Megachurches are getting even bigger as churches close across the country | Hacker News Reader

Megachurches are getting even bigger as churches close across the country

text.npr.org

45 pointsrntn122 comments

> "You can just sort of wander in and be anonymous and worship there and be a spectator for as long as you want," he says. "But there's an almost equal number of people who are going out the back door because they didn't find their place."

I know a _lot_ of people who follow that first sentiment. In a smaller church there's so much to be done that you inevitably get sucked into helping the church just to survive, which means getting sucked into the politics of a small congregation.

For people who just want to show up and go to church and enjoy being at church, I can see why a large congregation would be a popular choice, and I know several people who attend them for exactly that reason.

I've seen this same dynamic.

i would've imagined the reason for church isn't just to worship, but to also find a community.

That's definitely a big part of it. At the same time, different people have different ideas of what that means. For many, being directly involved in the affairs and the machinery of the church is just too much -- they'd rather make new friends, go to bible study sessions, or have fun barbecues and stuff like the article mentions.

Don't get me wrong -- lots of people find their community through volunteering -- it's just that it can get to be a lot.

But that involves what you and others want instead of what you want.

That’s socialism.

Weird take...?

Wanting what's best for others instead of what's best for yourself is, like, one of the core commands in Christianity.

I would argue that it's deeper than that. In wanting what's best for others, you find what's best for yourself.

(Note that it has to be what's genuinely best for others, not what they say is best for them, nor what they want most at the time. It's not just "go along with whatever they want" - that's being a doormat.)

It should be. (You can't obey all those commands that contain the words "one another" in isolation.)

But not everyone who walks in the door is looking for that. For at least some of the people, the purpose is just to worship. (And for those who are there for community, well, there are also commands to worship...)

The issue is being able to choose your degree of involvement. I know people who like to attend church but won't if their only choice is a small one, because of the social demands made of them in a small group.

It’s interesting how wildly the “politics” of a small congregation can vary. I’ve been a part of a number of small/medium congregations and some have been very great and wholesome experiences where I felt uplifted and grateful to serve alongside others. And others have been terrible, gossipy and judgemental/racist/sexist/etc… Mind you these were all congregations of the same denomination in the same general region of the US. I truly wonder what makes the difference. I suspect the leadership of these congregations really set the precedent for what their congregation will act like.

I know exactly what you mean. I've seen churches actually split in half because of the direction that leadership was taking the church. It's wild!

It's often communication patterns/style and leaderships goals/ideals that shape the org.

Same with companies.

I wonder the degree to which the dominance of the internet has contributed to this trend.

People are more and more accustomed to low-stakes anonymous social interaction with huge numbers of faceless people. These interactions feel simultaneously safer and far more stimulating than small communities.

Megachurches seem to have a similar appeal—you're not under any obligation to maintain a relationship, and at the same time the energy given off by thousands of people in one place probably feels more intensely spiritual for some people than can be had in a small congregation.

It’s easy to get in a mindset that the church isn’t something I’m a part of, but something that’s a service to be consumed and subscribed to. If I’m not happy with the “content” I find a different service. This is absolutely the wrong mentality but it’s hard to fight.

> I know a _lot_ of people who follow that first sentiment. In a smaller church there's so much to be done that you inevitably get sucked into helping the church just to survive, which means getting sucked into the politics of a small congregation.

I recently had a conversation with a pastor and we talked about this. It also has to do with service size, aka venue size. The requirements to man a service are something like

- Sermon creation: 1+ pastor/week

- Creative enhancements: 1-3 people/week

- Sermon delivery: 1 pastor/2-3 services

- Live music: 5-10 people/2-3 services

- Sound: 1-2 people/2 services

- Lights: 1-2 people/2 services

- Kids: 1 person/10(?) kids/~1 service

- Front door hosts: 1 person/100(?) attendees/1 service

Some requirements scale per week, some scale per service, some per attendee. But with more services and larger venues you can save a lot in labor requirements.

There is something odd about joining a large congregation so that you don't have to congregate with the people around you. :D

As an introvert, I was actually happier at a large university than I would have been at a smaller college, because I had more control over the degree to which I had to interact with other people. If I didn't really want to deal with people, I could sit in a busy space and everyone was just anonymous and coexisting.

I'm also what I would call an introvert. And I'm happy to not be part of large groups, but I can't deny that there are massive productivity and motivational benefits to being in a group.

The trap is how to be in a group and not fall back to random gossip. Teams and such are usually great for this, as you keep an objective. College sucks at this, as very little effort is made to keep cohorts together.

Church is odd here, as almost by definition, people are going for that sense of attachment and purpose. Letting it bubble up to giant groups paints a giant target for attention and energy harvesting. With many of the results that we see from such groups. :(

My family has gone to some smaller churches and a few bigger ones. We're currently at a bigger one and have been for quite a while.

