How I Spent My Summer "Vacation"

Earlier this year, I decided it might be a fun and enlightening exercise to take some time to visit other churches over the summer. The more I thought about it, I reasoned that I had been to plenty UCC churches in my lifetime, and I’ll have ample opportunity to experience other ones in the future, so this might be an excellent opportunity to search out places I hadn’t experienced before. As I continued to discern what might be the best churches to visit, I realized there was a large segment of Christianity I really had no background in at all: mega-churches. I wondered what made so many people come to these services. I really had no idea, and couldn’t accurately conjecture without any base of knowledge.

Therefore, I resolved to spend (usually) every other week of the summer to visit a mega-church somewhere in the Bay Area, with the off weeks spent at my home church, New Spirit Community Church in Berkeley. However, I didn’t know where to start in picking a mega-church, and that’s when the internet came to my rescue. I found the Database of Mega-churches after a fast Google search, and I was on my way. One can sort by Name, Denomination, State, and Size, and also search individual states. I looked at a number of candidates, and narrowed it down under the following criteria: each church should be in a different geographical sphere of the Greater Bay Area, each church should be a different denomination, and each church should be a large as possible. Through those criteria, I figured I could get a decent cross-section of what it might be like to attend a mega-church in California. Here are my selections, with date of attendance, size, and denomination included:

6 /19
Jubilee Christian Center – 10,000 (Non-Denominational)
105 Nortech Parkway, San Jose, CA

7/10
Greater St. Paul Baptist Church – 5,000 (Baptist)
1827 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Oakland, CA

7/24
Menlo Park Presbyterian Church – 3,200 (Presbyterian Church, USA)
950 Santa Cruz Ave, Menlo Park, CA

7/31
Bayside Church – 9,983 (Evangelical Covenant)
8191 Sierra College Blvd., Roseville, CA

8/14
Calvary Temple – 10,515 (Assemblies of God)
1601 Coffee Rd., Modesto, CA

Each church was different from the last, as all churches are. There was a variety in theology among the churches, none of which I can say I was comfortable with. There was also imagery and language used within each church that I was uncomfortable with. I did not feel that I could attend any of these churches on a regular basis due to these conflicts with my own beliefs. However, I did not attended these churches to discover what I could find wrong about them, but instead to see what they were doing that worked well and could be useful in a progressive church setting. As such, I found a few common themes among the churches that were informative to me about why so many people might attend the churches.

Every church had a similar order of worship. Again, there were always variations dependent on the individual church, but there was not much deviation from a simple service structure: opening music, pastoral prayer, announcements, and offering, more music, message, music, and end. Some churches dwelled on certain areas longer than others as well. Some did more music, some had more message, and some had both. But they all carried the same simple structure of worship.

Every church used technology to enhance the sanctuary and the service. All five churches had at least two screens at the front of the sanctuary, one to either side of the center/stage area. Before church, these screens contained information on upcoming events and other announcements. During church, the screens contained words for all of the music, either taking up the whole screen or running along the bottom of the screen over live video of the congregation and musicians. Also, the screens focused on the pastor during the sermon, flashing any scriptural references made throughout the sermon. Additionally, there was often a video of upcoming events, and a few words from the head pastor if he was away for the week.

Because of these screens, most churches did not have a traditional bulletin, but instead passed out informational pamphlets about the church as people entered the sanctuary. In my opinion, the screens helped to create a better sense of community in the church; people were always looking up instead of looking down when singing, and people could see how the entire congregation or certain individuals were reacting to moments in the service, especially at moments of high emotion and connection.

Every church used music that was powerful: energetic, and emotional. Every church had a band that included at least a drum kit, electric guitar, electric bass, piano/keyboard and vocalist. Others included more instruments and vocalists, some many more. The music was always the start of the service, and generally centered on up-tempo, praise-type music. At times, the music dipped to a slower pace, but would often pick up the tempo again with the next song. Music was used in some places as an emphatic response to the message, but was mostly centered on the beginning of the service. Often, there was recorded music played over the sound system before and after the service as people entered and exited, but all music within the service was performed live by the band and choir.

