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 “One Another” Passages Are Commands, Not Options
Online church and spectator church don’t prioritize the practice of the “one another” commands. They make the “one another” passages optional add-ons, but Scripture doesn’t. A handshake and even a weekly hug is not the same as taking these commands seriously. But what if the practice of these commands is vital for the maturity of Christians? What if these commands are in Scripture to be practiced and prioritized?
The phrase “one another” is derived from the Greek word allelon, which means “one another, each other; mutually, reciprocally.” It occurs 100 times in the New Testament. Approximately 59 of those occurrences are specific commands teaching us how (and how not) to relate to one another. Obedience to those commands is imperative. It forms the basis for all true Christian community, and has a direct impact on our witness to the world (John 13:35). The following list is not exhaustive:
Positive Commands (how to treat one another)
- Love one another (John 13:34 – This command occurs at least 16 times)
- Be devoted to one another (Romans 12:10)
- Welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you (Romans 15:7)
- Honor one another above yourselves (Romans 12:10)
- Live in harmony with one another (Romans 12:16)
- Build up one another (Romans 14:19; 1 Thessalonians 5:11)
- Be like-minded towards one another (Romans 15:5)
- Accept one another (Romans 15:7)
- Admonish one another (Romans 15:14; Colossians 3:16)
- Greet one another (Romans 16:16)
- Care for one another (1 Corinthians 12:25)
- Serve one another (Galatians 5:13)
- Bear one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2)
- Forgive one another (Ephesians 4:2, 32; Colossians 3:13)
- Be patient with one another (Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 3:13)
- Speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15, 25)
- Be kind and compassionate to one another (Ephesians 4:32)
- Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs (Ephesians 5:19)
- Submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21, 1 Peter 5:5)
- Consider others better than yourselves (Philippians 2:3)
- Look to the interests of one another (Philippians 2:4)
- Bear with one another (Colossians 3:13)
- Teach one another (Colossians 3:16)
- Comfort one another (1 Thessalonians 4:18)
- Encourage one another (1 Thessalonians 5:11)
- Exhort one another (Hebrews 3:13)
- Stir up [provoke, stimulate] one another to love and good works (Hebrews 10:24)
- Show hospitality to one another (1 Peter 4:9)
- Employ the gifts that God has given us for the benefit of one another (1 Peter 4:10)
- Clothe yourselves with humility towards one another (1 Peter 5:5)
- Pray for one another (James 5:16)
- Confess your faults to one another (James 5:16)
Negative Commands (how not to treat one another)
- Do not lie to one another (Colossians 3:9)
- Stop passing judgment on one another (Romans 14:13)
- If you keep on biting and devouring each other… you’ll be destroyed by each other (Galatians 5:15)
- Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other (Galatians 5:26)
- Do not slander one another (James 4:11)
- Don’t grumble against each other (James 5:9)
All of these passages assume a deep relational connection. As Christians, we are in a real sense “members of one another” (Romans 12:5; Ephesians 4:25) and very much need one another.
These “one another” commands cannot be practiced one Sunday a week, sitting in a church service. To truly practice the exhortations in these passages requires a type of “living together.” I think the whole Western American church structure needs a redo. I think the paradigm is sick. Perhaps church was never supposed to be structured with a stage and an audience to entertain? Perhaps the church was never meant to be something we merely attend? Perhaps “we are family” was never meant to be a church tagline, but a reality?
Perhaps it’s utterly vital that we prioritize practicing the one another passages? What if we need to restructure the church to ensure the practice of these passages? What if we need to make time, maybe even have a meal together at least once a week, to help ensure we’re complying with the commands of God’s word? Big adjustments would make sense if the “one another” passages are commands, not options.
I propose we make the changes and make it incredibly difficult for people to be passive observers of church. Jesus has said we are the church, His body. We need to be allegiant to Him as the Lord and do the things He has called us to do. I don’t want to make it easy for people to disobey the Lord.[1]
Notes
[1] I appreciate that a lot of churches have Sunday School or Community Groups but sadly a lot of people opt out of these. And sometimes churches make it to easy to opt out.
