journal of religion, media and digital culture

9 (2020) 33-58
brill.com/rmdc

The Experience Megachurch: Lakewood, Hillsong,

and The Pragmatics and Semiotics of “Inspiration”

Robbie B. H. Goh
Department of English Language and Literature,
National University of Singapore, Singapore
robbiegoh@nus.edu.sg

Abstract

Megachurches, although differing in terms of denominational affiliation (or relative

lack thereof), spatial logic, liturgy, teaching, and congregational demographics, share
the common trait of size and are often fast-growing churches as well. This is particu-
larly true of what might be called (following scholarship on the “experience economy”)
the “experience megachurch”: those with a broad attractive appeal, large and growing
congregations, and relative freedom from traditional Christian spatial-architectural
constraints, rituals, and denominational histories. Such experience megachurches
share an emphasis on offering their congregations an “inspiring” experience of the re-
ality of God’s existence and presence in the church. Applying theories of pragmatics,
semiotics, and bodily discipline, this article examines two experience megachurches
(Lakewood in Houston, U.S.A., and Hillsong, headquartered in Sydney, Australia) to
offer a taxonomy of megachurch praxis.

Keywords

experience megachurches – pragmatics – semiotics – the body – performance –

charisma

1 Introduction: Megachurch Models, “Inspiration,” and the

“Experience Economy”

Megachurches, as the name suggests, are distinguished firstly by their size. The
Hartford Institute for Religion Research defines a megachurch as one which
has “2000 or more persons in attendance at weekly worship, counting adults

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/21659214-bja10009

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
34 Goh

and children at all worship locations” (Hartford Institute for Religion Research,
2015). The rapid growth of Pentecostal churches in the U.S. and the spread of
the phenomenon to countries like Brazil, Guatemala, Kenya, Nigeria, South
Korea, the Philippines, and elsewhere has attracted considerable scholarly and
public attention (Anderson, 2004; Pew Research Centre, 2006; Bergunder, 2008;
Sharpe, 2013; Harkness, 2014). Many megachurch features are clearly growth
oriented, and to this end may utilize a variety of strategies including (but not
limited to) a deliberate targeting of “seekers,” the use of “prosperity” and “em-
powerment” doctrines, the personal influence and charisma of an individual
lead pastor, the employment of various media to extend the church’s reach
and influence, the use of lively music, multiple physical sites or campuses,
and other strategies (Thumma & Bird, 2015; Bowler, 2013; Barnes, 2010; Ander-
son, 2004; Sharpe, 2013; Thumma & Travis, 2007). In different ways, mega-
churches all seek to provide an “inspirational” church experience that explains
their popularity, especially when compared to smaller traditional churches
(Thumma & Bird, 2015, p. 2; Thumma & Travis, 2007, pp. 37–39).
Within the general understanding of a megachurch as one with a large and
often growing congregation, there are a variety of differences and emphases.
Some megachurches are clearly within the fold of a mainline denomination
and have accountability (including in terms of finances, planning, and the de-
ployment of pastors and staff) to that denominational structure. Some empha-
size speaking in tongues and supernatural healing and signs, while others do
not. Some have one sole or primary site, while others are effectively spread
through multiple campuses. In terms of teaching or theology, too, there is a
wide range, from more Bible-centered messages to those that address a non­
believer as much as a long-standing Christian.
While it is difficult to encompass the wide range of differences in mega-
churches, Thumma and Travis (2007) offer a useful taxonomic division (pp.
32–33):
1. Old Line/Program-Based
2. Seeker
3. Charismatic/Pastor-Focused
4. New Wave/Re-Envisioned
Corresponding to these four categories are a range of differences in theology,
liturgy, leadership, worship, and other factors. “Old-line” megachurches, for
example, usually have the strongest denominational affiliations, occupy build-
ings with “classic” church architecture, are evangelical but focused very much
on their existing congregations, and usually have the smallest digital foot-
print, although they may use older media like radio or television (Thumma &
Travis, 2007, pp. 34–36). “New-wave” megachurches, often newer churches

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
The Experience Megachurch 35

founded in the 1990s or later, often reject a “seeker” approach and “embrace
overtly traditional, and even ancient, Christian symbols, language and teach-
ing” (Thumma & Travis, 2007, p. 41). They are most likely to occupy smaller
buildings than other types of megachurches, to use multisite campuses, and to
use digital platforms more extensively than Old-line or even other types of
megachurches.
The other two models—“seeker” and “charismatic/pastor-focused”—have a
number of things in common. Indeed, Thumma and Travis (2007) acknowl-
edge that all four are “not necessarily exclusive categories” and that there may
be overlaps (p. 31). However, the overlaps are most plausible between the
­categories of “seeker” and “charismatic,” since both of them have the weakest
denominational affiliations and, moreover, tend to be more energetic and in-
tentional in bringing in newcomers. Both tend to worship in large bespoke
spaces with little resemblance to traditional church architecture or symbol-
ism: seeker megachurches favor the “open atrium, glass, and soaring spaces,”
while charismatic/pastor-focused churches favor large auditoria or stadia.
Both are also very adept at and active in using digital media (although in this
respect they are joined by new-wave megachurches) to extend their reach and
presence. Their chief difference, as the names imply, is that the seeker mega-
churches are chiefly defined by their specific orientation towards nonbeliever
newcomers, while charismatic/pastor-focused megachurches, which are also
intentionally attractive and welcoming churches, tend to be defined by a focus
on the lead pastor and his family and on reaching out to “those under difficult
circumstances” (Thumma & Travis, 2007, p. 31). It is easier to see the blurring of
the boundary between these two categories, whereas old-line megachurches
are distinct from them because of their stronger denominational history and
structure, while new-age/re-envisioned megachurches are distinct from them
because of their deliberate Christian symbolism and teaching, and because
(due in part to their more recent establishment) of their typically smaller,
multi-sited and less expansive and comfortable premises.
The purpose of beginning with Thumma and Travis’s (2007) categories
in the present study is to build on (and also revise) two of their categories in
order to offer what is hopefully a useful, pragmatic, and material means of
­understanding one (prominent) kind of megachurch mechanics. Calling a
type of megachurch—roughly corresponding to the seeker and charismatic/
pastor-focused types described by Thumma and Travis (2007, pp. 31–32)—the
“experience megachurch” is not to deny that every megachurch service (or in-
deed every religious service) is in some way or other an “experience” for the
attendee. “Experience” here is used in a more specific sense, that of the “experi-
ence economy” which has come to the fore in recent years. Scholarship on

