I am a servant of Jesus and His movement, not a business guru.
If you look at Jesus’ life and how He lived, what do you see? If you catalogue His life, you’ll see He wasn’t locked up in His study preparing His next killer sermon series. He was living with the leadership team. He was training to change the world. He wasn’t sitting back directing the pawns from an executive office with a board of executive pastors. He was walking and talking with riffraff and wayfarers, and multiplying Himself into a handful of people to change the world.
It’s not the method we would have chosen. Sadly, it’s not the method we choose. But it’s what Jesus did. We choose large, flashy, in charge, make big happen.
But what if our methods don’t bring the transformation Jesus is actually looking for? What if Jesus strategically did what He did? What if when He said, “Follow Me,” He meant it? What if we are supposed to follow Jesus and not businessmen and their boardroom leadership? What if when we start with a business, we end with a business?[1]
One author tells about a church that hired a new executive pastor who had “precisely zero experience as a pastor.” He did, however, have a lot of experience in the business world. The pastors on staff who had experience pastoring in flourishing churches were now told what to do, and what not to do, by this new executive pastor.
This executive pastor served as a kind of go-between, or mediator, between the regular church staff and the lead pastor. And he managed people’s schedules to the effect that he put an end to a mini time of worship at the beginning of the day that some of the pastors were having. One of the pastors asked, “If we’re getting our jobs done, what does it matter to you how we start our days?” The executive pastor answered, “Because this is the office. The office is for business, and it’s my job to maintain that.”[2]
This specific account, it is true, recounts one church’s story; but in my experience as a pastor and in conversation with other pastors, I believe similar stories are repeated often. The business of the church has become business.
What if we have had it wrong for a long time? What if leadership is about service? And what if that service is not for our organization? What if it is about something that Jesus owns and something He is doing? What if it’s not about our name or the name brand of our church?[3]
I love Jesus and Jesus’ church, but I don’t love human, name-brand, church. When church is about a name—whether the name brand of the church or pastor—and not about the name above every name for whom every being will bow, I don’t love that. Idolatry has no place in Jesus’ church.
I am a servant of Jesus and His movement, not a business guru. What then about my name and reputation? What then about buildings and church brands? Only that in every way, Christ is proclaimed. In that I rejoice.[4] Yes, let me and every Christian leader be considered a fool for Christ’s sake![5]
It’s not about logos, brands, buildings, gifted preachers, leaders, or an amazing experience of worship; it’s about King Jesus, knowing Him and making Him known. We so quickly turn from our Savior and the Shepherd of our souls to lesser shepherds. We forget the Kingdom, and get wrapped up in our little kingdoms.
May my name and names without number fall, and may all our voices rise in praise of Messiah Jesus, the name above every name. May His Church grow, and be big in our affections, and may our myopic vision perish as we see His wonder and glory.
Notes
[1] Of course, I’m not saying no structure. Jesus had structure, and the New Testament provides structure, though it’s not the Jethro model.
[2] Lance Ford et al., The Starfish and the Spirit: Unleashing the Leadership Potential of Churches and Organizations (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2021).
[3] “Never desire special praise or love, for that belongs to God alone Who has no equal. Never wish that anyone’s affection be centered in you, nor let yourself be taken up with the love of anyone” (Thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, 50).
[4] See Philippians 1:18.
[5] See 1 Corinthians 4:9ff.
The Problem and Prevalence of Narcissism in the Church
The problem of selfishness and self-aggrandizement has always been a problem. Now, however, social media[1] and church structures add to the prevalence of the problem. In fact, self-aggrandizement is often incentivized. In great contrast to Jesus, “Ministry leaders and churches today are obsessively preoccupied with their reputation, influence, success, rightness, progressiveness, relevance, platform, affirmation, and power.”[2]
Christian leaders are often selected based on their charisma and ability to attract a large following.[3] A narcissistic personality can easily be interpreted as pastoral giftedness, a personality well-suited to lead a large church.[4] A narcissistic person is set up well to succeed in today’s church. They can charm, seem superior, and come off as an all-around exceptional person. “They have an almost desperate need to be seen.”[5] This bodes well for churches saturated in social media.
Paul David Tripp gives an important warning in his book, Lead: 12 Gospel Principles for Leadership in the Church:
A leader whose heart has been captured by other things doesn’t forsake ministry to pursue those other things; he uses ministry position, power, authority, and trust to get those things. Every leadership community needs to understand that ministry can be the vehicle for pursuing a whole host of idolatries.
Sadly, the structures we build in the church can foster narcissism’s unchecked growth. It’s problematic when Jesus’ character is not the measurement of success. Instead, the narcissistic profile of grandiosity, entitlement, and absence of empathy becomes the pattern of a good leader. Is it any wonder we have so many pastoral problems and people deconstructing?
Ministry growth, fame, and money are often seen as proof of God’s presence and work. But if that’s true, then Jesus Himself was a failure. He gave up power and riches. He didn’t pursue them. God’s presence isn’t found in power and fame. And His blessing isn’t necessarily found there either. What we should look for in leaders is godly character and fruit—like the fruits of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control.[6]
The abandonment of the humble way of Jesus is not the way to please Jesus. Philippians 2:5-8 says,
Have this mind among yourselves that is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
It would probably be good here to share a modern paraphrase of all of Matthew 23, but instead, I will share just verses 11-12: “The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” Or, here’s John 13:14-15: “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.”
Selfishness and self-aggrandizement are not the way of the Savior. And should not be the way of His church or under-shepherds. Success should be measured by our likeness to Jesus and in our ability to make disciples like Jesus who, in turn, make other disciples like Jesus. In general, across the board, studies bear out bad results about churches making disciples.[7]
In a narcissistic ministry, however, the leader is especially geared towards making acolytes of themselves rather than disciples of Jesus. The leaders may not realize it, but real-life, gritty, and sacrificial discipleship may not even be on the ministerial map. Instead of equipping the saints for the work of the ministry, it’s easy to create a whole host of fans who cheer from the sidelines.
Some Characteristics of a Narcissistic Ministry
First, “The narcissistic system parades its specialness… Who would dare question God’s work?”[8] And, because the mission is so special, certain staff members are asked to make large sacrifices with little or no remuneration. The special work that the ministry is doing is reason to give and serve sacrificially.[9]
Second, “The system often compares itself to others and finds others wanting.”[10] People are led to believe “the church down the block isn’t as blessed, special, or faithful. A collective sense of grandiosity is common in these situations.”[11] This belittles Jesus’ Kingdom and is counteractive to the unity for which Jesus prayed, died, and will finally obtain. It can also blind the church from the log in its eye when they are critical of the speck in a different ministry (Matt. 7:3-5).
Third, because the church is doing such “amazing work,” you can’t question it. It’s seen as obviously bad to question the vine when the fruit seems to speak for itself.
Loyalty to Christ and loyalty to the founding pastor’s vision can get muddled. This is especially true if the pastor says that his own vision is Christ’s—that God directly told him what the church should do next regarding its building, outreach, or finances. Elders or lay leaders who question those decisions are setting themselves up to question God. And who wants to look like they’re questioning God? Especially when following the pastor’s/God’s vision has led to enormous growth, souls saved, lives changed, and communities transformed, and when other churches are looking to your church as the ultimate success story.[12]
It is therefore easy for those who are drawn into the gravitational pull of narcissism to enable the narcissist by letting him off the hook for his behavior.[13] After all, they’re doing so much for the church.[14] And, as Andy Crouch says in Playing God, “One of power’s invisible perquisites is that others grant you deference without your having to ask for it.”
Sadly, those who don’t toe the line and “refuse to idealize the leader are chewed up and spit out.”[15] This is obviously dangerous for all sorts of reasons. For one, feedback is not given, or at least, not honestly.[16] Individuals tend to favor the most favorable interpretation, disregarding potential inconsistencies and downplaying minor relational transgressions. They conveniently dismiss reservations about the leader. That “is why many who get close to the epicenter of leadership either forfeit their integrity or resign.”[17]
Mark Driscoll, the former pastor of Mars Hill Church, infamously said, “There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus, and by the grace of God it will be a mountain by the time we’re done. You either get on the bus or you get run over by the bus, those are the two options, but the bus ain’t stopping.” The person driving the bus, however, is Mark Driscoll himself, and it is his mission and his brand that have become central, and people must serve his agenda or be fired.
The LORD, the Good Shepherd, will not stand for such abuse of His blood-bought sheep. “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand” (Ezek. 34:10). He says, “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep” (Jer. 23:1). Again He says, “Wail, you shepherds, and cry out… No refuge will remain for the shepherds” (Jer. 25:34, 35).
Faithful pastors won’t stand for the mistreatment of sheep or fellow pastors. Instead, they, like the Good Shepherd, will willingly lay their job, title, and life down for the good of the sheep (Jn. 10:11-18). Faithful pastors will stand their ground and guard the sheep, come what may.
Fourth, narcissistic leaders might bring church growth, but not all growth is healthy. Cancer can cause quick growth. So, anxious churches driven by narcissistic pastors may grow numerically, but healthy churches flourish. We should not mistake numerical growth for flourishing.[18] Especially when Jesus has called us to make disciples, and not fans who sit on chairs.
Fifth, and we have already touched on this, but it’s important to make it explicit: there is a lot of incentive for the narcissistic pastor and ministry to conceal the narcissism. People might say, “he has a few rough edges,” “we all make mistakes,” or “she’s just passionate.” For all of these reasons, “for those hurt by a narcissistic pastor, the pathways to justice may be few.”[19] People believe the gifted pastor over and above anyone else.
