What Is Success As A Church?
It can be easy to point out what is wrong in the church, but what are we even supposed to be aiming for? What does success look like? Church bloat is not the aim. Increasing the number of people who come to sit in a church building once a week is not the goal.
What is the Mission of the Church? by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert is a helpful book. They say, “The mission of the church—as seen in the Great Commissions, the early church in Acts, and the life of the apostle Paul—is to win people to Christ and build them up in Christ. Making disciples—that’s our task.”[1]
Success looks like more people loving Jesus and loving and living like Jesus. So, as apprentices of Jesus, we want to be…
Going into our world with the good news of Jesus to make disciples.
How is this measured? Mature disciples will be regularly spending time with their neighbors, peers, and coworkers. Mature disciples don’t mainly spend their time in a church building, but being the church in the world. The goal is for Christians to obey the missional mandate. Faithful disciples don’t practice invitation; they practice evangelization.[2]
Instead of one person sharing the good news of Jesus from a stage once or twice a week, we’re working towards all people, all the time; everyone, everywhere. The goal of the church is to make disciples who, in turn, make disciples. Not fans. The goal is not getting more people into a building. The goal is sending more people out into the world.
Growing in maturity in word and deed.
How is this measured? Mature disciples will be regularly practicing the grace of the spiritual disciplines. It’s not just about sitting in a service but doing the things the Lord has called us to do. We can know a lot of things about Jesus and even say, “Jesus is Lord,” and yet contradict what we know and say by our lives.[3] If Jesus is Lord, we must listen and obey (Luke 6:46).
Maturity is not knowledge-based; it’s obedience-based. Knowing must lead to doing. Experientially loving God and tangibly loving our neighbors is vital. We don’t count consumers. We count disciples.
Giving of our time, talents, and treasure.
Mature disciples will regularly serve their local community and practice hospitality.[4] Notice, this is not church building centric. Mature disciples serve Christians and non-Christians (Gal. 6:10) where they work, live, and play.
Maturity is when you serve God in the way He has gifted and called you, not in the way that society expects you to. Taking ownership of your mission is a mark of maturity. The goal is not hoarders. The goal is giving away.
I believe we should encourage more service in the surrounding community and less in the church building. We should see that as more needed. May we be salt and light in our community and neighborhoods, and less about the industrial complex of the “church.” “Serving” does not equal serving in the church. I am over hearing pastors guilt people into serving in the church building. Pastors are sometimes guilty of telling people to essentially hide there light in a bushel. But, if you know the song, it says, “Hide it under a bushel? No!”
Serve and love the people where you are. We want people staying in their bowling league with their coworkers, neighbors, and friends even if it means not going to the second Bible study or being on the tech team. We would much rather people practice hospitality than be on a hospitality team.
Gathering together to encourage and be encouraged.
Mature disciples will be regularly gathering in community to practice the “one another passages.” Mature disciples—male and female, theologically trained or not—will be regularly using their spiritual gifts to build up the body of Christ.
Maturity is gathering and building up other believers and purposely scattering to bless the broken world that needs Jesus’ love. Maturity isn’t about attendance. It’s about intentionally spurring those in your life on towards love and good works (Heb. 10:24). The goal is incarnation, not isolation.[5]
Our Metrics Must Match Our Goals.
If the four practices above are our growth goals, there are various implications. We must create different structures to best reach those goals.
We all have things we value. If you walk into my house, you will see certain things that my family values. You will see that my wife and I value books. If you walk into my son’s room, you will see that he values Legos and books. We all have things where we live that show what we value.
What do we “see” at the gathering of the church? What does what we see communicate about what we value? Do we value real, lived-out, day-in, day-out, discipleship? Or do we value budgets, buildings, branding, platforms, programming, and pizzazz?
I believe we are perfectly designed to obtain our current results. But, sadly, I don’t think the things we do result in disciples who make disciples. I don’t think our metrics do a good job of measuring discipleship, let alone the 2 Timothy 2:2 commission.[6]
What success looks like must change if we are to resemble our Savior. Our aim must shift if we want the church to reflect Jesus’ intent. Jesus’ clear emphasis was on making disciples who make disciples. “Jesus poured His life into a few disciples and taught them to make other disciples. Seventeen times we find Jesus with the masses, but forty-six times we see Him with His disciples.”[7]
Notes
[1] Kevin DeYoung & Greg Gilbert, What is the Mission of the Church?, 63.
[2] Christians are called to share the good news of Jesus with people. The Bible never tells us to invite people to church (e.g., Matt. 5:16; 10:32-33; 28:18-20; Mark 8:38; 16:15; Romans 1:16; 10:14-17; 15:18; 1 Cor. 9:19-23; 1 Cor. 4:1-2; 10:33; 2 Cor. 5:20; 1 Peter 2:12).
[3] The Lord desires that Christians (who are followers of Christ, after all) be agents of peace (Matt. 5:9), partiers with the poor (Lk. 14:13-14) and helpers of the poor (Gal. 2:9-10), ministers of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18-19), protectors of orphans and widows (Is. 1:17; James 1:27), fighters of injustice (Is. 58:6), and people of mercy (Matt. 5:7).
[4] Hospitality is important because it’s been a Christian value throughout Christian history, and it’s a strategic way to be the church on mission. This value is demonstrated by regularly sharing meals with others (including those who are different and needy), intentionality in connecting with our neighbors, and prayerful pursuit of loving friendships where God has planted us.
[5] I believe a few pivots are needed. Here are a few examples: The criteria of faithfulness and maturity should not be going to a building on Sunday and sitting in a hour/hour-and-a-half service. And for the “super Christian” serving the church by watching the kids, being a greeter, or giving some money to the church. Instead, being the salt and light church of God on Monday and throughout the week is the criteria. No bifurcation in life. We are the church. We don’t go to church. Church is not on Sundays.
[6] 2 Tim. 2:2 says, “And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.”
[7] Dann 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!” (Dann Spader, Four Chair Discipling, 36). Also, “Jesus gives more than 400 commands in the Gospels and more than half of them are disciple-making commands.” (Ibid., 37).
