When I was applying to become a French citizen, I had to go to an interview and prove my integration in society. Given the French secular state, church attendance was the one thing I absolutely was not allowed to mention. Membership of an orchestra did the trick.
When I was applying to become a French citizen, I had to go to an interview and prove my integration in society. Given the French secular state, church attendance was the one thing I absolutely was not allowed to mention. Membership of an orchestra did the trick.
That reminds me of a common question in the evangelical church of the Days Of My Youth - 'If being a Christian was illegal, would there be enough evidence to convict you?'...
When I was applying to become a French citizen, I had to go to an interview and prove my integration in society. Given the French secular state, church attendance was the one thing I absolutely was not allowed to mention. Membership of an orchestra did the trick.
That reminds me of a common question in the evangelical church of the Days Of My Youth - 'If being a Christian was illegal, would there be enough evidence to convict you?'...
When I was applying to become a French citizen, I had to go to an interview and prove my integration in society. Given the French secular state, church attendance was the one thing I absolutely was not allowed to mention. Membership of an orchestra did the trick.
That reminds me of a common question in the evangelical church of the Days Of My Youth - 'If being a Christian was illegal, would there be enough evidence to convict you?'...
I think it was @Baptist Trainfan who observed how The Forsyth Saga was blamed for the decline of evening service attendance in the 1960s.
Allegedly, anyway ... and, a bit later (and bizarrely), "Jesus of Nazareth".
You mean it was thought that people stopped attending evening services so they could stay home and watch Jesus Of Nazreth?
If so, yeah, that's pretty wacky, seeing as how there were only four episodes, broadcast over a time-period of no more than one month. I suspect this was just religious technophobia, ie. people didn't like the idea of Jesus being portrayed on television, and were just cooking up a causal connection between the miniseries and low church-attendance.
Yes, that is 'bizarrely', although I do know a few people of my generation and above, myself included, who were profoundly affected by that TV production.
As I think I mentioned on a thread-tangent related to Anne Bancroft a while back, we watched Jesus Of Nazareth in high-school religion class. Can't say I was profoundly affected by it, 'cept that it mighta been my first intro to the venerable genre of "make-work project for washed-up British thespians".
I did later read an amusing recollection by Anthony Burgess of writing the script, in which he stated that his Italian collaborators wanted Jesus to stutter on the first two words of the Lord's Prayer, so the Italian subtitles would read as a tribute to the Pope. Burgess vetoed that, of course.
Goodness me, @stetson! I thought I was cynical ... 😉
I was actually quite moved by it inspite of myself.
But I think you're right about people citing implausibly citing it as a reason why people weren't attending evening church services, as though it could all be blamed on a 4-week TV series.
It strikes me that people tend to look for some catch-all single cause for this, that or the other happening or not happening.
Way back when I can remember all sorts of daft reasons cited as to why some church initiative or other hadn't gone as well as expected.
Everything from there being an 'r' in the month or something equally random to Satanists praying 'against' it (really?) to whatever loopy-doppy reason was flavour of the month at the time.
Equally, the impression is sometimes given that of only churches did this, that or the other then everything would be fine and dandy and revival would break out.
There's no formula or magic bullet any more than there's a single factor as to why people don't attend church.
We may as well 'blame' the Enlightenment, the Reformation, the Great Schism, the fall-out between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christians ... and people do.
When I was applying to become a French citizen, I had to go to an interview and prove my integration in society. Given the French secular state, church attendance was the one thing I absolutely was not allowed to mention. Membership of an orchestra did the trick.
Yikes. I hope that’s changed. Wait… Do you mean that church attendance disqualified you from citizenship, or that it just didn’t count for integration in society? I read it the first way at first, which sounds quite jarring.
Goodness me, @stetson! I thought I was cynical ... 😉
I was actually quite moved by it inspite of myself.
For atmospheric context, a few dozen of us were herded into an empty, curtained-off section of the library to watch the series, probably not the most ideal set-up for an emotional interaction with the narrative.
When I watched Anne Bancroft's scenes a few months back, I was struck by how much the script added extra-biblical situations, characters, and dialogue, and engaged in mildly adult innuendo. I think I had remembered it more as a straightforward adaptation.
Somewhat counter my earlier "cynicism", I will register the observation that, by the standards of cinematic sinecures for shakespearean grandees, Jesus Of Nazareth ranks thighs-and-knees above The Betsy, The Jazz Singer, Caligula, and Inchon. I think the only other Zeffirelli film I've seen is Romeo and Juliet, in my late 40s just a few years ago, and it was not really my cuppa tea, so I'm probably not the best judge of his work.