A Few of the Problems with Narcissism
The problem with narcissism in the church is that narcissism has no place in the church, or at least, unrepentant narcissism. I realize we’re all in process. And yes, there should be an appropriate self-love. To that I agree. But unrestrained and uncontained narcissism is not in alignment with the Lord Jesus, who came as a servant.
Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition in which people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. They need and seek too much attention and want people to admire them. People with this disorder may lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence, they are not sure of their self-worth and are easily upset by the slightest criticism.
Narcissistic pastors, knowing what they know about the christian ethic, must walk the fine line between supposed omnipotence and feigned humility. “He wants you to see that he is the best and brightest, but he wants you to think he is a humble servant of the Lord. He speaks of justice, of faithfulness, of humility, but he longs to be the center of attention, where his need to be special is affirmed.”[20]
From a biblical perspective, narcissism stems from pride, which Scripture identifies as sin. Scripture says: “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble” (James 4:6). Scripture warns that where there is pride, there will be destruction (Prov. 11:2; 16:18).
Narcissists also struggle with empathy because of their self-centeredness, which directly contradicts the Bible. Scripture commands believers to “look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4), a directive narcissists routinely disobey. Christians are called to esteem others more highly than themselves and to serve others in love—the exact opposite of narcissistic behavior.[21]
Two characteristics of narcissism are jealousy and selfish ambition, these the letter of James says, are earthly, natural, and demonic, and thus are clearly not in alignment with followers of Jesus. It’s also very problematic because where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing (James 3:14-16). As many stories demonstrate (Mark Driscoll, James MacDonald, Ravi Zacharias, etc.). In contrast, “the wisdom from above is first of all pure. It is also peace loving, gentle at all times, and willing to yield to others. It is full of mercy and the fruit of good deeds. It shows no favoritism and is always sincere” (v. 17). Note that last part, wisdom from above is “always sincere.”
The Christian leader’s job is not to put on a show, especially a show featuring themselves; it is to equip the saints for the work of the ministry. It’s not to attract a crowd, build a big modern church, or build their ministry; no, it’s to equip others for ministry. The narcissist is well equipped to be on the stage, put on a performance, and attract a following, but isn’t as good at stepping out of the limelight and sending and supporting others to flourish in their gifts.
The problem with narcissism is it’s not the way of Jesus and His church. It ends up being a rival faction, a monster with a protruding head. Jesus is the actual head of the church, but churches with narcissistic leaders and systems betray that reality and picture a grotesque copy of Jesus’ actual ideal. One in which a man (or woman) has set up a thiefdom and subtly robs the real King of the glory due only to Him, and robs laborers who would have otherwise labored in the harvest to build the King’s Kingdom are now enlisted to build the narcissistic leader’s little hobby town.[22]
Conclusion
Churches, especially modern churches, incentivize building a brand and putting the pastor’s name (read “gifted speaker”) in lights. But this is not the way of Jesus. The way of Jesus is humble equipping and discipling. It’s authentic, not artificial. It builds a blood, sweat, and tears army ready to give their life in love for the world; not fans who like the funny stories and music. Narcissism is not just nauseating because of the failure of leadership, the eventual church fallout, but also because of the malformation of disciples of Jesus. Narcissism is a cancerous cell that replicates and contaminates.
Notes
[1] Sadly, people can “use their congregations to validate a sense of identity and worth. The church becomes an extension of the narcissistic ego, and its ups and downs lead to seasons of ego inflation and ego deflation for the pastor. Today socialmedia platforms add to this mix. Because his sense of identity is bound up in external realities, his sense of mission is wavering and unmoored, often manifesting in constantly shifting visions and programs, frequent dissatisfaction with the status quo, and anxious engagement with staff and members.” (Chuck DeGroat, When Narcissism Comes to Church: Healing Your Community From Emotional and Spiritual Abuse.
[2] DeGroat, When Narcissism Comes to Church.
[3] We often tend to select leaders in the Christian world according to their gifts rather than their character. We see gifts and assume the leader’s character matches the image they project (Diane Langberg, When the Church Harms God’s People).
[4] DeGroat, When Narcissism Comes to Church.
[5] DeGroat, When Narcissism Comes to Church. “If ministry leadership is your identity, then Christ isn’t… Ministry leadership identity produces fear and anxiety and will never produce the humility and courage that come with identity in Christ. Looking horizontally, as a leader, for your identity, meaning, purpose, and internal sense of well-being asks people, places, and position to do for you what only your Messiah can do. This will produce either pride in success or fear of failure but never the kind of humility and courage of heart that results in humble, willing, confessing approachability.Ministry as a source of identity will never result in healthy gospel-shaped relationships in your leadership community, the kind of relationships in which candor is encouraged, confession is greeted with grace, and bonds of love, appreciation, affection, understanding, and respect grow strong” (Paul David Tripp, Lead, 156).
[6] See Diane Langberg, When the Church Harms God’s People.
[7] “Only 8% of U.S. Protestant pastors are extremely satisfied with discipleship in their church” (“Few Pastors Believe Discipleship Tops Their Churches’ Efforts” based on studies from “The State of Discipleship” https://research.lifeway.com/state-of-discipleship/).
[8] DeGroat, When Narcissism Comes to Church.
[9] Even though the sacrifice is about the “name brand church” which is closely connected to the lead pastor’s name and reputation, and not mainly about Jesus’ Kingdom. Of course, “Sacricice and devotion are part and pacel of the Christian life. Jesus said, “Whoever loses their life for me will find it.” (Matt. 16:25). But when the call to sacrifice is set in a context like Willow Creek and other dynamic churches, it’s not always clear whether members are being called to sacrifice for Christ or for the church and its programs” (Katelyn Beaty, Celebrates for Jesus: How Personas, Platforms, and Profits are Hurting the Church).
[10] DeGroat, When Narcissism Comes to Church.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Katelyn Beaty, Celebrates for Jesus.
[13] DeGroat, When Narcissism Comes to Church.
[14] How sad that “We ignore and cover up that for which he bears nail scars, all the while using his name to sanction our deeds. When evil is discovered, our response too often is to hide misdeeds in the name of protecting the reputation of the church.” (Langberg, When the Church Harms God’s People).
[15] DeGroat, When Narcissism Comes to Church.
[16] This is in part because “when the narcissistic leader is under attack, his response is defensiveness and a victim complex” (Ibid.). “Those affected by narcissism’s bite were led to believe it was their fault—a lack of humility, a failure to submit. Systems of power and wealth that fostered abuse” (Ibid.). “Entitled pastors snap when pricked, however. Even the smallest pinprick of challenge or concern from another leads to defensiveness and self-protective strategies” (Ibid.).
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] “Narcissistic pastors walk the fine line of omnipotence and feigned humility. He wants you to see that he is the best and brightest, but he wants you to think he is a humble servant of the Lord. He speaks of justice, of faithfulness, of humility, but he longs to be the center of attention, where his need to be special is affirmed.” (Ibid.).
[21] R. K. Bufford, “Narcissism,” in New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics, ed. Campbell Campbell-Jack and Gavin J. McGrath (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006), 472.
[22] Jesus is about His Kingdom and His reign being realized in the hearts, hands, and heads of all people, regardless of their organizational affiliation. We get messed up messing around with a lesser leader’s little project. King Jesus is often working in the margins with the low and humble. The sad reality is, “Christendom’s institutional priorities often have nothing to do with, and may be antithetical to, following Jesus” (Langberg, When the Church Harms God’s People).
Finding Identity Beyond the Church Building
Enjoyed this conversation with Britton from Pastor to Pioneer. I recount some of my and Leah’s story, going from mega church to micro church.
What’s Keeping Churches from Making Disciples?
Most churches know that discipleship is the main mission of the church. It’s in most mission statements. Yet, what kind of person does the church produce? The Christ-commanded product is a disciple who makes disciples.[1] “But for many churches, discipleship ranks toward the bottom of their priorities.”
Disciples trust Jesus as Lord and Boss, and follow Him by imitating His life and obeying His teachings.[2] Jesus calls disciples to deny themselves, take up their cross daily, and follow Him. This means disciples have repented of sin, forsaken the world, and committed their lives to follow Him. Historically, being a disciple involved learning, studying, and passing along the master’s teachings.[3]
Is this what the church is making? Many would say no. To a great extent, I agree. Even back in 1988, Bill Hull said,
The evangelical church has become weak, flabby, and too dependent on artificial means that can only simulate real spiritual power. Churches are too little like training centers to shape up the saints and too much like cardiopulmonary wards at the local hospital. We have proliferated self-indulgent consumer religion, the what-can-the-church-do-for-me syndrome. We are too easily satisfied with conventional success: bodies, bucks, and buildings. The average Christian resides in the comfort zone of “I pay the pastor to preach, administrate, and counsel. I pay him, he ministers to me… I am the consumer, he is the retailer.”[4]
While churches are biblically mandated and should be structured to make disciples, many churches prioritize attendance and attractive programs over discipleship, which results in discipleship deficiencies. Discipleship involves more than mere head knowledge; it involves intentionally instructing Jesus’ followers to “observe all that Jesus commanded” and to become disciple-makers themselves.
So, Hull says, “The crisis at the heart of the church is that we give disciple-making lip service, but do not practice it.”[5] If that’s the case, what are some of the issues keeping churches from making disciples?
