The Invasive Dynamic

The invasive dynamic helps explain the global spread and dominance of supermarkets and megachurches

Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash

One profound and prevalent feature of our increasingly globalised world is the seemingly unstoppable onward march and spread of non-native species. It is surprising just how many species around us in our “natural habitats” are in fact non-native. Even some of our most loved and cherished species in the UK, such as horse chestnut trees and rabbits, are not “native to these parts”.

Not all non-natives have an adverse impact on their new homes, some even help increase native biodiversity¹, but there is a subset of non-native species whose impact on our environment is almost always negative: the aptly named “invasive species”. These animals and plants have the ability to take over and dominate natural habitats, outcompete or kill native species, and damage even urban environments.

Our natural ecosystems are finely tuned, complex, and intricate webs of different species and their interactions between each other and their environment. Like with any finely-tuned complex system, a small change can have unpredictable impacts that reverberate throughout the entire ecosystem. Thankfully, the complexity of ecosystems and their property of redundancy² means they are usually resilient to small changes and shocks and are able to bounce back, restoring the natural order. However, a considerable shock or change can knock the system permanently off balance, leading to a cascade of changes and degradation. Invasive species are a prime example of a considerable shock, with their arrival causing extensive and long-lasting changes to the structure and function of ecosystems and their communities.

Why is an invasive species so powerful?

Fundamentally it is because invasive species are novel. Thus the ecosystem is unprepared for their arrival. They are outsiders to the ecological relationships (e.g. predation, symbiosis, and niche partitioning) that have formed over extensive periods of time, keeping the ecosystem in balance, and functioning optimally. However, novelty, though essential, is not in itself enough to cause severe ecological damage. To be an invasive species, a non-native must be able to powerfully exploit their new habitat and become agents of significant change. They do this by subverting or breaking down natural ecological relationships and outcompeting their newly found rivals. Some invasive species are gifted with traits that allow them to rapidly expand in their new habitats, whether by being able to more efficiently utilise resources, or having an adaptation which fits well with their new home thus giving them the competitive edge. Others bring along with them a new disease that the ecosystem has not been exposed to before and has no immunity against, while for other invasives, there are no predators or parasites to keep their numbers in check.

Once they have gained control, invasive species can re-engineer habitats making them more suitable for themselves. They do this by “changing the rules of the system” enhancing further their competitive edge, and/or making the conditions of the ecosystem unsuitable for other species. Eventually, the invasive species achieve what they set out to accomplish — dominion. Instead of native diverse ecosystems, an invasive-dominated ecosystem is monocultural, often devoid of beauty and certainly devoid of abundance.

I believe the concept of invasiveness has relevance for many areas of our human societies. We see the same dynamics in the spread of monopoly businesses; in new and revolutionary political ideas; and in new disruptive technologies. These all exhibit what I call the Invasive Dynamic: ‘when something or someone is a novel disruptive force in a social-economic system, initiating changes or taking advantage of system attributes to give them the competitive edge to become dominant or pervasive, resulting in negative consequences for Societal Good.’

The rise of the supermarket

One area of modern society where the invasive dynamic can be readily perceived is the spread of the supermarket. Pre-1950, diverse local food stores, often owned by local families, were the prevailing food proprietors in most areas of the UK³. They provided much loved and often personal service along with stocking local and traditional foods unique to their localities. No individual shop sold all the products a family needed for the week, the greengrocers, the butchers, and the bakers would all have to be visited. Diversity in the local food system was high and local economies were strengthened, providing jobs for a great number of the community and support for local farmers. And as I have outlined here, the immensely personal nature of the businesses aided social cohesion and helped to create a beautiful society. However, the diversity of the local food system was not necessarily conducive to ease and convenience (having to visit numerous stores took considerable time) and prices remained relatively high when compared to today.

In the early 1960s supermarkets arrived on the scene and it was only a matter of time before the public was captivated. The novelty of the supermarkets, aided by extensive advertising, piqued shoppers’ curiosity and led to growing footfalls. They offered the convenience, ease, and low prices that the local shops could not. The supermarkets’ custom increased at the expense of the baker and the butcher and the extra custom and extra profits helped to drive their subsequent rapid spread through the country's food networks and urban spaces. The invasive dynamic was initiated, and the consequences were far-reaching.

First, the supermarkets took over the high street, displacing large numbers of the traditional shops and businesses that could not compete with the lower prices and consolidation of products. In doing so, the disruptive newcomers broke down the mutual and social relationships between the customer and the proprietor, replacing them with anonymity and convenience. Relationships built on trust, respect, and reputation were discarded in favour of a contractual relationship premised on the provision of cheapness and ease — if these stipulations were not met, the customer could simply shop at the next supermarket. The fact that the customer can pick and choose between supermarkets goes to show how relentless their spread has been. Most towns now have at least two supermarkets, with the majority having more. Even in some villages, the local branch of the supermarket holds pride of place in the village square, such has been the extent of their dominion.