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
36 Goh

the ­experience economy observes the fact that in current socio-economic

­conditions, it is no longer sufficient to provide goods and services; instead,
what is required is a customized “staging” or “orchestration” of events and
­experiences that consumers would find memorable and unique, worthy of
queuing long hours for, or publicizing on their social media accounts (Pine &
Gilmore, 2011; Darmer & Sundbo, 2008). Many of the mechanisms and strate-
gies employed in creating such a memorable experience—theatre and stage-
craft, spatial design, lighting, digital technology, haptics, and others—are en-
tirely relevant to the operation of many of the megachurches falling into the
seeker and charismatic categories (although they are less often employed in
most old-line, or even new-age megachurches). The experience megachurch is
one that is highly accessible and attractive but seeks to present itself as offer-
ing a rather unique experience. This means significant differentiation from
“traditional” church experiences. This is embodied in what Thumma and Tra-
vis (2007), see as the credo of many seeker churches—“we are different”—as
well as in the charismatic churches’ focus on “the pastor, the family, and the
excitement of the church” (p. 31).

2 Experience Megachurches: Theory and Methodology

Some studies on the experience economy have called attention to particular

material conditions such as landscape, the interactions of space and human
relationships, technology (particularly interactive technologies), and tech-
niques of staging and performance (Hracs & Jakob, 2015; Klingman, 2010; Pine
& Gilmore, 2011). At the same time, there have been studies that focus on the
experience of participating in a megachurch service, and in particular the phys-
ical, affective, material, and technological dimensions of such services (Hoover,
2000; Goh, 2008; Han, 2016; Hovland, 2016; Stevenson, 2013). Bringing these
fields of study together and incorporating insights from pragmatic and semi-
otic theories would allow for a more systematic approach to megachurch tech-
niques that would foster understanding of how such churches appeal to visitors
and attendees at a fundamental, somatic, pragmatic, and sensorial level.
Semiotics (following the model established by C. S. Peirce) purports a “sci-
ence of signs” that deals with a whole range of phenomena from language to
street signs to the weather (Peirce, 1955). Taking the cue from Parret, we can
focus more specifically on semiotics as “interpretation in a certain context,” as
“context-bound interpretative description” (Parret, 1983, p. 87). This “context-
bound” semiosis, which for Parret is “foundational” in Peirce’s thought, is close-
ly linked to a pragmatics which “connects meaning and the signifying pro-
cess with use in all kinds of contexts, with reasoning, and with understanding”

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
The Experience Megachurch 37

(Parret, 1983, p. 89). Quoting from Peirce, Parret sees this pragmatic semiotics
as dealing with “the conduct of life,” with “relation to some definite human
purpose” (Peirce cited in Parret, 1983, p. 90). Scholars have used this pragmatic
semiotics to analyze the ways in which signs have “conditioned,” “concrete,”
and “direct effects” on people in various contexts and phenomena such as ur-
ban environments, stage performances, media scandals, and others (Singer,
1991, p. 304; Pietropaolo, 2016, pp. 68–69; Ehrat, 2011). To these semiotic ap-
proaches we can add another, Foucauldian dimension which is not so much
concerned with interpretation of signs, but with the “disciplining” of the body
by the different physical conditions (spatial, somatic, optic, haptic, etc.) around
it (Foucault, 1995). This Foucauldian notion of the “disciplining” of the body’s
behavior has been applied to theories of a pragmatics of the body in areas such
as sports training, education, and dance, and also to ways in which “biopower”
is used to negotiate and resist systems of authority (Markula & Pringle, 2006;
Morsy, 1998; Ball, 2013; McGrath, 2013).
A pragmatic-semiotic approach to megachurches focuses on those features
of the megachurch which work at the levels of somatic interaction, visual and
physical stimulation, and the rhetorical or persuasive effect of signs and dis-
courses, in order to offer what purports to be a uniquely or compellingly attrac-
tive experience for the attendee. In terms of methodology, images of mega-
churches will be used to analyze particular aspects of these pragmatic-semiotic
practices. In order to corroborate the contention that these practices actually
do have a corresponding effect on attendees, this paper will offer the evi-
dence of some of the comments made by attendees on social media, as well as
some of the online material posted by the churches themselves. Comments on
­social-media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, review sites like Yelp and Tri-
pAdvisor, and others are relevant and useful to this study in a number of ways.
Since such sites are often upheld as media conduits celebrating the experience
economy, comments on experience megachurches on these sites reinforce the
churches’ status as part of that experience economy. These comments are of-
ten posted in response to posts by the churches themselves, featuring particu-
lar aspects of church practice, thus indicating some of the ways in which the
churches highlight their own pragmatic-semiotic features. Social-media com-
ments and posts on megachurches are understandably copious, multifarious,
and in large part vaguely emotive in their responses; isolating strands of com-
ments on specifically pragmatic-semiotic features shows how megachurch af-
fect also works in more concrete and grounded ways, as corroborated by some
of the comments of attendees.
Although a number of megachurches would potentially qualify as “ex­
perience megachurches,” this paper will pay particular attention to two
­examples—Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas, and Hillsong Church which

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
38 Goh

is headquartered in Sydney, Australia—to illustrate a pragmatic-semiotic anal-

ysis. Both Lakewood and Hillsong are churches which by size easily fulfil the
basic definition of megachurches. Lakewood Church has been called “Ameri-
ca’s Largest Megachurch,” with a weekly attendance of about 52,000 (Zaimov,
2016); its lead pastor Joel Osteen is a bestselling author who also has a strong
media presence on TV and digital media. Hillsong Church operates in 30 loca-
tions in Australia and around the world, with the main Sydney church and its
Bali location together reporting a total average weekly attendance of more
than 40,000 (Hillsong Church, 2017, Annual Report). As Thumma and Travis
(2007) acknowledge, analytical categories of megachurches are “not necessar-
ily exclusive” (p. 31), and both these churches have characteristics which argu-
ably could place them in either the seeker or charismatic/pastor-focused
­categories. Both are very much driven by a charismatic lead pastor (Lakewood’s
Joel Osteen and Hillsong’s Brian Houston); both tend not to refer to Christian
symbolism, ritual, or history; and both construct quite broad appeals to a fairly
diverse profile of attendees and visitors. Lakewood is arguably more a seeker
church in its architectural style dominated by grand spaces reliant on glass and
light, its focus on the Houston location as its primary site, and in its explicit
statement that “everyone’s welcome at Lakewood” (Lakewood Church, n.d.,
Lakewood Experience page). Hillsong, also arguably, is more of a charismatic/
pastor-focused church, with Brian Houston and his family fronting various
prominent roles and ministries in the church, with quite a prominent social-
justice ministry and with a renowned music ministry and focus on young peo-
ple that characterizes the energy and excitement of the church. Whatever their
overlaps with each other and crossing of the boundaries of seeker and charis-
matic churches, both are clearly distinct from the models of old-line and new-
age megachurches. Both aspire to be inspirational and to offer experiences that
are attractive and memorable for visitors and regular attendees.
There are enough social-media comments on both these churches to rein-
force their perception by attendees as experience megachurches. Thus, for
Hillsong Church (based in Sydney, Australia), “Mary C” commends, among
other things, the “world class lighting, sound” (TripAdvisor, August 30 , 2016),
and “Ruth J” speaks of the “high quality venue sound, film, speakers” (TripAdvi-
sor, February 25, 2016). For Lakewood Church (Houston, Texas), “Arie W” finds
appealing the fact that “there is always something to do—classes, activities,
events, service projects” (Yelp, December 12, 2017); “Melanie M” comments that
“the beautiful lights illuminated the stage and added to the great atmosphere”
(Yelp, November 15, 2015); and “Gail P” in a long comment says, “The curtain
behind the stage sparkles like diamonds. The roof is lit up in spectacular azure
blue. The videos are in the highest quality HD and the worship band was very