But I think you're right about people citing implausibly citing it as a reason why people weren't attending evening church services, as though it could all be blamed on a 4-week TV series.
On the theme of self-pitying ecclesiastical resentment of pop-culture, a Canadian Catholic church of my acquaintance once advertised its youth -group as "a refreshing change from hockey".
It strikes me that people tend to look for some catch-all single cause for this, that or the other happening or not happening.
Often citing regionally-specific influences as the culprit for trends that are, in fact, widespread across the west, eg. "Of course no one in Sweden goes to church anymore, the all-encompassing welfare state has sapped them of any sense of spiritual salvation."
When I was applying to become a French citizen, I had to go to an interview and prove my integration in society. Given the French secular state, church attendance was the one thing I absolutely was not allowed to mention. Membership of an orchestra did the trick.
Yikes. I hope that’s changed. Wait… Do you mean that church attendance disqualified you from citizenship, or that it just didn’t count for integration in society? I read it the first way at first, which sounds quite jarring.
No no no, definitely the latter reading! The French State makes a point of not taking an interest in anyone's religious affiliation. It's explicitly excluded from census data, for example. Given that French history includes a state-sponsored religious genocide, the reasons for that are not all bad ones.
When I was applying to become a French citizen, I had to go to an interview and prove my integration in society. Given the French secular state, church attendance was the one thing I absolutely was not allowed to mention. Membership of an orchestra did the trick.
Yikes. I hope that’s changed. Wait… Do you mean that church attendance disqualified you from citizenship, or that it just didn’t count for integration in society? I read it the first way at first, which sounds quite jarring.
No no no, definitely the latter reading! The French State makes a point of not taking an interest in anyone's religious affiliation. It's explicitly excluded from census data, for example. Given that French history includes a state-sponsored religious genocide, the reasons for that are not all bad ones.
Wasnt there a move to ban the hijab? Or have I mis-remembered.
Interesting post + comments here from a US perspective in a Reddit forum called FauxMoi - it's mostly a celebrity news/gossip subreddit (though also does post some general current affairs content) with a membership mostly made up of Millennial/Gen Z women and LGBTQ+ people who are mostly US-based.
The post is about a TikTok poster who has been calling various churches and religious organisations in her area around I think East Tennessee (so a church-dense area) to see if they would provide formula for her hypothetical small baby during the SNAP benefits (aka food stamps) freeze in the US due to the government shutdown. So far she has got 9 yeses and 28 nos, with the yeses strongly featuring RCs (but not Episcopalians!), historically Black churches, the local mosque and the local Buddhist centre. The comments make for interesting reading on how different denominations especially RCs are percieved in this light.
Thinking about comments throughout this thread about young men in particular seeking churches in larger numbers, I wonder if part of the reason that young women aren't also following this trend in some churches/denominations is that women are more likely to have greater material needs due to being more likely to be primary caregivers - and churches aren't necessarily meeting those needs as well as non-Christian or secular organisations.
Another post about it here. This post features the TikTok poster contacting Charlie Kirk's former church where the pastor spoke against Zohran Mamdani, claiming that it's the Church's job to care for the poor and not the government's job. That church also refused to provide a can of formula.
Now I should say that this hasn't been my experience of seeking help from churches (of many denominations) in the UK, nor indeed from international folks on the Ship. The problem seems to be more with the large multi-campus churches/megachurches, and I would be interested to see if they are having any growth and what demographics are visiting. But regardless it is certainly sobering viewing.
I've seen some pushback on the reporting, claiming that the caller pushed hard for cash and refused to accept referrals to services that the church supported or partnered with who could help, which led churches to suspect a scam. There was also some suggestion that in many churches if you phone you'll get admin staff who don't have discretion to hand out church cash.
I've seen some pushback on the reporting, claiming that the caller pushed hard for cash and refused to accept referrals to services that the church supported or partnered with who could help, which led churches to suspect a scam. There was also some suggestion that in many churches if you phone you'll get admin staff who don't have discretion to hand out church cash.
Yes, it's quite understandable if someone with access to church funds would hesitate about giving it to some rando on the phone to feed a baby that no one has seen.