*Photo by Helena Lopes
Bloated Churches Aren’t Necessarily Healthy Churches
Bloated churches aren’t necessarily healthy churches. This is especially true since we live in an extremely consumeristic culture, and churches are closing all the time. Transfer growth is very common, but it’s not exactly a mark of health.[1] The reality is “the churches that are growing are picking up people from churches that aren’t growing, not from conversion growth.”[2]
This is the case for most of the biggest and brightest churches in America.[3] In fact, “Studies show only 3-5% of American churches are growing primarily through conversion growth. The remaining growth is mostly transfer growth.”[4]
This has been happening for decades. Bigger churches are getting bigger, and smaller churches are getting smaller. It’s part of the great evangelical recession. It’s what happens in times of decline. “In the same way book stores consolidated when Amazon and online book sales emerged, or General Motors consolidated after the Great Recession, getting rid of Pontiac, Hummer, Saturn, and other divisions to focus on its remaining brands.”[5]
Church bloat is a consolidation of resources. Similar to what happens during a siege. It is a “game of attrition.” Mega churches have a type of efficiency that results from consolidated resources. They can have fewer pastors per attendee, can repeat church services, and livestream at other campuses. Higher-paying pastoral positions can be supplemented with lower-paying positions. Mega churches have found a way to get the “most bang for their buck.”
The bloating is not mainly a positive trend. It’s actually a sign or symptom of some negative trends in America. Christian Smith lays out some of those in his book, Why Religion Went Obsolete. The bloating is a sign of the times. Thus, the growth or decline of a church is not necessarily the direct result of local leadership. It could rather be due to trends beyond the control of leadership.[6]
What are some of the potential downsides to church bloat? In the past, I’ve shared about the potential and common problems with mega church. If church bloat continues, then those accompanying problems are very likely to increase. Here are a few: superstar pastor culture,[7] reduced pastoral care, fewer connections and community, and a consumeristic mentality.[8] Also, consolidation of resources and growth in the size of one church is not necessarily growth in the Church (That is, the Kingdom of God). This is certainly the case if the church is growing primarily through transfer growth.[9]
How Do You Avoid Church Bloat?
The treatment suggested for human bloating is avoiding the consumption of gas-producing foods. It’s similar for the church. We stop church bloat by stopping consumerism.
When the emphasis is on serving inside the church building it leads to bloat. Service inside the building leads to a sedentary lifestyle instead of service in the local community where it’s most needed. The church body must exercise the muscles of evangelism and service or be atrophied.[10]
The church has always been called to serve and do things like watch kids. But the New Testament never hints that it should primarily take place in a church building. Quite the opposite actually. The church is to be light in darkness, which entails the church being involved in the world, not closeted away from it.
It should also be noted that when someone’s belly is bloated, they feel full, but there’s not a lot of substance or health inside. It’s similar in some churches. Things look full and may even look healthy, but it’s just bloat. People are in the seats, but disciples aren’t in the streets.
As has been wisely said, “More people doesn’t always mean more disciples” and “Showing up isn’t growing up.” Healthy churches make disciples who make disciples. The goal is four generations of disciple-makers (2 Tim. 2:2). The goal is disciples who make disciples. The goal is not church bloat. Church bloat looks full, but full is not healthy.
Notes
[1] Competing with the church down the street is not exactly making a big dent in the ledger of heaven and may be a distraction from hell.
[2] Carey Nieuwhof, “5 Disruptive Church Trends that will Rule 2025.”
[3] “Even when a church is on a list like Outreach’s Fastest Growing or Largest Church list, a deeper drill down shows that a lot of growth is simply transfer growth” (Carey Nieuwhof, “5 Disruptive Church Trends that will Rule 2025”).
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Of course, this is not to say that leadership plays no role. It is very important. But, to take an example to demonstrate my point, churches that were set up well for livestream pre-COVID-19 had a growth advantage over those who did not.
[7] Mega churches can easily become a breeding ground for toxic leadership and a lack of accountability.
[8] What if church bloat is a symptom of pandering to people’s insatiable pursuit of pleasure in the form of convenience and lack of need for relational commitment? What if popularity and church bloat could potentially be a symptom of something sinister? What if the growth is not through healthy, real-life, and whole-life apprenticeship to Jesus but something else? What if the pull is not discipleship but the offloading of duty? Instead of drawing near to God, and He will draw near to us (James 4:8), we have convenient worship experiences. Instead of bringing up our kids in the instruction of the Lord, we have a youth group. Instead of practicing the one another passages, we have the occasional handshake or community group on our terms when it’s convenient. Instead of evangelism, we have invitation. Instead of Kingdom growth, we have church bloat.
[9] It should also be pointed out that our evangelistic strategy is very expensive. In the USA, we spend roughly $1.5 million on church functions per baptism of one new convert (David B. Barrett and Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, 520-29). Notice, this is a convert, not a discipled and faithful follower of Jesus. Part of the reason for such expense per baptism is most American churches have a “come and see” model instead of a “go and tell” model.
[10] A bloated church ironically can lead to a cachectic church.
*Photo by Kate Tweedy
The Evolution of Church Meeting Spaces and Some Evaluations and Exhortations
One of my geeky hobbies is going to thrift stores to discover new books. Well, I recently uncovered a gem. Jeanne Halgren Kilde’s book, Sacred Power, Sacred Space, has been fascinating.
(As always, we should read, like we eat chicken. Mindful of the bones. There are some things I disagree with, of course, but there have been a lot of insights.)
I’ve had a growing awareness of the impact of spaces, especially connected to religion. I, however, had not read a book that outlines the evolution of sacred spaces. So I had not fully realized the impact that those spaces have on the structure and theology of the church. I am now more convinced than ever. Spaces, seating arrangements, and the design of spaces have an unarticulated impact beyond what is acknowledged or realized.
Religious Spaces Communicate
As I have said elsewhere, “The medium is the message.” This phrase emphasizes that the communication channel plays a significant role in shaping how a message is perceived and understood. This concept was popularized by media theorist Marshall McLuhan, who argued that the medium by which the message is delivered influences our perceptions, thoughts, and social structures more profoundly than the information it conveys.
The medium isn’t just a neutral container for information; it actively shapes the message and its impact. McLuhan argued that the medium’s effects are more significant than the specific content it transmits. The medium by which something is communicated is not neutral. The medium itself has an impact beyond the specific content it conveys.
Likewise, religious spaces communicate and reinforce practical theology. This is very rarely realized and hardly ever articulated, but it’s true. “Religious spaces… do far more than simply provide the setting within which ritual takes place. They contribute in important ways to the very meaning of ritual practices and to the shape and content of religious systems themselves.”[1]
Like it or not, “Church spaces foster certain relationships and encourage certain behaviors.”[2] Buildings provide “information about the beliefs and practices of a religious group.”[3] The spaces which churches occupy are not unimportant. They are carriers of practical theology, even if unarticulated. Buildings are not benign. Even the change from pews to individual chairs has an impact.