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
The Experience Megachurch 39

powerful…. I loved the lights and special effects used while the band played”
(Yelp, December 17, 2015).

3 A Pragmatic-Semiotic Taxonomy of the Experience Megachurch

A pragmatic-semiotic approach to megachurches allows many of the often

vague and subjective adjectival and descriptive terms used in religious dis-
courses (including “inspiring,” “awesome,” “moving,” and others) to be ex-
plained in terms of basic human perceptions of and interactions with the
world. In stating this we rely on George Lakoff’s understanding of cognitive
“prototypes.” Lakoff (1987) maintains that “given our bodies, we perceive cer-
tain aspects of our external environment very accurately at the basic level,
though not so accurately at other levels” (p. 51). Lakoff’s “basic” body-based
conceptions are echoed by scholars who have theorized and analyzed “embod-
ied” meanings in a variety of different activities, from tourism to gaming to the
design of memorials (Patterson, 2007; Violi, 2008; Waterton & Watson, 2014;
Goh, 2018).
Working from the most “basic” (in Lakoff’s sense; see 1987, p. 51) human cat-
egories, we can schematize the pragmatic semiotics of experience mega-
churches as follows, with the recognition that some of the following categories
would overlap with the others even as they are mutually reinforced:
1. The Mega: the concrete experience of the large scale of the megachurch.
2. The Charismatic: the use of techniques that amplify the stature of key
­individuals—in other words, the mega of personalities.
3. The Stimulation: various complex strategies of stimulating audiences in or-
der to give a sense of constant occupation and fulfilment.
4. The Mirroring: the feedback loop (largely via technology) which allows the
perceiver to see the church service and congregation as an objective, con-
crete body.

3.1 The Mega

Megachurches concretely signal their size in a number of ways, some obvious,
others less so. Obviously, megachurch buildings have to be large in order to
contain their large congregations. Some megachurches have resorted to hold-
ing their services in large warehouse-like structures, and even stadia, in order
to accommodate the thousands of people that show up for each service
­(Loveland & Wheeler, 2003, pp. 130–132). What all have in common—the basic
pragmatic-semiotics of the megachurch—is the human experience of size.
This includes the physical navigation of the church premises, the scale of the

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
40 Goh

Figure 1 Soaring vertical orientation in auditorium at Hillsong’s Baulkham Hills campus.

Source: Author photograph

church from the human perspective, the crowdedness of the church, and re-
lated experiences of transportation and movement.
While the horizontal orientation of the megachurch is obvious and gov-
erned by the large size of the congregation, the vertical orientation is less obvi-
ous. This is not directly a function of the large congregations; there are many
examples of spaces with large horizontal dimensions which do not have cor-
respondingly large vertical ones—for example, many hotel ballrooms and
function rooms. While megachurches favor large floor spaces, and many have
used hotel function rooms in their earlier phases of growth, they also invari-
ably move to permanent facilities which have high vertical orientations as well
(Figure 1). The height of these spaces, unlike the floor area, is not primarily
driven by practical reasons. High ceilings not only require better and more ex-
pensive lighting in order to reach the stage and floor more effectively and bet-
ter sound equipment to fill the larger spatial volume, they also incur higher
costs in terms of air conditioning and ceiling and fixture repairs. The high ceil-
ings of megachurches may be tied to the charismatic practice of raising hands
during worship singing, which in turn is tied to the awareness of God’s great-
ness and presence. The link is made explicit in Lakewood Church’s worship
philosophy, where the congregation is taught that the “attitude of worship”

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
The Experience Megachurch 41

involves raising hands to “reach up to your heavenly Father;” this form of wor-
ship is reminder of the “awesome” greatness of God who “with just his voice
spoke the world and universe and cosmos into being” (Ratcliff, n.d.). At a cog-
nitive level, this association of upwardness with godliness is consistent with
other terms from human experience where “up” is associated with physical
power, positive emotional states, and other desirable qualities (Lakoff & John-
son, 1980, pp. 16–20).
As part of this spatial experience, too, megachurch spaces create an experi-
ence of crossing a “threshold” from ordinary secular space into holy space. As
Sproul (1985) explains it, a “threshold” is a “place of transition,” it “signals a
change from one realm to another” (p. 212). This transition has to be pro-
nounced enough that it clearly registers with the individual, creating a change
in the bodily experience which prepares for a different spiritual experience.
Given the large size of their congregations, megachurch logistical arrange-
ments are often complicated affairs. Most of them have several services on
Sundays and other services and events during the rest of the week. This is par-
ticularly challenging from the point of view of parking, timing of services, and
regulating the flow of human traffic. Lakewood has four church services on
Sunday alone, as well as two “Compass” (Bible study) classes. In order to man-
age the logistics of tens of thousands of people moving in and out of their main
Houston campus, especially on Sundays, Lakewood posts detailed instructions
and faqs on getting to the church, including this advisory on their services:

Each service is 90 minutes long. We recommend you arrive 30 minutes

ahead of service time so that you are able to find convenient parking and
seating. We encourage you to inform one of our greeters that you are vis-
iting, so they can connect you with one of our hosts who can help you
find seating. (Lakewood Church, n.d., faq page).