We like the quality of the preaching and the music. The smaller churches were better at some hands-on aspects, but it's hard for them to have the musicians (and the bench depth) that more population brings.

I'm waiting for people to figure out you can actually do quite a bit of good in a church. Food drives, clothing give-aways, etc. (Our church has a 'cars ministry' where we give away oil changes to needy families and sometimes give away donated cars.) It's tough to compete with Reddit and the like, where people can get a short-term feel of 'doing good' from behind a keyboard. But I don't think that's as 'real'. I'm hoping in time we'll see more people get excited about 'doing' in a hands-on manner.

I have very negative feelings about most organized religion but I have to say the community aspect is something I hate throwing out with the bathwater. I have pretty much fully replaced it with a good group of friends that gets together a minimum of once a week for a potluck. In a lot of ways it's better: less drama, no internal-politics, etc and it ticks all the boxes for me but I can imagine if I had kids I'd feel that they weren't getting the same experience I had growing up w.r.t. kids/friends their age (not that they'd need to have the same experience as me and I'd look for other outlets for friends/peers for them).

In the meantime my friend group half-jokes about buying some land and all living on it together (really, I think with the right prompting/circumstances we'd do it), a commune if you will. We have also joked about starting our own "religion" for tax purposes. I wonder if this is how some cults start? I think a lot of people in my generation yearn for this kind connection/community/closeness since church is a non-starter (at least for people I associate with).

Are you Athabaskan? My friend group also half-jokes about buying land and living as a commune, and one of them is named Josh :)

I am not but that’s a funny coincidence.

Don’t worry, capital c Cults require some more intense personality traits and manipulative/abusive practices, preying on those in some kind of need. Usually accompanied by a strong whiff of narcissism :)

> "Church is fun"... Church barbecues, pizza and movie nights are all part of the mix. On Sundays, "it's loud. ... it's casual. People can wear flip-flops and drink coffee,"

Bingo! Religion has always been primarily about community. The shared morals and traditions are in service to making a stronger community. Its a book club on steroids. If your church is boring and asocial, nobody will want to attend.

I could never get past the 'belief' part.

If churches didn't require you to believe, maybe they'd have more attendees.

Then there's nothing to tie that community together and it eventually gets deprioritized or simply subsumed into the general culture.

Look at "creedless" denominations over time to see how it plays out. There's no specific belief you need to hold to be a quaker for example, and as a result some quaker practices have been absorbed into other protestant churches while quakerism itself is almost dead.

I don't think you are required to believe to attend. I've had a few conversations with clergy and I'm pretty sure they aren't sure they believe themselves. What they do have in abundance is faith.

Churches where I live require you to speak out loud affirmations of your faith, and I don't have any. I suppose I could mumble, or just not speak, but either way I'd feel like a fraud.

You can go to church without believing... but believing is the whole point of church.

The Universal Unitarians don't require it. Actually, a lot of churches operate on "don't ask don't tell"

https://www.uua.org/find

That's called a social club. Big classics are the fraternal orders, like the Masons and Oddfellows, but there are plenty of others. I can assure you, they don't get more attendees.

The more ridiculous the beliefs the tighter knit the community, too.

It's harder to bond over sensible, obvious things that outsiders would agree with.

There's always been a tension between community bonds and reality.

Community existed long before religion. I'd guess it's more an extention of the brain trying to explain unexpected phenomenon, and grifters learning to exploit that. The community aspects are how the grift is marketed.

[citation needed]. Religion is as old as civilization, all the way back to Mesopotamia.

I think you're right that it stems from a need to explain the unknown, which is why with modern science we have atheism on the rise. But I don't think your pessimism is entirely warranted. A church hosting a free BBQ is not "grifting"

Fear and agent detection had to exist before belief in a higher power. My guess is intellect had to as well. IMO it's unlikely religion (co)evolved before or with hominins. Regardless I doubt it's possible to find evidence of religion in species going back millions of years.

> A church hosting a free BBQ is not "grifting"

Having been a deacon at a church hosting state-funded food drives, I can tell you it's never completely free of strings. Even if the funding or food is supposed to be distributed without proselytizing.

They are always looking to spread their message, even if the unpleasant aspects are neatly tucked away for later. And the quiet part rarely spoken is they are seeking 10+% of your income, your volunteering time, your attention, and especially your children.

> I think you're right that it stems from a need to explain the unknown, which is why with modern science we have atheism on the rise.

I would pause before making a causal claim. There is a correlation yes, and you see this particularly in demographics whose religions are unable to cope with the false dichotomy that is presented in front of them, so to them the only solution is to turn to atheism or agnosticism and even, ironically perhaps, scientism as we see quite prevalent today.

From our Islamic worldview, we don't see any dichotomies between scientific discoveries furthering our understanding of the world, and the existence of God. It's actually the other way around, we see the world as a sign of God, and the more we learn about it, the more we learn about His Magnificence. The Quran encourages us to learn about the world around us. After all, Islam was the main driving force that brought us the Islamic Golden Age.