1. Cultural Values
The cultural air that we breathe has an imperceptible impact. Christian Smith does a good job explaining some of the cultural values that we can easily unknowingly imbibe in his book, Why Religion Went Obsolete.
David Foster Wallace once told this story:
There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way. The older fish nods at them: “Morning, boys, how’s the water?” The two young fish swim on for a bit, and then one of them looks over at the other. “What the heck is water?”
It can be very difficult to be aware of our own culture and the impact that it is having on us.[6]
Our culture of consumerism and materialism is a big factor. So, Soong-Chan Rah, for example, has said,
Market-driven church that appeals to the materialistic desires of the individual consumer has resulted in a comfortable church, but not a biblical church. The church’s captivity to materialism has resulted in the unwillingness to confront sins such as economic and racial injustice and has produced consumers of religion rather than followers of Jesus.[7]
My point here is that our culture, even our church culture, does not place high value on discipleship. Although we may say we do. Our actions, or inaction, speak louder than our words.
We must let the Bible dictate our church culture, not culture.
2. Budgetary and Building Needs
Related to number one above, we have a church culture in America that is very dependent on buildings and budgets. We often think that for the church to continue, it has to “pack the pews” so the doors can stay open and the lights can stay on. Thus, the budgetary concerns can easily take precedence over all other concerns.
Here’s our thinking: What good can the church do if the church closes? Sunday comes quickly, and we need to have good sermons and programs if we hope to bring in the tithe or at least some form of giving.
Discipleship can easily take a back seat. Discipleship can be slow. Jesus walked, talked, and trained His disciples. This took time. Lots of time. Actual years. Yet, a movement of multiplication can happen when we make disciples.
We have conditioned ourselves for a type of fast-food or industrial revolution discipleship mentality. We want disciples quick, right off the express line. But that’s not how disciples have ever been made. But perhaps, especially now in our increasingly post-Christian, Bible-illiterate world.
We must care more about building up the actual body of Christ and not prioritize the church building (and budget).
3. Pastoral Identity Issues
Sadly, having been in pastoral ministry for 17 years and worked in various church contexts, sometimes there are pastoral identity issues that prevent pastors from investing in discipleship. It doesn’t feed a pastor’s ego if a lot of people don’t show up (however, “a lot of people” is defined). But Jesus didn’t always have a lot of people around Him. And sometimes when He did, He would say some very controversial things, and then many would leave. Christ’s goal was not a crowd, but “little Christs.”
A pastor’s ego is not fed when he equips others to do the work of the ministry, when he gives away ministry, helps others faithfully lead, shrugs out of the limelight, and pushes others towards success. But Christian ministry was never supposed to be about anyone’s ego.
But you know what is fed when a pastor doesn’t feed his ego? The church is fed, and it thus grows in both size and maturity because it is functioning as Jesus always intended it to function. Not as a one-person show, but as the church body being loving light wheresoever the church body finds itself throughout the week.
The church is an immaterial reality, and it was never meant to be bound by a material building; it was always meant to find physical expression in the living and breathing, walking and talking (incarnate), temples of God that Jesus’ people are. Just as the word of God was not bound, although Paul was bound in prison, God’s church is not bound to a building.
It is most healthy when it’s out loving in the wild world. That’s what it was always meant for. The telos or purpose of a candle is to be a source of light in darkness. It’s the same with the church. The church is called to be light in darkness and salt in a world of rot and decay. Notice, Jesus did not give the church something aspirational when He said, “You are the light of the world.” Jesus said something ontological. He said what we are.
I’m concerned that many pastors’ call to serve the church is self-serving. Pastors are often concerned about “their” church, not the Church. Pastors, sad to say, can be more concerned about their building being full rather than heaven being full.
The church is to make much of Jesus the Good Shepherd and not exalt any human.
4. Lack of Leadership Diversity (APEST)
“APEST” stands for apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers. The Lord of the church has given these varied gifts to the church so that it will be balanced and mature (see Ephesians 4). Sadly, however, these gifts often find expression disconnected from the other gifts.
(It’s important to note that when I talk about APEST, I am talking about gifting. Not office or authority.)
Churches with certain types of leaders will move in certain directions. Teacher types tend to be thinkers, writers, researchers, and theologians. Shepherds tend to be carers, counselors, and community builders. Evangelists tend to be recruiters to the cause, apologists, and networkers. Prophets tend to call people to change, have holy criticism, and care deeply about social issues. Apostles pioneer, innovate, and create new approaches and structures.[8]
It seems the most common type of church, at least in the West, is the shepherd/teacher church.[9] This often results in a “knowledge-based community where right doctrine is seen to be more important than rightdoing.”[10] There is often an overemphasis on the sermon and Sunday service, and community, discipleship, and evangelism are an afterthought.
Again, diversity and balance are important. “The one-dimensional teaching church attracts people who love to be taught and tends to alienate other forms of spiritual expression. This is seldom a good thing because such churches simply become vulnerable to groupthink or even mass delusion. This has happened way too often… witness the many one-dimensional charismatic/vertical prophetic movements of the last century. Or consider the asymmetrical mega-church that markets religion and ends up producing consumptive, dependent, underdeveloped, cultural Christians with an exaggerated sense of entitlement.”[11]
The fact that “we have sought to negotiate our way in the world without three of the five functions (by elevating teaching and shepherding and neglecting evangelism, the prophetic, and the apostolic) accounts for so many of the problems we face in the church.”[12]
5. Lack of Commitment to the New Testament Ideal
Many times, we don’t know what we’re aiming for when it comes to disciples. We often lack a clear definition, or it’s a knowledge-based definition. Churches often emphasize orthodoxy (right belief) over orthopraxy (right practice). This results in many churchgoers who know a lot but don’t necessarily do a lot. But the great commission doesn’t just say “teach.” Its aim is practice. The Great Commission says, “teach them to observe everything I have commanded” (Matt. 28:20).
The church body is made up of individual members who together and separately worship, reflect, and share. The church is not an institution or an event. It is a living and moving organism. It is embodied all over every sector of society. So, we must ask, are disciples being made who make disciples who know, grow, and go?
The New Testament ideal is every believer practicing the missional mandate. It’s not just about knowing, but about going and doing all that Jesus commanded. The church must have growth goals or metrics that match the mission that Jesus has given to the church.
6. Lack of A Model to Emulate
The Apostle Paul said, “Imitate me as I imitate Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). Jesus is the New Testament ideal. We are to imitate Him. And “Jesus poured His life into a few disciples and taught them to make other disciples.”[13]
So, we have an example to emulate in Jesus and Paul. Christian leaders must also provide examples and practice what they preach.[14] If pastors, for example, are—intentionally or unintentionally—held up as the Christian ideal, there are certain implications. If pastors mainly study and teach publicly or mainly function as CEOs, then that’s what is being modeled to people. And not lived everyday discipleship.
Conclusion
Good things often distract from the best things. And actually, some of the things churches do that they think are good only serve to create a culture of consumerism. Things must change. We must obey Jesus and make disciples who make disciples. We must make whatever structural and organizational changes are necessary to ensure we’re carrying out Jesus’ commission.[15]
I propose a new approach to “doing church” because, to a great extent, the way we’re currently doing church, at least in the West, is not working. We are not making disciples who make disciples in accordance with our Lord’s command. To a great extent, the church is making sitters. We must take our Boss’s words seriously and make structural and organizational changes.
Transformation happens less by argument and more by creating new rhythms and practices that shift not only people’s thinking but also their values and core commitments. We think, practice, and love our way into transformation. As Alan Hirsch has perceptively said, “The best way of making ideas have impact is to embed them into the very rhythms and habits of the community in the form of common tools and practices.”[16]
We need to stop just talking about discipleship and having programs for discipleship. We need something more radical. We need to scrap the old ways that allow for abstraction, and instead create regular rhythms that embody application.
Notes
[1] See Bill Hull, The Disciple-Making Pastor, 14.
[2] See Michael S. Heiser, What Does God Want? (Blind Spot Press, 2018), 94–95 and Ken Wilson, Finding God in the Bible: A Beginner’s Guide to Knowing God (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2005), 86.
[3] Robert B. Sloan Jr., “Disciple,” in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. Chad Brand et al. (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 425.
[4] Bill Hull, The Disciple-Making Pastor, 12.
[5] Hull, The Disciple-Making Pastor, 15.
[6] Alan Hirsch, 5Q: Reactivating the Original Intelligence and Capacity of the Body of Christ.
[7] Soong-Chan Rah, The Next Evangelicalism, 63.
[8] There are a few Johns who stick out as teachers. John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and John MacArthur. Here are some other examples: George Whitefield (evangelist/apostle), John Piper (teacher/prophet), Charles Spurgeon (evangelist/prophet), Mother Teresa (shepherd) Richard Baxter (shepherd/teacher), Teresa of Avila (prophet/teacher), St. Patrick (apostle/shepherd) John Wimber (apostle/evangelist), David Platt (teacher/prophet), Hudson Taylor (apostle/evangelist), Catherine Booth (apostle), Dietrich Bonhoeffer (prophet/teacher), Billy Graham (evangelist), and Martin Luther King Jr. (prophet).
[9] “The church is actually perfectly designed by shepherds and teachers to produce shepherding and teaching outcomes. The organizational bias of the inherited form of church organization is in a real sense a reflection of the consciousness of the people who designed it in the first place!” (Alan Hirsch, 5Q).