The church also offers a “Parking Guide” on how to park in the lots close to
church and how to find the reserved lots for those with special needs; there is
even a shuttle bus to bring visitors from the more distant parking lots to the
church proper.
The complex experience of entering an experience megachurch is thus a
form of “threshold” crossing, involving (especially for the first-time visitor) a
bit of forward planning and research, navigating a series of signs, consulting
and obeying guides, navigating large crowds, and waiting patiently to enter the
hall or (once seated in the hall) for the service to start (Figure 2). Megachurch-
es necessitate embodied disciplines of coming early, following fixed routes,
walking and climbing as part of large crowds (entering or leaving the church),

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
42 Goh

Figure 2 Lobby of Lakewood Church after a Sunday service. Early comers for the subse-
quent service will also face constraints of movement, with the option either of
waiting outside until the exiting crowds clear, taking the single escalator up, or
climbing the long flights of stairs weaving around groups of exiting people.
Source: Author photograph

waiting long periods with little or no freedom of movement (because of crowds

and for fear of not finding a good seat or missing parts of the service), and
other constraints and pathways.
There are several basic responses at work in the pragmatics of the “mega.”
Firstly, there is the “herding behavior,” whereby the sight of long queues and
flocks of “consumers” suggest “better quality” and raise consumer interest or
demand (Debo & Veeraraghavan, 2009, p. 81). Comments and posts by some
visitors on social media reinforce the view that the size of the church building
and its large congregation confirm their sense of the attractiveness and value
of the church and its lead pastor.1 At the pragmatic-cognitive level, part of this

1 Just a few of such comments include “Melanie M’s” review of Lakewood Church on Yelp (dat-
ed 11/15/2015), saying:
The church is absolutely massive! I actually thought that the church would fill up to
­capacity now I don’t think that would even be possible even in the midst of the sea of people
that flock to this church behind its famous leader.
Also on Yelp, “Rachel N’s” review of 10/12/2014 says:
They have four weekly services (Sat night and then three on Sunday—lasting abt 2h
each), a ton of kids services (big families are hot in the charismatic community), and many,
many, many, many, many groups you can be a part of—it appears to be an amazing way to get
to know people if you’re new to town.
Again on Yelp, “Kiri K’s” review of 10/31/2012 observes “how the former Compaq Center
was transformed from a sports venue into a large and welcoming, religious institution,” and

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
The Experience Megachurch 43

“herd” or mimetic impulse—also true of large crowds at, say, sports events or
political rallies—is the security of being part of a large body, the “resilience”
and “intimacy” of being in the midst of a crowd united by a common focus and
purpose (Drury & Stott, 2013, pp. 11–12; Reicher, 2013, p. 174).

3.2 The Charismatic

The term “charismatic” in the context of megachurches is usually taken to
mean a “Pentecostal-charismatic” form of service and system of beliefs charac-
terized by personal, experiential elements of worship and spirituality and a
“spiritual acquisitiveness” manifested by, among other things, speaking in
tongues and ecstatic encounters with the Holy Spirit (Yong, 2000, p. 161; Sharpe,
2013, pp. 171–174). There is, however, another prominent sense of “charismatic”
which does not derive from this confluence with Pentecostal Christianity, but
rather comes from the cultural anthropology of authority and leadership. Clif-
ford Geertz, while noting that royal authority was traditionally closely aligned
with divinity, also noted that the manifestation of that authority was con-
structed through “symbol,” “allegory,” and other semiotic-narratological means
(Geertz, 1983, pp. 121–125). As Thumma and Travis (2007) observe, some mega-
churches—especially those in the category they designate “charismatic/
pastor-focused”—rely heavily on “the presence and authority of the senior
pastor,” many aspects of which accord quite well with anthropological notions
of leadership charisma (p. 38). Geertz (1983) indeed observes that “rulers and
gods share certain properties,” and that elements of religious rituals have al-
ways employed devices that enhance the charisma and authority of religious
figures (p. 123).
The aspects of the “mega” discussed above—including the spatial expanse
of the church grounds, the high vertical orientation of the hall, large crowds,
and conspicuous “thresholds” to cross—also impact charisma in an indexical,
concrete way. For Peirce (1955), an “index” is a sign “which refers to the Object
that it denotes by virtue of being really affected by that Object” (p. 102). While

how she “found myself surrounded by hundreds of people, friendly, upbeat, and welcoming
to people they knew, as well as complete strangers.”
In addition, many photos and videos about Lakewood Church posted on social media
feature crowd scenes either during the service or outside the church, or the size of the build-
ing seen from the outside, and so on.
Similar for Hillsong’s main Sydney campus, a TripAdvisor review of April 20, 2016 by “Su-
sanIQ7554SX” highlights the fact that “The attendance was huge, the service moving and the
music phenomenal. God was in that place.” Similarly, and also on TripAdvisor, a February 1,
2016 review by “Bella M” says, “Hillsong Church is one of the biggest church [sic] in the world,
and if you’re a Christian and visiting Sydney, this is a must do on your weekends.”

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
44 Goh

the “symbol” is meaningful by virtue of a “law” or “association of general ideas,”

and the “icon” is meaningful by virtue of “characters of its own…whether any
such Object actually exists or not,” the “index” has an integral relationship with
its Object, to the extent that it can be meaningful as a sign, even “if there were
no interpretant” to apply a set of associations or interpretative rules (Peirce,
1955, pp. 102, 104). In Peirce’s terminology, the imposing physical structure of
the megachurch and the large crowds attracted there are indices of the author-
ity and influence of the megachurch; they indicate wealth of resources, power
to attract, and popularity, even if a passer-by did not know that this was a
church or know the name of the church. Geertz’s (1983) description of the pro-
cessional of the Javanese ruler shows how his accumulation of copious gifts,
delegates, and supplicants concretely demonstrated his charisma and author-
ity (pp. 133–134). Similarly, the size and (in some cases) opulence of the mega-
church structure, as well as the crowds of people visiting it, concretely index
the megachurch’s attractiveness and influence.
Charisma, while created by institutional features, centers on individuals of
authority, and this is certainly true of experience megachurches, which are
closely associated with well-known lead pastors, their wives or children, and
(often) associated guest speakers and worship leaders. Many megachurches
are synonymous with their founding pastors, so that the size and vibrancy of
the church is attributed to the pastor, and the pastor’s key doctrines and mes-
sages become the distinctive character of the church. This is perhaps most
clearly seen in Lakewood Church, where signs of Joel Osteen’s pastoral author-
ity are visibly imprinted upon the physical edifice of the church. Osteen’s name
is visible in several places in the church façade and lobby and particularly at
the church’s large bookstore, where displays of his books (which feature pic-
tures of Osteen on the covers), as well as promotional posters are prominent
(Figures 3 and 4). This is also a feature of other megachurches, which all have
large bookstores, and where (to varying degrees) the books, study material, and
musical CDs of select church leaders are also displayed. In the case of Hillsong,
the church has always “aggressively pursued an apostolic model of leadership,
placing Senior Pastor Brian Houston as the primary driver” (Marti, 2017, p. 379),
and this has always been reflected in a semiotic strategy where Houston (and
to a certain extent his family) loom large as the face of the church itself.
Staging—structural, physical, and technological—is central to the prag-
matics of charisma. Experience megachurch stages, whether permanently
constructed or composed of modular segments, are designed to be clearly vis-
ible within the main hall. Churches with larger halls and bigger capacities, like
Lakewood and Hillsong (Baulkham Hills campus), employ raked seats to en-
able those at the back to see the stage clearly, but even with raked seating, the