The existence of a god is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence. To flatly attribute everything to an invisible and inaudible creator is just blind faith. If based on the word of someone claiming divine revelation, that's just appeal to authority.

Who said we don't have extraordinary (and logical) evidence? :)

That is an unfounded statement. Religion and even organized religion has existed almost exactly as long as modern humans.

Every hominid congregates in communities. They don't all have religion.

Every community absolutely did have religion until very recently.

Every? Absolutely? That is a bold statement you can’t possibly prove.

Gorillas have religion?

They still do even today. Scientism, capitalism, socialism, communism, liberalism, etc. are all religions.

Religion or strong ideology is the only way to expand your community at a faster rate than women can make children. If tribes competed with each other for territory or power, they were probably already at maximum fertility, and needed other methods to get more manpower faster.

>> The shared morals and traditions are in service to making a stronger community.

For a great many it is also about exclusion, a purification of that community. When I lived in the US I attended several community events (BBQs, sports days and such) with friends who were "in" a local church. It was all fun until someone got wind of the new guy with a non-local accent. Then I would be set upon by people asking probing questions to nail down my religious status, questions for which there are never good answers. Once I left early as my outsider status was evidently disruptive (a "leader" was loudly trying to convert me.) I also went to a big Mormon BBQ event which was, unexpectedly, 100% different. They just accepted the presence of an outsider and didn't feel the need to even bring it up. But for some reason they did keep offering me coffee.

My (good!) experience is that churches are very much about community, however, I believe there is an interesting point to consider about them as institutions of control. Moreso in the context of European history, but also perhaps in the context of megachurches as described in this article. Friedrich Nietzche proposed that Christianity instills "slave morality" which redefined "good" as altruistic, patient, meek, humble, etc. and "evil" as greedy, violent, jealous, etc. Prior to Christianity, Nietzche cites that European "human morality" equated "good" with power, ambition, wealth, etc. and "bad" with weakness, apathy, poverty, etc. While it's true that Nietzche is a flawed character, I'd say it's worthwhile to examine how these competing moral codes are present within Christianity. Historically, one may see the Catholic church, or the Church of England, as instilling the "slave morality" while their leaders enjoy the base morality for themselves. Consider the Spanish inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, or perhaps even Manifest Destiny - which moral code was primarily practiced by those who led these, and which moral code was primarily practiced by those who supported them? I believe the same cognitive dissonance is at play with these megachurches. Just something to consider, not critiquing Christianity in theory, just how things have/are playing out. It's also perfectly reasonable as a Christian to critique "human morality" as the original sin which Christian morality attempts to solve.

The fun is the hook, but the congregants are still fish. David French recently wrote an article about how right-wingers - and particularly evangelicals - are blind to the way their religious and political institutions (with too little separation between them) spread hate and lies. What they see is the bonds of fun and love among their own kind, with churches often the center of that. It's hard to think of fun, likeable people doing bad things, so they just don't.

https://archive.is/P1Cf5

In that context, the rise of megachurches is a Very Bad Thing. In my experience - being from a family with multiple generations of missionaries and pastors in that tradition - these types of unaffiliated churches often tend toward cults of personality, spreading a message that is at best oblivious to the concerns of anyone outside their extremely homogeneous congregations. True hate from the pulpit is rare, but fear of others and belief in literal devils trying to drive an anti-faith agenda are quite common. People thinking one's own community is special or blessed usually goes hand in hand with an implication that The Other is defective or diabolical. While not harmful in itself, it's a stepping stone to some pretty bad places.

It's a common error to think that repressive regimes are unstintingly serious. In fact, the worst elements can never have their way without the support of a broader community, which they often nurture through recreation, religion, etc. "Church is fun" can be a good thing, but it doesn't mean those "fun" churches' effect on the body politic is a good one.

Thanks for sharing the text link.

The first church mentioned has a fancy website https://liquidchurch.com/ and mobile app with content for all ages. I was worried about the warping this will have on the political landscape, with such a centralized institution shaping morality, but from a brief tour of their website they do seem non political on the surface.

Will mega churches increase accountability as more eyeballs critique the leadership, while smaller, more politically diverse churches get starved out? Or with more power will they become more corrupt?

I had read an article previously about how American churches, needing more attendees, have become more political to pull in the numbers. I remember a quote saying something along the lines of the pastor "gets them for an hour a week, and talk radio gets them for the rest of the week." and so therefore the church begins to mimik the style and topics of talk radio. Will megachurches pull in so much money they don't need to worry about competing and won't further the polarization of the people?

> …from a brief tour of their website they do seem non political on the surface.

Churches must maintain that public facade¹, but my experience is that private political grooming is common.

¹ https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics

My pet theory is that the decline of churches has less to do with the secularization of culture and more to do with the fact that they're not very entertaining or engaging relative to whatever else you could be doing on your weekend.