[10] Hirsch, 5Q.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Spader, Four Chair Discipling, 36. “These few disciples, within two years after the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost, went out and “filled Jerusalem” with Jesus’ teaching (Acts 5:28). Within four and a half years they had planted multiplying churches and equipped multiplying disciples (Acts 9:31). Within eighteen years it was said of them that they “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17;6 ESV). And in twenty-eight years it was said that the gospel is bearing fruit and growing throughout the whole world” (Col. 1:6). For four years Jesus lived out the values He championed in His Everyday Commission. He made disciples who could make disciples!” (Ibid.).
[14] Jesus had a specific method which we would be wise to observe and follow. See, for example, Matthew 9:35-39: “Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.'” Jesus went, taught, proclaimed, healed, saw, and had compassion. He equipped disciples and sent them out into the harvest. He didn’t want them to sit in a building or do ministry in a building. What’s needed and what Jesus told us to pray for is laborers sent into the harvest.
[15] “Not much will change until we raise the issue and create controversy, until the American church is challenged to take the Great Commission seriously” (Hull, The Disciple-Making Pastor, 15).
[16] Hirsch, 5Q.
*Photo by Nellie Adamyan
Bloated Churches Aren’t Necessarily Healthy Churches
Bloated churches aren’t necessarily healthy churches. This is especially true since we live in an extremely consumeristic culture, and churches are closing all the time. Transfer growth is very common, but it’s not exactly a mark of health.[1] The reality is “the churches that are growing are picking up people from churches that aren’t growing, not from conversion growth.”[2]
This is the case for most of the biggest and brightest churches in America.[3] In fact, “Studies show only 3-5% of American churches are growing primarily through conversion growth. The remaining growth is mostly transfer growth.”[4]
This has been happening for decades. Bigger churches are getting bigger, and smaller churches are getting smaller. It’s part of the great evangelical recession. It’s what happens in times of decline. “In the same way book stores consolidated when Amazon and online book sales emerged, or General Motors consolidated after the Great Recession, getting rid of Pontiac, Hummer, Saturn, and other divisions to focus on its remaining brands.”[5]
Church bloat is a consolidation of resources. Similar to what happens during a siege. It is a “game of attrition.” Mega churches have a type of efficiency that results from consolidated resources. They can have fewer pastors per attendee, can repeat church services, and livestream at other campuses. Higher-paying pastoral positions can be supplemented with lower-paying positions. Mega churches have found a way to get the “most bang for their buck.”
The bloating is not mainly a positive trend. It’s actually a sign or symptom of some negative trends in America. Christian Smith lays out some of those in his book, Why Religion Went Obsolete. The bloating is a sign of the times. Thus, the growth or decline of a church is not necessarily the direct result of local leadership. It could rather be due to trends beyond the control of leadership.[6]
What are some of the potential downsides to church bloat? In the past, I’ve shared about the potential and common problems with mega church. If church bloat continues, then those accompanying problems are very likely to increase. Here are a few: superstar pastor culture,[7] reduced pastoral care, fewer connections and community, and a consumeristic mentality.[8] Also, consolidation of resources and growth in the size of one church is not necessarily growth in the Church (That is, the Kingdom of God). This is certainly the case if the church is growing primarily through transfer growth.[9]
How Do You Avoid Church Bloat?
The treatment suggested for human bloating is avoiding the consumption of gas-producing foods. It’s similar for the church. We stop church bloat by stopping consumerism.
When the emphasis is on serving inside the church building it leads to bloat. Service inside the building leads to a sedentary lifestyle instead of service in the local community where it’s most needed. The church body must exercise the muscles of evangelism and service or be atrophied.[10]
The church has always been called to serve and do things like watch kids. But the New Testament never hints that it should primarily take place in a church building. Quite the opposite actually. The church is to be light in darkness, which entails the church being involved in the world, not closeted away from it.
It should also be noted that when someone’s belly is bloated, they feel full, but there’s not a lot of substance or health inside. It’s similar in some churches. Things look full and may even look healthy, but it’s just bloat. People are in the seats, but disciples aren’t in the streets.
As has been wisely said, “More people doesn’t always mean more disciples” and “Showing up isn’t growing up.” Healthy churches make disciples who make disciples. The goal is four generations of disciple-makers (2 Tim. 2:2). The goal is disciples who make disciples. The goal is not church bloat. Church bloat looks full, but full is not healthy.
Notes
[1] Competing with the church down the street is not exactly making a big dent in the ledger of heaven and may be a distraction from hell.
[2] Carey Nieuwhof, “5 Disruptive Church Trends that will Rule 2025.”
[3] “Even when a church is on a list like Outreach’s Fastest Growing or Largest Church list, a deeper drill down shows that a lot of growth is simply transfer growth” (Carey Nieuwhof, “5 Disruptive Church Trends that will Rule 2025”).
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Of course, this is not to say that leadership plays no role. It is very important. But, to take an example to demonstrate my point, churches that were set up well for livestream pre-COVID-19 had a growth advantage over those who did not.
[7] Mega churches can easily become a breeding ground for toxic leadership and a lack of accountability.
[8] What if church bloat is a symptom of pandering to people’s insatiable pursuit of pleasure in the form of convenience and lack of need for relational commitment? What if popularity and church bloat could potentially be a symptom of something sinister? What if the growth is not through healthy, real-life, and whole-life apprenticeship to Jesus but something else? What if the pull is not discipleship but the offloading of duty? Instead of drawing near to God, and He will draw near to us (James 4:8), we have convenient worship experiences. Instead of bringing up our kids in the instruction of the Lord, we have a youth group. Instead of practicing the one another passages, we have the occasional handshake or community group on our terms when it’s convenient. Instead of evangelism, we have invitation. Instead of Kingdom growth, we have church bloat.
[9] It should also be pointed out that our evangelistic strategy is very expensive. In the USA, we spend roughly $1.5 million on church functions per baptism of one new convert (David B. Barrett and Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, 520-29). Notice, this is a convert, not a discipled and faithful follower of Jesus. Part of the reason for such expense per baptism is most American churches have a “come and see” model instead of a “go and tell” model.
[10] A bloated church ironically can lead to a cachectic church.
*Photo by Kate Tweedy
Quotes and Takeaways from Christian Smith’s Book, Why Religion Went Obsolete
Christian Smith’s book, Why Religion Went Obsolete, is a sobering wake-up call. We would be wise to consider his well-researched work. And wake up to reality and make adjustments to meet the challenges ahead as best we can.
Smith[1] contends that a profound and multifaceted cultural shift has made traditional American religion increasingly irrelevant and unattractive. He argues that “Religion has not merely declined; it has become culturally obsolete.”[2] The irrelevance of religion is different than just decline or secularization. Instead, Smith basically summarizes the problem this way: “The vibes are off.”[3]
The cultural air we breathe essentially contains pollutants that subtly shape people. It makes them not care about or have time or attention for religion. We may not like it, but we can’t change reality by ignoring it. But it’s not just the surrounding culture that is at fault for the decline. The church itself is liable. One of Christian Smith’s chapter titles is fittingly, “Religious Self-Destructions.”
Many Christian leaders don’t realize the extent of what’s going on. Or they would rather stay the course, doing more of the same. Yet, if we continue on this course, we will get more of the same but with increasingly less successful results. If Christian leaders don’t make the necessary changes, they will burn up and burn out. They will think the answer is more—more of everything and better everything. But that’s not the answer. If we understand the problem incorrectly, we will not be able to come up with the correct solution, and we will be weary and discouraged.
Imagine someone buys a brand-new electric car. But when it starts acting up, they open the hood and start looking for the carburetor. They look around for spark plugs and try to change the oil. They’re frustrated because they don’t know what to do, and nothing looks familiar. But they just keep trying to do the same old thing.
What’s the problem? They’re treating an electric car like it’s a gas-powered one. Same idea on the outside—four wheels, steering wheel, gets you from point A to B—but a completely different system under the hood. We assume what worked before will work again, without realizing the “engine” has changed. We can’t keep using gas tools on electric systems.
We aren’t in Christendom anymore. Christians are speaking a dying language. Church buildings and institutions are increasingly seen as out of touch. Increasingly, America resembles Europe and the culture of Rome at the time of the early church.
What’s the solution?[4] Christian Smith suggests getting down to the core. What are Jesus’ followers trying to do and why? What are the essential core traditions, identities, and missions—without which we would not exist—versus cultural positions that may seem non-negotiable but are actually liabilities? We can’t scramble to just try to keep the status quo intact. A whole new paradigm is needed.[5]
10 Quotes from Why Religion Went Obsolete
“Traditional religion has been losing ground among Americans, especially younger ones, no matter how you measure it: affiliation, practices, beliefs, identities, number of congregations, and confidence in religious organizations have all been declining” (p. 34).
“American religion’s demise has not been due to its farfetched belief contents—as most atheists and some secularization theorists would have it—but because of its own fossilized cultural forms that it was unable to shake. Religion in the Millennial zeitgeist felt alien and disconnected from what mattered in life—in short, badly culturally mismatched. The vibes were off” (p. 338).
“Church closings overtook new church plantings in the latter 2010s.18 In 2014, an estimated 4,000 new Protestant churches were planted, while 3,700 closed that year, resulting in a net gain of 300. In 2019, before COVID-19 spread in the United States, about 3,000 Protestant churches were started but 4,500 closed, resulting in a net loss of 1,500 in one year” (p. 32).