From Simplicity to Fantastic Structures: The Wonder of the Building and Hamstringing of the Body
How and why did the church go from gathering in homes to cathedrals? And what was the impact on the church body?
An Explanation of “Hamstringing”
The hamstring consists of five tendons in the back of a person’s knee. To be hamstrung means to sustain an injury or severing of one or more of those tendons. This severely restricts effectiveness. And this, of course, is not the design of the knee. A tendon is small and may not seem very significant. But it is. If it is hindered, your movement will be constrained.
Churches before Constantine and cathedrals were much more domestic and organic. It was supple and oriented towards movement, quickly spreading from house to house. Now it is much more formal and institutional, and more motionless. This shift has also limited the interactions, relationships, and roles of the people within the church body. In this way, I believe Christ’s body has been crippled in some ways. A seemingly small change can have a big impact, especially over time.
Homes
Christians first gathered in homes, in part, because that is where they had to gather. But I believe it was strategic, too. Of course, even in the New Testament, we see other locations too; outdoors, synagogues, and the Hall of Tyrannus come to mind.[4] But it was certainly the early church’s practice to meet in homes.
Over time, homes were even remodeled or built for the purpose of hosting the church.[5] Eventually, however, structures were made known as domus ecclesiae, which means “house of the church” or “house of the assembly.” These buildings were similar to other houses but were more restricted to the purpose of hosting the gathering of the church. When people were there, they were insulated from “the intrusions of everyday concerns and thoughts.”[6]
Thus, in these early church buildings, we have a slight shift towards a sacred/secular divide. However, that’s not all. There was also a shift towards institutionalization and a clergy/laity divide.[7] In addition, there was a move from shared meals to a more ritualistic eucharistic meal, a move from more fellowship to more formal. These relational meals were crucial to the formation, theology, and beliefs of the early church.[8]
The shift from more of a domestic space associated with household operations and a certain level of informality to a formal ecclesiastical space over a period of at least a century, not surprisingly, had certain social ramifications.[9] Sadly, “Christian space began to function to delineate and maintain distinctions of power and influence among Christians.”[10]
The early church went from gathering around a table as Jesus did with His disciples (and soon to be disciples), to listening to someone stand on some type of stage. These were some of the changes that were taking place before Constantine and the Edict of Milan.
The shift that was beginning to happen for some from the basic equality of all the gathered believers in Christian fellowship around a shared meal,[11] to the hierarchical rules and spatial separation is a considerable one.[12] But the changes were about to get a lot more drastic.
After Constantine
Constantine launched “a building program of immense proportions. Though the exact number of churches Constantine had a hand in creating is unknown, he was involved in the construction of many of the most influential of their day.”[13] It, however, is important to realize that “The churches of Constantine transformed not only Christian architecture but Christianity itself.”[14]
The changes in where the church gathered “reflected and contributed to significant transformations in social power among Christians, helping to establish and maintain distinctions of rank.”[15]
“The purpose of the new Christian buildings was not simply to house worship rituals but to demonstrate the power of the emperor and of Christianity—in other words, these buildings were informed by clear social, political, and religious agendas. Constantine’s churches were symbols of both religious and imperial power.”[16]
The wonder of beautiful cathedrals, in many ways, hamstrung Christ’s body. People went to church to receive blessing. God was mediated not simply through Jesus the Savior, but rather through specific ecclesiastical structures. The transformative power of God went from operating every day and everywhere, to at a specific place and time. And the sacred/secular divide was fully entrenched. Instead of the priesthood of all believers, there was a formal priestly class who were available mainly in the building.[17] Eventually, instead of the good news of Jesus being in the common tongue, as it first was (Koine Greek), it was in Latin.
Reformation was needed. It did eventually come. I think reformation is still needed. As Francis Asbury said, “At the Reformation, the reformers only beat off part of the rubbish.”
Proposal for the Future
It is certainly true that people find profound spiritual meanings in specific places, such as buildings and landscapes.[18] But what if the Lord calls us to set apart our homes and whole neighborhoods as sacred? What if we are to carry the beautiful light of God’s presence wherever we go?
Jesus didn’t go to the Temple to commune with God. But we often see Him getting away to pray (Matt. 14:13; Mk. 1:35; 14:32; Lk. 5:15-16; 6:12-13). Jesus didn’t need a special building to connect with God, and we as Jesus’ disciples don’t need one either. Jesus is our Temple, and He has made God to dwell in us by His Spirit. We take God’s presence wherever we go (1 Cor. 3:16).
Scripture says we are to make everywhere and every moment holy. There should be no sacred/secular divide for Jesus’ saints. Whether we eat or drink or whatever we do, we are to do it all to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). Our work is to be worship, our playing is to be praise.
We are to make every moment holy. I really appreciate the book, Every Moment Holy. It gives prayers for all types of occasions in order to acknowledge that every moment can be, and should be, set apart to the Lord. Of course, this is not to say that there are not more significant and special moments than others. The moment I held my firstborn child and the moment I first saw my bride-to-be walk down the aisle stick out in my mind as special. Gathering with the church is also different than driving by myself in my car. Driving to work is not profane, although its purpose is different than gathering with the church, but they should both honor God.
In the same way, buildings and locations are not inherently good or evil. But that is not to say that matter doesn’t matter. Material—whether block or beam, stone or steel—does matter. Material goods are good gifts from the good Creator. They must be stewarded well to God’s glory. When spaces are not set apart for God’s purposes, they can host evil. Conversely, when they are set apart for good, God brings blessing.
So, buildings to host the church are certainly not bad. But they are also not necessary, and when employed, questions must be asked about the possible implications, communications, and stewardship ramifications of the building.
Buildings are not inherently bad, but must be used to build up the body. We should be aware of the temptations and shaping influences of church spaces. Are they being used in alignment with the values of Jesus and the New Testament, or counter to those values? Is the building going to be leveraged for the building of the Kingdom and blessing of the local community, or be a money and time suck?
We also need to guard against the notion that church is something we go to. Church, biblical church, is something Christians are. It is true that the church gathers to be built up, but the church is just as much the church when it scatters to bless. Church buildings can be counterproductive to that point. “A lot of our language presents and reinforces the idea that church is an event… we talk about ‘going to church’ more often than we talk about ‘being’ the church.”[19]
What About the Beauty and Art of Cathedrals?
You might be asking, “What about the music, art, and architecture of the church? Where would the world be without the church?” I, however, don’t think that question is worded accurately. The church would have still been there all along without the unhealthy sacred/secular divide; there just wouldn’t have been that unbiblical divide.
