I would be cautious about taking Warren's word for it. He seems to present a highly idealized version of the actual experience of megachurches. Studies have shown that these movements don't significantly mobilized "unbelievers" -- they just cannibalize more traditional churches. The reason they can get big growth from that strategy where the left cannot is simply that they have a vastly larger pool to draw from. Christian affiliation has been in net decline for decades, despite all the flashy showmanship of the mega-churches.
They also normalize "church-shopping" and actually cut against durable group loyalty in the long run. By making church a form of entertainment, they create an arms race for flashy presentation at the price of substance. The "seeker-sensitive" mentality means you can never get past the introductory stage, because there might always be a "seeker" in earshot who would be turned off by your inside dialogue. These habits are so ingrained that I have literally seen preachers exhorting people to ask Jesus into their hearts -- at a funeral for a lifelong minister, populated almost entirely by fellow ministers.
Would love to see Eric's response to this! I think all the advice makes a lot of sense either way, but as someone who does not trust the book's author and personally finds the "welcoming" evangelical environment terrifying, these are pretty crucial questions to me.
sharing the comment I posted above to Adam (also my new article just posted today, pt 2, digs into this data in more detail
"There's actually quite a lot of data on who joins, their level of engagement, I have no idea why you're trying to dismiss it
Fewer than 50% of megachurch attendees joined from another local congregation; and 40-60% of megachurch attendees participate in regular small groups; and, contrary to what you claim, Church affiliation nationwide has actually levelled out in last few years
The claim is that the new recruits are "unchurched" altogether. People can be "churched" while not being active members at another church when they go to the megachurch. Also, the fact that the decline has levelled off doesn't undo the fact that, you know, it declined. If you spent all your money until you had only $10 left and then hung on to that, the fact that you didn't spend the $10 doesn't mean you didn't wind up with a lot less money overall.
Even the fact of declining far less slowly than the rest of the developed world makes evangelical churches and US religion generally an important study in good organizing approaches. As everybody who has looked into this closely acknowledges, most of the decline is in cohort/generations: i.e. it's hard in our atomized era to get children to stay as religious as their parents. But it doesn't follow (as you claim) that their organizing success is somehow a mirage. Union density decline in 2022, but that doesn't mean we don't have a ton to learn from Starbucks Workers United, Amazon organizing, etc.
There's actually quite a lot of data on who joins, their level of engagement, I have no idea why you're trying to dismiss it
Fewer than 50% of megachurch attendees joined from another local congregation; and 40-60% of megachurch attendees participate in regular small groups; and, contrary to what you claim, Church affiliation nationwide has actually levelled out in last few years
“8. Love the people you’re trying to organize” could be the most important initial recruitment lesson leftist can apply. How does the modern political aphorism (adapted Dostoevsky?) go? Something like “Conservatives love people but hate humanity while too many leftists love humanity but hate people.”
I think there’s a deeper question here: why has the left lost the institutions that once made belonging materially meaningful?
The decline of unions wasn’t merely a consequence of social atomization; it was one of its causes. Unions historically offered more than collective bargaining. They created solidarity across racial, religious, and cultural differences through shared economic interests and collective struggle. People didn’t have to agree on everything or subscribe to a common identity before they could act together. Solidarity emerged through the experience of organizing.
That’s where I think the comparison with evangelical churches has its limits. The left’s challenge isn’t simply to learn how to recruit people or manufacture belonging. It’s to rebuild institutions that give people genuine collective power over their material conditions.
The irony is that the labor movement once had much of what this essay admires about evangelical churches: community, rituals, mutual aid, intergenerational relationships, and a sense of common purpose. But these weren’t simply products of clever recruitment strategies. They grew out of shared struggles.
Perhaps the left’s problem isn’t that it has failed to construct a sufficiently compelling collective identity. It’s that it has increasingly substituted fragmented identity-based politics for the economic solidarity that could unite people across those differences.
The question, then, isn’t just what evangelicals can teach the left about belonging. It’s why the left abandoned the institutions that once made belonging a source of actual power.