“In 2000, the median number of attendees at a worship service was 137 people. By 2020, that number was reduced to 65—a 52% loss in size in 20 years” (p. 32-33).
“In the mid-1980s, more than two-thirds of Americans believed that clergy had high or very high moral standards. By 2021, however, those ratings were cut by more than half, from 67% in 1985 to 32% in 2023. The ratings by younger Americans, ages 18-34, fell even more sharply, from a high of 70% in 1985 to a mere 22% in 2021” (p. 35).
“Most Americans see religion as a non-essential—an option, a supplement, a life accessory from which someone may or may not benefit” (p. 47).[6]
“The decline of traditional American religion is a massive social change, the kind that doesn’t happen often, and it can be difficult to wrap one’s head around how such a massive change can occur” (p. 60).
“In brief, one key takeaway about the Millennial zeitgeist is this: through immense, tectonic shifts in global and national sociocultural orders, the terrain on which religion and secularism have long contended as binary rivals has undergone upheaval and reconfiguration. New players have gained in numbers and influence. The cultural landscape has become more complex and, for religion, more challenging than before. Understanding the big picture adequately requires recognizing the larger significance of this rise of spirituality and occulture” (p. 335).[7]
“Not all Americans pay attention to these denominational culture wars. But those who do quickly learn that these religious groups are not simply collections of believers who share similar creeds and convictions. They are bureaucratic institutions-an immediate red flag for those who distrust organizations-with complex administrative structures” (p. 269).
Many “believe religious institutions are at best superfluous and at worst dangerous” (p. 347).[8]
Notes
[1] Christian Smith is the William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of Sociology and founding director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society at the University of Notre Dame.
[2] Christian Smith, Why Religion Went Obsolete: The Demise of Traditional Faith in America, 2. “The decline of traditional American religion is a massive social change, the kind that doesn’t happen often, and it can be difficult to wrap one’s head around how such a massive change can occur” (Ibid., 60).
[3] Smith, Why Religion Went Obsolete, 338. “The issues, rather, thrash around the semiconscious subjectivities of young people who rove about their lives with fine-tuned antennae sensing whether or not things give off the right ‘vibe.’ Does it ‘resonate?’ Does it give off ‘good energy?’ Life in this dimension is sorted out in realms of tacit, intuitive, instinctive knowledge and response–always informed by the background zeitgeist. Cultural mismatch meant that, for most younger Americans, traditional religion did not resonate, so they discarded it.” (Christian Smith, Why Religion Went Obsolete, 64)
[4] It has been wisely said, “Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.” Perhaps part of the problem is the current “design” of the church.
[5] Christian Smith, Why Religion Went Obsolete, 372. Many do not understand the need for a new paradigm. “The denial is also present within many churches, as older believers pastors and laity alike-respond to the falling away of young people from faith with either flat denial of the seriousness of the problem or by resorting to failed strategies that at least feel familiar. A Southern Baptist pastor friend focused on evangelizing youth complained bitterly to me that the church’s state-level leadership was spending a fortune on programs that made sense in the 1980s, when those leaders were young, but that had no chance of working today. This allowed the leaders to believe that they were doing something to address the crisis of unbelief among the so-called Zoomers, when in fact these leaders were only propping up illusions of a glorious Christian past” (Rod Dreher, Living in Wonder: Finding Mystery and Meaning in a Secular Age, 101).
[6] If church is simply a “service” where we go and sit, then to a great extent, most people’s perception is true.
[7] See also, for example, Carl Trueman’s book, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution.
[8] “Institutional religion compelled them to distance themselves from religion” (Ibid.). “One can subtract the institution and retain the essence of religion” (Ibid.).
The Solution for Church Decline is Getting Back to the Simple Center
The solution for church decline is not more of the same, and it’s not mega church. The solution, first and foremost, is a work of the Spirit, but the Spirit uses means. One of the means the Spirit has used in the past is reformation. I don’t quite have 95 Theses, but I do have some serious concerns and believe there’s a need for reformation.
The Spirit worked and brought reformation through Martin Luther at the time of the Reformation. And John Wesley worked by the power of the Spirit to bring about the reformation of the church of England. In both cases, something new was the result: a formation rather than a reformation, because in those two instances, the church would not reform.
I think the church has been missing the main thing for a long time. As the song “The Heart of Worship” by Matt Redman says,
I’m comin’ back to the heart of worship
And it’s all about You
It’s all about You, Jesus…
I’m sorry, Lord, for the thing I’ve made it
When it’s all about You
It’s all about You, Jesus
Evaluation & Examination
We need to evaluate what we see as success and examine what Scripture says on this matter. What is our aim and why? If our desire is for our church to become a bigger and bigger name-brand church and for success for “our” church, we’re missing it.[1] Many churches’ articulation of their mission is very similar—something like, “To lead people to become fully devoted followers of Christ.”However, their pathway to practicing their own priorities is often hindered by the very structures they’ve built and the goals they strive for in practice.
Most churches base their mission statements around the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20). Which is great. “Go,” however, is often translated as “come” or “bring people to church.” And “Make disciples” is translated to mean “have classes within the confines of the church.” “Observe everything I have commanded you” is often translated “know everything about everything.”
So, what is the solution to church decline? First, we must have a healthy evaluation of what the goal is or what we’re aiming for. Is our desire to be the biggest and baddest (in the slang positive sense) church? The world’s most theologically astute, correct, and pure church? What is our aim? Is our goal really to make disciples? If so, are we doing it?
Disciples are not like widgets on an assembly line. They can’t be mass-produced or microwaved.[2] They need to be walked with and experience lived discipleship. Many times in church, we’re content with the equivalent of Jar Jar Binks, but Jesus wants to build an army of Jedi. As has been said, “Slow is the new fast.” Jedi’s may take lots of time to develop, but they’re a lot more effective at defeating the dark side.
The prevailing discipleship model reminds me of “meat chickens.” They’re bred to grow extremely fast. They’re engineered to reach full size in just a few weeks. On the outside, they look a lot like normal chickens. But there’s a cost—most of them can’t stand on their legs. They’re not what they were designed to be and can’t do what they were designed to do. They just consume and get consumed. Disciples were never meant to be just consumers. Disciples were meant to be lovingly deployed in the places where they work, live, and play.
We must examine Scripture and evaluate if our current practices are best in line with the values of Scripture. For example, elsewhere in looking at the “one another” passages in the Bible, I propose we make changes and make it incredibly difficult for people to be passive observers of church. I also propose we shift from a “come and see” church model to a “go and tell” church model.
I believe the very structure of church that has become sacrosanct is liable to suffocate the very soul of the church. Church is not a building. Church is not a business. Church is not something you go to for one hour once a week for a service or “worship experience.”
Church is a body of people who are called and commanded to be allegiant to Jesus with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength. Church is not about going to a service. It’s more about serving Jesus in a world that needs to know Him. It’s about loving Jesus and loving like Jesus and regularly gathering with the saints to be better equipped and better able to do what Jesus has called us to do.
Sometimes the structure, amenities, entertainment, and desire for and near perfection of the church service, communicate church is a lot more about people being comfortable, than about following the crucified and reigning Christ. The saying, “The medium is the message,” emphasizes that the characteristics of the communication channel play a significant role in shaping how a message is perceived and understood compared to its specific content. This concept was popularized by media theorist Marshall McLuhan. He argued that the medium by which the message is delivered influences our perceptions, thoughts, and social structures more profoundly than the information it conveys.
The medium isn’t just a neutral container for information; it actively shapes the message and its impact. McLuhan argued that the medium’s effects on our society, culture, and individual psyches are more significant than the specific content it transmits. The medium by which something is communicated is not neutral. The medium itself has an impact beyond the specific content it conveys.
So, when the church gathers in a near-perfect setting with amazing music and speaking, it has an impact beyond the message that is shared in the service. The setting, structure, and the whole of the service (the medium) can often contradict the very message that is shared. When everything is structured to serve and cater to the spectators, it contradicts what Scripture says; that we are to “offer our bodies as living sacrifices” (Rom. 12:1). Is it then any wonder that we have 10% of people in the church doing 100% of the work of the church?
Deconstruction & Reformation
Like it or not, as leaders responsible for our times, we simply have to be willing to submit the inherited ecclesial system to a thoroughgoing audit. We have to accept that what has got us to this point in history—which is now long-term trended decline in every setting in the West—will simply not get us to a viable future. We can no longer allow ourselves to act as if more of the same thinking and doing is going to bring about fundamentally different results. As the ever-insightful Albert Einstein noted, the problems of the world cannot be resolved by the same kind of thinking that created those problems in the first place.[3]
There is a need for the deconstruction of some things within the church and reformation by the Spirit. I believe it is for good reason that many people find the prevailing church model irrelevant. Of course, we should never bow to culture, but culture can give insights into things that we may be blind to. The sheer number of people who have deconstructed should perhaps make us consider whether there are things in church that should be deconstructed. Unnecessary things in church are unnecessary, and sometimes those things have been exalted to near-sacred status.[4]
The church is still and always in need of reformation (Semper Reformanda). “We must learn to be suspicious of our cultural assumptions and be willing to take a scalpel to the cultural forms that have built up around our Christian beliefs.”[5] As Francis Asbury said, “At the Reformation, the reformers only beat off part of the rubbish.”[6]
Semper Reformanda is not just for the 1500s. It’s something for now. And as Asbury and others have pointed out, the previous reformations didn’t take things quite far enough. We need an ecclesiological and missiological reformation. We must look at the mirror of God’s word and see the church for what it is and make the needed adjustments. This is not idealism, it’s sacrificial faithfulness.