People sometimes ask me, “Why is the world so dark?” I think it’s due in large part to the church—the light of the world—being hidden away in a building. The Church must continue to be involved in the arts and architecture, but not cloistered in a church building. The arts, whether music, paintings, or sculptures, are not for the church building; they are for the church to love and bless the world.
American Christians have a lot of money.[20] What if the church were a loving light and built community centers to bless their neighbors? What if more of the billions invested in buildings went to bless the world around us? We must leverage our lives and our living rooms for Jesus and His Kingdom. We certainly must leverage our resources and church buildings.
“If you build it they will come,” is less and less true. But even if people were to come, a building is not what transforms. The Body of Christ in love and aflame with the loving truth of Jesus is. Sitting down at a table with loving people who resemble Jesus will always be more transformative than an LED wall or even AC.
Conclusion
What if meeting in regular social and domestic spaces is significant and strategic? What if it normalizes living for the Lord all the time and helps sever the bifurcation of the secular and sacred? I propose we work toward congruence. Let’s work to kill the false dichotomy of the secular and sacred. Of course, buildings are not bad. But let’s leverage all our resources and lives for Christ’s Kingdom!
Jesus incarnated Himself. He entered the messy flesh-and-blood realities of the world and walked and talked with people. And Jesus said, “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you” (Jn. 20:21). We, too, are called to lovingly enter into people’s world. When Christianity is disincarnate (instead of incarnate), it is disingenuous and incongruent. When Christian witness is in a building but not embodied, it is often stale and sterile.
I propose we move into a movement mindset. When Jesus walked the world, He didn’t hide away in the Temple. He was a walking, talking Temple, taking God to people. He went about eating and drinking. He made a movement of followers who shared the good news of Jesus where they worked, lived, and played. The Temple is on the move in the world, spreading love and light. Church is not dependent on a building; it is dependent on the Spirit. Yes, the church gathers to be built up, but it’s not dependent on a building for that.
Notes
[1] Jeanne Halgren Kilde, Sacred Power, Sacred Space: An Introduction to Christian Architecture and Worship, 3.
[2] Kilde, Sacred Power, Sacred Space: An Introduction to Christian Architecture and Worship, 200.
[3] Kilde, Sacred Power, Sacred Space, 201.
[4] It’s hard to say if those spaces were used for the church gathering where Christians purposely came together for teaching, prayer, singing, eating, and celebration and remembrance of Jesus through the meal He gave as a reminder, or were those spaces mainly used as contexts for evangelism? We do not know for sure.
[5] Ibid., 23.
[6] Ibid., 29. “As Christian meeting spaces shifted from homes to remodeled buildings to entirely new edifices, the investment needed to provide worship facilities increased dramatically. Only with the full recognition of Christianity by the empire in the fourth century would sufficient funds be available to create monumental Christian architecture” (Kilde, Sacred Power, Sacred Space, 31). Patronage also became a bigger and bigger thing…
[7] “The physical location of service leaders, elevated on a bema or tribunal at one end of a rectilinear room, rendered the distinctions visible and helped to maintain them” (Kilde, Sacred Power, Sacred Space, 27).
[8] Hal Taussig, In the Beginning was the Meal: Social Experimentation & Early Christian Identity, 181.
[9] Ibid., 31.
[10] Ibid., 26.
[11] “A primary way first-century ‘Christians’ spent time together was at meals!. There they made decisions together about their inner workings and their relationship to the broader world. Meals were the place where they taught and learned together and where they worshipped, prayed, and sang their songs together.” (Taussig, In the Beginning Was the Meal, 21).
[12] See Kilde, Sacred Power, Sacred Space, 30.
[13] Ibid., 39-40.
[14] Ibid., 40.
[15] Ibid., 32.
[16] Ibid., 40.
[17] It is no better today. “Paralysis of much Christian worship must be acknowledged. Protestant worship is in many places still devastatingly captive of clergy leadership’s incessant talking and domination. In many places, the pastor gives long prayers and sermons, almost completely eliminating the voices and expression of the worshippers themselves” (Taussig, In the Beginning was the Meal, 194).
[18] Jeanne Halgren Kilde, Sacred Power, Sacred Space, 9.
[19] Krish Kandiah, “Church As Family,” 68.
[20] A recent study “looked at 344,894 congregations, from 236 different religious denominations (217 of them Christian, and others ranging from Shinto to Tao to Zoroastrian). Collectively, those congregations count about half the American population as members. The average annual income for a congregation, the study said, is $242,910” (Julie Zauzmer, “Study: Religion contributes more to the U.S. economy than Facebook, Google and Apple combined” [September 15, 2016]). The study found that “Americans give $74.5 billion to their congregations per year.”
*Photo by Marvin Yoder
The Solution for Church Decline is Getting Back to the Simple Center
The solution for church decline is not more of the same, and it’s not mega church. The solution, first and foremost, is a work of the Spirit, but the Spirit uses means. One of the means the Spirit has used in the past is reformation. I don’t quite have 95 Theses, but I do have some serious concerns and believe there’s a need for reformation.
The Spirit worked and brought reformation through Martin Luther at the time of the Reformation. And John Wesley worked by the power of the Spirit to bring about the reformation of the church of England. In both cases, something new was the result: a formation rather than a reformation, because in those two instances, the church would not reform.
I think the church has been missing the main thing for a long time. As the song “The Heart of Worship” by Matt Redman says,
I’m comin’ back to the heart of worship
And it’s all about You
It’s all about You, Jesus…
I’m sorry, Lord, for the thing I’ve made it
When it’s all about You
It’s all about You, Jesus
Evaluation & Examination
We need to evaluate what we see as success and examine what Scripture says on this matter. What is our aim and why? If our desire is for our church to become a bigger and bigger name-brand church and for success for “our” church, we’re missing it.[1] Many churches’ articulation of their mission is very similar—something like, “To lead people to become fully devoted followers of Christ.”However, their pathway to practicing their own priorities is often hindered by the very structures they’ve built and the goals they strive for in practice.
Most churches base their mission statements around the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20). Which is great. “Go,” however, is often translated as “come” or “bring people to church.” And “Make disciples” is translated to mean “have classes within the confines of the church.” “Observe everything I have commanded you” is often translated “know everything about everything.”
So, what is the solution to church decline? First, we must have a healthy evaluation of what the goal is or what we’re aiming for. Is our desire to be the biggest and baddest (in the slang positive sense) church? The world’s most theologically astute, correct, and pure church? What is our aim? Is our goal really to make disciples? If so, are we doing it?