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
The Experience Megachurch 45

Figure 3
Before a service at Lakewood, one of the digital
displays on the large auditorium screen advertises
Osteen’s latest book.
Source: Author photograph

Figure 4
Banner and book display in the large bookstore at
Lakewood Church promote the works of Joel
Osteen and other select leaders of the church.
Source: Author photograph

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
46 Goh

dimensions of the stage are large, so as to be more commensurate with the

large space of the auditorium as a whole. Although such arrangements ensure
clear visibility, it is not simply visibility that is at stake; the stage is constructed
to be a zone of prominent and substantial activity, conferring significance to
those individuals permitted to stand there. The Lakewood and Hillsong
churches fill their large stages (which would otherwise appear bare and over-
sized) with a large contingent of musicians, instruments, and even choirs of
backup vocalists. While the musicians leave the stage during the sermon, their
instruments, music stands, choir risers, and other paraphernalia remain on
stage as a reminder of their presence, and the musicians typically return on
stage after the sermon for a song (or songs) to close the service. Other items
and features (platforms and risers, partition walls, standing lights, and decora-
tive objects) may be placed on stage to make the stage appear more full and
substantial. Lakewood, in addition to a massive stage filled with dividers and
platforms, has an interesting stage decoration, a large metal globe sculpture
which not only helps to fill up the large stage space, but may also signal Lake-
wood’s global plans and indexically suggests how large Lakewood Church is by
showing the church service looming large over the globe (Figure 5).
The large and busy megachurch stages are part of the “performativity of the
mega” (Goh, 2008), where the action on the stage is calculated to appear sig-
nificant and substantial, and where those individuals on stage take on a greater
significance and importance as well. Where the performativity of the mega
most clearly reinforces charismatic authority is in the megachurches’ use of
video technology to amplify the image of leaders. Again, there is a practical
consideration at work, in that large screens help audiences to clearly see the
action on stage even if they are seated in unfavorable positions, and screens
are obviously useful for the projection of announcements, the preacher’s scrip-
ture and images, and the lyrics of the songs for the congregation to sing along
during worship. However, the screens in many megachurches are used for pur-
poses outside of these practical ones and are of a size and position not strictly
required for reasons of visibility. The most prominent screens, for example, are
those directly behind and above the stage itself, which (when not used for
practical purposes like displaying song lyrics) are not strictly necessary for
viewing the events on the large stages—for example, during group perfor-
mances where the performers on the stage can be clearly seen. In such cases,
the screens serve to highlight details of individuals on the stage that might not
be seen from a distance: expressions on performers’ and speakers’ faces, close-
ups of singers’ faces and of musicians’ fingers as they perform, and so on.
The logic of amplification—of whose face and figure is amplified and pro-
jected, how often each individual is amplified, and when this occurs—is part

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
The Experience Megachurch 47

Figure 5
Prominent stage at Lakewood Church. Large di-
mensions are made to look full and substantial by
the presence of musicians and instruments (not
shown in picture), structural features such as the
choir partition, the large choir or backup vocalist
group, and the symbolic large globe sculpture in
the left of stage.
Source: Author photograph

of a charismatic emphasis that fits into the megachurch’s authority structure.

Clearly, the main priority is the speaker, most commonly the lead pastor, or
the associate pastor and guest speakers chosen and invited by the lead pastor
(Figure 6). Secondarily, the faces and bodies of singers and performers are pe-
riodically amplified, although, given the larger number of these, each individ-
ual gets much less screen time compared to the lead pastor. The possible ex-
ception is the main worship leader (where there is one) who repeatedly leads
the church worship each week, and who is thus almost as closely associated
with the church brand as the lead pastor. Image amplification of the experi-
ence megachurch’s key leaders—something which is not commonly practiced
in the majority of churches, where screens only project song lyrics and speak-
ers’ slides—operates on several levels. As with film stars, the projection of the
speaker’s face on a large scale creates a sense of shared intimacy with viewers,
a sense that the speaker’s emotions and inner states are freely accessible (Han,
2016, pp. 61–65).
Image amplification also reinforces the “mega” status of key leaders, so that
they are literally larger than life, looming over the congregation from the high
projection screen. Malcolm Gladwell (2005) has shown the “very positive un-
conscious associations” of being tall, particularly in “positions of authority,”
even at a basic cognitive level when viewers are not aware of making such

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
48 Goh

Figure 6
Large screens at Lakewood amplify the animated
facial expressions and gestures of Associate Pastor
John Gray as he preaches.
Source: Author photograph

­ ositive associations (pp. 86–88). The size and vertical orientation of many of
p
the images of megachurch leaders work in a similar fashion to reinforce stature
and authority at a basic cognitive level. Image amplification on the large screens
during services works in tandem with other means of image-projection else-
where in the church landscape, such as large banners, posters, projected im-
ages, window displays, and other physical and digital media (Figures 3 and 4).
These ensure that the congregation is literally and constantly looking up to the
image of the lead pastor and other select leaders.
This is not to suggest that charisma operates purely at this grounded level.
Clearly, the message of the pastor, the voice and musical qualities of the wor-
ship leader, structured social interactions, and other factors must come into
play. Pragmatic-semiotic factors such as stage elevation, image amplification,
the projection of facial expressions and gestures, and other such techniques
reinforce the presence and authority of individuals whose leadership of the
church is already established via other credentials. Yet these factors are impor-
tant in distinguishing megachurch leaders from leaders of other churches
which do not employ these techniques. These techniques also allow experi-
ence megachurches to establish and maintain a strict hierarchy in which fea-
tured and amplified leaders—the lead pastor and other select individuals—
are closely associated with the leadership of the church, whereas other staff

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
The Experience Megachurch 49

(for example, some of the associate pastors and/or the musicians) are given
less authoritative reinforcement.