Much of the trellis needs to be trimmed for us to have a healthy vine. For too long, the trellis—the structures and systems, buildings and branding—has been what we have given our attention to. And it is becoming unwieldy. If we are to put the attention on the fruit of the vine, we need to give up much of the trellis. The branches themselves need pruning, but many are not even willing to trim any part of the trellis. Some of our physical buildings and organizational structures should be considered for the chopping block.
As Alan Hirsch often says, “‘We are perfectly designed to produce what we are currently producing.’ What we are seeing should not surprise us. Rather, we should redesign the system to produce different outcomes.”[7]
Implementation & Demonstration
We need the implementation of different healthy church structures and the demonstration that these new structures work to form faithful followers of Jesus. A new trellis for a new and healthier vine. There are already faithful “tests of concept.”[8]
The explosive early church is the first successful test of concept, but we see various modern examples. We see it in the underground church in China, North Korea, and parts of the Middle East. We’re also seeing the beginning of microchurch movements in parts of the USA.[9]
If the current model is not the answer, where is the counter model? Who will pick up the shovel and build with me? Who will reconstruct from the wreckage? Who will sacrifice and even step off staff, if necessary? If the ship is sinking, who is going to swim and salvage what you can?
What if churches had deep instead of surface relationships, discipled instead of entertained, and emphasized the church body instead of the building? What if we were intergenerational instead of isolating, cared about character instead of charisma, and emphasized the ministry of people instead of “superpastors”? What if pastors deeply knew people, we were authentic instead of artificial, and simple instead of complex?
What if churches were co-laborers instead of competitors? What if every person used their gifts where they work, live, and play, and it wasn’t just about the “professionals” standing on the stage?
The desire and what we strive for is to activate every disciple’s latent potential and produce healthy disciples, multiplying microchurches, hubs, and networks. Is this happening? It is in places, and the seed is sprouting in mid-Ohio. Farming, like Christian leadership, takes time, lots of work, and lots of reliance on God.
This is some of how we’re building authentic, simple, replicable, relational microchurches all built on the essential foundation of the Lord Jesus:
- Deep Relationships: Move beyond surface-level interactions to genuine, heartfelt connections where we know and care for one another. This includes practicing the “one another” passages of Scripture, such as bearing burdens, forgiving, encouraging, and praying for one another.
- Intergenerational Community: Integrate people of all ages to foster mutual learning, encouragement, and faith formation. Older Christians mentoring younger ones, while younger members bring fresh perspectives and energy.
- Shared Meals and Fellowship: Regularly gather for meals to cultivate hospitality, build relationships, and create a sense of family. This practice mirrors the early church’s “breaking of bread” and love feasts.
- Relational Evangelism: Focus on sharing the gospel through authentic relationships rather than relying solely on church invitations, programs, and church services. Christians are encouraged and equipped to live missionally in their daily lives.
- Hospitality: Open homes and hearts to welcome others, creating a culture of generosity and inclusion. Hospitality is seen as a vital expression of Christian love and a powerful evangelistic tool.
- Mutual Ministry: Empower all members of the church to use their spiritual gifts for the common good, rather than relying on a “superpastor” or professional clergy. This reflects the biblical concept of the priesthood of all believers.
- Authenticity Over Artificiality: Create space where people can be honest about their struggles and joys, avoiding curated or staged experiences. The church should be a “hospital” for the broken, not a “beauty pageant.”
- Unity and Collaboration: Foster unity within the church and across churches, focusing on Kingdom growth rather than competition. Members should work together to advance the gospel and support one another.
- Biblical Practices: Ground the community in Scripture, including regular prayer, teaching, singing, and celebrating the Lord’s Supper. These practices help the church remain spiritually rooted and focused on Christ.
- Missional Living: Encourage and equip the church to live out their faith in the places they work, live, and play. The church is seen as a body that gathers to be built up and scatters to bless.
These elements aim to create a church community that is relationally connected, spiritually vibrant, and missionally engaged, reflecting the biblical ideal of the body of Christ, house to house, city to city, and nation to nation.
Notes
[1] Paul’s consuming desire was that Jesus be preached. He wasn’t about his name in lights or about building a brand. Paul said, “Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice,” (Phil. 1:18). It often seems the desire of the church leadership is for the growth of the church, but not the growth of the disciples in the church. We make fans and spectators, not players on the field and soldiers (Contra 2 Tim.2:1-10). Jesus’ expectation, in contrast, is that people would stop following Him because it was so hard (Jn. 6:67). Jesus didn’t pamper or pander to people, Jesus laid out the bare excruciating reality of what it means to follow Him (Matt. 16:24). Jesus also knew the high cost of following Him was abundantly worth it (Matt. 16:25).
[2] Brad Brisco shares about repeatedly seeing an ad on his social media feed titled “Double Your Church in 90 Days.” Here’s Brisco’s reflection: “While it may sound appealing, it reflects a very problematic mindset. It reduces the church to numbers, promotes short-term thinking, and pressures leaders with unrealistic expectations. Kingdom growth is Spirit-led, highly contextual, and often slow; measured not simply by attendance, but by transformed lives and faithful presence. Discipleship can’t be microwaved.”
[3] Alan Hirsch, 5Q: Reactivating the Original Intelligence and Capacity of the Body of Christ.
[4] I do believe there is an ecclesiological minimum and that churches must at least obtain that minimum. Qualified leadership, preaching/teaching, scripture, singing, sacraments, for example.
[5] My friend, who wisely and faithfully pastors in England and who shares a lot of that wise faithfulness here, wrote this article from which I take his quote (Stephen Kneale, “Assumptions Without Reflection: Assessing Cultural Values in Light of Biblical Values“).
[6] https://seedbed.com/methodism-as-a-revivalistic-movement/
[7] Alan Hirsch, Lance Ford, Rob Wegner, The Starfish and the Spirit: Unleashing the Leadership Potential of Churches and Organizations.
[8] “Test of concept” is often used to refer to the market research used to evaluate the potential success of a new product, service, or idea.
[9] Here are some websites to look at: noplaceleft, 1body.church, l1achurchfortmyers, and churchinnorthcentralohio.
Come & See vs. Go & Tell
Come & See
In the Old Testament, God’s people were to be set apart in their worship of Yahweh, the one true God. In this way, they would make the world want to “come and see” them and thus glorify God. For the most part, the average person was not commissioned to go to the nations. Jonah was an exception.
The temple was the pinnacle of the “come and see” approach to being a light to the nations. The grandeur of the building pointed forward to the heavenly sanctuary. The special priesthood and sacrificial system pointed to the need people have for a mediator.
The church has often adopted this “come and see” model. This is an Old Testament model. But it does lead to specific implications when adopted. It has ramifications for our understanding of how the church functions. With the “come and see” model, money, buildings, and brand often take precedence over people. Invitation replaces evangelism, and brand ambassador and fanboy replace disciple. Church service replaces living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1).
“Come and see” was never intended to be the New Testament church’s main approach to mission. The “come and see” mentality justifies spending exorbitant amounts of money on an LED wall because it will help the “worship experience.” Or churches justify having their staffing and expenses mainly allocated and focused on the Sunday service. What happens outside the four walls of the church, Monday through Saturday, receives a mere fraction of the focus. Because, as is said, “Sunday is coming.”
Go & Tell
There is, of course, warrant for unbelievers to be present when the church gathers. The apostle Paul talks aboutunbelievers being at the gathering of the church and being “cut to the heart” and realizing that “God is really among them” (1 Cor. 14:25). The heart of the gathering of the church, however, is not to be directed towards unbelievers.
Rather, Christians are to share the good news of Jesus with nonChristians on their turf. The gathering of the church is directed toward the upbuilding of believers (1 Cor. 14:3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 17, 19, 26, 31). That’s where the New Testament emphasis is. When we get this wrong, as the church has for the most part for over a millennium, we go wrong in both directions. When we get this wrong, the evangelistic work of the church is stifled because the church’s witness is severely limited[1], and the church body atrophies because it is not being built up and is not doing the work it was designed to do.
Paul’s assumption and desire is that when the church comes together, “each one” will be able to contribute and be involved in building up the church.[2] Scripture says, “My brothers and sisters, let’s summarize. When you meet together, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in tongues, and another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must strengthen all of you.” Each part is to play their part! The New Testament calls us to participation, not performance; all the people of God doing their part, not mainly professionals.
In my understanding, the typical church model, and especially the mega church model, overemphasizes the Old Testament “come and see.” It employs the Old Testament Jethro model of leadership (Ex. 18)[3] to help accomplish increasingly large institutions and thus deemphasizes the New Testament 2 Timothy 2:2 discipleship model. Paul instructs: “What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.”
The New Testament gives a “go and tell” multiplication model, we often do a “build it big” come and see model. We often have the mentality that “If you build it, they will come,” but that is increasingly not true. But more importantly, it’s not biblical.
This sub-biblical approach often leads to a disintegration of life and church, which was never meant to be the case. The people of God are the church of God. Church and life should be seamlessly integrated. One of the other downsides is that the good of the global church is often neglected or forgotten because we’re busy building our brand.[4]
Scripture says we are to be sent, not stagnant. Jesus, who is the good news, made His people the people of good news. Jesus’ very biographies are referred to as “gospel” or “good news.” Good news is meant to be shared. We are to go to the “highways and hedges” and compel people to come in, and that’s into the Kingdom, not the church building.