The "engagingness" of entertainment has been increasing in absolute terms for a while now, and it really picked up in the 20th century. Meanwhile, the "engagingness" of mainstream religion has not kept pace. It is perhaps indicative that those groups of people best able to keep devout religious practices also typically shun all the rest of consumer entertainment.

In that frame, megachurches represent an evolution to survive this higher-engagement ecosystem. To compete, church must be more fun, which in this case means turning into a giant pep-rally/rock concert.

This is a really interesting point — Facebook vs. congregation, Netflix vs. meditation, etc.

> My pet theory is that the decline of churches has less to do with the secularization of culture and more to do with the fact that they're not very entertaining or engaging relative to whatever else you could be doing on your weekend.

The (excellent) book Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman made a similar point. Basically, the characteristics of communication mediums have a strong influence on the content (e.g. television has to entertain), and as certain mediums get popular, they set up corrosive expectations (e.g. learning has to be fun, so people reject learning things that may be important and valuable but aren't entertaining).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death

There's some interesting team/org organizational dynamics going on in churches in the U.S.

From the outside, it appears that these megachurches are offering sort of an AWS for religion, facilitating small-group worship that happens in all kinds of ways. So you get the Agile Open Spaces idea, where folks can self-select in-or-out and topics to dive into, combined with the small group worship concept.

That's just a guess. I don't do churches. But the concept of an overall "thing" that people align to, then a very large group of people in another kind of "thing", and finally some sort of small-scale high-value interaction (for all three levels) is fascinating and not, in my opinion, unique to religion.

The one experience I had in this vein makes the term a misnomer. Most of this ilk--I infer--are really like a pomegranate. Many smaller groups with leaders that the megachurch acts as an umbrella over. The megachurch will vector newer visitors to pick one off the menu and attach for the social connectedness that we all need but rarely vocalize.

My (relatively puny) outfit has been a user of https://www.planningcenter.com/ for a couple of years, and I think that it has much traction amongst larger ones.

When I traveled my first time abroad I was astonished at how big some churches are in other countries both in congregation and building size.

At the end of the day they operate the same way a business does, once you scale your product your org becomes bigger and cluttered, therefore some people prefer a more "customized" religious experience and end up abandoning these megachurches

"You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."

L. Ron Hubbard

And they don't pay taxes

Megachurches preach prosperity theology.

Book of Job conclusively says it's bullshit.

Their bank accounts say otherwise!

This is a pretty wide brush to paint with. I’m sure you could reasonably argue that even a majority preach prosperity gospel but there are plenty of megachurches affiliated with mainstream/more traditional denominations for whom said teachings are heretical.

(I am an Orthodox convert personally, so I have no dog in this fight.)

As a cynic, it would genuinely change my view in a significant way if you could highlight examples of some megachurches whose owners don't seem to be psychopaths out to exploit as man vulnerable people with religion as possible.

While I’m not personally familiar with them, Redeemer Presbyterian Church[1] in New York City (previously pastored by Tim Keller[2]) comes to mind.

[1]: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/life-and-times-of... [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Keller_(pastor)

Doing a quick google on Liquid church, which TFA is about....

They paid off $13m of people's medical debt[1]

They volunteer in the community[2]

They have people digging wells in Honduras[3]

They send a million meals to the poor countries[4][5]

They seem genuine enough to me

[1] https://parsippanyfocus.com/2021/02/15/liquid-church-elimina...

[2] https://connect.liquidchurch.com/MercercountyOutreach

[3] https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=669766711857088&set=a.5...

[4] https://tristatevoice.com/2022/12/22/liquid-church-packs-one...

[5] https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/outreach/ca...

Churches don’t get large by constantly telling you that you’re a horrible person, you should live a life of poverty and give all of your worldly possessions to the poor.

Anyone that’s read the book knows you can interpret that in any way you want for your benefit. Especially amongst the illiterate.

Easiest example: Everything in the Old Testament is invalid (when inconvenient) so the Book of Job is invalid too since it is in the Old Testament.

God Type-0 no longer makes unsolicited bets with Satan for entertainment purposes. God Type-2 was born (again) and basks all its followers in love!

You are absolutely correct. I’ve heard many people quote Leviticus as evidence that homosexuality is wrong but then also think it’s an abhorrent idea that a woman who is a virgin that is raped must marry her rapist.

Can you give the reference, there is enough ambiguity in the OT that it's required: https://cbmw.org/2018/03/05/did-old-testament-law-force-a-wo...

But that aside, there is also the issue that circumstances have changed:

> Among ancient cultures virginity was highly prized, and a woman who had been raped had little chance of marrying. These laws forced the rapist to provide for their victim.

Paternity can now be determined far more easily, so virginity is no longer as prized. Women can more easily within society "be cared for", either by themselves, or the state; so its not as important to force a marriage. Divorcing from this context is a misrepresentation of the original law and its intention.