(In fact, doesn't raising money for fictitious problems legally constitute fraud in most places? Not that I really care myself, since I think it's the giver's responsibility to check things out, but I do believe that's usually the law.)
I've seen some pushback on the reporting, claiming that the caller pushed hard for cash and refused to accept referrals to services that the church supported or partnered with who could help, which led churches to suspect a scam. There was also some suggestion that in many churches if you phone you'll get admin staff who don't have discretion to hand out church cash.
Yes, it's quite understandable if someone with access to church funds would hesitate about giving it to some rando on the phone to feed a baby that no one has seen.
(In fact, doesn't raising money for fictitious problems legally constitute fraud in most places? Not that I really care myself, since I think it's the giver's responsibility to check things out, but I do believe that's usually the law.)
So then why did other churches/places of worship not hesitate? Can a megachurch not afford to take the risk on a can of formula?
I've seen some pushback on the reporting, claiming that the caller pushed hard for cash and refused to accept referrals to services that the church supported or partnered with who could help, which led churches to suspect a scam. There was also some suggestion that in many churches if you phone you'll get admin staff who don't have discretion to hand out church cash.
Yes, it's quite understandable if someone with access to church funds would hesitate about giving it to some rando on the phone to feed a baby that no one has seen.
(In fact, doesn't raising money for fictitious problems legally constitute fraud in most places? Not that I really care myself, since I think it's the giver's responsibility to check things out, but I do believe that's usually the law.)
But they weren't asking for money, they were literally asking for baby formula.
Well, I was responding to @Arethosemyfeet's post, which reported claims that they were "pushing hard for cash".
I've seen some pushback on the reporting, claiming that the caller pushed hard for cash and refused to accept referrals to services that the church supported or partnered with who could help, which led churches to suspect a scam. There was also some suggestion that in many churches if you phone you'll get admin staff who don't have discretion to hand out church cash.
I know some of the services required the person to be a church member or to participate in church services before they had access to eg a food bank. I'm skeptical about the claims that the caller pushed hard for cash given that the caller had no problems saying when churches did offer to help with providing formula. Also, even if it WAS a scam, a megachurch can afford to risk losing $20 for formula. Refusing to help with baby formula for fear of a scam doesn't seem like being a "cheerful giver" to me. Also, church offices almost always have access to petty cash and it's not like admin staff couldn't be reimbursed if necessary.
My point, however, was less about the specifics of the reporting and more about how gender is going to impact interactions with churches, and what that means for discussions around increasing seekers and a question of revival - and also about how different optics can be even for churches with a lot of PR issues such as the RCC. I found it really interesting that there were a lot of positive comments about RC churches walking the walk when it comes to helping people in need, even while acknowledging the more conservative stances of the Church. The comments were more nuanced than I expected.
I've seen some pushback on the reporting, claiming that the caller pushed hard for cash and refused to accept referrals to services that the church supported or partnered with who could help, which led churches to suspect a scam. There was also some suggestion that in many churches if you phone you'll get admin staff who don't have discretion to hand out church cash.
Yes, it's quite understandable if someone with access to church funds would hesitate about giving it to some rando on the phone to feed a baby that no one has seen.
(In fact, doesn't raising money for fictitious problems legally constitute fraud in most places? Not that I really care myself, since I think it's the giver's responsibility to check things out, but I do believe that's usually the law.)
So then why did other churches/places of worship not hesitate? Can a megachurch not afford to take the risk on a can of formula?
Because they haven't formalised their processes for dealing with such things. A discretionary fund may work when an organisation is very small, but it doesn't scale when you have a lot of staff (an open fund for discretionary withdrawals is a possible source of obvious abuse).
A certain Anglo-Catholic church in South London was notorious at the end of the 19thC for requiring church attendance before charity (often in the form of what the Victorians referred to as 'Coals') was handed out.
Also, church offices almost always have access to petty cash and it's not like admin staff couldn't be reimbursed if necessary.
Petty cash has been digitised in many larger organisations.
This feels like special pleading. You're telling me that a member of a megachurch's admin team couldn't offer to send over an UberEats (or whatever local service offers grocery delivery) with baby formula and get reimbursed by the finance team later? Anyone with a smartphone and PayPal could offer to order the caller some formula.
I feel like acting like huge wealthy churches being less able to spare $20 for baby formula than a small parish church is normal and reasonable is part of the problem. Plus, many small parish churches also refused to help.
Also, it's not like the RCC is a small outfit here, and many areas have huge parish churches serving a huge area. Likewise in an area where a mosque might be less common, they tend to be large and cover a large local area.