Disciples are not like widgets on an assembly line. They can’t be mass-produced or microwaved.[2] They need to be walked with and experience lived discipleship. Many times in church, we’re content with the equivalent of Jar Jar Binks, but Jesus wants to build an army of Jedi. As has been said, “Slow is the new fast.” Jedi’s may take lots of time to develop, but they’re a lot more effective at defeating the dark side.
The prevailing discipleship model reminds me of “meat chickens.” They’re bred to grow extremely fast. They’re engineered to reach full size in just a few weeks. On the outside, they look a lot like normal chickens. But there’s a cost—most of them can’t stand on their legs. They’re not what they were designed to be and can’t do what they were designed to do. They just consume and get consumed. Disciples were never meant to be just consumers. Disciples were meant to be lovingly deployed in the places where they work, live, and play.
We must examine Scripture and evaluate if our current practices are best in line with the values of Scripture. For example, elsewhere in looking at the “one another” passages in the Bible, I propose we make changes and make it incredibly difficult for people to be passive observers of church. I also propose we shift from a “come and see” church model to a “go and tell” church model.
I believe the very structure of church that has become sacrosanct is liable to suffocate the very soul of the church. Church is not a building. Church is not a business. Church is not something you go to for one hour once a week for a service or “worship experience.”
Church is a body of people who are called and commanded to be allegiant to Jesus with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength. Church is not about going to a service. It’s more about serving Jesus in a world that needs to know Him. It’s about loving Jesus and loving like Jesus and regularly gathering with the saints to be better equipped and better able to do what Jesus has called us to do.
Sometimes the structure, amenities, entertainment, and desire for and near perfection of the church service, communicate church is a lot more about people being comfortable, than about following the crucified and reigning Christ. The saying, “The medium is the message,” emphasizes that the characteristics of the communication channel play a significant role in shaping how a message is perceived and understood compared to its specific content. This concept was popularized by media theorist Marshall McLuhan. He argued that the medium by which the message is delivered influences our perceptions, thoughts, and social structures more profoundly than the information it conveys.
The medium isn’t just a neutral container for information; it actively shapes the message and its impact. McLuhan argued that the medium’s effects on our society, culture, and individual psyches are more significant than the specific content it transmits. The medium by which something is communicated is not neutral. The medium itself has an impact beyond the specific content it conveys.
So, when the church gathers in a near-perfect setting with amazing music and speaking, it has an impact beyond the message that is shared in the service. The setting, structure, and the whole of the service (the medium) can often contradict the very message that is shared. When everything is structured to serve and cater to the spectators, it contradicts what Scripture says; that we are to “offer our bodies as living sacrifices” (Rom. 12:1). Is it then any wonder that we have 10% of people in the church doing 100% of the work of the church?
Deconstruction & Reformation
Like it or not, as leaders responsible for our times, we simply have to be willing to submit the inherited ecclesial system to a thoroughgoing audit. We have to accept that what has got us to this point in history—which is now long-term trended decline in every setting in the West—will simply not get us to a viable future. We can no longer allow ourselves to act as if more of the same thinking and doing is going to bring about fundamentally different results. As the ever-insightful Albert Einstein noted, the problems of the world cannot be resolved by the same kind of thinking that created those problems in the first place.[3]
There is a need for the deconstruction of some things within the church and reformation by the Spirit. I believe it is for good reason that many people find the prevailing church model irrelevant. Of course, we should never bow to culture, but culture can give insights into things that we may be blind to. The sheer number of people who have deconstructed should perhaps make us consider whether there are things in church that should be deconstructed. Unnecessary things in church are unnecessary, and sometimes those things have been exalted to near-sacred status.[4]
The church is still and always in need of reformation (Semper Reformanda). “We must learn to be suspicious of our cultural assumptions and be willing to take a scalpel to the cultural forms that have built up around our Christian beliefs.”[5] As Francis Asbury said, “At the Reformation, the reformers only beat off part of the rubbish.”[6]
Semper Reformanda is not just for the 1500s. It’s something for now. And as Asbury and others have pointed out, the previous reformations didn’t take things quite far enough. We need an ecclesiological and missiological reformation. We must look at the mirror of God’s word and see the church for what it is and make the needed adjustments. This is not idealism, it’s sacrificial faithfulness.
Much of the trellis needs to be trimmed for us to have a healthy vine. For too long, the trellis—the structures and systems, buildings and branding—has been what we have given our attention to. And it is becoming unwieldy. If we are to put the attention on the fruit of the vine, we need to give up much of the trellis. The branches themselves need pruning, but many are not even willing to trim any part of the trellis. Some of our physical buildings and organizational structures should be considered for the chopping block.
As Alan Hirsch often says, “‘We are perfectly designed to produce what we are currently producing.’ What we are seeing should not surprise us. Rather, we should redesign the system to produce different outcomes.”[7]
Implementation & Demonstration
We need the implementation of different healthy church structures and the demonstration that these new structures work to form faithful followers of Jesus. A new trellis for a new and healthier vine. There are already faithful “tests of concept.”[8]
The explosive early church is the first successful test of concept, but we see various modern examples. We see it in the underground church in China, North Korea, and parts of the Middle East. We’re also seeing the beginning of microchurch movements in parts of the USA.[9]
If the current model is not the answer, where is the counter model? Who will pick up the shovel and build with me? Who will reconstruct from the wreckage? Who will sacrifice and even step off staff, if necessary? If the ship is sinking, who is going to swim and salvage what you can?
What if churches had deep instead of surface relationships, discipled instead of entertained, and emphasized the church body instead of the building? What if we were intergenerational instead of isolating, cared about character instead of charisma, and emphasized the ministry of people instead of “superpastors”? What if pastors deeply knew people, we were authentic instead of artificial, and simple instead of complex?
What if churches were co-laborers instead of competitors? What if every person used their gifts where they work, live, and play, and it wasn’t just about the “professionals” standing on the stage?
The desire and what we strive for is to activate every disciple’s latent potential and produce healthy disciples, multiplying microchurches, hubs, and networks. Is this happening? It is in places, and the seed is sprouting in mid-Ohio. Farming, like Christian leadership, takes time, lots of work, and lots of reliance on God.
This is some of how we’re building authentic, simple, replicable, relational microchurches all built on the essential foundation of the Lord Jesus:
- Deep Relationships: Move beyond surface-level interactions to genuine, heartfelt connections where we know and care for one another. This includes practicing the “one another” passages of Scripture, such as bearing burdens, forgiving, encouraging, and praying for one another.