All you need to know is that nobody goes into the much depth for verses they like, such as something motivational and heartwarming in Psalms

The answer is “it’s open to interpretation”, specifically your interpretation of the way you want to have power over others, or let them have power over you

so lets just fast forward to that part and move on. unless you want to control people, in which case I’m amused

Here’s the NIV version:

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

The people who wrote the NIV know a lot more than me about translating texts and whatnot. Apparently the immutable Word of God is not so clear when competing experts disagree over the meaning of verses dealing with morality.

I’ll bet everyone who uses Leviticus to condemn homosexuality isn’t as nuanced on the meaning of those verses as you are on this one. It is curious that you chose to write about the nuance on interpreting the verse in Deuteronomy but not the one in Leviticus. This undergirds my point about picking and choosing.

Furthermore, when you write things like:

You implicitly suggest that God was unwilling or incapable of telling his people to change their ways to be more moral/correct. One of the underpinnings of most Christians’ beliefs is the idea of God’s immutability and His righteousness. Are you suggesting that what God once considered moral is no longer moral?

> Apparently the immutable Word of God

sure, but are you talking about the word of god, or the words in the bible.

I was going off the KJB, as derived from Hebrew, so it would make more sense to look at the original Hebrew. I'm not sure why you pay more attention an translation produced by an American businessman in the 70s; The previous link I provided even discusses the issue of "ḥāzaq" vs "tāpas". The WP page for the NIV even details the various scholars taking issue with it, e.g.:

> Mark Given, a professor of religious studies at Missouri State University, criticized the NIV for "several inaccurate and misleading translations" as many sentences and clauses are paraphrased, rather than translated from Hebrew and Greek.

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version

Here is something similar in NIV without the word rape: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+22%3A16&...

see https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/dooq5l/the_ni...

Therein lies the rub. All translations have critics. All of them are wrong in some way according to some expert. Pick the one you like. Pick the translator you like. While you quote a professor who knows much more than me it doesn’t mean much since equally qualified experts were involved in writing the NIV and every other version. And they translated it differently than this professor would have. What we have is a bunch of experts disagreeing with each other.

What I’m left with is one immutable fact: the Bible - whichever version you choose - is wrong according to some expert who is a Christian.

Here's the rub-a-dub: whatever criteria you use to determine someone an "expert", they can't add any more information than their source material.

AFAIK a lot of later bible are based on KJB - How can anyone, expert or otherwise, add information to the KJB (bar consulting Hebrew)?

> equally qualified experts were involved in writing the NIV..

Then why are you dedicated to one particular translation if you think there is such ambiguity?

I don’t care about the Bible. I’m not particular about any versions of it. I picked NIV because its translation was different than the one you liked. I was making a point. I think you must be deliberately missing it.

1. Experts were involved in making NIV. Those experts were Christians.

2. You have a Christian expert who doesn’t like their translation.

Put those two facts together and you have, necessarily, ambiguity. It’s not that I think there is ambiguity on what constitutes what scripture says it’s that there is ambiguity. I’m not even talking about different interpretations of what the collection of words mean. There’s ambiguity in what the words actually are.

Then there’s the fact that the Catholic Bible is different than the Protestant one which is different than the Coptic Christian Bible which is different than….etc.

Your knowledge of the history of the inspiration and canonicity of the Bible is quite poor.

If you were to be real honest with yourself you will realize that the reason you like one expert over another is because their belief about the proper translation is more palatable to you. This is an example of picking and choosing what to believe when it comes to religion. Which is what I said in the original post I made.

What do you mean by "liked"? The christian expert didn't "like" their translation, because it was inauthentic.

> it’s that there is ambiguity

ok, then doesn't this undercut your claim that the bible says women must merry their rapists?

> Your knowledge of .. is quite poor.

You decided to make an entirely different point about the bible. In fact you previously implied the bible was the word of god, why is it my knowledge that is poor?

> the reason you like one expert over another

how do you figure? what do you know about me? how are you able to judge two experts; you haven't responded at all in the meat of the issue, the post about the Hebrew KJB is based on, just repeating "experts experts experts" like it's some damming logic puzzle - it's not, experts can be wrong, biased, or not experts at all.

> This is an example of picking and choosing..

like picking "1 + 1 = 2" over "1 + 1 = 3"? you have to demonstrate I picked one interpretation because of personal bias rather than merit, which you haven't. Rather, it is ironically your bias, waiting to make this point, that has resulted in you interpreting things this way.

A person who believes the bible is the word of god has to decide what they mean by bible. They have to decide on which translation to use, then which version: coptic, catholic, protestant, orthodox - they each differ on what the books of the bible are. Once they decide which collection of words constitute “the word or god” they have to decide on what they mean. The criteria used to decide this usually, mostly boils down to which one is the most palatable to them personally.

