mega church addiction

[Sarah Smith]

What do you make of the Christianity Today article that says some mega church leaders say their worship is addicting (not in a good way, but like a drug?)

[Susan Unger]

Here is the article - Is Megachurch Worship Addictive?

[Steven Burton]

This has been my thought for a lot of worship services. Especially the way in which music is used.

[Larry Parsons]

It doesn't have to be large church for some people to recieve a high (Blessing) I been in church where the same song is play over and over people jump up and down, wave thier arm.JUmping across pews I believe a person can recieve a blessing from God and they will show some kind of emotion but can you can get people stir up by using the right word and when Music.
Thanks
LP

[Jon Bemis]

Our church is still a long way from being at risk of being an addictive mega-church!

[George Wallace]

This isn't directly applicable strictly to "Mega Church" addiction but deals with adrenaline addiction in worship. Its not a short read, but for those interested it might be at least somewhat applicable/interesting.

The Affect of Adrenaline on Spirituality and Worship

[Sarah Smith]

Thank you George.

Several years ago we started being aware something fishy was going on in the sense that the adrenaline high worship was being used to intentionally control in some services.

Didn't take much googling to find "worship leader" resources that quite openly explained why the altered blood flow of standing for a long time changes how one thinks and makes one more likely to accept what follows in preaching, how to use the fight or flight syndrom with discordant music followed by soft concordant music to bring on a willingness to follow and obey, that sort of thing.

Turned my stomach. I'm not frozen chosen in worship myself, but there is a vast difference between an exhuberant movement of the Holy Spirit and a deliberately mass controlled response provoked by manipulating our neurotransmitters with sound, light, body position, etc.

[George Wallace]

You're welcome.

I had no idea that the manipulation had become systematized and propagated. What do I know from "Contemporary"... we sing Psalms accapella.

[Sarah Smith]

Let me hasten to add not everyone doing ANY style of worship is intentionally manipulating.

Just that we learned SOME are.

[Billy Cox]

Let me hasten to add not everyone doing ANY style of worship is intentionally manipulating.

Just that we learned SOME are.

I believe that manipulation is typically the unintended result of amateurs running the show and not knowing any better. That's no excuse for the outcome, but should give us pause before assuming that manipulation is the intended outcome.

[Sarah Smith]

Billy, I tend to agree re amateurs. But when the pro's and their journals discuss some of this fairly openly, there is a problem.

[Greg Farra]

That's what happens when your worship people are trained in garages

[James Johnson]

Just remember, not all addictive drugs make you happy and excited!

[Greg Farra]

Just remember, not all addictive drugs make you happy and excited!

Just one:

[Steven Burton]

Just one:

You realize if you drink coffee with caffeine in it you can increase your anxiety?

[Greg Farra]

You realize if you drink coffee with caffeine in it you can increase your anxiety?

I get anxious when I DON'T drink it!!!

[Greg Farra]

Some of the things I've heard from musicians is that they want to see people respond to worship. They say they see the people just sitting there during service. Well, when you've created a loud rock band sound, call music 'worship' and don't offer people opprtunities to engage in the service, what do we expect? One guy said him and another guy was thinking about ways to 'model' a response. That is manipulation, INHO. You want people engaged in the service? Have readings, prayers, responses, and music at a level where you can actually hear the people singing. But what do I know?

[Steven Burton]

I get anxious when I DON'T drink it!!!

That is because your brain needs the caffeine to work properly. Same things happen with certain meds. The anxiety is from withdraw.

[Greg Farra]

That is because your brain needs the caffeine to work properly. Same things happen with certain meds. The anxiety is from withdraw.

I'm not sure there's enough caffeine in the world to make my brain work properly!!!

[Steven Burton]

I'm not sure there's enough caffeine in the world to make my brain work properly!!!

Mine neither. I actually have to stay away from caffeine which suxs cause I like Dr. Pepper. I was meaning your body now requires the caffeine to function properly.

[John Kennedy]

Some of the things I've heard from musicians is that they want to see people respond to worship. They say they see the people just sitting there during service. Well, when you've created a loud rock band sound, call music 'worship' and don't offer people opprtunities to engage in the service, what do we expect? One guy said him and another guy was thinking about waysto 'model' a response. That is manipulation, INHO. You want people engaged in the service? Have readings, prayers, responses, and music at a level where you can actually hear the people singing. But what do I know?

You and I know about the same thing - worship should not be a spectator sport. Apparently that's more than the 'worship music' gurus seem to know. One of the things that makes me happiest about the music ministry I'm privileged to work in is not having to deal with the people who are 'addicted' to that stuff.

[Greg Farra]

I like the people in our worship band, but I'm not sure they have much education or experience beyond the generic worship style many evangelical churches use.

[John Kennedy]

I like the people in our worship band, but I'm not sure they have much education or experience beyond the generic worship style many evangelical churches use.

I would probably be much more than 'not sure'. Don Hustad, a church musician who's devoted more than passing attention (like two books on the subject - JUBILATE and JUBILATE II) to the subject of evangelical worship, once told how, in a large evangelical seminary, candidates for a ministry in music degree had to complete several courses in worship but regular pastoral ministry degree candidates didn't even have to take one such course.
Part of the problem stems from the incredibly mistaken idea that worship=music. I've known, unfortunately, pastors who were dumb enough to turn everything but the preaching over to the music guy.
This is not to attack the 'music people' - it's simply to say that corporate worship is so MUCH, MUCH, more than music and the music needs to be subordinated to the larger context.

[Greg Farra]

I would probably be much more than 'not sure'. Don Hustad, a church musician who's devoted more than passing attention (like two books on the subject - JUBILATE and JUBILATE II) to the subject of evangelical worship, once told how, in a large evangelical seminary, candidates for a ministry in music degree had to complete several courses in worship but regular pastoral ministry degree candidates didn't even have to take one such course.
Part of the problem stems from the incredibly mistaken that worship=music. I've known, unfortunately, pastors who were dumb enough to turn everything but the preaching over to the music guy.
This is not to attack the 'music people' - it's simply to say that corporate worship is so MUCH, MUCH, more than music and the music needs to be subordinated to the larger context.

Right. I hope I didn't sound like I was attacking musicians. They are put in a position to provide music without much training. I'm in the Course of Study and it does not have a worship module, but MVNU requires a worship class for it's COS program, which I will be starting next week. We do tend to lump music under 'worship' and we call our music person the 'worship leader', a title that is quite mis=-leading most of the time.

[John Kennedy]

Good for MVNU. I daresay the churches you pastor will enjoy richer, more 'nutritious' corporate worship because of your background in a liturgical church.
As one working in a music ministry position, I'm obviously sold on the value added to worship through the musical component. But it is just that - a component.

One of the things I really appreciate about working where I do is the freedom I feel to use the musical resources available to best support corporate worship. I spend some time every week in discussion with my minister as to what themes he wants to emphasize and the best way to support that musically - whether with choral or congregational, solo or ensemble, instrumental, traditional or contemporary.

I consider the musical diet/format of the typical mega-church to be kind of like 'acordion radio' - all accordion all day long. I'm glad somebody likes it - I find it incredibly boring. Maybe that's why they use it manipulatively - I'd have to be manipulated to put up with it.

[Billy Cox]

Some of the things I've heard from musicians is that they want to see people respond to worship. They say they see the people just sitting there during service. Well, when you've created a loud rock band sound, call music 'worship' and don't offer people opprtunities to engage in the service, what do we expect? One guy said him and another guy was thinking about ways to 'model' a response. That is manipulation, INHO. You want people engaged in the service? Have readings, prayers, responses, and music at a level where you can actually hear the people singing. But what do I know?

I hear what you're saying, but you do realize that this is the standard critique offered by those who are convinced that proper worship has to be a cerebral, cognitive exercise, right?

I think of myself as an intellectual, but I find it profoundly insulting when I hear someone pouring contempt on worship forms that are experiential, emotional and kinesthetic. I think that worship and snobbery do not mix.

[Billy Cox]

Part of the problem stems from the incredibly mistaken idea that worship=music. I've known, unfortunately, pastors who were dumb enough to turn everything but the preaching over to the music guy.
This is not to attack the 'music people' - it's simply to say that corporate worship is so MUCH, MUCH, more than music and the music needs to be subordinated to the larger context.

Rather than simply saying that worship is more than music alone, why not try to understand why it is seen that way. My theory... Music is frequently the only aspect of an evangelical service that comes close to engaging the whole person. Everything else is passive by comparison. I don't think that eviscerating the music/musicians is a thoughtful response.

[Greg Farra]

I hear what you're saying, but you do realize that this is the standard critique offered by those who are convinced that proper worship has to be a cerebral, cognitive exercise, right?

I think of myself as an intellectual, but I find it profoundly insulting when I hear someone pouring contempt on worship forms that are experiential, emotional and kinesthetic. I think that worship and snobbery do not mix.

Actually, I've been in some great contempory services, and some of the best worship I've experienced has been on retreats. I am concerned that worship has come to mean in some evangelical churches to be rock music and repetitive Jesus is my girlfriend songs. And snobbery is a two way street. It's not just the old fogies that practice it, I've seen it in the modern music people as well. The modern worship format has often become a concert where people listen to the music and sermon, and there is no participation by the people. When music is so loud you can't hear the audience singing, it robs us of the opportunity to minister to and be ministered to by others. We've lost great opportunities to educate our people in worship by eliminating creeds, prayers and readings. If it means I'm a snob because I think we've lost a great part of who we are as the church, then I'll proudly wear the title.

[Greg Farra]

Rather than simply saying that worship is more than music alone, why not try to understand why it is seen that way. My theory... Music is frequently the only aspect of an evangelical service that comes close to engaging the whole person. Everything else is passive by comparison. I don't think that eviscerating the music/musicians is a thoughtful response.

One of the problems I've seen is that there is very little education in worship for pastors, who often pass along much of the worship planning to the music person, who probably has very little as well. One of the things I saw in the Lutheran church were clergy who were required to be educated in worship as part of their seminary training. The Course of Study doesn't even have a worship module, but thankfully MVNU requires one now.

[Sarah Smith]

wow--can't say music is the only part of the service that engages the whole person myself.

Sunday I attended a liturgical service with my husband. Very staid. And to top it off, the organist was away so the service was mostly Word and Table, with three acapella songs thrown in.

Communion time was beautiful.

Then during fellowship hour following, one of those frozen chosen ladies, knowing my wesleyan roots, pulled me aside to talk about something. That something was the fact that she gets so emotional at communion. Sometimes hilariously happy, sometimes like this week weeping with gratitude to the Savior for His love.

Music is a wonderful part of the service, but only a part. Certainly not the only part that engages the whole person unless you believe the intellect and the will are less important than the emotions and the body.

The Holy Spirit moves as He will, regardless of type of service or type of music.

I believe He can and does use all forms of services, but again as re the article on addictive worship we often mistake an adrenaline high for worship.

[Steven Burton]

wow--can't say music is the only part of the service that engages the whole person myself.

Sunday I attended a liturgical service with my husband. Very staid. And to top it off, the organist was away so the service was mostly Word and Table, with three acapella songs thrown in.

Communion time was beautiful.

Then during fellowship hour following, one of those frozen chosen ladies, knowing my wesleyan roots, pulled me aside to talk about something. That something was the fact that she gets so emotional at communion. Sometimes hilariously happy, sometimes like this week weeping with gratitude to the Savior for His love.

Music is a wonderful part of the service, but only a part. Certainly not the only part that engages the whole person unless you believe the intellect and the will are less important than the emotions and the body.

The Holy Spirit moves as He will, regardless of type of service or type of music.

I believe He can and does use all forms of services, but again as re the article on addictive worship we often mistake an adrenaline high for worship.

An adrenaline high and spiritual experience was not really separated in early church from what I have read. But I know all ancient cultures have known about the high (spiritual feeling) you can get from music.

[Billy Cox]

Actually, I've been in some great contempory services, and some of the best worship I've experienced has been on retreats. I am concerned that worship has come to mean in some evangelical churches to be rock music and repetitive Jesus is my girlfriend songs. And snobbery is a two way street. It's not just the old fogies that practice it, I've seen it in the modern music people as well. The modern worship format has often become a concert where people listen to the music and sermon, and there is no participation by the people. When music is so loud you can't hear the audience singing, it robs us of the opportunity to minister to and be ministered to by others. We've lost great opportunities to educate our people in worship by eliminating creeds, prayers and readings. If it means I'm a snob because I think we've lost a great part of who we are as the church, then I'll proudly wear the title.

I totally agree that snobbery cuts both ways. I've been there, done that and bought the t-shirt. We could review ad infinitum all of the reasons why we respectively cannot adequately worship in that other environment or why we feel that other liturgy is illegitimate, but what value does that bring?

At this point in my journey, I regret being a worship-rock-concert booster for years, but I have utmost respect for those who encounter God's transformative power in that environment. I have also come to respect those who encounter God's transformative power in other types of services, or even in no service, or in nature, or whatever.

I am trying hard not to look down on those who are fixated on one form or another; chalking it up as a 1 Corinthians 13:11 scenario. What makes it hard not to take sides is when I encounter someone disrespecting what other people do with a clear conscience in spirit and truth. And let's be real... There are posers in every worship service, but the presence of those who are simply going through the motions does not invalidate the entire liturgy experience or the values that it reflects.

One thing I have been convicted of is jumping to conclusions about what God cannot do. Can God engage with a people who do not (fill-in prescribed worship practice) every Sunday? I daresay that he can, and I may very well be sinning if I say otherwise.

[Sarah Smith]

Billy--not sure what you are saying.

Are saying it is a-ok to KNOWINGLY use techniques of mass hypnosis or chemical addiction in church services.

Question is not about forms of worship, but rather the KNOWING use of the techniques. Do you think that is fine?

[Craig Laughlin]

What makes it hard not to take sides is when I encounter someone disrespecting what other people do with a clear conscience in spirit and truth. And let's be real... There are posers in every worship service, but the presence of those who are simply going through the motions does not invalidate the entire liturgy experience or the values that it reflects.

Yep. I've not participated in this thread because in my opinion it is asking the wrong question. The real question is how do people connected to God emotionally? I am assuming that we are to connect with God in all the modes He has created and that emotions and intellect are not in opposition to one another in God's creation.

The truth is different people and different groups of people connect differently but lots and lots of folks connect emotionally via music. While I appreciated the study I'm old enough to remember old time camp meeting services in which people were overcome with emotions in a way that you don't see in mega-churches. Frankly, lots of those folks would fit the description of addiction. (cheep shot - just take it away and watch the viciousness with which they behave while in withdrawal, classic addictive behavior)

I think we need to affirm that everyone is different and stop taking shots at each other. A church 5000 probably does music better than a church of 50 so the intoxicating effect is probably magnified but I've seen the same sorts of things in all kinds of styles of worship. (There is also a discussion hear about the intoxicating effect of worshiping with a large group of people as opposed to a small group of people)

My thought is this, so long as that is not all there is, intoxicating worship is not only fine but good. I loved the old saints that hooped and hollered, ran the aisle and got blessed in the old days and I love the folks raising their hands and rejoicing now days. - Just follow up with good preaching that connects to both the intellect and the emotions. - As has been said, despite modern usage of the word worship, we all know worship includes the preaching and actually needs to be grounded in that. So long as the folks in charge understand that and live it out, the mega churches are just doing what evangelicalism has always done. Great music, great preaching.

[Sarah Smith]

Craig, you make valid points except at least for my grandparents services were not scheduled often enough to feed an addiction to adrenaline. They would have detoxed long before the next service.

No one wants to answer one question this whole idea brings up:

Granting that how things have been done in the far, medium, and recent past were probably done in innocence and were successful, would you now knowingly use techniques of mind control? If you have the hard data in front of you as to neurotransmitter changes brought on by various musical forms, various stand/sit/kneel forms, length of usage of standing or sitting, etc, would you use them to engender a response?

Examples: if you had hard data in front of you showing that if you keep people standing over half an hour there is less blood in the brain, making them more suceptible to what they hear in the sermon, would you keep them standing to shut down their reasoning somewhat? If you knew now that high intensity loud rock music would create an adrenaline high that would peak in a few hours, with withdrawal at it's most intense around midweek, would you use it boost attendance at a Wednesday night service?

[Craig Laughlin]

Craig, you make valid points except at least for my grandparents services were not scheduled often enough to feed an addiction to adrenaline. They would have detoxed long before the next service.