*Photo by Tegan Mierle
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
13 Concerns About the American Church
As Nadya Williams has said, we shouldn’t be nostalgic and idealize the past. I agree. The early church had its problems and its cultural Christians.[1] Yet, as we see from the New Testament, we must always pursue healthy Christians and churches. Eventually, the church will be completely holy and without blemish (Eph. 5:27). But until then we work for its maturity and health. It’s not idealistic to work towards the ideal; it’s biblical.
Here are 13 general concerns I have with the American Church:
- Consumerism and Entertainment Focus: The church growth model often prioritizes entertainment, convenience, and consumer satisfaction over discipleship, leading to superficial faith and anemic disciples.
- Structural Weaknesses: The typical American church structure, with its emphasis on buildings, branding, and professional clergy, often weakens the church body and individual believers.
- Misplaced Priorities: Churches often aim for “butts in seats” rather than “feet on mission,” focusing on numerical growth and branding instead of authentic discipleship and Kingdom-building.
- Isolation and Lack of Relationships: Many churches fail to foster deep, intergenerational relationships, contributing to loneliness and disconnection among members.
- Competition Among Churches: Churches often compete for attendees rather than collaborating to advance the Kingdom of God.
- Overemphasis on Buildings: The focus on church buildings and facilities can detract from investing in the church body and being on mission where we work, live, and play.
- Complexity Over Simplicity: The traditional church model is often too complex, making it difficult to replicate and hindering the rapid multiplication of disciples and churches.
- Artificiality Over Authenticity: Churches sometimes prioritize staged experiences and curated appearances over genuine, messy, real-life Christian community.
- SuperPastor Culture: The emphasis on charismatic leaders and professional clergy can overshadow the ministry of the church body and lead to pastoral burnout and scandals.
- Neglect of Shepherding: Pastors are often elevated as performers or managers rather than shepherds who deeply know and care for the flock.
- Fad-Driven Practices: Churches sometimes chase cultural relevance and trends at the expense of being historically and spiritually rooted.
- Charisma Over Character: The church often values charisma and influence over Christ-like character, leading to moral failures and scandals.
- Jesus as Savior, Not Lord: The church sometimes emphasizes Jesus as Savior without fully embracing His Lordship, resulting in a lack of obedience and whole-life allegiance. Discipleship is often about knowledge acquisition, not obedience.
We need a radical reformation of the church, focusing on discipleship, authenticity, simplicity, and Kingdom collaboration rather than consumerism, competition, and superficial growth.
What if church were different?
[1] See Nadya Williams, Cultural Christians in the Early Church: A Historical and Practical Introduction to Christians in the Greco-Roman World.
Barriers to Church-Planting Movements
In J. D. Payne’s book, Discovering Church Planting, he lists various barriers to church-planting movements. Here’s five of them:
- Extrabiblical Requirements for Being a Church
- Overcoming Bad Examples of Christianity
- Nonreproducible Models
- Extrabiblical Leadership Requirements
- Planting “Frog” Rather Than “Lizard” Churches
(Frogs just sit and wait for their food to come to them but lizards go find the food. Churches should be less “come and see” and more “go and tell.” We should be evangelistic and not just invite people to come to church.)
Payne suggests “three particular shifts in order to help facilitate the rapid dissemination of the gospel the multiplication of churches” (J.D. Payne, Discovering Church Planting: An Introduction to the Whats, Whys, and Hows of Global Church Planting, 409).
1) A Theological Shift
Unless the Church is willing to return to the simplicity of the gospel, the power of the Holy Spirit, and define the local church according to the simple biblical guidelines-rather than Western cultural preferences-it is unlikely that there will be global expansion. The Church must come to understand the Great Commission more in relational terms and less in institutional terms; with a simpler organization and less in terms of structure and bureaucracy; with more emphasis on biblical accountability and less allowance for member passivity; with more priority placed on community and less on acquaintances; as more dependent on equipping and sending the people of God for mission and less of a reliance on professional clergy (p. 410).
2) A Strategic Shift
The Church must move towards “the multiplication of disciples, leaders, and churches,” and get away from thinking in terms of addition. I appreciate what J.D. Payne says in his book, Pressure Points: Twelve Global Issues Shaping the Face of the Church:
With over four billion people in the world without Jesus, it is not wise to develop strategies that support methods which are counterproductive to the healthy rapid multiplication of disciples, leaders, and churches. Just because there is much biblical freedom in our culturally shaped methods does not mean that all such expressions are conducive to the multiplication of healthy churches across a people group or population segment.