The RCC has lay led international charity, the SVP (Society of St Vincent de Paul) which in these parts exists to help people in extremist. There is a branch in almost every parish. They raise and control their own funds. Our local branch only ever asks what the need is. It helps that they are independent of official church structures and employees.
I was just speaking to my son about this issue, as he's currently serving as church office admin for our host congregation. And we ourselves spent about ten years living in a parsonage attached to the church building--so we got people at our front door asking every week. And our difficulty was that, not only were we poor, but we had people coming to ask for canned food because they could "return" it to the nearest grocery store for cash--they wouldn't take anything that couldn't be returned. And if we failed to discern the real needs from the false, the next day we had six more people knocking to ask for canned goods. Which was scary in a neighborhood with that many murders!
We did refer most people to Lutheran Family and Children's Services, especially if they wanted rent money, which we could rarely afford, being refugees. Beyond that we offered cooked food and/or Asian food to sort the real from the false (eat and we'll give you whatever you need, including money!).
We got cursed a lot, and sometimes we found our gifts dumped in the bushes. So discernment isn't easy.
My son will have the added problem of trying to answer real need while not creating a huge problem for our host congregation down the road with the organized beggars in whose territory our building stands. So far he's planning to refer them to our food pantry, to LF&CS as usual, and if in his judgement he gets someone who needs more, he's giving them our family phone number. We'll try to work things out from there.
I'm not looking forward to this, but I don't see how else to balance our responsibilities--to Christ and his little ones above all.
Coming back to @Pomona's question as why it largely seems to be young men who are seeking out churches in larger numbers than hitherto and not young women.
I really don't know.
I don't know whether young men spend more time online than young women but all those I speak to seem to spend a lot of time watching videos by online influencers and various Christian videos across the board.
Some of them were telling mrvthis morning how they like to watch the antics of Pentecostal preachers and some were saying they'd like to attend such services because it 'looks like fun' and they'd find it funny to see people falling over and rolling around.
They'll watch a heavy metal video one minute then switch to a sermon or church service.
Most of what they've gleaned about the Christian faith seems to come from online sources.
I don't know what young women are following or looking at online.
@Lamb Chopped I definitely see the issues for churches which are themselves not wealthy, and also the risks involved. I do think that the comments in the Reddit posts were more nuanced on this than I expected, and the real ire is reserved for the genuinely wealthy McMegachurch places - not least due to them denying help while also being highly critical of government help programmes (and not because they think that the programmes should be more generous). I think there is definitely a recognition of the work that churches with large immigrant communities do to help people in their area.
@Gamma Gamaliel do the young men ever comment on the fact that young women aren't going to churches in the same numbers, or showing the same curiosity about church? Of course, gender demographics vary a lot by denomination too and in others a rise in young men attending may just be balancing out existing numbers.
I don't know a whole lot about megachurches, my denomination doesn't really have that sort of thing. I wonder if the megachurches you saw mentioned actually belong to any particular church body, or if they are independent--more or less a law unto themselves? Because if that's what's going on, that might explain both the help denial and the criticism of government help. I mean, it's easier to go off the rails in the direction of nationalism when you don't have other congregations you're enmeshed with to keep you on the straight and narrow. And when you're huge and wealthy, pride is always waiting to take you down...
I don't know a whole lot about megachurches, my denomination doesn't really have that sort of thing. I wonder if the megachurches you saw mentioned actually belong to any particular church body, or if they are independent--more or less a law unto themselves? Because if that's what's going on, that might explain both the help denial and the criticism of government help. I mean, it's easier to go off the rails in the direction of nationalism when you don't have other congregations you're enmeshed with to keep you on the straight and narrow. And when you're huge and wealthy, pride is always waiting to take you down...
Megachurches are overwhelmingly non-denominational and independent or part of a "brand" like Hillsong - afaik the former situation is vastly more common. Sometimes there are a few churches run by one church but they are culturally one church across multiple sites. I don't know if churches like Doug Wilson's place in Moscow, Idaho would count as a megachurch.
Comments
That reminds me of a common question in the evangelical church of the Days Of My Youth - 'If being a Christian was illegal, would there be enough evidence to convict you?'...
Which kind of goes to the RCL Gospel lesson for next week.
Indeed it does, and IIRC that passage was often quoted (in the King James Version, of course), back in those olden days
You mean it was thought that people stopped attending evening services so they could stay home and watch Jesus Of Nazreth?
