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]
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
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).
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.
Authentic Church: Moving Beyond Performance
What if church were different? What if we were authentic instead of artificial?
We’ve communicated for decades that church is essentially a performance that you sit down and watch. Is it any wonder so many have decided church is irrelevant? If that’s what church is, it is to a great degree irrelevant. When surveyed, the unchurched gave “There is no value in attending” (74%) as their top reason for abandoning the church.[1] We can get better entertainment at home or half a million concert venues, amusement parks, or sporting arenas. The church can never offer all that the world can, but the church offers something the world can never offer. Have we sold our birthright for a meager porridge?
People long to be real. There’s even a social media platform called “Be Real.” Christians must be real, for real. Distrust in corporations and institutions is very high[2] and most churches have all the markings of a corporation.
What if we did away with the stage and a staged experience? What if instead of curating a culture that looks perfect and happy, we were able to be honest even when we’re struggling? We need a hospital instead of a beauty pageant. We need people to be able to be their sick selves and get better rather than just plastering on a fake face.
Scripture calls us to “bear one another’s burdens” (Gal. 6:2) and “confess our sins to one another” (James 5:16). If we are to carry out these commands of Scripture, we must have a culture that supports and allows their practice, not that contradicts their practice.
Also, the very structure of the “church service” is often artificial. Going to a “service” where we sit in a chair or pew is disconnected from most other parts of our lives. It is more similar to going to a movie or a theatrical performance and is not integrated with the rest of our lives. Many churches have community groups to provide a real-life Christian experience. Churches see the need for real-life Christian relationships, and a Sunday service doesn’t and can’t provide that. It is, however, much more convenient to just “get fed” at church and not bother with being the church, so often people opt out of authentic community.
Christians are to shine as lights in the world but that doesn’t mean they have to be “shiny happy people.” The word hypocrite comes to us from Greek and means to “pretend” or “play a part” as in a theatrical performance. Christians, however, have no need for a mask. As Christians, we know we are all simultaneously saints, sinners, and sufferers. That’s the reality. But many “church services” don’t take those simultaneous statuses into account. The biblical worldview communicates that there is a time for sorrow and a time for rejoicing (Ecc. 3:4; 2 Cor. 6:10). There is a time to lament and a time to dance and praise. But we often lack that breadth of expression. Yet, how can we bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2) if we shy away from the fact that we have burdens?
Jesus often hungout with the lower-class rabble and rebel rouses. Modern American Christianity often communicates that cookie-cutter, middle class is the ideal. Can we expect people in the church to be real, honest, and seek help with their challenges when the church service presents a squeaky clean picture of what it means to follow Jesus? Again, if “the medium is the message,” the message is Christians live super happy, put-together lives. Is it any wonder those who are suffering or struggling don’t want to share, or “go” to a church where perfection is televised from the stage?
Notes
[1] See James Emery White’s book, Meet Generation Z, 84 where he references research done by the Barna Group for his previous book Rethinking the Church. It should be noted that this data is old as that book came out in 1997.
[2] Office of the Surgeon General, Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on the Healing Effects of Social Connection and Community, 13.
What if church were different?
What if church were different? And what if church needed to be different? Different to better fit the biblical ideal and different to better reach North America? What might that “different” look like?
Christianity as we know it in America is receding. That’s what John Dickerson shared in his book The Great Evangelical Recession in 2013. The decline of evangelical Christianity in America “is not just that we’re failing at evangelism or just that we’re failing to keep our own kids or just that we’ll lose 70 percent of our funding in the next thirty years. It’s all those factors (and more) combined and gaining speed simultaneously.”[1]
If that’s the case, and it is, “We are in need of a new paradigm, not a mere reworking of the existing one.”[2] I propose a new paradigm in upcoming posts; but first, let’s look at the current reigning paradigm.
What is the typical American church growth model? What is seen as necessary for the continued growth of the church?
- Inspiring worship experiences by an excellent band and positive worship leaders.
- Dynamic and entertaining preaching related to the felt needs of the audience.
- Fun programming for kids and youth.
- Excellent parking and building facilities.
- Effective marketing and branding to set the church apart from other churches.
- Small group opportunities without commitment.[3]
- The latest and greatest visual technology.
- Increasing staff, buildings, and money.
- When the church grows, go multisite and export the brand.