Coming now to the modern day, the spread of supermarkets exhibits other features and consequences in common with the spread of invasive species. Globally connected to distant suppliers and producers, supermarkets have been able to take advantage of the winds of globalisation to offer an incredible array of foreign products and foods, partnering along the way with similarly invasive big food companies to offer these goods at lower and lower prices. All this is aided by billions spent on advertising (similar to the millions of seeds sown by invasive plants). The consequence of this globalisation and abundance of cheap food is a squeeze on the prices farmers are paid for their produce, forcing them to intensify their production, and a dramatic increase in food waste and food system-related pollution.

Supermarkets continue to use their ever-increasing market share to fuel even more growth: even the more locally oriented smaller supermarkets have been taken over and absorbed by the larger supermarkets and what remains of the traditional high street has been hit by the shock of increased rents due to the competition for prime locations forcing smaller businesses out, with larger chain stores and supermarkets eagerly waiting to snap up the vacant premises. The Portal Review⁴ commissioned by the British Government documents these changes well — and laments what we have lost.

Look at what we have lost

I have painted the rise and spread of supermarkets in a negative light. Perhaps overly so⁵. But this is because I keenly feel what we have lost as a society. Just as invasive species displace local biodiversity and tend towards uniformity, the distinctiveness of local economies and cultures has been lost when the invasive supermarkets came into town. Gone is the cheesemonger with his cheese from the local farm, gone is the butcher who would cut the meat just as we like it, and gone is the baker who sold the regional speciality of bread produced over centuries and bearing the name of the town. In their place, the supermarket sells the cheese that is standard the world over, bread (if you can call it that) from the big bakeries, and aisle upon aisle of food named after faraway places and grown by farmers whose names we shall never know.

We have lost the smiling face of the baker who knew you by name. We have lost the friendly greeting from the greengrocer who loved to wax lyrical about his fruit and veg. We have lost the delicious homemade pies the butcher used to sell. And behind the scenes, we have lost many good farmers who farmed the land well — for they have been priced out or forced to intensify by the demands of the new food system kingpins. We have lost so much. The tragedy is we often don’t even realise it. That is, until we walk past the shop which used to be the butchers and the memories start flooding back.

---

There is one other area of society where the invasive dynamic has played out which I want to focus on. Thankfully, this invasive force is yet to fully establish in the UK giving us time to prepare our defences. I am talking about the spread of the megachurch.

The megachurch arrived on the scene in the US in the 1970s, and took off like a rocket. Now there are over one hundred churches across the US with an average weekly attendance of over nine thousand (with a sizeable number being multi-campus churches), and the number of churches with a weekly attendance of over two thousand is in the thousands.

What is so telling is that the early proponents of the movement saw the similarities between the spread of the supermarkets and the spread of the megachurch. Some were fairly blatant about it with Rick Warren stating:

“There’s a trend all across America moving away from the small neighborhood churches to larger regional-type churches. It’s the same phenomenon with malls replacing the mom and pop stores on the corner. People will drive past all kinds of little shopping centers to go to a major mall, where there are lots of services and where they meet their needs. The same is true in churches today in that people drive past dozens of little churches to go to a larger church which offers more services and special programs.”⁶

and again Lyle Schaller:

“The emergence of the ‘mega-church’ is the most important development of modern Christian history. You can be sentimental about the small congregation, like the small corner grocery store or small drugstore, but they simply can’t meet the expectations that people carry with them today.”⁷

Plenty of reasons have been proposed as to why the megachurch has fared so successfully, but Schaller (rather arrogantly) hit the nail on the head: “the megachurch meets the exceptions that people carry with them today”. The megachurches were able to meet the expectations and desires of the religious community who had succumbed to the trends of modernism, individualism and consumerism, and this was the fuel for their growth. What I argue is that these expectations and desires were caused by a degradation in society. In the same way that an invasive species spreads most rapidly in an ecosystem that has been degraded prior to its arrival, a societal degradation occurred in the US prior to the arrival of the megachurch. This was when society pivoted away from local, small, and traditional economies, to economies built on growth, convenience, scale, and cheapness. Such a societal environment was ready and receptive to the arrival of the megachurch.

In part, this degradation was due to the supermarket. Supermarkets had already heavily influenced US society by universalising the desires for convenience and ease and setting in motion a consumeristic mindset. People fell in love with the lifestyles associated with these desires and the entrepreneurial early megachurch pastors saw an opportunity and a “gap in the market”. If society was infatuated with convenience, ease, and consumerism, then a church that catered to these very things had rapid growth potential.

Not only that, but a big church could be a powerful church. With Christians already feeling on the back foot after the strong winds of change still blowing from the revolutions of the 60s, a big and powerful institution such as the megachurch was “just what was needed” for Christians to feel dominant again and also safe in the security that numbers and tribe dynamics bring.