If so, yeah, that's pretty wacky, seeing as how there were only four episodes, broadcast over a time-period of no more than one month. I suspect this was just religious technophobia, ie. people didn't like the idea of Jesus being portrayed on television, and were just cooking up a causal connection between the miniseries and low church-attendance.
As I think I mentioned on a thread-tangent related to Anne Bancroft a while back, we watched Jesus Of Nazareth in high-school religion class. Can't say I was profoundly affected by it, 'cept that it mighta been my first intro to the venerable genre of "make-work project for washed-up British thespians".
I did later read an amusing recollection by Anthony Burgess of writing the script, in which he stated that his Italian collaborators wanted Jesus to stutter on the first two words of the Lord's Prayer, so the Italian subtitles would read as a tribute to the Pope. Burgess vetoed that, of course.
I was actually quite moved by it inspite of myself.
But I think you're right about people citing implausibly citing it as a reason why people weren't attending evening church services, as though it could all be blamed on a 4-week TV series.
It strikes me that people tend to look for some catch-all single cause for this, that or the other happening or not happening.
Way back when I can remember all sorts of daft reasons cited as to why some church initiative or other hadn't gone as well as expected.
Everything from there being an 'r' in the month or something equally random to Satanists praying 'against' it (really?) to whatever loopy-doppy reason was flavour of the month at the time.
Equally, the impression is sometimes given that of only churches did this, that or the other then everything would be fine and dandy and revival would break out.
There's no formula or magic bullet any more than there's a single factor as to why people don't attend church.
We may as well 'blame' the Enlightenment, the Reformation, the Great Schism, the fall-out between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christians ... and people do.
It's all far more complicated than any of that.
Yikes. I hope that’s changed. Wait… Do you mean that church attendance disqualified you from citizenship, or that it just didn’t count for integration in society? I read it the first way at first, which sounds quite jarring.
For atmospheric context, a few dozen of us were herded into an empty, curtained-off section of the library to watch the series, probably not the most ideal set-up for an emotional interaction with the narrative.
When I watched Anne Bancroft's scenes a few months back, I was struck by how much the script added extra-biblical situations, characters, and dialogue, and engaged in mildly adult innuendo. I think I had remembered it more as a straightforward adaptation.
Somewhat counter my earlier "cynicism", I will register the observation that, by the standards of cinematic sinecures for shakespearean grandees, Jesus Of Nazareth ranks thighs-and-knees above The Betsy, The Jazz Singer, Caligula, and Inchon. I think the only other Zeffirelli film I've seen is Romeo and Juliet, in my late 40s just a few years ago, and it was not really my cuppa tea, so I'm probably not the best judge of his work.
On the theme of self-pitying ecclesiastical resentment of pop-culture, a Canadian Catholic church of my acquaintance once advertised its youth -group as "a refreshing change from hockey".
Often citing regionally-specific influences as the culprit for trends that are, in fact, widespread across the west, eg. "Of course no one in Sweden goes to church anymore, the all-encompassing welfare state has sapped them of any sense of spiritual salvation."
No no no, definitely the latter reading! The French State makes a point of not taking an interest in anyone's religious affiliation. It's explicitly excluded from census data, for example. Given that French history includes a state-sponsored religious genocide, the reasons for that are not all bad ones.
Wasnt there a move to ban the hijab? Or have I mis-remembered.
The post is about a TikTok poster who has been calling various churches and religious organisations in her area around I think East Tennessee (so a church-dense area) to see if they would provide formula for her hypothetical small baby during the SNAP benefits (aka food stamps) freeze in the US due to the government shutdown. So far she has got 9 yeses and 28 nos, with the yeses strongly featuring RCs (but not Episcopalians!), historically Black churches, the local mosque and the local Buddhist centre. The comments make for interesting reading on how different denominations especially RCs are percieved in this light.
Thinking about comments throughout this thread about young men in particular seeking churches in larger numbers, I wonder if part of the reason that young women aren't also following this trend in some churches/denominations is that women are more likely to have greater material needs due to being more likely to be primary caregivers - and churches aren't necessarily meeting those needs as well as non-Christian or secular organisations.
Now I should say that this hasn't been my experience of seeking help from churches (of many denominations) in the UK, nor indeed from international folks on the Ship. The problem seems to be more with the large multi-campus churches/megachurches, and I would be interested to see if they are having any growth and what demographics are visiting. But regardless it is certainly sobering viewing.
