Ugh. I never know how to feel when I read an article that feels, to me as an “insider,” so behind the curve. Like the subject of my last blog, a review in the New York Times Book Review of The Case for God, an article in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times takes a subject we’ve all discussed ad nauseum and makes it a feature story.

Mega-churches.

For many readers, simply knowing the subject means you could probably go ahead and, without reading it, write the same article Duke Helfand just wrote for the LA Times. Rock music in church. Suburbs. Upbeat Biblical message. Saddleback. Non-denominational.

Yah, we got it.

Admittedly, this is a rant, though it’s not against mega-churches (plenty of that going on, no need for me to add to it here), nor is it against the media reporting on issues of interest to Evangelicals (more, please), if anything my complaint is that the same story is  told over and over.

If it’s not a mega-church story, it’s a rebel-church story, or a Driscoll/Bell/Baker, Jr. story. Though, I guess it must be said, I’ll take reporting about “new” trends in evangelicalism over the latest headline-attracting and painfully embarrassing statement by our old friends from the old-school hard right any day.

Here is the point: you, Patrol reader, know better. You know what is really going on. You know what mega-churches mean and how they mean. You know we’ve moved on, we’re moving on. You know what story to tell. You know it can’t ever be just one story (borrowing here from the TED talk by the always amazing Chimamanda Adichie).

Tell our story. Join us. Make the media know who we really are by being the media. And, if that’s not your gift, if that's not where you’re at, then please, at the very least, just don’t embarrass us.

 
About The Author

Jonathan D. Fitzgerald

Editor | Follow him on Twitter.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.