Talk:McChurch

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 July 23. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Christianity: Charismatic Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity (assessed as Mid-importance).

I'm struggling to see how this is more than a precis of one tendentious article. For example, some of the criticisms, such as lack of ikons, are criticisms of the entire protestant movement from a Catholic or Orthodox point of view.

Likewise, the claim that they subscribe to fundamentalist views reflects the same perspective.

Further, the claim that they are not 'technically church services' begs the question: what is a church service?unknown poster

It IS a fact that many megachurches belong to the more puritan styled protestant denominations, that Roman Catholics and Orthodox don't operate such, that it's hard maintain a cummunity feel and action when so few clergy minister to such huge congregations, and I suppose that some elements of traditional services/mass (like the communion) are probably glossed over, for lack of practicality... I say this from a purely neutral point of view, since, I've never been within miles of such churches, and they would be unthinkable in my parish-oriented country.--Svartalf 11:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Errors of this article

The writer of this article makes the factual error that Protestant Christianity does not have a doctrine of original sin. Protestantism does hold to that doctrine in common with Roman Catholicism, though it may not often use the term itself. In addition, he criticizes the author of the article he cites for having only a Roman Catholic perspective in criticisms of Willow Creek Community Church. He ignores that there are also Protestants who are also critical of the entertainment oriented "Church Growth Movement" espoused by Willow Creek and other megachurches.Gregory Y 05:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critique of Robert McClory 's article

The section that discusses his article does not seem completely NPOV. The overall tone seems biased against his views. Some of the critiques of his work appear to be nothing more then the views of a Wikipedia editor and unless they are attributed to a source or rewritten to reflect what a notable critic of McClory's views has actual expressed then they should be removed as original research. --Cab88 14:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cute

Might be cute with certain usage, but tone down the attacks. If it means a megachurch that emphasizes entertainment, ok. But I wouldn't get into all the fundamentalist/political crap. It just makes a fight, gets stamped out anyway, and is a lot less informative. --DanielCD 14:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McChurch not Megachurch

This page is about a derogatory term, so in the discussion of that, it is hard to stay not sounding NPOV. This is especially so because the main point of this aticle is talking about someones critisms, so its bound to sound at least slightly critical.

just pointing that out 67.49.156.98 03:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above user - if this were merged, then you'd have to merge a lot of exiting McWord articles. However, I consider including McWords here as a good addition to Wikipedia.

--24.14.49.225 22:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete rewrite

Previous article was NPOV and focused too much on a single not-very-important source, namely McClory's 1992 article criticizing Willow Creek Community Church. McClory's article is neither the first nor most notable example of media usage of McChurch and there are distinct differences between usage in conventional media vs. self-critical usage in Christian publications. I have expanded the primary sources to four prominent books and articles and tried to summarize common elements. Irene Ringworm 10:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pejorative or not?

A recent editor added the following text to the introduction (new text in italics):

McChurch is a pejorative term (McWord) used to suggest that a particular church has a strong element of entertainment, consumerism or commercialism which obscures its religious aspects.

Construction errors aside, I removed this text because it appears that the usage of this term is not uniformly pejorative. Christian writers, including those referenced in the article, frequently use this term self-critically to describe their own perceived failings - this usage is hardly pejorative as it is not meant to belittle or disparage but to cause reflection and self-improvement.

The introduction later mentions the common derogatory usage.

Open to consensus:

Irene Ringworm 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seirous?

Having ^{[citation needed]} after every sentence is beyond obnoxious. Even statements that are themselves referrign to specific sources have it. If you've looked in the sources and found no mention of McChurch then remove them, but I fail to see what you're trying to accomplish otherwise. Do you seriously want citations for citations, i.e. sources verifying that the original source is in fact real? Sod off.

Deletion

I move for deletion, as "McChurch" is a slang dictionary entry, at best. The trends described in this article are aptly covered in the megachurch article. 209.55.81.128 (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The term is merely a synonym for megachurch and this article a regurgitation of issues related to it. It should be deleted. If proponents want to include a note on that page that McChurch is a cutesy synonym for it (and is a portmanteau of McDonald's and church), let them have at it. But this article is useless. 128.158.1.166 (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McChurch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20120909081549/http://www.ptm.org/02PT/MarApr/mcChurch.htm to http://www.ptm.org/02PT/MarApr/mcChurch.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]