Yes, it's quite understandable if someone with access to church funds would hesitate about giving it to some rando on the phone to feed a baby that no one has seen.
(In fact, doesn't raising money for fictitious problems legally constitute fraud in most places? Not that I really care myself, since I think it's the giver's responsibility to check things out, but I do believe that's usually the law.)
So then why did other churches/places of worship not hesitate? Can a megachurch not afford to take the risk on a can of formula?
Well, I was responding to @Arethosemyfeet's post, which reported claims that they were "pushing hard for cash".
I know some of the services required the person to be a church member or to participate in church services before they had access to eg a food bank. I'm skeptical about the claims that the caller pushed hard for cash given that the caller had no problems saying when churches did offer to help with providing formula. Also, even if it WAS a scam, a megachurch can afford to risk losing $20 for formula. Refusing to help with baby formula for fear of a scam doesn't seem like being a "cheerful giver" to me. Also, church offices almost always have access to petty cash and it's not like admin staff couldn't be reimbursed if necessary.
My point, however, was less about the specifics of the reporting and more about how gender is going to impact interactions with churches, and what that means for discussions around increasing seekers and a question of revival - and also about how different optics can be even for churches with a lot of PR issues such as the RCC. I found it really interesting that there were a lot of positive comments about RC churches walking the walk when it comes to helping people in need, even while acknowledging the more conservative stances of the Church. The comments were more nuanced than I expected.
Because they haven't formalised their processes for dealing with such things. A discretionary fund may work when an organisation is very small, but it doesn't scale when you have a lot of staff (an open fund for discretionary withdrawals is a possible source of obvious abuse).
Petty cash has been digitised in many larger organisations.
There is nothing new under the Sun.
This feels like special pleading. You're telling me that a member of a megachurch's admin team couldn't offer to send over an UberEats (or whatever local service offers grocery delivery) with baby formula and get reimbursed by the finance team later? Anyone with a smartphone and PayPal could offer to order the caller some formula.
I feel like acting like huge wealthy churches being less able to spare $20 for baby formula than a small parish church is normal and reasonable is part of the problem. Plus, many small parish churches also refused to help.
Also, it's not like the RCC is a small outfit here, and many areas have huge parish churches serving a huge area. Likewise in an area where a mosque might be less common, they tend to be large and cover a large local area.
We did refer most people to Lutheran Family and Children's Services, especially if they wanted rent money, which we could rarely afford, being refugees. Beyond that we offered cooked food and/or Asian food to sort the real from the false (eat and we'll give you whatever you need, including money!).
We got cursed a lot, and sometimes we found our gifts dumped in the bushes. So discernment isn't easy.
My son will have the added problem of trying to answer real need while not creating a huge problem for our host congregation down the road with the organized beggars in whose territory our building stands. So far he's planning to refer them to our food pantry, to LF&CS as usual, and if in his judgement he gets someone who needs more, he's giving them our family phone number. We'll try to work things out from there.
I'm not looking forward to this, but I don't see how else to balance our responsibilities--to Christ and his little ones above all.
It is very hard. Not for nothing did the Lord advise being "wise as serpents and innocent as doves".
Coming back to @Pomona's question as why it largely seems to be young men who are seeking out churches in larger numbers than hitherto and not young women.
I really don't know.
I don't know whether young men spend more time online than young women but all those I speak to seem to spend a lot of time watching videos by online influencers and various Christian videos across the board.
Some of them were telling mrvthis morning how they like to watch the antics of Pentecostal preachers and some were saying they'd like to attend such services because it 'looks like fun' and they'd find it funny to see people falling over and rolling around.
They'll watch a heavy metal video one minute then switch to a sermon or church service.
Most of what they've gleaned about the Christian faith seems to come from online sources.
I don't know what young women are following or looking at online.
@Gamma Gamaliel do the young men ever comment on the fact that young women aren't going to churches in the same numbers, or showing the same curiosity about church? Of course, gender demographics vary a lot by denomination too and in others a rise in young men attending may just be balancing out existing numbers.
Megachurches are overwhelmingly non-denominational and independent or part of a "brand" like Hillsong - afaik the former situation is vastly more common. Sometimes there are a few churches run by one church but they are culturally one church across multiple sites. I don't know if churches like Doug Wilson's place in Moscow, Idaho would count as a megachurch.