You and others believe NIV is a bad translation but the people who made the translation believe otherwise. All of this, including everything I wrote above, results in ambiguity and confusion for the masses. If god does exist then he is profoundly incompetent at delivering his message. He is a moron who is very bad at writing clear instructions and is incredibly immoral given the laws he had the Israelites follow. All versions and translations of the bible contain immoral rules and are poorly written and unclear.

> It is curious that you chose to write about the nuance on interpreting the verse in Deuteronomy but not the one in Leviticus. This undergirds my point about picking and choosing.

Does it? The point about "Picking and choosing" seems to be in regard to what to do/follow. How does that translate to "You wrote about one nuance of the bible, but not another", am I somehow beholden to comment on everything all at once?

But here's the point: The comparison is apples and oranges. Even the phrasing of the NIV "He can never divorce her as long as he lives" implies it is intended as a burden on him, so it appears to me that your interpretation is wrong. There is no reasoning behind the "homosexuality" line, nor much else in the bible about that subject, so what more can I say?

> One of the underpinnings of most Christians’ beliefs is the idea of God’s immutability and His righteousness.

Does that include the words of the bible being the literal word of god? This is provably false wrt the KJB and derivatives, so any such Christians would undoubtedly be referring to the original Hebrew. Not sure that's "most Christians", in the US anyway.

> You implicitly suggest that God was unwilling or incapable of telling his people to change their ways

Unless he send some kind of official messenger with an updated set of rules ;-)

> Are you suggesting that what God once considered moral is no longer moral?

perhaps what once was immoral had unstated conditions that no longer became relevant e.g. the very context I suggest.

Does it? The point about "Picking and choosing" seems to be in regard to what to do/follow. How does that translate…

My perspective is perhaps clouded by the fact that there are, in my view, two equally morally repugnant verses that were referenced. That you chose to comment on the one and not the other was suggestive to me. I don’t know you so I can’t possibly know what you really believe. I have to get clues by what is said and unsaid. I suspect, but don’t know, that Biblical condemnation of homosexuality isn’t as worthwhile to rationalize away to you as it is to defend the Bible indicating that female virgins who are “raped” must marry their “rapist”.

…perhaps what once was immoral had unstated conditions that no longer became relevant e.g. the very context I suggest.

My morality is so screwed up and deranged that I don’t think there is ever a circumstance in which it is moral to force a rape victim to marry her rapist. I’m an atheist so this probably explains why I can’t understand the reason for putting this verse in the Bible to begin with.

Let me be specific and somewhat mocking. At one point in time God thought it was moral to force some rape victims to marry their rapist but no longer thinks this is the case. Somewhere along the line, around the time of widespread government support services in some countries, He decided it’s no longer ok. God sounds incompetent.

Personally, I would have written something like,

Society must care for rape victims for as long as they live. And not force them to marry their rapist or to be viewed as damaged goods or in any other sort of asinine way.

This is the gist of what I’d have written. Don’t nitpick it though since this is much better than what the all knowing, all powerful creator of the universe could come up with.

> that Biblical condemnation of homosexuality isn’t as worthwhile to rationalize away to you as it is to defend the Bible indicating that female virgins who are “raped” must marry their “rapist”.

I'm not sure what you imply by "rationalize away" - the source of the bible doesn't say what you claim it does. Rather than answer to that point you psychoanalyse me; what demons are you fighting?

Am I not allowed to correct you unless you first determine in the "right" side? Sorry, I don't play that game - take it or leave it.

> I don’t think there is ever a circumstance in which it is moral to force a rape victim to marry her rapist

Great! neither does the bible. Ask Howard Long why his committee decided to put that in their version.

> Personally, I would have written something like..

you understand god didn't write the bible?

…the source of the bible doesn't say what you claim it does..

You are being daft. I don’t claim it says this. The Christian experts who made the NIV claim it.

I know of no Christian who thinks the Bible (not translations of it) is not the divinely inspired written word of God. Meaning, that God wrote it. Not literally jotting down the word but divinely guiding the authors. That is, the words, meaning, and intent come from Him.

You are being deliberately obtuse. I’m not going to respond anymore to you. And if you think at any point I psychoanalyzed you then you don’t know what that word really means.

Great, flip the table, not my loss. I'm not the one being obtuse.

Not necessarily true. I haven't been attended in years, but I used to go a "megachurch" (a bit on smaller side, about 5000 each Sunday) that preached a fairly Baptist-core message.

I mean, Joel Osteen definitely does. I don't think its fair to call all large churches bullshit.

Their website seems genuine https://www.liquidchurch.com/about-liquid/

It is curious how they define God as being co-equal Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

They then go into describing the Son and the Holy Spirit, but not the Father.

It would be nice if they also described the Father who is fully 1/3 of God.