We may not outright say it with our mouths, but our messaging and methods communicate that church is about the Sunday service. False. But when that is our mode of operation, certain things follow. Money, building, brand, the experience of the sermon, the sound, the structure, and a whole host of other things are all subservient to this overarching philosophy of ministry.
Here it is: “We need to get people inside the doors of the church so that the professionals and the ‘experience’ of the church service they provide will do all the great and fantastic things! So, get hyped to invite people to church! The professionals will take care of it from there!”
The churches that are the best at doing this tend to be the biggest and “sexiest.” But is the end result meeting the intention of King Jesus? From what I’ve seen, to a great degree, no. I think the model is unbiblical and broken, and not surprisingly, not working.
Which is the church supposed to be?
When Jesus, the promised Messiah, came, He changed the “come and see” approach to a “go and tell” commission. Jesus tabernacled or made the presence of God among us (He is the Temple) (Jn. 1:14). And He made His people into temples because God, by the Spirit, dwells in His people (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19). Jesus is the Sacrifice who takes away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29) and calls all His people to be living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1). Jesus is the Great High Priest who brings His people to God and makes His people priests (1 Pet. 2:9).
The church is called to be missionaries—sent ones—who cross borders and cultural barriers to share the good news of Jesus. We are not to be sitters waiting for people to come into our presence after having to cross cultural and language barriers. The church is to go and tell! That’s the emphasis of the New Testament over and over and over again (Matt. 10:32-33; 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15; Rom. 10:14-15; 2 Cor. 5:20; 1 Pet. 3:15).
This has massive consequences for church life. It has huge implications for how we think about Kingdom stewardship. As a church, we can (and should!) keep less and give away more! Church buildings are not temples and the distributors of religious goods and services. Instead, God’s people—all of God’s people—are temples and beacons of light and love, distributing blessings and the good news of Jesus all over the place! As Paul says in a different context, “The word of God is not bound” (2 Tim. 2:9) in a building! It’s out there mixing it up, being the salt in a world of decay, and light in a world of darkness, as it was always intended to be.
If we understand this biblical and missiological shift, success looks different. It is no longer church growth (or at least keeping the lights on). Nope. It is the growth of the Church (notice the capital “C”), both in depth of discipleship and in souls saved. The growth in the size of the local institutional church is not the goal. Instead, the growth of the Church in the city (the local level) and the world become the benchmarks.
We equip people for home hospitality instead of mainly hospitality teams and greeting teams. We’re about opening the door to our homes, not people who open the doors “at church.” We don’t mainly shake hands as part of a church service; we, as the church, regularly use our hands to serve people in our community.
We encourage and invest in Christian artists being salt and light and blessing their community, instead of being cloistered behind the four walls of a church building. Our leaders sacrificially and lovingly lead. It’s not about them being qualified in business; they are biblically qualified. So, janitors lovingly lead right alongside rocket scientists.[5]
Yes, this is a different model. But I’m convinced it is the New Testament model.[6] We are to go and serve, not just sit in a service. We are to praise and pray where we work, live, and play, not just in a church building.
The church is still, and always, in need of reformation (Semper Reformanda). “We must learn to be suspicious of our cultural assumptions and be willing to take a scalpel to the cultural forms that have built up around our Christian beliefs.”[7] As Francis Asbury said, “At the Reformation, the reformers only beat off part of the rubbish.” Let’s reform! Let’s “go and tell,” not just say, “Come and see.”[8]
Notes
[1] There are then less people involved in evangelism. Less time allocated to evangelism. Fewer locations for people to hear the gospel. It also puts the onus on lost people to cross the language and cultural barrier to go to church.
[2] In Romans 15, Paul writes, “My brothers and sisters, I myself am convinced about you that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another” (v.15). There is importance placed on the ability to “instruct one another.” This is not just the role of the pastor/teacher. It is the job of each member of Christ’s body.
[3] It is a wise principle and can be appropriately applied. But it was explicitly for the Old Testament people of God, primarily for governmental purposes. It is not the model for the New Testament church. The New Testament gives different leadership principles, priorities, and positions for people in leadership. Again, this is not to say we cannot glean from the Jethro model.
[4] Hebrews, however, says, “Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body” (13:3). And Paul says, “As we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10).
[5] “We have created church cultures that are essentially middle class and we filter the criteria for eldership through our middle-class cultural spectacles” (Stephen Kneale, “Assumptions Without Reflection: Assessing Cultural Values in Light of Biblical Values“). But we don’t want to keep doing this unbiblical practice.
[6] This was not the model of the early church. Some will say Pentecost was massive. Yes, it was. But that’s not how the church typically gathered. They weren’t able to. They didn’t keep meeting in that way for various reasons.
Some will say, “the church in the future will be huge! Just read Revelation. It says, ‘Myriads and myriads.” To that I say, I have read Revelation, a lot, The future will be a lot different than now. But the reality is, the Church is massive now. I don’t take issue with that! But that’s not to say that the local structure of the church should ideally be massive. But yes, the Church is, and is ideally, massive!
The New Testament also talks about the church in the city. The city size of the church may also be massive, even ideally so. But, that does not mean that the most local level will be massive. It doesn’t seem like the church had many large local gatherings until after the Edict of Milan. This, however, brought a lot of syncretism and stagnation of various sorts.
Massive often hinders momentum whereas micro movements can be very difficult to stop (see e.g., The Spider and the Starfish and The Starfish and the Spirit). The early church was a movement and that’s the DNA that the New Testament gives us. It wants Christians to reproduce themselves and replicate as fast and as healthy as possible. So, we need to major on the majors and not the minors of buildings and brand.
[7] My friend who wisely and faithfully pastors in England and who shares a lot of that wise faithfulness here wrote this article from where I take his quote (Stephen Kneale, “Assumptions Without Reflection: Assessing Cultural Values in Light of Biblical Values“).
[8] Where the New Testament says “come and see” it’s the Samaritan woman evangelizing. She said, “Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did” (Jn. 4:29). She is literally going to people and telling them about Jesus.
*Photo by Akira Hojo
The Solution for Church Decline is Not Mega Church
In a previous post, I wrote that “The Solution for Church Decline is Not More of the Same.” However, the church in America, for the most part, operates with the Christendom paradigm. We are attempting to navigate the post-Christian, postmodern, late capitalist challenges of the twenty-first century with a pre-modern, pre-Enlightenment, 1700-year-old European template of the church. It’s like we are trying to negotiate New York City using a map of Los Angeles.[1] “The maps don’t fit the territories, and more importantly it does not fully square with the New Testament.”[2]
[I should probably say here that I was “inside the belly of the beast” of a mega church. I served on staff as a youth pastor, care pastor, and campus pastor. I have seen it from the inside with really good, faithful people, and I don’t think it’s the solution. Which is part of the reason why I’m not there anymore.]
Mega Churches Tend to Breed Consumerism
As churches grow, “there is a decline among churchgoers in per capita giving, willingness to volunteer, and a lower overall level of participation within the congregation. This lends credence to the stereotype that some attendees of larger churches are looking for a place to spectate but not serve.”[3] Whereas “Smaller churches (those with 100 or fewer each week) have high levels of member commitment. The congregations have greater percentage of member participation in weekly worship. Participants give more money per person and are more likely to volunteer. These churches spend less on staffing and give the highest percentage of their budget toward missions and charity.”[4]
Mega church tends to breed consumers and spectators instead of servants; fans instead of sold-out followers. The very structure of many churches’ “service” communicates that people are there to sit and be served. It seems people increasingly go to bigger churches for a good experience.[5]
The gathering of the church was always intended to build up the church body so that the church is better equipped and encouraged to be the church. But experience and entertainment-oriented gatherings mainly atrophy the ministerial muscles of the church. Putting on a show only severs the nerve to service.
Living in relationship and serving in our communities where we work, live, and play takes sacrifice and often the reordering of our schedules. It’s not convenient. We often make church convenient—online church, community on your terms when you want to make time for it, and a “worship experience”—but following Jesus has never been convenient. Jesus is the Lord, the boss of the universe for whom ever being will bow, we are to be allegiant to Him, whether it’s convenient or not.
There is a principle in the military that I think is instructive—“Train as we fight.” When I was in the army, we didn’t train with Nerf guns, and we didn’t throw tennis balls and act like they were grenades. Nope, we used real weapons and we did real pushups. I think the church sometimes gets this backward. Church training is the equivalent of “Duck Hunt.” It’s fun, it’s easy, and sometimes laughable. Jesus said, “If you’re going to follow Me you will need to take up your cross and be willing to give up everything.” Pastors often say that with their lips but the very structure of the church contradicts the teaching.
Mega Churches Can’t Grow Fast Enough
A mega church can’t grow fast enough to keep up with the rate of decline. Think of the quick and nibble multiplication of “rabbit churches” in contrast to the plodding, slow, and expensive “elephant churches.” The apostle Paul’s missionary method was not to plant elephant churches, but rabbit churches.[6]
We should intentionally pursue what makes for the rapid multiplication of healthy disciples. This will call for us to be collaborators, not competitors, and care about actual growth, not transfer growth. Buildings, budgets, and even butts in seats are not necessarily an indicator of health or faithfulness to Jesus’ commands.