- Intergenerational Community: Integrate people of all ages to foster mutual learning, encouragement, and faith formation. Older Christians mentoring younger ones, while younger members bring fresh perspectives and energy.
- Shared Meals and Fellowship: Regularly gather for meals to cultivate hospitality, build relationships, and create a sense of family. This practice mirrors the early church’s “breaking of bread” and love feasts.
- Relational Evangelism: Focus on sharing the gospel through authentic relationships rather than relying solely on church invitations, programs, and church services. Christians are encouraged and equipped to live missionally in their daily lives.
- Hospitality: Open homes and hearts to welcome others, creating a culture of generosity and inclusion. Hospitality is seen as a vital expression of Christian love and a powerful evangelistic tool.
- Mutual Ministry: Empower all members of the church to use their spiritual gifts for the common good, rather than relying on a “superpastor” or professional clergy. This reflects the biblical concept of the priesthood of all believers.
- Authenticity Over Artificiality: Create space where people can be honest about their struggles and joys, avoiding curated or staged experiences. The church should be a “hospital” for the broken, not a “beauty pageant.”
- Unity and Collaboration: Foster unity within the church and across churches, focusing on Kingdom growth rather than competition. Members should work together to advance the gospel and support one another.
- Biblical Practices: Ground the community in Scripture, including regular prayer, teaching, singing, and celebrating the Lord’s Supper. These practices help the church remain spiritually rooted and focused on Christ.
- Missional Living: Encourage and equip the church to live out their faith in the places they work, live, and play. The church is seen as a body that gathers to be built up and scatters to bless.
These elements aim to create a church community that is relationally connected, spiritually vibrant, and missionally engaged, reflecting the biblical ideal of the body of Christ, house to house, city to city, and nation to nation.
Notes
[1] Paul’s consuming desire was that Jesus be preached. He wasn’t about his name in lights or about building a brand. Paul said, “Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice,” (Phil. 1:18). It often seems the desire of the church leadership is for the growth of the church, but not the growth of the disciples in the church. We make fans and spectators, not players on the field and soldiers (Contra 2 Tim.2:1-10). Jesus’ expectation, in contrast, is that people would stop following Him because it was so hard (Jn. 6:67). Jesus didn’t pamper or pander to people, Jesus laid out the bare excruciating reality of what it means to follow Him (Matt. 16:24). Jesus also knew the high cost of following Him was abundantly worth it (Matt. 16:25).
[2] Brad Brisco shares about repeatedly seeing an ad on his social media feed titled “Double Your Church in 90 Days.” Here’s Brisco’s reflection: “While it may sound appealing, it reflects a very problematic mindset. It reduces the church to numbers, promotes short-term thinking, and pressures leaders with unrealistic expectations. Kingdom growth is Spirit-led, highly contextual, and often slow; measured not simply by attendance, but by transformed lives and faithful presence. Discipleship can’t be microwaved.”
[3] Alan Hirsch, 5Q: Reactivating the Original Intelligence and Capacity of the Body of Christ.
[4] I do believe there is an ecclesiological minimum and that churches must at least obtain that minimum. Qualified leadership, preaching/teaching, scripture, singing, sacraments, for example.
[5] My friend, who wisely and faithfully pastors in England and who shares a lot of that wise faithfulness here, wrote this article from which I take his quote (Stephen Kneale, “Assumptions Without Reflection: Assessing Cultural Values in Light of Biblical Values“).
[6] https://seedbed.com/methodism-as-a-revivalistic-movement/
[7] Alan Hirsch, Lance Ford, Rob Wegner, The Starfish and the Spirit: Unleashing the Leadership Potential of Churches and Organizations.
[8] “Test of concept” is often used to refer to the market research used to evaluate the potential success of a new product, service, or idea.
[9] Here are some websites to look at: noplaceleft, 1body.church, l1achurchfortmyers, and churchinnorthcentralohio.
Come & See vs. Go & Tell
Come & See
In the Old Testament, God’s people were to be set apart in their worship of Yahweh, the one true God. In this way, they would make the world want to “come and see” them and thus glorify God. For the most part, the average person was not commissioned to go to the nations. Jonah was an exception.
The temple was the pinnacle of the “come and see” approach to being a light to the nations. The grandeur of the building pointed forward to the heavenly sanctuary. The special priesthood and sacrificial system pointed to the need people have for a mediator.
The church has often adopted this “come and see” model. This is an Old Testament model. But it does lead to specific implications when adopted. It has ramifications for our understanding of how the church functions. With the “come and see” model, money, buildings, and brand often take precedence over people. Invitation replaces evangelism, and brand ambassador and fanboy replace disciple. Church service replaces living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1).
“Come and see” was never intended to be the New Testament church’s main approach to mission. The “come and see” mentality justifies spending exorbitant amounts of money on an LED wall because it will help the “worship experience.” Or churches justify having their staffing and expenses mainly allocated and focused on the Sunday service. What happens outside the four walls of the church, Monday through Saturday, receives a mere fraction of the focus. Because, as is said, “Sunday is coming.”
Go & Tell
There is, of course, warrant for unbelievers to be present when the church gathers. The apostle Paul talks aboutunbelievers being at the gathering of the church and being “cut to the heart” and realizing that “God is really among them” (1 Cor. 14:25). The heart of the gathering of the church, however, is not to be directed towards unbelievers.
Rather, Christians are to share the good news of Jesus with nonChristians on their turf. The gathering of the church is directed toward the upbuilding of believers (1 Cor. 14:3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 17, 19, 26, 31). That’s where the New Testament emphasis is. When we get this wrong, as the church has for the most part for over a millennium, we go wrong in both directions. When we get this wrong, the evangelistic work of the church is stifled because the church’s witness is severely limited[1], and the church body atrophies because it is not being built up and is not doing the work it was designed to do.
Paul’s assumption and desire is that when the church comes together, “each one” will be able to contribute and be involved in building up the church.[2] Scripture says, “My brothers and sisters, let’s summarize. When you meet together, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in tongues, and another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must strengthen all of you.” Each part is to play their part! The New Testament calls us to participation, not performance; all the people of God doing their part, not mainly professionals.
In my understanding, the typical church model, and especially the mega church model, overemphasizes the Old Testament “come and see.” It employs the Old Testament Jethro model of leadership (Ex. 18)[3] to help accomplish increasingly large institutions and thus deemphasizes the New Testament 2 Timothy 2:2 discipleship model. Paul instructs: “What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.”