Every church used the structure of the service to make an emotional connection with the congregation. From the first notes of the opening music to the message to the music to end the service, there was always an effort to make a community in the sanctuary based on an emotional connection with each other and the divine, often emphasized on the divine. Each message was crafted to have uplifting effect on the people of the congregation, and the congregation responded. There were often testimonies from the pastor within the sermon to drive home the point found within the scriptural references of the day. The music at the beginning was used as an emotional introduction to the service, to make initial connections, but the message was the heart of the emotional experience. The message varied in length from church to church, ranging from twenty minutes to over an hour, but was always delivered with an overabundance of energy to complete and enhance the emotional connection to the congregation. People were most expressive during the most intense periods of emotion in the service, whether brought on by the message or the music.
It was hard for me to understand why someone might want to find themselves in a mega-church. The size of the church removes the individuality of a person in church. But I realized that the emotional connection to each other, to the worship leaders, and to the divine were of profound importance, and overrode any thought of an individual lost in a sea of people. Each church also provided community opportunities outside of a worship service through smaller bible studies and congregational groups and events, as well as excellent child care and education from infants to young adults.

So my conclusion was that the draw of the mega-church was the inspirational and emotional experience brought through energetic expression in contemporary music and message delivery. Of all the churches I experienced, I found the most informative and most desirable to be the Bayside Church of Roseville, CA.

While I did not agree with the theology of Bayside Church, I was blown away by the presentation and involvement of the service. They are 100% committed to making the service a very positive experience, best seen in the performance of the music. All music was done by what could easily be called a rock band. They were so experienced and together in their presentation, I could easily see them as a successful opening act for a popular modern alternative rock act. Each song was performed with passion and spirit unmatched in any other church I attended. The message was met with equal passion and spirit, and the congregation responded energetically to both. If I could recommend any of these churches to go to in an effort to understand my church visiting experience this summer that would be the one.

My take away from this project is that there are ways to connect to people that are independent of theology. I think the attendees of these services are looking for a place to find inspiration and acceptance in a modern context, and these churches are very good at providing that. But I also found myself in question moving forward: what would a progressive mega-church look like? In other words, how can I take my experience at Bayside Church and translate it to a church with progressive theology? That’s the next step for projects on the horizon.

This was an amazing experience for me. I learned quite a bit that I’ll be able to reference as I move forward into ministry. I want to thank most especially Riess Potterveld for support on this adventure, as well as Nate Mazur for accompanying me on the last two church visits. Also thanks to support of friends and family as I went on this journey, particularly in events surrounding some of the visits. Finally, I encourage you to all to find your own journey, and experience something opposite of how you think or feel. You might be surprised what you learn!

Bath time and bananas would never be the same.

I'm sure you've seen the news this week.  It's been all over the place, as if we had nothing better to worry about this week.  Or maybe we just want to escape whatever roller coaster the stock market is sending us on?

Yes, people are getting up in arms about Bert and Ernie.  Sure, quite a few of us grew up singing about our rubber duckies, but I guess we can't just leave it alone.  Bert and Ernie are examples for children these days, as they always have been, and it appears we are concerned about what that example might be.

One might think, given my hefty support of same-gender loving marriage, that I would be in full support of the idea of a wedding for Bert and Ernie.  But they'd be quite wrong.

It's not that I'm opposed to the idea of them getting married.  Sure, if that's who they are, then go for it.  But is that who they are?  The good folks at Sesame Street keep telling us that Bert and Ernie aren't gay, and are instead best friends and roommates.  I don't think they were created as gay characters, and if they weren't then, why are they now?

In an age where we are fighting for a revolution in gender identity, is it fair for us to project our own ideas of who somebody is or isn't onto their lived experience absent their own input?  I understand they are puppets (as the folks at Sesame Street are also keen to point out) and subject to whatever character traits and thoughts created for them by human writers, but I know I didn't think about that when I was growing up. I knew of Bert and Ernie as people that are friendly with each other, because that's what they are portrayed as.  Anything else added to that is our own projection of what we want to see, for better or for worse.

Should Sesame Street have gay, married characters?  Well, I think an example of all forms of love, as well as an example of the different areas of gender identity would be good for an educational program to show, especially for those that might not get it in any other context.  But that's a different argument.  For us to decide that Bert and Ernie are gay and should be married is no better than us deciding who is gay based on how they dress, the people they hang out with, or how they speak.  Same goes for gender identity.  It is not for us to project our own desires and perceptions on other people.  That's how we end up with stereotyping and discrimination.

So if we want to petition Sesame Street to address gender and sexual orientation topics in an educational and positive way, I'm in.  But if we want to petition Sesame Street to address our own ideas of what people (or in this case, puppets) should do without respecting who they are, then I'm out.  I'll have fun with Bert and Ernie over bananas and bath time: