> Actually this is not a bad description of the Middle America where I grew
> up. Most everybody went to church, though often not every Sunday. But
> cases of deep commitment, much less fanaticism, were very much more
> the exception than the rule. The week-in, week-out church experience
> was for most people, as far as I could tell, more a matter of maintaining
> and enjoying a certain kind of social interaction than anything else. Of
> course it was a solace in times of bereavement and trouble, too, and I
> imagine that most people were believers in some not-too-stringent
> sense. But most pew-sitters were definitely not militants, and it was
> considered very poor manners to talk about religion outside of church.
From what I see, church-going is mostly a social experience for many people.
> The recent phenomenon of mega-churches -- which postdates my
> growing-up days in Kentucky -- is best treated as a branch of
> the entertainment industry, I would say.
The mega-churches are really a form of privatized entertainment in their communities. They provide everything from basketball courts to daycare to coffeeshops to counseling of every kind. My take is that the more conservative megachurches are designed to be a total cultural experience for their members. They want their members--especially children--to have as little contact with secular society as possible. The more "liberal" megachurches are mainly community centers and outreach centers to the "unchurched."
In one sense, megachurches are an indication that our society has become more secularized. Organized religion needs a big gimmick to draw folks in.
Chuck