We should intentionally pursue what makes for rapid multiplication of healthy disciples.
3) A Methodological Shift
Church and church planting is often far too complicated to be readily reproducible. “We must advocate and apply simple methods that are highly reproducible by new kingdom citizens” (Payne, Discovering Church Planting, 411). “There is an inverse relationship between the degree of reproducibility and the technicality of church-planting methods.” Therefore, “Highly complex methods should be few in number and not the norm of kingdom citizens” (p. 412).
Confession Before A Christian Meal
When our church gathers, we always share a meal together. Sharing a meal follows the pattern of the early church and helps us cultivate hospitality and relationships; both of which are sorely lacking in our American culture. Before we eat, we share a confession to remind ourselves of the special significance of eating together.[1] Here are some of our past confessions:
“Let us say what we believe…
#1: Being the apprentices of someone who is sinless and who died for the sins of a sinful world, never promised to be easy or to fit nicely into the life we carved out for ourselves. Jesus says, “If you lose your life you will find it.” He doesn’t say, “Find a place to fit Me in.” But the reason Jesus so wants to explode our lives and the way of living is not because He is some monster that wants to ruin the good thing we have going. No! Jesus wants us to walk in the way of abundant, full flourishing, and eternal life. Jesus, as the way, the truth, and the life, knows how we ought to live, and wants us to walk that straight and narrow, beautifully righteous, road.
One of the things Jesus shows He values is eating with others, eating with friends and soon-to-be friends. We take time to eat and talk because Jesus did. We take time to love because Jesus did. So, as we eat and talk and love today, let’s seek to take time this week to do the same. As followers of Jesus, let’s follow Jesus.
#2: Messiah Jesus has called us together to be a people of purity in a land littered with porn, He has called us to be light in a world of darkness, salt in a world of decay, a harbor of hope in a world of hopelessness. He has called us to be His people of radical love in a world of hate. So, as we gather, may God gift us and grow us to that end. May God build us up as we are gathered and use us to bless this broken world as we scatter.
#3: Jesus’ Kingdom is made up of people from Sierra and Senegal, Armenia and America, China and Chad, Portugal and Pakistan, Mexico and Malaysia, and many many more. The reality is, in Christ, we are all one. Division is dead. We are united. So, we are to live together in purposeful unity. It will not be easy, but Jesus’ blood was spilled to welcome us into union with Him and each other. We should not disregard Jesus’ great sacrifice for us, instead, we must “make every effort to keep the unity” (Eph. 1:3).
#4: As we eat even a meager meal together it is significant. We testify to the truth of our unity in Jesus. We remember the relationship with God and each other that Jesus has welcomed us into at great cost to Himself. We remember the various people that Jesus ate with while He walked the earth—prostitutes, Pharisees, and frauds. He welcomed them, He welcomes us, and we are to welcome others. We also remember that soon we will eat with Jesus and with people from every tribe, language, nation, and tongue.
#5: We eat remembering the fellowship and love of the Trinity and we share together in that fellowship. We eat as an act of rebellion against the ways of the world. We eat as a tangible reminder of all we share. So, while we eat, let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding (Rom. 14:19).
#6: God gives the gift of rain and crop, He gives the gift of life, and breathe, and everything. Often we as humans fight over everything. But in a meal we share and partake together. We give grace and we receive grace. A meal is a teacher and a uniter. God cares about meals. As we eat, we remember and we are thankful that we are not in the final analysis independent, we are dependent, dependent on God and upon one another.
#7: Jesus’ posture on the cross is His posture towards us; His arms are open wide. Jesus says to everyone who is thirsty, “Come. Quench your thirst.” To everyone who is sick, Jesus says, “Come. Be healed.” To everyone who is lonely, Jesus says, “Come. Be loved.” Jesus welcomes us, so we welcome one another, and we welcome others. And as we eat now, we remember and celebrate the fellowship Jesus welcomes us into.