3.3 The Stimulation

Megachurch participation is not a passive process, but a characteristically ac-
tive one, in which stimulation plays a crucial role. One of the main reasons
offered by Christians who leave their mainline denominational churches is
“boredom” arising out of just “sitting there” listening to “predictable” repetitive
messages and going through a “routine” ritual (Roeland, 2009, p. 170; Ellingson,
2016, p. 65). While it is well known that Pentecostalism and particularly mega-
churches thrive on offering a more interesting alternative to traditional main-
line services, some of the pragmatic-semiotic bases of that alternative require
more understanding.
One of the key elements of human place-attachment and belonging is “stim-
ulation,” together with other elements like “security” and “identity” (­Ardrey,
2014; Taylor, 1988). In providing stimulation for their congregation members,
megachurches may be doing more than just enticing them to visit and enter-
taining them when they occasionally do so; they may also be building and re-
inforcing a “territorial imperative” that operates at an “innate” level to form af-
fective attachments to a particular space (Taylor, 1988, pp. 45–46). In various
ways, stimulation is done in other churches as well, but is much more overt
and extensive in experience megachurches. Megachurch services have been
accused of being little more than “entertainment,” a “theatre” or variety show
designed to attract an audience accustomed to TV and other similar forms of
popular culture (Thumma & Travis, 2007, p. xxvi; Spinks, 2010, pp. 65–67). Yet
the big difference between megachurch services and many forms of popular
culture is that many of the latter (TV, film, browsing social media) cultivate a
passive viewing stance in which the viewer is essentially (whatever the inner
state of excitement and entertainment) a detached observer. In megachurch
services, stimulation through activity and participation is key; congregation
members are constantly made to feel like they are a crucial part of an active
and vital church.
Megachurch stimulation takes place through a variety of techniques. These
include vocal participation—megachurch congregations are encouraged to
respond vocally outside of the musical worship, for example, in shouts of sup-
port and emphasis (such as “yeah!”, “amen!”, “preach it!”, “true!”) to particular
points in the sermon; engage in the common practice of being instructed to
turn to one’s neighbors to repeat an emphatic point made by the speaker; or
participate in periods of “spontaneous prayer,” where the congregation is asked
to stand and simultaneously make individual prayers out loud, creating a loud,

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
50 Goh

indistinct susurration of human speech. “Altar calls” or responses are not al-
ways practiced en masse in megachurches, because of the size of the congrega-
tions and crowdedness of the hall, but they do occur depending on the empha-
sis of the particular megachurch. While many of these practices also occur
outside of experience megachurches, the latter are more likely to insist on a
range of these to keep attendees actively stimulated. Since these practices are
also more deeply culturally ingrained in experience megachurches, there is
also a stronger mimetic factor there, where newer attendees are more likely to
quickly join in, compared to traditional churches where such practices may be
more isolated and infrequent.
In addition to these physical forms of stimulation, other forms may include
the amplified music (in which drumming and rhythm play an important part),
not just during worship but before and after the service as well; the use of la-
sers, spotlights, and colored lights to highlight changes in mood and tempo
(Figures 5 and 7); and the use of lively videos in the midst of sermons to engage
listeners’ attention. The sermon style is a crucial part of the stimulation, and all
megachurches have in common lead pastors who are (in various ways) engag-
ing and entertaining speakers. Hillsong’s Brian Houston and Lakewood’s Joel
Osteen also emphasize visual impact in their preaching styles. They are usually
dressed in well-tailored suits, speak energetically, move around on the stage,

Figure 7
Ceiling lights at Lakewood Church, which change
color to emphasize changes in the tempo and
mood of worship.
Source: Author photograph

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
The Experience Megachurch 51

Figure 8
Public notice at an entrance to Bethel Church
(Redding, California), alerting people to the fact
that they will be recorded (audio and video).
Source: Author photograph

and use emphatic arm and body gestures. Hillsong’s worship deserves particu-
lar mention for its involvement of the congregation in the testing, training (in
collective singing), participation in “live” recording, and publicity and distribu-
tion of its musical CDs (Evans, 2017, p. 72). In the process, the Hillsong congre-
gation becomes mobilized as “free…affective labor,” both acted upon by the
stimulation of worship, as well as acting to reinforce and amplify that affect to
others within the congregation and outside via media products (Wade &
Hynes, 2013, p. 177).
These forms of non-verbal, somatic, and unconscious stimulation comple-
ment the megachurch’s constant narrative (during service and on digital plat-
forms) of activity and growth, such as publicity about the church’s evangelical
and social welfare missions, the opening of new campuses and locations, new
books and musical albums from the church leaders, and the like. Collectively,
the explicit and implicit somatic messaging creates the constant feel of activity
and stimulation that not only offers an alternative to traditional churches that
may be perceived as boring and repetitive, but makes the congregation mem-
bers feel that they are actively a part of a dynamic church. Many online com-
ments and reviews of megachurches (as shown earlier) call attention not just
to the message and teaching, but also to stimulating non-verbal aspects like
the music, lighting, stage effects, and other similar factors.

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
52 Goh

3.4 The Mirroring

Following certain psychological studies, we can speak broadly of an innate
“mirroring” impulse which causes humans to react to and align with behavior
they perceive in other humans. The “mirroring” may take the form of cognitive
recognition and identification, gestural or speech mimesis, “joint action,” and
the discernment of others’ “emotional states” and “intentions” (Rizzolatti et al.,
2002; Knoblich & Jordan, 2002; Cooley, 2015). While aspects of human mirror-
ing are complex and not without controversy, there does seem to be enough
evidence to suggest a cognitive mirroring impulse where the individual’s atti-
tudes and behavior are to varying degrees influenced by that of others, even
where the individual is not particularly conscious of this.
Mirroring and the visual order are important aspects of megachurch prac-
tice. The visual order—the selection, amplification, and (re)iteration (includ-
ing through technology) of visual images—is a distinctive part of megachurch
practice and generally distinguishes megachurches from smaller traditional
churches, which may have some of the same visual technologies like camera
and projection equipment, but do not have a systematic visual strategy. We
have seen in the discussion of “charisma” that the visual amplification of the
image of select leaders is a significant strategy in creating the authority and
influence of those leaders. However, it is not only select leaders who are the
focus of megachurch visual strategies, but the church body itself—the congre-
gation, its activities, its service components such as the worship musicians,
and so on.
Megachurches are distinct from traditional churches in their deliberate
strategy of capturing images of the church body and projecting these for con-
sumption by the church body—in effect, a mirroring of the megachurch body.
Thus, the prominent projection screens in megachurches also serve the func-
tion of mirroring the church’s congregation in order to foster the sense of the
size, activity, and vitality of the church body. The filming of the church congre-
gation is such a ubiquitous occurrence that some megachurches post public
announcements and implicit permission notices at the entrances or flashed on
the screen (Figure 8). Congregations also become accustomed to the promi-
nent presence of recording equipment and crew and to the recording process
as part of the megachurch experience as a whole (Figure 9).
Images and footage of the congregation—during worship, participating in a
church activity such as social welfare or overseas missions, or even just the
crowds arriving at church or waiting to enter the hall—are edited and played
on the large screens, posted on the church webpages or social-media accounts,
and otherwise used to reinforce the sense of the size and influence of the
megachurch. Typically, crowd images are used with an emphasis on large
crowds energetically involved in activities like worship singing, raising their