Odd.

https://www.liquidchurch.com/about-liquid/values-beliefs/

I think they assume that the average person reading a church website is reasonably well acquainted with the concept of "God". There's a lot more potential for theological nuance with your positions on Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Oh yeah?

https://liquidchurch.com/blogs/multiply-your-money

> When we trust God with our finances, we open ourselves to His blessings and provision. In the story of the fishes and loaves, Jesus demonstrated His power to multiply resources beyond human capability. He did not just provide enough food for the crowd, but there were plenty of leftovers. It proves God can work miracles with our finances, too

> When we tithe, we demonstrate our trust in God for our needs. Tithing is not just about giving 10% of our income to the church but also giving our first fruits to God. When we give our first fruits, we put God first in our lives and acknowledge Him as the source of all our blessings. It is vitally important to remember; God must bless it before it can multiply in your hands.

> Tithing is just the beginning of our giving journey. God wants us to go above and beyond our tithes by giving offerings. Offerings are gifts to God over and above our tithes, demonstrating our willingness to be generous with our resources. When we give offerings, we tell God that we trust Him to multiply our resources and use them for His glory!

> Let us be faithful stewards of God's blessings and use them to make a difference. Remember, only what is given away can multiply!

Fucking grim. Most of these charasmatic churches are grifts. They focus on evangelical growth and tithing like an MLM. Only the gullible would give any them the benefit of doubt.

How disappointing...

I don't think that's prosperity gospel teaching, though.

It's a pretty classic example. If anything, I'm suprised at how brazen it is. The more presentable form has two steps, the first "having faith will make you richer" and then an inevitable second step of "faith is to make donations/tithing" to complete the grift.

This just says fuck it, to multiply your money, give 10% of your income and then extra offerings because "God can work miracles with our finances" lol.

You forgot the often unspoken, but seriously damaging to the moral fiber of our society, final bit: Since God rewards people (not just in heaven, but on Earth) for their good deeds, people who are rich must be good, and people who are poor must be evil.

Prosperity gospel teaching is pretty upfront about that part—it's kinda the whole thing.

I don’t intend to come across as combative. I agree prosperity theology is nonsense from a Bible point of view. However, as I see things, a very large percentage of Christians and Christian churches act in ways contrary to Biblical teaching. Isn’t it the case that everyone pretty much ignores the parts they don’t like and clings to the parts that they do like? Prosperity theology isn’t to your liking so you condemn it. For others it resonates with them. I think it’s understandable since every religious person chooses the parts they follow and disregards the parts they don’t like. (I’m an atheist so I’m not approaching this from a religious perspective.)

> Christian churches act in ways contrary to Biblical teaching

I think you're spot on. Between culture and money, there are is a lot of pressure to fit your religion into your existing communities or lifestyle.

Same is true of my Hindu and Muslim friends who, at a certain net-worth or moving to a certain geographic area are suddenly much less interested in what their religions say.

"Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also"

Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also

I like this phrasing. Thanks for sharing it.

Industrialization of the soul.

My reservation is that these churches don’t seem to have any solid doctrinal foundation or any real consideration along those lines, so what you hear will probably just end up being “Republican / Democratic politics but in a church”.

But if it works for people then great. Especially young people; obviously traditional approaches to religion are not connecting with them.

Just an anecdote but I'm seeing more people in my circle turn to Orthodoxy as protestants do their usual thing and we see some serious issues in the Catholic Church. Here are some nice 'anti-modernist papal encyclicals' if the low IQ approach of protestantism or the growing modernism in Catholicism is bothering you:

On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism (Mirari vos, 1832) - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/greg16/g16mirar.htm

On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy (Aeterni Patris, 1879) - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13cph.htm

On Capital and Labor (Rerum novarum, 1891) - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13rerum.htm

On the Doctrine of the Modernists (Pascendi Dominici gregis, 1907) - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10pasce.htm

On Christian Marriage (Casti connubii, 1930) - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm

On Atheistic Communism (Divini Redemptoris, 1937) - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11divin.htm

I am quite happy with having converted to Orthodoxy (baptized as a child, raised in Reform Judaism) and there are some wonderful Church communities in the Bay Area. Happy to discuss my experience if people want to contact me - I credit my faith with saving my life from addiction and homelessness. I’m now getting married next year and planning our family.

> ...low IQ approach of protestantism...

In all my decades of studying within the faith never have I found anything high IQ about any of it; protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, etc. Lots of big words, tomes of wasted ink, and authoritative names though.

I'm eastern orthodox and we are definitely accumulating a lot of disaffected catholics and ex-evangelicals. I think the intense structure appeals to a lot of people from the second group, since they're coming from traditions that leave a lot to the individual which can be stifling in its own way. Plus the aesthetics obviously.

IMO this is a new challenge for the church though and one we're not addressing adequately. A lot of people are coming to EO because they are on some culture war RETVRN bullshit and considered us "based" or whatever. Priests often aren't effectively catechizing them and they still hold doctrinally evangelical beliefs completely foreign to the orthodox tradition.