#8: When the church comes together, it’s a political rally. We testify and celebrate the reality that Jesus is King. Jesus reigns in goodness, justice, and power. And though we may not see it with physical eyes, we are a powerful group of people, because we are the LORD’s people, we are the church of God (Gal. 1:13; 1 Cor. 10:32, 15:9). We all together are in Christ. Our identity is new in Him; we are not the old people we used to be (2 Cor. 5:17), we are people who radically love, who radically give. We are in Jesus’ Kingdom and under His powerful and eternal reign. We can’t be hurt by the second death because we are more than conquerors and will celebrate at the marriage supper of the Lamb. So, even as we eat now, we testify to these realities. We remember and we rejoice.
#9: It is no light or flippant thing to gather with God’s saints. We celebrate and rejoice that we get to share this meal and time together. As Hebrew 10:24 says, we want to consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, we do not want to neglect meeting together, but instead intentionally encourage one another. So now, Father, may you build us up, and bless us so we can bless the broken world that needs to know the love of your Son, Jesus.
#10: We together give thanks to the LORD for He is good, for His steadfast love endures forever (Ps. 136:1). We give thanks because the LORD is the giver of every good gift (James 1:17), the giver of life, breath, and everything (Acts 17:25). Our Lord gives food and friends to eat with. Therefore, as we come to eat together, we come with thankful hearts. Together we acknowledge God’s abundant goodness. As we eat, may we remember and teach ourselves and one another, that God is a God of extravagance and abundance; God has more grace, more love, and more pleasure in store, so may we likewise be lavish in our love for others.
[1] During the singing portion of our gathering, we sometimes confess one of the historic confessions (the Nicene Creed or Apostle’s Creed). I’ve thought about us systematically working through a confession but we haven’t done that yet.
Photo by Jaco Pretorius
Let’s be the church, not watch church
Many churches have focused a lot of attention on their online presence—online services and social media. There are upsides to these things but what are the potential downsides? In this blog series, we’re asking, “What if church were different?”
Throughout church history, physical presence has mattered a great deal for multiple reasons. And it still matters. Why does physical presence matter?
Jesus’ Physical Presence
This point is the most succinct and it packs the most punch. The incarnation of Jesus is the ultimate sign that points to the importance of physical presence. In Jesus, God took on flesh. He was physically present among people (see e.g., John 1:1-3,14). God values physical presence.
Jesus’ “life is the full truth of living, Jesus is the standard by which life is to be measured.”[1] And Jesus shows us that physical presence matters deeply. Because Jesus was very much present physically.
Shut-ins Need Physical Presence
It is often said that online services are for shut-ins. I appreciate churches thinking of shut-ins but it would also be good to visit those shut-ins. I wonder what percentage of shut-ins utilize online services versus able-bodied people? I think churches investing in and visiting shut-ins would be a wiser and better use of resources (especially when there is already all sorts of church service content available). Our epidemic of loneliness and social isolation is not being helped by the internet and online services. People need actual people.
Online Presence cannot replicate Physical Presence
Actual physical presence has been important for centuries in order to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the saints. Part of the reason the Lord’s Supper is sometimes referred to as “communion” is because through Jesus we have communion with God and with one another.
Physical presence is important so we can practice the “one another passages.” For example, we are to accept one another (Rom. 15:7), bear with one another (Eph. 4:2; Col. 3:13), forgive one another (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13), pray for and confess sins to one another (James 5:16), cheer and challenge one another (Heb. 3:13; 10:24-25), admonish and confront one another (Rom. 15:14; Col. 3:16; Gal. 6:1-6), warn one another (1 Thess. 5:14), teach one another (Col. 3:16), bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2), submit to one another (Eph. 5:21).
In Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam argues that social capital in the U.S. has declined, as people are less engaged in civic life, social organizations, and community activities. He attributes this to factors like television, suburbanization, and generational changes, warning that this trend weakens democracy and social trust. He calls for efforts to rebuild connections and foster civic engagement. He says, “The single most common finding from a half-century’s research on the correlates of life satisfaction, not only in the United States but around the world, is that happiness is best predicted by the breadth and depth of one’s social connections.” Online presence cannot replicate physical presence.
Discipleship Needs Physical Presence
Following Jesus isn’t just informational, it’s transformational. We are Jesus’ apprentices. We seek to imitate others as they imitate Jesus (1 Cor. 11:1). This requires physical presence.[2]
You can curate your playlist but you can’t curate your pastor or the people of the church. You can skip a podcast with content you don’t like (but maybe need to hear!) but you can’t, or at least you shouldn’t shush the people sitting with you in church. We can be our own DJ of “digital church,” we can form it in our own image to fit our whims, but real church—the gathering of Jesus’ blood-bought body—works to reform us in Jesus’ image. Jesus DJ’s us.