I agree generally with this, but would flag that's what novel about evangelicals compared to unions is that they're learned to organize on an atomized terrain. So even when it comes to unions, we can't simply try to recreate old union organizing methods from the 1930x
This is really resonating. Makes me think of the best of Labor Notes and some things we really need to work on in the day to day of the rank and file caucus world. Also makes me think of Yotam Marom's recent book on the politics of powerlessness (and moving beyond it, although he doesn't address labor as much as the social movement/ nonprofit left)
I've always characterized Warren's success as part of the megachurch/growth movement in American Evangelicalism - where Evangelicals appropriated practices of corporations (like Disney). Taking data-driven approaches to customer satisfaction, retention, and uh, conversion. This happened in parallel with the youth movement where they re-packaged pieces of the Social Gospel movement (like WWJD) into a more conspicuous-consumption model where participation in the culture was signified by earnestly consuming the products of the Evangelical subculture.
As you might expect, there was a reactionary counter-movement from the Reformed Calvinist Evangelical wing that critiqued Warren and the growth movement as giving up theological substance for popular appeal. I remember a pamphlet that went around that claimed Warren wasn't really a Christian because of the way he cherry-picked bible verses out of context from different translations to fit his points better in his books. It's probably reductive on my part, but I see a kind of mirror image of this conflict in intra-left discourse, like maybe the Dirtbag left vs "Woke" and identity politics.
There's probably as many pitfalls to glean lessons from as there are successes. I'm always fascinated by the overlap between religious movements and political ones.
As someone who believes in Jesus but who is also seeking to organize a union for college football players, I have so many thoughts about this great piece. I’ll keep them to myself for now though as I eagerly await part 2.
Really great stuff, this is important - we're all guilty of leaning into the easiest and worst aspects of left sectarianism, and despite it manifestly not being effective, repeat those same patterns. Thanks for doing the work on explicating these ideas.
A useful piece! Some valuable insights to reflect on here. I’m especially reflecting on the “participatory joy” and the repetition of the purpose and goals of the organizing. Honestly, it gave me ideas and inspiration to try some new things!
This is such a good read - and echos reflections from the work of Hahrie Han as well. For even more lessons I'd also recommend this that colleagues in Australia put together a number of years ago - https://commonslibrary.org/purpose-driven-campaigning/
Although the Left faces different challenges, as mentioned in some comments, this is an interesting comparison and generally great advice. Looking forward to Part 2.
Life is lived in cycles. This is the daily and seasonal rhythm we all experience, and yet generally the Left plans in a strait line. A welcoming Church provides just such a cycle and we would do well to learn from it.
All analogies are imperfect, and this one elides an important detail — Rick Warren had a Vanguard propping up his ministry. His inclusive outreach contained the coercive cudgel of white evangelism, providing the muscle the American left can only covet: everlasting life, damnation, and banishment. We, on the other hand, will have to rely upon strong leadership that continuously exercises power.
Really? What is being left out of this evaluation of the Purpose Driven Church ideology is its underlying assumptions.
First, read the “covenant” for membership to Saddleback Church and tell me that surrendering one’s critical thinking ability is good democratic organizing.
Second, the underlying assumption was this organizing revolved around a centralized, charismatic leader (whom the covenant implies should not be questioned).
Third, it is like the old Dolly Parton saying, “It takes a lot of money to look this cheap.” There is a reason this was so successful during the subprime fiascos. For all this marketing these seeker churches were build around unchallenged debt to build huge facilities and massive entertainment budgets. After 2008 the loans to many of these megachurch wannabes dried up because they had insufficient collateral.
Fourth, their marketing strategy has no longevity. It is like employers whose business plan includes huge employee turnover. We aren’t given statistics on the huge percentage of people who leave within 10 years. Many like Rev. Ted Haggard, Willow Creek, First Presbyterian Church of Menlo Park, Hillsong, Rev. Mark Driscoll…collapsed because of strong centralized power structure scandals (in labor think Caesar Chavez).
Fifth, Warren was not an organizer but an evangelist marketer. Behind the Purpose Driven model is 5 essential guiding principles: worship, fellowship, discipleship, ministry, and evangelism. There is a certain bait and switch to all the “organizing” principles. Don’t tell them up front you are extremely politically opposed to LGBTQ people and created an evangelical infrastructure in countries like Rwanda and Uganda that make it illegal, make them feel this worship is catered to them individually.
I could keep going, but I think you see my point. It is not morally, ideologically, nor sustainable to coop a conservative strategy just because it has some success.
I would be cautious about taking Warren's word for it. He seems to present a highly idealized version of the actual experience of megachurches. Studies have shown that these movements don't significantly mobilized "unbelievers" -- they just cannibalize more traditional churches. The reason they can get big growth from that strategy where the left cannot is simply that they have a vastly larger pool to draw from. Christian affiliation has been in net decline for decades, despite all the flashy showmanship of the mega-churches.
