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
in X 