With all of this, in the USA, we spend roughly $1.5 million on church functions per baptism of one new convert (notice, this is a convert, not a trained up faithful follower of Jesus).[4]
Further, the “market appeal” for this type of church in America is around 35 percent.[5] Most evangelical churches subscribe to this approach yet growth with this model is relatively rare.[6] It is quite hard to start a Saddleback, Willow Creek, or Mars Hill. It takes a whole lot of money and talent and can produce a whole lot of scandal. And sadly these churches often produce fans who sit in their seats instead of Jesus followers who serve.
I am sure church growth experts were sincere, well-intentioned, and did not perceive the ramifications of the consumeristic approach. Yet, they “have explicitly taught us how to market and tailor the product to suit target audiences. They told us to mimic the shopping mall, apply it to the church, and create a one-stop religious shopping experience catering to our every need.” In this way, “consumerism has actually become the driving ideology of the church’s ministry.”[7] Of course, in our preaching, we’re against consumerism but our practice often says something else.
One of the problems, however, is who is going after the roughly 65 percent of people not interested in the typical American church? How are we going to reach the people who think church branding is shallow? What about the people who long for authenticity and not a “positive worship experience?”
What if something else is needed in America? What if we don’t need more mega churches, what if we need micro churches? What if we need simple churches, filled with authentic Jesus followers? What if more money and more buildings aren’t the key?
What if many people are disillusioned not with Christianity, but with the American church? What if people don’t need better visuals during the service but someone to imitate in real life? What if people need a visual of how to live their messy lives as followers of Jesus? What if what we’re building is built with straw (1 Cor. 3:10-15)?
Notes
[1] John Dickerson, The Great Evangelical Recession, 22. Before that, in 2008, Christine Wicker wrote, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation. In it, she said, “Evangelical Christianity in America is dying… They are a remnant, unraveling at every edge. Look at it any way you like: Conversions. Baptisms. Membership. Retention. Participation. Giving. Attendance. Religious literacy. Effect on the culture. All are down and dropping” (Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church [2008, Harper One], ix).
[2] Alan Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways, 26.
[3] These small are designed with on and off-ramps so if people are “too much” fellow Christians don’t have to “bear their burdens.” A sense of community needs to be available but needs to conveniently fit the limited schedule carved out for it.
[4] David B. Barrett and Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, 520-29.
[5] Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways, 36.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., 110.
Photo by Kenny Eliason
Things to remember from Timothy Keller’s book Center Church
Do the Work of an Evangelist
Timothy is exhorted by Paul to “do the work of an evangelist.” And work it is, as Paul knew well. The Scripture uses the imagery of sowing seed and reaping a harvest. The picture given in Scripture is not surprisingly an accurate one, and a labor-intensive one.
Sowing seed takes lots of work and lots of time. Further, we are never guaranteed a harvest. The Spirit blows where it wills (Jn. 3:8), though He does use means. We must be faithful to sow and cultivate all the while remembering that God brings the growth (1 Cor. 3:6-7). We must labor on even when there is no sign of life. We can rest assured that the gospel is the power to salvation and if we are faithful to sow gospel seed a harvest should come. We must always remember that the seed we sow, the only one that can bring new life, is “the living and abiding word of God” (1 Peter 1:23). In the book of Acts, we see that the Word, when “planted,” continued to increase and prevail mightily. It is only when the word of truth, the gospel, is proclaimed that there is fruit and growth (cf. Col. 1:5-6).
We would do well to remember many of the prophets’ experience and realize sometimes the seasons are long and at times we may see droughts. In these seasons, when there seems to be no life, we must remind ourselves that God’s Word will not return to Him void but it shall accomplish its purpose (Is. 55:10-11). Though, sometimes God uses His Word to harden (cf. Is. 6:9-10; Matt. 13;14-15; Acts 28:26-27) we must continue to be faithful to go to the highways and byways and compel people to come to Him (Lk. 14:23).
We have a difficult task, ye impossible. Hear Spurgeon in The Soul Winner:
“We are sent to say to blind eyes, ‘See,’ To deaf ears, ‘Hear,’ to dead hearts, ‘Live,’ and even to Lazarus rotting in that grave, ‘Lazarus, come forth’ (John 11:43). Dare we do this? We will be wise to begin with the conviction that we are utterly powerless for this unless our Master has sent us and is with us. But if He who sent us is with us, ‘all things are possible to him that believeth’ (Mark 9:23).”[1]
___________
[1] C.H. Spurgeon, The Soul Winner (New Kingston, PA: Whitaker House, 1995), 157.
in X 