The New Testament gives a “go and tell” multiplication model, we often do a “build it big” come and see model. We often have the mentality that “If you build it, they will come,” but that is increasingly not true. But more importantly, it’s not biblical.
This sub-biblical approach often leads to a disintegration of life and church, which was never meant to be the case. The people of God are the church of God. Church and life should be seamlessly integrated. One of the other downsides is that the good of the global church is often neglected or forgotten because we’re busy building our brand.[4]
Scripture says we are to be sent, not stagnant. Jesus, who is the good news, made His people the people of good news. Jesus’ very biographies are referred to as “gospel” or “good news.” Good news is meant to be shared. We are to go to the “highways and hedges” and compel people to come in, and that’s into the Kingdom, not the church building.
We may not outright say it with our mouths, but our messaging and methods communicate that church is about the Sunday service. False. But when that is our mode of operation, certain things follow. Money, building, brand, the experience of the sermon, the sound, the structure, and a whole host of other things are all subservient to this overarching philosophy of ministry.
Here it is: “We need to get people inside the doors of the church so that the professionals and the ‘experience’ of the church service they provide will do all the great and fantastic things! So, get hyped to invite people to church! The professionals will take care of it from there!”
The churches that are the best at doing this tend to be the biggest and “sexiest.” But is the end result meeting the intention of King Jesus? From what I’ve seen, to a great degree, no. I think the model is unbiblical and broken, and not surprisingly, not working.
Which is the church supposed to be?
When Jesus, the promised Messiah, came, He changed the “come and see” approach to a “go and tell” commission. Jesus tabernacled or made the presence of God among us (He is the Temple) (Jn. 1:14). And He made His people into temples because God, by the Spirit, dwells in His people (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19). Jesus is the Sacrifice who takes away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29) and calls all His people to be living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1). Jesus is the Great High Priest who brings His people to God and makes His people priests (1 Pet. 2:9).
The church is called to be missionaries—sent ones—who cross borders and cultural barriers to share the good news of Jesus. We are not to be sitters waiting for people to come into our presence after having to cross cultural and language barriers. The church is to go and tell! That’s the emphasis of the New Testament over and over and over again (Matt. 10:32-33; 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15; Rom. 10:14-15; 2 Cor. 5:20; 1 Pet. 3:15).
This has massive consequences for church life. It has huge implications for how we think about Kingdom stewardship. As a church, we can (and should!) keep less and give away more! Church buildings are not temples and the distributors of religious goods and services. Instead, God’s people—all of God’s people—are temples and beacons of light and love, distributing blessings and the good news of Jesus all over the place! As Paul says in a different context, “The word of God is not bound” (2 Tim. 2:9) in a building! It’s out there mixing it up, being the salt in a world of decay, and light in a world of darkness, as it was always intended to be.
If we understand this biblical and missiological shift, success looks different. It is no longer church growth (or at least keeping the lights on). Nope. It is the growth of the Church (notice the capital “C”), both in depth of discipleship and in souls saved. The growth in the size of the local institutional church is not the goal. Instead, the growth of the Church in the city (the local level) and the world become the benchmarks.
We equip people for home hospitality instead of mainly hospitality teams and greeting teams. We’re about opening the door to our homes, not people who open the doors “at church.” We don’t mainly shake hands as part of a church service; we, as the church, regularly use our hands to serve people in our community.
We encourage and invest in Christian artists being salt and light and blessing their community, instead of being cloistered behind the four walls of a church building. Our leaders sacrificially and lovingly lead. It’s not about them being qualified in business; they are biblically qualified. So, janitors lovingly lead right alongside rocket scientists.[5]
Yes, this is a different model. But I’m convinced it is the New Testament model.[6] We are to go and serve, not just sit in a service. We are to praise and pray where we work, live, and play, not just in a church building.
The church is still, and always, in need of reformation (Semper Reformanda). “We must learn to be suspicious of our cultural assumptions and be willing to take a scalpel to the cultural forms that have built up around our Christian beliefs.”[7] As Francis Asbury said, “At the Reformation, the reformers only beat off part of the rubbish.” Let’s reform! Let’s “go and tell,” not just say, “Come and see.”[8]
Notes
[1] There are then less people involved in evangelism. Less time allocated to evangelism. Fewer locations for people to hear the gospel. It also puts the onus on lost people to cross the language and cultural barrier to go to church.
[2] In Romans 15, Paul writes, “My brothers and sisters, I myself am convinced about you that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another” (v.15). There is importance placed on the ability to “instruct one another.” This is not just the role of the pastor/teacher. It is the job of each member of Christ’s body.
[3] It is a wise principle and can be appropriately applied. But it was explicitly for the Old Testament people of God, primarily for governmental purposes. It is not the model for the New Testament church. The New Testament gives different leadership principles, priorities, and positions for people in leadership. Again, this is not to say we cannot glean from the Jethro model.
[4] Hebrews, however, says, “Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body” (13:3). And Paul says, “As we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10).
[5] “We have created church cultures that are essentially middle class and we filter the criteria for eldership through our middle-class cultural spectacles” (Stephen Kneale, “Assumptions Without Reflection: Assessing Cultural Values in Light of Biblical Values“). But we don’t want to keep doing this unbiblical practice.
[6] This was not the model of the early church. Some will say Pentecost was massive. Yes, it was. But that’s not how the church typically gathered. They weren’t able to. They didn’t keep meeting in that way for various reasons.
Some will say, “the church in the future will be huge! Just read Revelation. It says, ‘Myriads and myriads.” To that I say, I have read Revelation, a lot, The future will be a lot different than now. But the reality is, the Church is massive now. I don’t take issue with that! But that’s not to say that the local structure of the church should ideally be massive. But yes, the Church is, and is ideally, massive!
The New Testament also talks about the church in the city. The city size of the church may also be massive, even ideally so. But, that does not mean that the most local level will be massive. It doesn’t seem like the church had many large local gatherings until after the Edict of Milan. This, however, brought a lot of syncretism and stagnation of various sorts.
Massive often hinders momentum whereas micro movements can be very difficult to stop (see e.g., The Spider and the Starfish and The Starfish and the Spirit). The early church was a movement and that’s the DNA that the New Testament gives us. It wants Christians to reproduce themselves and replicate as fast and as healthy as possible. So, we need to major on the majors and not the minors of buildings and brand.