We can filter and unfollow our online community and we can turn it off and on. We can accept, block, and unfollow “friends.” But in real-life discipleship in apprenticeship with Jesus, we must love everyone.
One of the strategies of the enemy at war is to divide the army so that they are more easily defeated. If the arm is divided, they can’t support one another and encourage one another. That is to a great extent what has happened to many Christians today. They are very much on their own and vulnerable to the attack of the enemy.
The Apostle Paul used the “technology” of the time and wrote the amazing letter to the Romans—quite a gift!—but he says, “I long to see you, that I may impart some spiritual gift to strengthen you” (Rom. 1:11). John repeatedly talks about the importance of seeing people “face to face” (2 Jn. 12; 3 Jn. 14). Actual physical presence is important.
Actual “Church is a resistance to certain ways of being formed.”[3] Church is about Jesus, loving Him, and others. It’s not about convenience. Online often malforms us, Jesus wants to form us in His image. If we’re online we’re not putting our life on the line for Jesus and others.
Jesus’ Ideal is Physical Presence
Imagine the scenario in heaven where Jesus is sharing His plan for the redemption of the church… Jesus says, “I want to purchase people from every tribe, language, nation, and tongue so that they will be a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for My own possession, so that they will sit in front of their TV and watch a church service. That’s my dream. That’s my big plan to transform the world and spread love.”
That’s crazy and not Jesus’ ideal. 1 Peter 2:9 says Jesus has made us His chosen race, royal priesthood, holy nation, and people for his own possession, so that we may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called us out of darkness into his marvelous light. What Jesus is doing is creating a bunch of little christs and spreading His love. In other words, God‘s plan for the transformation of all the world is not a bunch of couch potatoes, but an army of little Jesuses.
Plus, we lose out on glorifying Jesus in our diversity if we’re online and not in person. As Kendall Vanderslice has said, “Church is one of the few remaining institutions that brings people together across generations, across physical and cognitive abilities, across relationship status and life stage.”[4]
Conclusion
The world is often a lonely place, especially in America. The Mayo Clinic recently shared an article on the importance of friendship and how to be a friend. The word is realizing what the church has known for centuries and seems to be forgetting. Let’s be the church, not watch church. Let’s be friends, not just accept friend requests. In a world of loneliness, let’s love and open the doors of our homes and hearts.
Notes
[1] Norman Wirzba, Food and Faith: A Theology of Eating, 195.
[2] 1 John 2:6 says, whoever says Jesus abides in them ought to walk in the same way in which He walked. James tells us, “Be doers of the word, and not hearers only” (1:22). Jesus said, “Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord’ and do not do what I tell you?” (Lk. 6:46). See also 1 Cor. 4:14-17; 1 Thess. 1:4-10; Heb. 13:7-8.
[3] Kendall Vanderslice, “The Church of the Chronically Online” 56 in Common Good issue 17.
[4] Vanderslice, “The Church of the Chronically Online,” 56.
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦
The Modern American Church is Sick
The modern American church is sick. Let me count the ways… Here I’ll just give two. I hate being doomsdayish. But the writing is on the wall.
Invitation/Evangelism
Sadly, many church leaders equate evangelism with church invitation. In his book Meet Generation Z, James Emery White talks about Michael Green’s book on the staggering growth of the early church. He says Green’s book Evangelism in the Early Church had one huge conclusion: the early church “shared the good news of Jesus like gossip over the backyard fence.” Yet, right after this, White says, “In other words, a culture of invitation was both cultivated and celebrated.”
White, however, is not talking about sharing the good news of Jesus. He is talking about inviting people to a church service.
It’s not difficult… We create tools to put into the hands of people to use to invite their friends all the time… We celebrate and honor people who invite people all the time… Such tools can be something as simple as pens with the name of our website on them that people can give to someone. (Meet Generation Z, 151).