In larger churches every Sunday was pretty stimulating. I watched people open up pretty quickly. I remember even in my small church they always wanted to start out with a couple of upbeat songs and loved it if the piano player could "dance" across the keyboard. Of course then they got together and did it again on Sunday night and did it again on Wednesday night. Hmmm, now that I think about it the old time way probably provided a much more regular stimulation with a much shorter recovery.

No one wants to answer one question this whole idea brings up:

I won't answer because you haven't asked a valid questions it is a form of Begging the Question.

Frankly the old timers knew that if you did certain things you would get certain responses. Honestly, I'm very good with a traditional services myself. When I put them together people always comment on how "powerful" they are. Understanding crowd response is very old indeed, that they didn't understand the brain chemistry doesn't change it. I think old timers would answer just like folks today, we are asking them to participate in order to enhance their connection to God. The very use of music of any kind could be construed as emotional manipulation. You inappropriately assume old timers motives were pure and modern folks motives are sinister. I'm guessing it is a mixture in both cases

How do you "prepare" to hear from God? I calm myself, shut down outside stimulation and focus inward. -- Opps, probably not real, just mental manipulation because there is lots of research to show how this sort of "yoga" methodology changes brain chemistry and carried far enough makes us extremely suggestible. (hypnosis) Now that you know, will be you suggesting folks avoid a quiet time with God?

[Sarah Smith]

My grandparents were rural folks, so Wednesday night services were out of the question. Most of the attendees made church about twice a month on their circuit.

I don't do yoga BECAUSE of the neurotransmitter effects.

And no, I am not suggesting people avoid a quiet time with God.

But the question remains: would you KNOWINGLY use these techniques to engender a specific emotional response?

I used to serve as a church musician (a very poor one!) but got disgusted when we got instructions like "we plan to vote on the new church building so pump them up" or "I want everybody in tears before the sermon today so find me some tear jerkers" and that was in a very traditional setting, not a contemporary one.

If we really want to reach the lost I believe we need to be above board and honest. Yes, I agree we probably have unwittingly used mind control techniques in the past.

Question is, will we continue to do so knowingly.

[Craig Laughlin]

My grandparents were rural folks, so Wednesday night services were out of the question. Most of the attendees made church about twice a month on their circuit.

I don't do yoga BECAUSE of the neurotransmitter effects.

And no, I am not suggesting people avoid a quiet time with God.

But the question remains: would you KNOWINGLY use these techniques to engender a specific emotional response?

I used to serve as a church musician (a very poor one!) but got disgusted when we got instructions like "we plan to vote on the new church building so pump them up" or "I want everybody in tears before the sermon today so find me some tear jerkers" and that was in a very traditional setting, not a contemporary one.

If we really want to reach the lost I believe we need to be above board and honest. Yes, I agree we probably have unwittingly used mind control techniques in the past.

Question is, will we continue to do so knowingly.

Sarah the answer to your question is yes, and that people have been knowingly doing this for a very, very long time. I'm trying to suggest that while this may be new to you, for many people who have very high EQ this is simply the scientific explanation for what they understood intuitively. Because I fall in the group of people who naturally understand group dynamics I am faced with a choice. I can create a service that is intentionally emotionally flat. Or I can create one that has an emotional rhythm. That rhythm leads folks to arrive at the preaching moment saying... Yeah, now I want to hear from God. No matter what I do it will be a an intentional choice on my part because I do understand. Why is it morally superior to create an emotionally flat service?

I also do this in preaching. I can create a sermon that is very dry and emotionally flat. Or I can take that same truth, sprinkle in humor and stories that illustrate the truth in ways that get people emotionally involved in the truth. I can use an inductive approach and control the pace in such a way that surprises them with the truth thus magnifying the impact or I can just tell them up front and watch them tune out. - Either way it is an intentional choice on my part. - When I use what I know to impact folks emotions as well as their intellect folks tell me how they thought about the sermon all week, how it impacted their lives and how important it was. When I do the other one it is "thank you pastor, that was deep..."

Your point appears to me to be that somehow this is new knowledge. The particular neuroscience of how it works in the brain is just a biological explanation of what folks like me have known and used for thousands of years. Like all knowledge it can be used for good or evil. Using it to open people up to God is a good thing, using it to open people up to evil is a bad thing, simple as that. BTW - every time someone tells a story to make a point they are choosing to add emotional impact to dry facts.