And too many priests are naively subscribed to "any growth good growth," while a good handful of priests are openly aligning with the protestant far right and diving deep into culture war issues themselves.

It's good to see more young people in the church but the whole thing has me worried. I think there's a real possibility we become just another american christianity, compromised in the same ways, active for the same causes, but with icons and incense.

My (Catholic) church in the heart of a major American city is very packed, with lots of young people and children. It could be we are just the remnants but it feels like a lot of energy.

> heart of a major American city

This is the important distinction. The megachurch is an artifact of suburban sprawl, like the outlet mall.

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/17/1175452002/church-closings-re...

>Truth is relevant

Oh no, not THAT word.

Gatekeepers of faith really need to reconsider the toxic relationship this period in history has with that term and the peculiar concept truth has become.

It wasn't really explained what, exactly, they mean by that. Here's what their website says:

"We believe the Bible is God’s roadmap for life. Therefore, we value communicating the timeless truth of Scripture in cutting-edge, culturally relevant ways."[0]

[0]: https://www.liquidchurch.com/about-liquid/values-beliefs/

I bet they don’t follow all of the rules in the Old Testament especially the book of Leviticus.

Hard to say without digging in. Lots of their sermons appear to be online if you want to investigate.

https://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2012/06/13/76-things-banned-in...

> Letting your hair become unkempt

> Tearing your clothes

> Drinking alcohol in holy places

That kind of goes against the holy communion

> Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof

> Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy

> Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard

How many churches pay their employees daily?

> Holding back the wages of an employee overnight

> Trimming your beard

I won’t even get started on this one…

> Mistreating foreigners

> > Drinking alcohol in holy places

> That kind of goes against the holy communion

Not every church drinks wine for communion, many drink grape juice.

Yes I realize that and then they go against the New Testament teaching…

That same blog has responses in the comments.

Where, for example, does it say Christians cannot drink in Holy places?

> Drink no wine or strong drink, you or your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, lest you die.

-- Leviticus 10:9

Applies to Priests in the church/tabernacle, not other Christian participants of communion.

Also, the spicy tone of that blog isn't very charitable:

> 14. Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics, this ‘un) (10:9) [“You will die.” May only apply to the priesthood.]

It almost certainly applies only to priesthood, given the audience of priests it was told to; and "lest you die" isn't the same as "you will die" which makes it seem like gods punishment for drinking.

The priesthood very much takes part in the Communion.

Hence "not other Christian participants of communion".

Some priest believe the wine is transformed into the literal blood of Christ, some don't.

For those that don't, I'm sure the "lest you die" is taken as meaning not to drink in excess.

The point is, the rule isn't "If you drink in a holy place, your punishment will be death".

It's no longer necessary to follow the Mosaic law because Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the law and paid for the sins of his people. If you would like an in-depth answer, google: why do we no longer follow the mosaic law.

And strangely enough, churches still like to trot out Malachi 3:10 that talks about giving 10% of your income.

> Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

And not to mention that the New Testament doesn’t say anything about homosexuality.

You seem to have read the Old Testament. I would encourage you to also read closely the New Testament. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus affirms we should give tithes as well as justice and mercy. As for homosexuality, read Romans 1.

Not all homosexuality is as described in Romans 1, just as not all heterosexuality is not as described in Romans 1.

There is a big difference between heterosexuality within a loving, monogamous relationship and without such, just as homosexuality within a loving, monogamous relationship and without.

As long as homosexuality is monogamous and within a loving relationship, it is no different, meaning no more or less sinful, than a monogamous heterosexual relationship within a loving relationship.

This page goes on to explain that they believe:

- God is the creator and ruler of the universe

- Jesus died and rose from the dead

- The authors of the Bible were supernaturally guided

- The only path to salvation is Jesus Christ

These are the same core messages taught by the fundamental baptist church of my youth, and I wonder what they mean by communicating in “culturally relevant, cutting-edge ways”.

It seems this claim is more about the format/technology they use, and not about a more enlightened framing of the Bible and Jesus. They continue to preach a sectarian/ethno-centric worldview (i.e. if you were born in the wrong country, you’re kinda screwed) that reifies the anthropomorphic “father god” understanding.

While I consider myself an atheist, a position solidified by my own time in the baptist church, Judaism has always impressed me for its ability to interpret its traditions not through a literal lens and continued clinging to scientifically and philosophically untenable viewpoints, but as a framework that needs to continually update its understanding of the world to remain relevant.

It is interesting they don't mention the Trinity. Are they not Trinitarian?

> Because the Bible is inspired by God, it is truth without any mixture of error.

As a Christian I find this to be particularly unnecessary. Do I have to believe the earth is 6000 years old, or the sun stopped moving, or there was a talking donkey. This kind of statement is only needed if you trying to justify your own doctrine by picking verses. I wish it would stop. Early Christians didn't even have a bible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com