I know this is just a little quote but it does highlight that church leaders are stretching to try and get their people to invite others to church. That’s the big push. So, we make it so “It’s not difficult.” We seem to think, the people in the church are only so capable or faithful. We apparently can’t expect too much. We celebrate the faithful few who give their coworker a church pen and invite them to a Christmas Eve service.
The early church was willing to do more than give out pens with the church’s name on it. Let me get all nerdy and drop some biblical language facts. Do you know where the word “martyr” comes from? “Martyr” means someone who dies for their beliefs. “Martyr” comes from the Greek word which means “witness” or “one who gives testimony.” The early church was filled with witnesses—martyrs—who lovingly told others about Jesus, regardless of the cost. We celebrate and cultivate invitation to a church service. There’s a little bit of a difference.
This is what Michael Green says,
Communicating the faith was not regarded as the preserve of the very zealous or of the officially designated evangelist. Evangelism was the prerogative and duty of every church member. We have seen apostles and wandering prophets, nobles and paupers, intellectuals and fishermen all taking part enthusiastically in this the primary task committed by Christ to his Church. The ordinary people of the church saw it as their job: Christianity what supremely a lay movement, spread by informal missionaries. (Evangelism in the Early Church, 516)
He is clearly talking about evangelism, not invitation. They are not the same. He goes on:
Unless there is a transformation of contemporary church life so that once again the task of evangelism is something which is seen as incumbent on every baptized Christian, and is backed up by a quality of living what outshines the best that unbelief can muster, we are unlikely to make much headway through techniques of evangelism. People will not believe that Christians have good news to share until they find that bishops and bakers, university professors and housewives, bus drivers and street corner preachers are all alike keen to pass it on, however different their methods may be. And they will continue to believe that the Church is an introverted society composed of ‘respectable’ people and bent on its own preservation until they see in church groupings and individual Christians the caring, the joy, the fellowship, the self-sacrifice and the openness which marked the early church at its best. (Evangelism in the Early Church, 517-18)
Listen, I am not saying it is bad to invite people to church. There can be a place for that. But we should not equate evangelism and invitation. And we are all called to actually “gossip the gospel,” not hand out a handout.
Transfer Growth/competition within the Kingdom
How can a kingdom divided against itself stand? I’ve talked about this elsewhere but I think Jesus makes a good point (even if the context in which He said that was different. See Matt. 12:26; Mark 3:24).
I heard a story from a friend. They overheard some other friends talking: “I saw the addition to y’all’s church. It looks great! How’s it going?” That’s when a kid chimed in: “My friends are coming from their churches because they’re not doing good.” I think, “From the mouths of babes” is appropriate here.
A lot of churches across America aren’t doing well. A 35,000-square-foot church building in my area with a 400-seat sanctuary just sold for $65,000. Some may celebrate that another church down the street is adding a multimillion addition, but where is the actual growth? Is it Kingdom growth? Are new people crying out Jesus’ praise who previously didn’t, or are we rearranging furniture?
I’m not saying there are no reasons to decide to go to a different church, there are. The way that we think about transfer growth, however, is important. Again, not to pick on James Emery White but his book’s on my mind and in my hand because I just read it. He talks about visiting a church over the summer which “was one of the most programming-challenged services I’ve ever attended.” He doesn’t specify but I imagine it wasn’t very smooth and maybe awkward at points. But he goes on to say that though the service wasn’t very good, his kids liked the kid’s ministry.
Here’s the lesson: you can drop the ball in the service but ace it with the kids and still have a chance that a family will return. But no matter how good the service is, if the children’s ministry is bad, the family won’t come back… Children are at the heart of your growth engine. (Meet Generation Z, 150).
Basically, we need to have better religious goods and services than the church down the street, and an important part of what we need to offer is a really good children’s ministry. Notice the goal is not discipleship of parents so that they love and teach their kids, and it’s not discipleship of the kids; no, it’s an experience for the kids.
Conclusion
I get it, I don’t want things to be bad or awkward. But maybe the whole paradigm is messed up? Perhaps church was never supposed to be structured with a stage and an audience to entertain? Perhaps the church was never meant to be something we attend or a building? Perhaps “we are family” was never meant to be a church tagline but a reality? Perhaps service is meant to be something that the church provides to the world and not something church leaders provide to church members?
