up on the horizon during the 1970s and entered the periphery of the American public’s knowledge in the 1980s. Still, the rise and propagation of megachurches are a mystery to many of those within and outside the United States. Let’s look at the history of the American megachurch.
To create an accurate history of the American megachurch, we first started by looking for historical accounts from religious historians regarding the historic rise of these types of establishments. We looked at scholarly articles, white papers, and studies regarding megachurches, what they are, how they became so powerful, and what makes them so popular among worshippers. We checked on the credentials of the writers and speakers whose views we featured to ensure that they were truly knowledgeable about the subject and not just speaking with a spin or agenda.
American Megachurches Defined: What Are They?
In the broadest sense, an American megachurch is any church operating primarily in the United States with 2,000 or more worshippers registered in its congregation. Hartford Institute for Religion Research director, Scott Thumma argues that a simple size factor is not sufficient for classifying megachurch institutions. He identified several traits shared by the majority of megachurches that go beyond the scale of the congregation, such as a suburban location, nondenominational Protestant identification, conservative ideology, contemporary style, and a broad audience appeal. Thumma also noted that while, due to their generally broad appeal, megachurches attract worshippers from many demographics, the congregations of most megachurches are primarily white Americans.
Thumma also describes the behavior of the members of the megachurch congregation as being unique from those who belong to other church types. For instance, he notes that many megachurch congregation members are looking for a church that provides its followers with a “clear, well-defined identity.” He alleges that megachurches provide a church “home” through extracurricular activities such as Bible studies, small group services, and volunteer opportunities. Megachurches also often provide services at multiple locations and stream services online for those who cannot or do not wish to come to a physical location. Additionally, the format of megachurch worship is more fluid and contemporary, rejecting traditional worship methods such as choirs and organs and focusing on contemporary Christian praise music and other modern worship methods.
Although this article focuses on American megachurches, these institutions are not uniquely American. South Korean Yoido Full Gospel Church, for instance, boasted a hefty 150,000–200,000 attendees at its main campus in 2016.
The Beginnings of the Megachurch: Traditional Protestantism
The teachings of many megachurches have a precedent in the original tenets of Protestantism, which may explain their cultural proliferation in the largely Protestant United States. Early Protestant reformers heavily criticized the organization of the Catholic and other prominent religions in Great Britain at the time. John Calvin felt that the Roman Catholic Church’s spending didn’t exemplify the tenets of the Bible with much spending going into opulent buildings while teachings such as helping the poor were ignored. Calvin advocated that the Church building should be designed to satisfy only two functions: to act as a location for the congregation to gather and hear the Word of God and to act as a place to receive the Sacraments as per worship bylaws. He argued that any other spending on church facilities was frivolous, unnecessary, and against the Word of God as written.
The desire to use these buildings for preaching would become one of the primary tenets of Protestant architecture. Prominent Protestant reformer, Martin Bucer, wrote in 1577:
“From the plans of the most ancient temples, and from the writings of the holy fathers, it is well known that among the ancients the position of the clergy was in the middle of the temples, which were usually round; and from that position divine service was so presented to the people that the things recited could be clearly heard and understood by all who were present.”
Protestants Seek More Cultural Influence
Bucer’s teachings and writings influenced the way that many Protestant followers viewed the concept and function of the church. Driven by a desire for greater cultural influence and validity, the Protestant reformers began imagining the megachurch as early as the late 1500s. The earliest written example comes from French Protestants when the Edict of Nantes (1598) granted Protestants the right and permission to practice their religion and build church congregations in France. Protestant Huguenot architect, Jacques Perret published a design for the first verifiable megachurch. The plan allowed the main campus’s building to host 10,000 congregation members on the main floor alone, as well as having several balconies and other accommodations for attendees.
Following the tenet that the church should be designed for hearing the Word of God from the clergy, Perret’s megachurch design features a preacher’s podium in the center of the church, maximizing the congregation’s ability to hear the sermon from any location in the church. It also featured the “bell” shape for the roof, which is to improve the projection of the preacher’s voice throughout the building. The building was also designed to be modified to be used for secular meetings, such as for use as a town meeting hall.
While other religious groups such as Lutherans and Roman Catholics would have balked at the Protestant ideal of melding the secular and religious, this blend of church and state is continuously seen by the modern Protestant sects in the United States that continue to propagate the lie that America is a “Christian nation” and their attempts to erode the separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution.