With over four billion people without Jesus, it’s prudent to devise plans, strategies, and methods that facilitate the healthy growth of disciples, leaders, and churches. While there’s biblical freedom that allows for culturally influenced approaches, not all such expressions are conducive to healthy church multiplication.[7]
Mega Churches aren’t Set Up Well To Prepare the Next Generation of Leaders
Mega church isn’t set up well to prepare the next generation of leaders for the challenges of the future. “Most future pastors will come from larger churches, since that’s where the majority of churchgoers attend. But most of the pastoral jobs will be in small churches, since that’s the majority of congregations.”[8]
Most future pastors will not be prepared for the realities they will face at these small churches. They may need to be willing to work an additional job outside the church or accept substantially less money than they ever expected to live on.[9] These pastors’ philosophy of ministry and their conception of what it means to serve as a pastor will also need a redo.
Many people preparing for the pastorate have preconceived notions of what it’s like to be a pastor. Many see pastors as the equivalent of local rock stars. They see the lives of pastors as glamorous. Some want-to-be-pastors think pastors sit in their study, leave to speak to the masses, and after the applause return to their cloistered repose. Seminary often prepares pastors for the study and not the flock. The mega church, it would seem, often prepares pastors for social media, and not the flock. Disillusionment is the result.
Mega Churches Tend to Constrict the Full Functioning of the Church Body
Churches often implicitly communicate that the pastor is the professional who does the ministry. This was never supposed to be the case. Rather, every member of the church body is to be equipped for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12). There is a concept in Christianity called “the priesthood of all believers” (see 1 Peter 2:4-9). It teaches that there is no special class of Christian. Jesus is the sole person who gives access to God (Jn. 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5), and no other special office is needed for that role. Jesus makes all of His people part of the “priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:5, 9). So, all Christians are to be active participants. The church is a body with many parts and many different giftings; it is vital that each part does its part (1 Corinthians 12:1-27, Romans 12:4-8, Ephesians 1:1-23). Let’s cast off any garb that could constrict the full functioning of Christ’s body.
Mega Churches Consolidate Resources
Mega churches consolidate resources. It is similar to what happens in a siege. It is a “game of attrition.” Mega churches have a type of efficiency that results from gathered resources and the ability to have fewer pastors per attendee, due to the potential for repeating church services and live streaming at other campuses. Higher-paying pastoral positions can be supplemented with lower-paying positions. Mega churches have found a way to get the “most bang for their buck.” But what are the unseen downsides to all the pizzazz of a mega church? Here are a few: superstar pastor culture,[10] less pastoral care, less connection and community, and a consumeristic mentality.
We should see it for what it is, a consolidation of resources and growth in one church, which is not necessarily growth in the Church. Also, mega churches are typically competitively consolidating and “taking over” other churches. Consolidation in partnership in mission is a praiseworthy goal. More often, however, the goal is much more partisan.
Here’s another way of saying it, a mega church may have a bigger slice of the pie but that doesn’t mean there is more pie. If mega churches are better stewards of the church flock and are more faithful in making disciples this is a positive thing. I, however, am not convinced this is the case (for reasons I have articulated here and elsewhere).
Mega Churches Attract Some but Repel Others
Mega church tends to not be for people on the margins. But Jesus was about people on the margins of society. At least in 2009, Myev Rees said, “The majority of megachurch-goers are white, middle-class or affluent suburbanites.” The numbers may have changed some but this seems to still tend to be the case. Regardless, large churches that seem to have it all together will only attract a specific demographic. What about all the people who find big polished churches plastic, overly institutional, and annoying?
These churches may attract a certain type of demographic, but there is a whole host of people it repels. So, if all the other negative aspects of mega church can be dealt with then they have their place but they’re not the solution to church decline.
Mega Churches Tend To Be About Brand Building and Less About Kingdom Building
Discipleship and evangelism have given way to branding and marketing. The net result is some churches are growing and the pastors reputation is booming. But sometimes the name of Jesus and His Church suffers as a result.
I recently read a newsletter from a church. It gave the number of people in the city and then said “We want every single person to know about ______ church.” They even hired a marketing company. The big asks in the email were (1) give more money and (2) leave a good Google review to help SEO/search results. I get it and I know the pastor who composed the email is genuine and loves Jesus and wants to see people continue to come to Jesus for salvation. But when did brand building become the emphasis and main strategy?
It’s about Jesus and His Name—the name that is about all other names—and not any name brand church. Buildings, brands, and institutions will fall but Jesus is the Lord forever. He deserves our eternal allegiance.
What Is the Solution?
The solution for church decline is not more of the same, and I don’t believe the solution is mega church[11] either. I think the solution is Christians getting back to the simple center of Christ and Christ-formed communities without all the unnecessary clutter, consumerism, and cultural-Christian baggage.
(I plan to lay out my thoughts on the solution in a future post.)
Notes
[1] Alan Hirsch, 5Q:Reactivating the Original Intelligence and Capacity of the Body of Christ.
[2] Hirsch, 5Q.
[3] https://research.lifeway.com/2021/10/20/small-churches-continue-growing-but-in-number-not-size/
[4] Ibid.
[5] “U.S. congregations are increasingly small, while U.S. churchgoers are increasingly headed toward larger churches.” So, “The larger a church is, the more likely it is to be growing.” (https://research.lifeway.com/2021/10/20/small-churches-continue-growing-but-in-number-not-size/) Is this because bigger churches are able to offer more amenities and a better experience?
[6] Of course, Paul would revisit the churches and write them letters encouraging them to pursue gospel health.
[7] See J.D. Payne’s helpful book, Pressure Points.
[9] Many, probably most, of the pastors I went to seminary with are not serving in ministry. This is for multiple reasons but one of the main reasons is most churches do not pay enough to reasonably live on.
[10] Mega churches can easily become a breeding ground for toxic leadership and lack of accountability.
[11] I, of course, realize that mega church is not the only alternative to decline. But the statistics show that smaller churches are growing smaller and larger churches are growing larger. Offhand, I’m not sure where the scales tip from “small” to “large” but I do believe we would do well to consider these trends and ask are they good? Is there anything we should or can do? What are the implications for more large churches and fewer small churches? Does this reflect Kingdom growth or primarily transfer growth? Does this lead to further fracturing of society, more disconnection, and more consumerism? What if any, are the alternatives?
*Photo by Paul Volkmer
The Solution for Church Decline is Not More of the Same
In his book Why Religion Went Obsolete, Christian Smith argues that a significant cultural shift has made traditional American religion increasingly irrelevant and unattractive. He argues that “Religion has not merely declined; it has become culturally obsolete.”[1] The irrelevance of religion is different than just decline or secularization.
The cultural air we unknowingly imbibe essentially contains pollutants that subtly shape people to not care about or have time or attention for religion. We may not like it but we can’t change reality by ignoring it. But it’s not just the surrounding culture that is at fault for the decline of church in the West. The church itself is liable. One of Smith’s chapter titles, “Religious Self-Destructions,” is spot-on.
Many Christian leaders don’t realize the extent of the problem or would rather stick to the same old ways. But if we keep doing the same thing, we’ll get the same results, but with less success. If Christian leaders don’t change course, they’ll burn out and become discouraged. They might think the answer is to do more of everything and make everything better, but that’s not the answer. If the problem is misunderstood we will not be able to come up with the correct solution.
Imagine someone buying a brand-new electric car. But when it starts acting up, they open the hood and start looking for the carburetor. They look around for spark plugs and try to change the oil. They’re frustrated because they don’t know what to do and nothing looks familiar. But they just keep trying to do the same old thing.
What’s the problem? They’re treating an electric car like it’s a gas-powered one. Same idea on the outside—four wheels, steering wheel, gets you from point A to B—but a completely different system under the hood. To fix it, they need a new kind of knowledge, a new toolset, and probably a whole new way of thinking.
Sometimes we try to fix new challenges in the church using recycled methodology. We assume what worked before will work again, without realizing the extent of change that has taken place and the challenges ahead.
We aren’t in Christendom anymore. Christians are speaking a dying language. Church buildings and institutions are increasingly seen as out of touch.
American religion’s demise has not been due to its farfetched belief contents—as most atheists and some secularization theorists would have it—but because of its own fossilized cultural forms that it was unable to shake. Religion in the Millennial zeitgeist felt alien and disconnected from what mattered in life—in short, badly culturally mismatched. The vibes were off.[2]
Christian Smith suggests getting down to the core. What are Jesus’ followers trying to do and why? What are the essential core traditions, identities, and missions—without which we would not exist—versus cultural positions that may seem non-negotiable but are actually liabilities? We can’t be satisfied with just trying to keep the status quo intact. A whole new paradigm is needed.[3]
The solution for church decline is not more of the same, and I don’t believe the solution is mega church either. I think the solution is Christians getting back to the simple center of Christ and Christ-formed communities without all the unnecessary clutter and cultural-Christian baggage.
(I plan to layout more of my thoughts in a few posts to follow)
Notes
[1] Christian Smith, Why Religion Went Obsolete, 2. “The decline of traditional American religion is a massive social change, the kind that doesn’t happen often, and it can be difficult to wrap one’s head around how such a massive change can occur.” (Smith, Why Religion Went Obsolete, 60) “In 2000, the median number of attendees at a worship service was 137 people. By 2020, that number was reduced to 65—a 52% loss in size in 20 years.” (Ibid., 32-33).
[2] Ibid., 338.
[3] Ibid., 372.
*Photo by Paul Volkmer
in X 