I agree that we should do things well. But it is imperative that we do the right things. 1 Corinthians 10:31 is often quoted by church leaders: “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” Of course, I agree with this verse. But this verse doesn’t give us carte blanche to use any methodology.
I appreciate what J.D. Payne wisely says in his book, Pressure Points:
With over four billion people in the world without Jesus, it is not wise to develop strategies that support methods which are counterproductive to the healthy rapid multiplication of disciples, leaders, and churches. Just because there is much biblical freedom in our culturally shaped methods does not mean that all such expressions are conducive to the multiplication of healthy churches across a people group or population segment.
We should intentionally pursue what makes for 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.
What if church aimed at something different?
What if church were different and aimed at something different? What if something radically different is needed, and needed right now? What if God is calling us to multiply movements, not names and brands? What if it’s about Jesus, His Kingdom, and the lost people He is calling, and not about a denomination or third-order doctrinal matters?[1] What if we need to focus on micro-movements and not mega organizations?
In the 2004 Olympics, Matt Emmons was way out in front. He had nearly clinched gold in the fifty meter, three position rifle final. All he had to do was hit the target. He didn’t have to get a bullseye; he just had to hit the target—something he could seemingly do with his eyes closed. He took aim, pulled the trigger, and hit the target. The only thing was, it was the wrong target.
He did not get gold that day. He didn’t get a metal. The only thing he got was disqualified. It’s possible to do a really good job, even the best job, and fail. If we aim at the wrong thing, we’re wrong even if we hit the target.
What if we have been aiming at the wrong target? The Apostle Paul, referring to Christian ministry, says, “Let each one take care how he builds” (1 Cor. 3:10). We must be intentional and aim well.
What if the modern church has often listened to business wisdom instead of biblical wisdom? What if we have built on a different foundation than the one the Bible commends to us? What if the church has cared too much about the esteem of man, and Christ and His word have fallen in our esteem?
We easily prize and prioritize the wrong things. We listen to the wrong voices and value and build the wrong things. Jesus wants us to listen to Him, value the Kingdom, and be about the Kingdom. Several years ago Kent Hughes wrote Liberating Ministry from the Success Syndrome. He says true success in ministry is not measured by worldly metrics like numbers or popularity. The book emphasizes the importance of focusing on the spiritual well-being and transformation of individuals rather than solely chasing large congregations.
What if we’ve been aiming at a good social media presence when what we need is actual presence? What we need is not pastors who look good, but who are good. What if we’ve unknowingly been capitulating to the culture and bought into a coy lie?
What if “butts in seats” is not what we should be aiming for but feet on mission? What if mega comfortable, convenient, and cool is the wrong target, so even if we hit it we’re liable to be disqualified? Again, we must “build with care” (1 Cor. 3:10). What if we’re building with straw and the End will disclose the futility of our efforts? (1 Cor. 3:12-13)
If disciples are what our Lord delights in, and disciples endure the Day, then that must be our aim. We must aim and build differently. Buildings and brands are not the goal; a band of radical Jesus followers is; that’s who turned the world upside down in the beginning (and without a budget).
Fruitfulness is faithful disciples. We must work like Jesus and Paul did. And we must create contexts most likely to produce faithful followers, not fans.
What if we 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 churches were closer to the biblical ideal and cared more about the Kingdom and less about their brand? What if the renown and reputation of Jesus was the all-consuming focus? What if we all said, “May Jesus increase, and I decrease?” What if pastors sought to “put themselves out of business”?
What if the church sought to be the church, not just go to church? What if the church didn’t just care about orthodoxy but cared about orthopraxy, too? That is, what if people didn’t just know how to define love or find verses about it in the Bible, but radically loved all those they came in contact with. What if churches were appealing, not mainly because of their architecture, programming, and hipness, but because Jesus’ love radiated out of them‽ What if the world was turned upside-down—in the best of ways—not by moralism, music, and monologues from the stage, but people loving Jesus and other people in real life?
My proposal for the church is: let’s be different. Let’s do these things. Let’s radically love Jesus and others and let the chips fall where they may. Everything else is stubble and dross. Brands will fade, buildings will burn, but souls and our Savior are forever.
Notes
[1] Sadly, some people seem more anxious to convert people to their peculiarities, than to convert souls to Christ (Iain H. Murray, Pentecost Today?, 151).
in X 