George Whitfield’s Tabernacles
The sensational, entertaining, theatrical style of revivalist preaching seen at American megachurches has its roots in the 1700s revival of Protestantism as propagated by George Whitfield. Whitfield pioneered the drama-filled sermons that would become prominent in modern megachurch preaching. He did not call his churches “churches” as this would put them in competition with the Church of England, which would cause unnecessary tension between the Protestant faith and the English government, which, at the time, still served the Church of England.
Should a modern person encounter one of Whitfield’s Tabernacles, as he called them, a scene evocative of today’s megachurches would greet them at the door. The Tabernacles had a square shape with a bell roof that projected the speaker’s voice further, compared to the long and narrow churches that were popular in the Anglican faith. The design of the churches allowed the preacher to be heard more effectively and enabled the institution to seat people on multiple levels around the preacher by building balconies and other types of alternate floor seating.
The Institutional Church Movement, 20th-Century Megachurches in 19th-Century Garb
The beginning of the megachurch starts with the propagation of the institutionalized church. In 1836, Charles Grandison Finney, the Second Great Awakening revivalist, renovated the Chatham Theater in New York to create the Broadway Tabernacle. One might say that this was the predecessor to the physical form factor of the American megachurch. The Broadway Tabernacle seated 2,400 attendees but could accommodate 4,000 including standing space. It became one of the most popular churches in the area, and many regard this church as one of the most influential churches of the 19th century.
The design of the Broadway Tabernacle featured a central rotunda and a small stage, emphasizing the continued concentration on the importance of preaching and how the audience perceives the preacher. The building also functioned as a secular meeting house, another primary tenant of traditional Protestantism. The clergy would rent out the space for various secular events that they wanted to host, such as debates on women’s rights, abolition, and prohibition.
Another example is the Baptist Temple in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, built in 1891. Duke University’s David Eagle describes the Baptist Temple as “a 20th-century megachurch in 19th-century church garb.” The Baptist Temple was a leading exemplar of the Institutional Church Movement, and its main campus building hosted 3,000 attendees (perhaps as many as 4,500 when including standing space). The campus also featured several other institutions and services that went beyond the scope of a church, such as a cricket field, an affiliated Hospital (to which Sunday services were broadcast using speaking tubes), a banquet facility, and a separate “Youth People’s Church,” which met in the basement and could serve over 2,000 attendees.
Cultural Accommodation Becomes Necessary for Churches to Flourish
As America and the world around it moved into the 20th century, churches began to diminish in size and influence. More immigrants were coming from other countries, hoping to live out their American Dream, and with them came a wider diversity of religions, leading urban populations away from the more conservative and restrictive churches in search of more accepting and affirming experiences with religion. The greater diversity of the American population increased the need for a more culturally sensitive church experience. Even among those who might be receptive to a megachurch, there would be no attendance from those who the church did not accommodate. If a church spewed hate, those they hated would be unlikely to attend and the amount of money available to the church would decrease even as the population of the United States increased.
Thus, many churches began on a path of increased cultural awareness and sensitivity. They began trying to reach the changing masses with their messages, and this meant being more accepting of cultures that differed from them. In some cases, churches were willing to adopt more lenient standards to increase their numbers as a religion, and the church is only as influential and relevant as its congregation.
However, the inclusion of more cultural and racial demographics resulted in pushback from the existing congregations.
Resistance to Cultural Integration Breeds the Modern Conservative Megachurch
The real rise of the megachurches we know today starts with the cultural integration that other churches were experiencing to stay relevant. It’s no secret that conservative values in America have long been against multicultural integration. Conservative talking heads on FOX News have spent decades curating hatred against racial minorities in America and discouraging integration between minority communities and majority ones. As churches sought to integrate new audiences into their congregations, the United States saw a surge in conservative pearl-clutching regarding the role of cultural integration in the church. The practice of expanding the church’s influence through cultural integration is a form of apostasy—the process of obtaining popularity for the church while forgoing their Biblical integrity.
One response to a call for mass-appeal evangelism writes, “The argument about mass-appeal of sports, theatres, and politics is much out of place when applied to religion. Those things have to do with the carnal and physic, not the spiritual.” There was fear that the appeal to the masses would cause the church to lose its identity and core beliefs, an issue to which many alleged that modernist and “liberal” churches had fallen prey.
Fears around the idea that cultural integration in the church would cause theological apostasy encouraged the creation of more radically conservative churches. Despite this, the need to reach urban and secular masses remained a prominent issue discussed by church officials in the United States during the 20th century. Dr. Dallas Billington of the Akron Baptist Temple addresses the need for a functional approach to reaching less religious masses, saying, “Our aim is to win a soul, not false advertising. We will do anything possible to get people to attend and present the gospel.”