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
The Experience Megachurch 53

Figure 9
Camera (one of several) on a prominent boom at
Lakewood Church.
Source: Author photograph

hands, dancing, even weeping, and other signs of large-scale engagement. See-
ing these images of itself and participating in the ubiquitous recording process
cultivates in the congregation a sense of being part of something large and sig-
nificant and fosters the need to continue contributing to this by faithful church
attendance and the enthusiastic and visible participation in mass activities like
worship singing and raising of hands. Mirroring thus cultivates the individual’s
association with a group or body (the “family” of the church, as it is often de-
scribed in other church narratives), the impulse to align oneself with the group
identity, activities and, ultimately, values as well. The pragmatics of mirroring
help us understand why the operation of a church like Hillsong ­constitutes a
“doubling…of affect,” a relationship in which attendees are both a “product and
cause of the Hillsong experience” (Wade & Hynes, 2013, pp. 175–176).

4 Conclusion: The Semiotics and Pragmatics of “Big” Religion

It is important to reiterate that a significant part of megachurch popularity

rests on complex narratives which appeal to a variety of congregational needs,
including emotional and psychological needs for redemption, forgiveness,
hope, material aspirations, and others. Yet it is also true that in an age where

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
54 Goh

digital delivery makes such megachurch narratives easily and freely accessible,
megachurch sites themselves continue to be major attractions for thousands
of regular and occasional visitors. In order to understand the continuing at-
tractiveness of megachurches as physical sites, it is important to understand
the material basis of megachurch services and how these have attractive quali-
ties often operating at a basic cognitive and pragmatic level. Optimally, mega-
church narratives and pragmatics complement and reinforce each other to
enhance the influence of these highly popular institutions. This argues for a
continuing relevance for material sites and practices in religion, even within a
highly digital social milieu and a need for understanding the material, cogni-
tive, and pragmatic bases of those material sites.
It has often been said that megachurches represent a rapprochement be-
tween religion and various aspects of consumer culture (Hoover, 2000; Bowler,
2013; Sharpe, 2013; Ellingson, 2016). This is also to say that the two spheres of
social behavior share (among other things) several cognitive and pragmat-
ic features. Phenomena from consumer and popular culture, such as con-
certs and sporting events, political rallies, live talk shows, celebrity fandom,
branding and marketing events, and the like, have long relied on features such
as an emphasis on the “mega,” the “charisma” of select individuals, the “stimu-
lation” of audiences, and the “mirroring” of audience behavior. Comparing
megachurch strategies with those of certain popular cultural events calls at-
tention to the oft-ignored and under-analyzed semiotic and pragmatic bases
of both sets of phenomena. What is said of megachurches can also be ap-
plied mutatis mutandis to other religions as well, where material practices,
based on ­semiotic-pragmatic features, are redefining the place of those reli-
gions vis-à-vis secular practices and the practices of more traditional religious
institutions.

References

Anderson, A. (2004). An Introduction to Pentecostalism. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.
Ardrey, R. (2014). The Territorial Imperative: A Personal Investigation into the Animal
Origins of Property and Nations. Ames, IA: StoryDesign Limited.
Ball, S. J. (2013). Foucault, Power and Education. New York: Routledge.
Barnes, S. L. (2010). Black Megachurch Culture: Models for Education and Empowerment.
New York: Peter Lang.
Bergunder, M. (2008). The South Indian Pentecostal Movement in the Twentieth Century.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
The Experience Megachurch 55

Bowler, K. (2013). Blessed: A History of the American Prosperity Gospel. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cooley, D. R. (2015). Death’s Values and Obligations: A Pragmatic Framework. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Darmer, P. and Sundbo, J. (2008). Introduction to Experience Creation. In: J. Sundbo
and P. Darmer, eds., Creating Experiences in the Experience Economy. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar, pp. 1–12.
Debo, L. G. and Veeraraghavan, S. K. (2009). Models of Herding Behavior in Operations
Management. In: S. Netessine and C. S. Tang, eds., Consumer-Driven Demand and
Operations Management. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 81–114.
Drury, J. and Stott, C. (2013). Contextualising the Crowd in Contemporary Social Sci-
ence. In: J. Drury and C. Stott, eds., Crowds in the 21st Century: Perspectives from Con-
temporary Social Science. London: Routledge, pp. 3–16.
Ehrat, J. (2011). Power of Scandal: Semiotic and Pragmatic in Mass Media. Toronto: Uni-
versity of Toronto Press.
Ellingson, S. (2016). Packaging Religious Experience, Selling Modular Religion: Ex-
plaining the Emergence and Expansion of Megachurches. In: F. Gauthier and
T. Martikainen, eds., Religion in Consumer Society: Brands, Consumers and Markets.
Milton Park: Routledge, pp. 59–74.
Evans, M. (2017). Creating the Hillsong Sound: How One Church Changed Australian
Christian Music. In: T. Riches and T. Wagner, eds., The Hillsong Movement Examined:
You Call Me Out Upon the Waters. Cham, CH: Palgrave Macmillan/Springer Nature,
pp. 63–83.
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by A. Sher-
idan. New York: Vintage Books.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New
York: Basic Books.
Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. New York: Little,
Brown and Company.
Goh, R. B. H. (2008). Hillsong and “Megachurch” Practice: Semiotics, Spatial Logic, and
the Embodiment of Contemporary Evangelical Protestantism. Material Religion
4 (3), pp. 284–304.
Goh, R. B. H. (2018). Memorializing Genocide: Embodied Semiotics in Concentration
Camp Memorials. Social Semiotics 28 (1), pp 18–40.
Han, S. (2016). Technologies of Religion: Spheres of the Sacred in a Post-Secular Moder-
nity. Abingdon: Routledge.
Harkness, N. (2014). Songs of Seoul: An Ethnography of Voice and Voicing in South Korea.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hartford Institute for Religion Research. (2015). Megachurches. Retrieved from http://
hirr.hartsem.edu/megachurch/megachurches.html.