They also normalize "church-shopping" and actually cut against durable group loyalty in the long run. By making church a form of entertainment, they create an arms race for flashy presentation at the price of substance. The "seeker-sensitive" mentality means you can never get past the introductory stage, because there might always be a "seeker" in earshot who would be turned off by your inside dialogue. These habits are so ingrained that I have literally seen preachers exhorting people to ask Jesus into their hearts -- at a funeral for a lifelong minister, populated almost entirely by fellow ministers.
Would love to see Eric's response to this! I think all the advice makes a lot of sense either way, but as someone who does not trust the book's author and personally finds the "welcoming" evangelical environment terrifying, these are pretty crucial questions to me.
sharing the comment I posted above to Adam (also my new article just posted today, pt 2, digs into this data in more detail
"There's actually quite a lot of data on who joins, their level of engagement, I have no idea why you're trying to dismiss it
Fewer than 50% of megachurch attendees joined from another local congregation; and 40-60% of megachurch attendees participate in regular small groups; and, contrary to what you claim, Church affiliation nationwide has actually levelled out in last few years
see e.g.
https://fact.hartsem.edu/megachurch/National%20Survey%20of%20Megachurch%20Attenders%20-final.pdf "
The claim is that the new recruits are "unchurched" altogether. People can be "churched" while not being active members at another church when they go to the megachurch. Also, the fact that the decline has levelled off doesn't undo the fact that, you know, it declined. If you spent all your money until you had only $10 left and then hung on to that, the fact that you didn't spend the $10 doesn't mean you didn't wind up with a lot less money overall.
Even the fact of declining far less slowly than the rest of the developed world makes evangelical churches and US religion generally an important study in good organizing approaches. As everybody who has looked into this closely acknowledges, most of the decline is in cohort/generations: i.e. it's hard in our atomized era to get children to stay as religious as their parents. But it doesn't follow (as you claim) that their organizing success is somehow a mirage. Union density decline in 2022, but that doesn't mean we don't have a ton to learn from Starbucks Workers United, Amazon organizing, etc.
There's actually quite a lot of data on who joins, their level of engagement, I have no idea why you're trying to dismiss it
Fewer than 50% of megachurch attendees joined from another local congregation; and 40-60% of megachurch attendees participate in regular small groups; and, contrary to what you claim, Church affiliation nationwide has actually levelled out in last few years
see e.g.
https://fact.hartsem.edu/megachurch/National%20Survey%20of%20Megachurch%20Attenders%20-final.pdf
“8. Love the people you’re trying to organize” could be the most important initial recruitment lesson leftist can apply. How does the modern political aphorism (adapted Dostoevsky?) go? Something like “Conservatives love people but hate humanity while too many leftists love humanity but hate people.”
Definitely and, without that, I think the other tips actually fall flat; in that sense it’s the fuel for everything else
I think there’s a deeper question here: why has the left lost the institutions that once made belonging materially meaningful?
The decline of unions wasn’t merely a consequence of social atomization; it was one of its causes. Unions historically offered more than collective bargaining. They created solidarity across racial, religious, and cultural differences through shared economic interests and collective struggle. People didn’t have to agree on everything or subscribe to a common identity before they could act together. Solidarity emerged through the experience of organizing.
That’s where I think the comparison with evangelical churches has its limits. The left’s challenge isn’t simply to learn how to recruit people or manufacture belonging. It’s to rebuild institutions that give people genuine collective power over their material conditions.
The irony is that the labor movement once had much of what this essay admires about evangelical churches: community, rituals, mutual aid, intergenerational relationships, and a sense of common purpose. But these weren’t simply products of clever recruitment strategies. They grew out of shared struggles.
Perhaps the left’s problem isn’t that it has failed to construct a sufficiently compelling collective identity. It’s that it has increasingly substituted fragmented identity-based politics for the economic solidarity that could unite people across those differences.
The question, then, isn’t just what evangelicals can teach the left about belonging. It’s why the left abandoned the institutions that once made belonging a source of actual power.