It needs to be sad that all this was aided and abetted by the somewhat sorry state of Christianity in the US. I am wary of overgeneralising, but American Christianity’s perpetual weakness has been the prevalence of a blatant cultural Christianity with its adherents having poor theological literacy⁸ and strength of belief. Congregants often didn’t have a robust theology of the Church necessary to assess whether this novel way of doing church on a grand scale was scriptural or beneficial for devotion, piety, and discipleship. Without these defences, huge numbers of congregants voted with their feet and joined these new convenient and powerful churches, helping to fuel their growth further with their tithe.

The huge growth megachurches witnessed, and the concurrent increase in finances, allowed them to reorganise the wider Christian ecosystem to further suit themselves. Big conferences sprang up, platforming megachurch pastors who cultivated their public image and grew their influence and reach. The Christian book industry took off, with megachurch pastors getting the best deals and making the best-sellers list, further extending their reach, influence, popularity, and incomes. Globalised ministries — often named after megachurch pastors —were created, reaping donations from across the world. Highly successful and professional music ministries developed from within the megachurch scene, attracting youth to their concerts and then their churches. In a show of how pervasive the reach of megachurches has been, their songs can now be found sung most Sundays in churches the world over.

Smaller churches could not compete against all these phenomena. Their pastors were often overworked, their churches short-staffed and short-funded, and while small churches have by no means disappeared from the Christian landscape, in many cases, they have been weakened by the megachurch next door.

---

Many people laud the growth of the megachurch. “Isn’t it great to see powerful churches full to the brim?” they say, “look at all the conversions, look at all the growth!”. And undoubtedly good has been done. It would be wrong to deny this. But severe consequences have arisen from the rise of the megachurch. I fear these outweigh the good. Problems range from a lack of accountability for big pastors, erosion of local church culture and embeddedness within communities, and an over-emphasis on aesthetics and brand cultivation. More serious effects include the provision of a platform for the spread of the prosperity gospel (which found a natural home in large-scale flashy churches whose thousands of members can fund the lavish lifestyle of their leader), and the further entrenchment of a cultural Christianity that ultimately does not save.

There has also been an unhealthy emphasis on church growth. Growth has become the talk of the town when and where pastors gather and this, if we are not careful, can become the main thing. “If your church isn’t growing then you need to get with the program” can be the not-so-subtle message that is given by megachurch pastors. Metrics, attendance figures, and results easily become the way of measuring church success (while virtue, Christlikeness, and care for the vulnerable fell down the list). This is a gross perversion of the true priorities of the church.

Finally, the large platforms have created huge temptations for megachurch pastors, with power corrupting their virtues and scandalous sins resulting from abuses of power and privilege. These sins have at times been justified or covered up due to a false belief that “ends justify means” expressed in a “look at all the good the pastor has done” mindset. When such scandals of moral failure and abusive behaviour eventually become public, the results are disastrous. Whereas in a small church such scandals tend to stay within the knowledge of the local community (thus the impact — though still serious and deadly — is limited), when a big-name pastor falls, this makes for big headline news and viral social media clickbait. Thus, the name of Christ and His Church is brought into national or even global disrepute. Few things can be more serious than this.

Resistance

What I have attempted to argue in this piece is the invasive dynamic is all around us, changing societies as we speak. If we are not careful, invasive technologies and institutions will erode more and more of the good — what is to be cherished in our societies and cultures. The two examples I have focused on aptly demonstrate what is at stake and what we have already lost. But against such strong and powerful forces what are we to do? Resistance will be hard. Once an invasive species is established it is incredibly difficult to eradicate or reduce — and the same can be said for the invasive dynamic. But, surely we can all start by reexamining our love of convenience and ease, and by being vigilant in noticing where invasive institutions and technologies are seeping into our lives, our communities, and our faith.

If just 10% of my readers tipped £/$1 this essay will have paid for itself in terms of the time spent crafting and writing it. For those who tip, thank you for your generosity.

1. See this on rabbits promoting biodiversity as a keystone species: https://naturebftb.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Shifting-Sands-Techniques-to-encourage-European-rabbit-recovery-summary-sheetupdated.pdf

2. In simple terms, redundancy means when one element of a system fails or disappears, another steps in to take its place.

3. Supermarkets/chain stores arrived much earlier in the US as documented by Michael Ruhlman in his book Grocery: The Buying and Selling of Food in America. Abrams Press.

4. Mary Portas (2011) The Portal Review https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6292/2081646.pdf

5. As a caveat, I do shop at supermarkets, but more out of necessity rather than choice. Where I can, I support local businesses such as veg box schemes, cheesemongers, and butchers.

6. Russell Chandler, “Test-Marketing the Gospel—a Consumer Survey Helped Design Willow Creek Church for Its ‘Customers’,” San Francisco Chronicle December 24, 1989.

7. Lyle E. Schaller, “Megachurch!,” Christianity Today 34 (1990).

8. As evidence of this see the eye-opening The State of Theology Report https://thestateoftheology.com