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
56 Goh

Hillsong Church. (2017). Annual Report. Retrieved from https://d9nqqwcssctr8.cloud

front.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/02064537/Hillsong_Church_Annual
_Report_2017-66-FINAL-Updated-3-Hires.pdf.
Hoover, S. M. (2000). The Cross at Willow Creek: Seeker Religion and the Contempo-
rary Marketplace. In: B. D. Forbes and J. H. Mahan, eds., Religion and Popular Culture
in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 145–159.
Hovland, I. (2016). Christianity, Place/Space, and Anthropology: Thinking Across
­Recent Research on Evangelical Place-Making. Religion 46 (3), pp. 331–358.
Hracs, B. J. and Jakob, D. (2015). Selling the Stage: Exploring the Spatial and Temporal
Dimensions of Interactive Cultural Experiences. In: A. Lorentzen, K. Topsø Larsen,
and L. Schrøder, eds., Spatial Dynamics in the Experience Economy. Abingdon: Rout-
ledge, pp. 71–87.
Klingman, A. (2010). Brandscapes: Architecture in the Experience Economy. Cambridge:
mit Press.
Knoblich, G. and Jordan, J. S. (2002). The Mirror System and Joint Action. In: M. I.
Stamenov and V. Gallese, eds., Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Lan-
guage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 115–124.
Lakewood Church. (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from https://www
.lakewoodchurch.com/Pages/contact-us/frequently-asked-questions.aspx.
Lakewood Church. (n.d.). Lakewood Experience. Retrieved from https://www.lake
woodchurch.com/lakewood-experience.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the
Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chica-
go Press.
Loveland, A. C. and Wheeler, O. B. (2003). From Meetinghouse to Megachurch: A Mate-
rial and Cultural History. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.
Markula, P. and Pringle, R. (2006). Foucault, Sport and Exercise: Power, Knowledge and
Transforming the Self. London: Routledge.
Marti, G. (2017). The Global Phenomenon of Hillsong Church: An Initial Assessment.
Sociology of Religion 78 (4), pp. 377–386.
McGrath, A. (2013). Dance Theatre in Ireland: Revolutionary Moves. Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Morsy, S. A. (1998). Not Only Women: Science as Resistance in Open Door Egypt.” In:
M. Lock and P. A. Kaufert, eds., Pragmatic Women and Body Politics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 77–97.
Parret, H. (1983). Semiotics and Pragmatics: An Evaluative Comparison of Conceptual
Frameworks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Paterson, Mark. (2007). The Sense of Touch: Haptics, Affects and Technologies. Oxford:
Berg.

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
The Experience Megachurch 57

Peirce, C. S. (1955). Philosophical Writings of Peirce, J. Buchler, ed. New York: Dover
Publications.
Pew Research Centre. (2006). Spirit and Power: A 10-Country Survey of Pentecostals.
­Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/2006/10/05/spirit-and-power/.
Pietropaolo, D. (2016). Semiotics and Pragmatics of Stage Improvisation. London:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Pine, B. J. II and Gilmore, J. H. (2011). The Experience Economy (updated edition). Bos-
ton: Harvard Business School Review Press.
Ratcliff, C. C. (n.d.). He’s Waiting to Hear From You [Joel Osteen Ministries web post].
Retrieved from https://www.joelosteen.com/Pages/Article.aspx?articleid=6484.
Reicher, S. (2013). Mass Action and Mundane Reality: An Argument for Putting Crowd
Analysis at the Centre of the Social Sciences. In: J. Drury and C. Scott, eds., Crowds
in the 21st Century: Perspectives from Contemporary Social Science. London: Rout-
ledge, pp. 169–185.
Rizzolatti, G., Craighero, L. and Fadiga, L. (2002). The Mirror System in Humans. In:
M. I. Stamenov and V. Gallese, eds., Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and
Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 37–61.
Roeland, J. (2009). Selfation: Dutch Evangelical Youth Between Subjectivization and Sub-
jection. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Sharpe, M. (2013). Name It and Claim It: Prosperity Gospel and the Global Pentecostal
Reformation. In: M. Clarke, ed., Handbook of Research on Development and Religion.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 164–180.
Singer, M. (1991). Semiotics of Cities, Selves and Cultures: Explorations in Semiotic An-
thropology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Spinks, B. D. (2010). The Worship Mall: Contemporary Responses to Contemporary Cul-
ture. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
Sproul, R. C. (1985). The Holiness of God. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale.
Stevenson, J. (2013). Sensational Devotion: Evangelical Performance in Twenty-First-­
Century America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Taylor, R. B. (1988). Human Territorial Functioning: An Empirical, Evolutionary Perspec-
tive on Individual and Small Group Territorial Cognitions, Behaviors, and Conse-
quences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thumma, S. and Travis, D. (2007). Beyond Megachurch Myths: What We Can Learn from
America’s Largest Churches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Thumma, S. and Bird, W. (2015). Recent Shifts in America’s Largest Protestant Church-
es: Megachurch 2015 Report. Retrieved from Leadership Institute and Hartford
­Institute for Religion Research website http://hirr.hartsem.edu/megachurch/2015
_Megachurches_Report.pdf.
Violi, P. (2008). Beyond the Body: Towards a Full Embodied Semiosis. In: R. Frank,
R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, and E. Bernadez, eds., Body, Language and Mind, Volume 2:
Sociocultural Situatedness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 53–76.

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access
58 Goh

Wade, M. and Hynes, M. (2013). Worshipping Bodies: Affective Labour in the Hillsong
Church. Geographical Research 51 (2), pp. 173–179.
Waterton, E. and Watson, S. (2014). The Semiotics of Heritage Tourism. Bristol: Channel
View Publications.
Yong, A. (2000). Discerning the Spirits: A Pentecostal-Charismatic to Christian Theology
of Religions. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.
Zaimov, S. (2016). Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church Ranked America’s Largest Mega-
church with 52,000 Weekly Attendance. The Christian Post, September 8. Retrieved
from https://www.christianpost.com/news/joel-osteens-lakewood-church-ranked
-americas-largest-megachurch-with-52k-in-attendance-169279/.

journal of religion, media and digital culture 9 (2020) 33-58

Downloaded from Brill.com 09/25/2024 12:54:33PM
via free access