There are a lot of "Best Church" lists. The "Fastest Growing Churches" and the "Largest Churches in America" lists are always popular (PDF of 100 Fastest-Growing in 2006). A few months ago I came across a list of the "50 Most Influential Churches in America." Wikipedia has a list of the "Tallest Churches in the World," tallness being an obvious factor in church health. And now I've discovered a list of the "25 Most Innovative Churches in America." They are mostly megachurches with high name recognition.

I'm sure there might be, somewhere in America, a fellowship of 50 believers laboring in a slum amidst tremendous poverty and adversity, doing things that no other church in the country is doing, and getting by on pocket-change resources. But can that church rank among the country's most innovative churches? Absolutely not. Not with a mere 50 people. Heck, they don't even count. Might as well not exist. Fifty people? Who gives a rip?

These lists are not "the 25 Most Innovative Churches with Over 2000 Attenders," but just the most innovative churches in general, and the results imply that smaller churches either don't count or just don't cut it. Now, I'm not big-church bashing. Many of these churches display an incredibly focused passion for reaching the lost, and we can learn much from them. But the adulation, hero worship, and self-congratulation that often surrounds megachurches is not necessarily a wonderful thing which thrills the heart of Jesus.

While there are about 400,000 churches in the United States, the "Best Church" oscars generally get circulated among the 1200 megachurches. For example, 15 churches placed among both the "25 Most Influential" and "25 Most Innovative" churches. How cozy. Over 400,000 churches to choose from, but they round up the usual suspects.

Around 20 years ago, people thought of megachurches as having at least 1000 people. Now, membership in the Megachurch Club requires at least 2000 people. I guess way too many churches were crashing what had been an exclusive party, so they raised the admission fee. Riff-raff churches with a mere 1400 people (most likely non-innovative people) became bouncer-bait. It's good to have high standards. Even then, the club is swelling and becoming less intimate. In 1990, the US had 350 megachurches. By 2000, there were 900 megachurches. Among the current 1200 megachurches, the average attendance exceeds 3800. So now there's a Premium membership--the Gigachurch, for congregations with 10,000+ people (currently, about 35 members).

The 1200 megachurches represent .3% of all congregations (not 3%, but three-tenths of a percent). But they get all of the kudos because, as James 2 tells us, we should go out of our way to recognize the rich and influential and famous. But I'd like to suggest some other "Best Church" lists that nobody will bother crafting, because it would entail recognizing those inconsequential 99.7% of churches that don't qualify for the Megachurch Club, and therefore do nothing meaningful for the Kingdom.

For example, these lists might be interesting:

• Churches that don't have lots of money and their pastor isn't the most gifted fellow, but they have a great heart and try real hard.
• Churches least interested in entertaining themselves.
• Churches that best integrate evangelism with a keen social conscience.
• Most effective landlocked churches--no room for more parking or building--that refuse to leave their community to build a new campus on farmland with highway access, so that they can become a megachurch and make a Best Church list.
• Churches that, per capita, give the most money to missions (small churches would dominate this list).
• Churches with the smallest proportion of worship attenders who are just spectators, rather than active Christians.
• Churches that intentionally locate themselves in poor communities, rather than merely "go to the poor" on mini mission excursions and feel really good about themselves when they return to their suburban cathedrals.
• Most innovative churches with less than (choose one: 100, 200, 500) people.
• Churches located in wealthy suburbs with the largest number of low-income people attending regularly.
• Churches with the largest proportion of people actively involved in ministry.
• Churches with the lowest average income among its lay leaders.
• Churches that have maintained a positive reputation and influence in their community for the longest period of years.
• The smallest churches that have intentionally given away the most people to start other churches.

When I write this kind of stuff, people assume I'm just a traditional small-church guy who is insanely jealous of large churches, and takes gratuitous potshots at highly visible targets. I have never attended a church that wasn't innovating and reaching the lost and growing; I could never be satisfied sitting in the pews of a status quo church, of which there are legion. But I don't think megachurches are the final word in faithfulness, nor the only qualified candidates for "Best" lists.