I agree generally with this, but would flag that's what novel about evangelicals compared to unions is that they're learned to organize on an atomized terrain. So even when it comes to unions, we can't simply try to recreate old union organizing methods from the 1930x
This is really resonating. Makes me think of the best of Labor Notes and some things we really need to work on in the day to day of the rank and file caucus world. Also makes me think of Yotam Marom's recent book on the politics of powerlessness (and moving beyond it, although he doesn't address labor as much as the social movement/ nonprofit left)
I've always characterized Warren's success as part of the megachurch/growth movement in American Evangelicalism - where Evangelicals appropriated practices of corporations (like Disney). Taking data-driven approaches to customer satisfaction, retention, and uh, conversion. This happened in parallel with the youth movement where they re-packaged pieces of the Social Gospel movement (like WWJD) into a more conspicuous-consumption model where participation in the culture was signified by earnestly consuming the products of the Evangelical subculture.
As you might expect, there was a reactionary counter-movement from the Reformed Calvinist Evangelical wing that critiqued Warren and the growth movement as giving up theological substance for popular appeal. I remember a pamphlet that went around that claimed Warren wasn't really a Christian because of the way he cherry-picked bible verses out of context from different translations to fit his points better in his books. It's probably reductive on my part, but I see a kind of mirror image of this conflict in intra-left discourse, like maybe the Dirtbag left vs "Woke" and identity politics.
There's probably as many pitfalls to glean lessons from as there are successes. I'm always fascinated by the overlap between religious movements and political ones.
As someone who believes in Jesus but who is also seeking to organize a union for college football players, I have so many thoughts about this great piece. I’ll keep them to myself for now though as I eagerly await part 2.
Thanks Jason, looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
Really great stuff, this is important - we're all guilty of leaning into the easiest and worst aspects of left sectarianism, and despite it manifestly not being effective, repeat those same patterns. Thanks for doing the work on explicating these ideas.
Thanks Dick!!!
Lots to think w and work w here thanks E
thanks Astra, really appreciate it!
A useful piece! Some valuable insights to reflect on here. I’m especially reflecting on the “participatory joy” and the repetition of the purpose and goals of the organizing. Honestly, it gave me ideas and inspiration to try some new things!
Thanks Miguel, appreciate it!!
This is such a good read - and echos reflections from the work of Hahrie Han as well. For even more lessons I'd also recommend this that colleagues in Australia put together a number of years ago - https://commonslibrary.org/purpose-driven-campaigning/
Although the Left faces different challenges, as mentioned in some comments, this is an interesting comparison and generally great advice. Looking forward to Part 2.
thank you!
Fascinating. As an ex-evangelical and person who’s written about TPuSA, great job
Thanks Matthew, really appreciate it!
Life is lived in cycles. This is the daily and seasonal rhythm we all experience, and yet generally the Left plans in a strait line. A welcoming Church provides just such a cycle and we would do well to learn from it.
All analogies are imperfect, and this one elides an important detail — Rick Warren had a Vanguard propping up his ministry. His inclusive outreach contained the coercive cudgel of white evangelism, providing the muscle the American left can only covet: everlasting life, damnation, and banishment. We, on the other hand, will have to rely upon strong leadership that continuously exercises power.
Thanks! Do you think this might work to build a movement like this: https://lukelea.substack.com/
Really? What is being left out of this evaluation of the Purpose Driven Church ideology is its underlying assumptions.
First, read the “covenant” for membership to Saddleback Church and tell me that surrendering one’s critical thinking ability is good democratic organizing.
Second, the underlying assumption was this organizing revolved around a centralized, charismatic leader (whom the covenant implies should not be questioned).
Third, it is like the old Dolly Parton saying, “It takes a lot of money to look this cheap.” There is a reason this was so successful during the subprime fiascos. For all this marketing these seeker churches were build around unchallenged debt to build huge facilities and massive entertainment budgets. After 2008 the loans to many of these megachurch wannabes dried up because they had insufficient collateral.
Fourth, their marketing strategy has no longevity. It is like employers whose business plan includes huge employee turnover. We aren’t given statistics on the huge percentage of people who leave within 10 years. Many like Rev. Ted Haggard, Willow Creek, First Presbyterian Church of Menlo Park, Hillsong, Rev. Mark Driscoll…collapsed because of strong centralized power structure scandals (in labor think Caesar Chavez).
Fifth, Warren was not an organizer but an evangelist marketer. Behind the Purpose Driven model is 5 essential guiding principles: worship, fellowship, discipleship, ministry, and evangelism. There is a certain bait and switch to all the “organizing” principles. Don’t tell them up front you are extremely politically opposed to LGBTQ people and created an evangelical infrastructure in countries like Rwanda and Uganda that make it illegal, make them feel this worship is catered to them individually.
I could keep going, but I think you see my point. It is not morally, ideologically, nor sustainable to coop a conservative strategy just because it has some success.