[7] My friend who wisely and faithfully pastors in England and who shares a lot of that wise faithfulness here wrote this article from where I take his quote (Stephen Kneale, “Assumptions Without Reflection: Assessing Cultural Values in Light of Biblical Values“).
[8] Where the New Testament says “come and see” it’s the Samaritan woman evangelizing. She said, “Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did” (Jn. 4:29). She is literally going to people and telling them about Jesus.
*Photo by Akira Hojo
The Solution for Church Decline is Not Mega Church
In a previous post, I wrote that “The Solution for Church Decline is Not More of the Same.” However, the church in America, for the most part, operates with the Christendom paradigm. We are attempting to navigate the post-Christian, postmodern, late capitalist challenges of the twenty-first century with a pre-modern, pre-Enlightenment, 1700-year-old European template of the church. It’s like we are trying to negotiate New York City using a map of Los Angeles.[1] “The maps don’t fit the territories, and more importantly it does not fully square with the New Testament.”[2]
[I should probably say here that I was “inside the belly of the beast” of a mega church. I served on staff as a youth pastor, care pastor, and campus pastor. I have seen it from the inside with really good, faithful people, and I don’t think it’s the solution. Which is part of the reason why I’m not there anymore.]
Mega Churches Tend to Breed Consumerism
As churches grow, “there is a decline among churchgoers in per capita giving, willingness to volunteer, and a lower overall level of participation within the congregation. This lends credence to the stereotype that some attendees of larger churches are looking for a place to spectate but not serve.”[3] Whereas “Smaller churches (those with 100 or fewer each week) have high levels of member commitment. The congregations have greater percentage of member participation in weekly worship. Participants give more money per person and are more likely to volunteer. These churches spend less on staffing and give the highest percentage of their budget toward missions and charity.”[4]
Mega church tends to breed consumers and spectators instead of servants; fans instead of sold-out followers. The very structure of many churches’ “service” communicates that people are there to sit and be served. It seems people increasingly go to bigger churches for a good experience.[5]
The gathering of the church was always intended to build up the church body so that the church is better equipped and encouraged to be the church. But experience and entertainment-oriented gatherings mainly atrophy the ministerial muscles of the church. Putting on a show only severs the nerve to service.
Living in relationship and serving in our communities where we work, live, and play takes sacrifice and often the reordering of our schedules. It’s not convenient. We often make church convenient—online church, community on your terms when you want to make time for it, and a “worship experience”—but following Jesus has never been convenient. Jesus is the Lord, the boss of the universe for whom ever being will bow, we are to be allegiant to Him, whether it’s convenient or not.
There is a principle in the military that I think is instructive—“Train as we fight.” When I was in the army, we didn’t train with Nerf guns, and we didn’t throw tennis balls and act like they were grenades. Nope, we used real weapons and we did real pushups. I think the church sometimes gets this backward. Church training is the equivalent of “Duck Hunt.” It’s fun, it’s easy, and sometimes laughable. Jesus said, “If you’re going to follow Me you will need to take up your cross and be willing to give up everything.” Pastors often say that with their lips but the very structure of the church contradicts the teaching.
Mega Churches Can’t Grow Fast Enough
A mega church can’t grow fast enough to keep up with the rate of decline. Think of the quick and nibble multiplication of “rabbit churches” in contrast to the plodding, slow, and expensive “elephant churches.” The apostle Paul’s missionary method was not to plant elephant churches, but rabbit churches.[6]
We should intentionally pursue what makes for the rapid multiplication of healthy disciples. This will call for us to be collaborators, not competitors, and care about actual growth, not transfer growth. Buildings, budgets, and even butts in seats are not necessarily an indicator of health or faithfulness to Jesus’ commands.
With over four billion people without Jesus, it’s prudent to devise plans, strategies, and methods that facilitate the healthy growth of disciples, leaders, and churches. While there’s biblical freedom that allows for culturally influenced approaches, not all such expressions are conducive to healthy church multiplication.[7]
Mega Churches aren’t Set Up Well To Prepare the Next Generation of Leaders
Mega church isn’t set up well to prepare the next generation of leaders for the challenges of the future. “Most future pastors will come from larger churches, since that’s where the majority of churchgoers attend. But most of the pastoral jobs will be in small churches, since that’s the majority of congregations.”[8]
Most future pastors will not be prepared for the realities they will face at these small churches. They may need to be willing to work an additional job outside the church or accept substantially less money than they ever expected to live on.[9] These pastors’ philosophy of ministry and their conception of what it means to serve as a pastor will also need a redo.
Many people preparing for the pastorate have preconceived notions of what it’s like to be a pastor. Many see pastors as the equivalent of local rock stars. They see the lives of pastors as glamorous. Some want-to-be-pastors think pastors sit in their study, leave to speak to the masses, and after the applause return to their cloistered repose. Seminary often prepares pastors for the study and not the flock. The mega church, it would seem, often prepares pastors for social media, and not the flock. Disillusionment is the result.
Mega Churches Tend to Constrict the Full Functioning of the Church Body
Churches often implicitly communicate that the pastor is the professional who does the ministry. This was never supposed to be the case. Rather, every member of the church body is to be equipped for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12). There is a concept in Christianity called “the priesthood of all believers” (see 1 Peter 2:4-9). It teaches that there is no special class of Christian. Jesus is the sole person who gives access to God (Jn. 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5), and no other special office is needed for that role. Jesus makes all of His people part of the “priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:5, 9). So, all Christians are to be active participants. The church is a body with many parts and many different giftings; it is vital that each part does its part (1 Corinthians 12:1-27, Romans 12:4-8, Ephesians 1:1-23). Let’s cast off any garb that could constrict the full functioning of Christ’s body.
Mega Churches Consolidate Resources
Mega churches consolidate resources. It is similar to what happens in a siege. It is a “game of attrition.” Mega churches have a type of efficiency that results from gathered resources and the ability to have fewer pastors per attendee, due to the potential for repeating church services and live streaming at other campuses. Higher-paying pastoral positions can be supplemented with lower-paying positions. Mega churches have found a way to get the “most bang for their buck.” But what are the unseen downsides to all the pizzazz of a mega church? Here are a few: superstar pastor culture,[10] less pastoral care, less connection and community, and a consumeristic mentality.
We should see it for what it is, a consolidation of resources and growth in one church, which is not necessarily growth in the Church. Also, mega churches are typically competitively consolidating and “taking over” other churches. Consolidation in partnership in mission is a praiseworthy goal. More often, however, the goal is much more partisan.
Here’s another way of saying it, a mega church may have a bigger slice of the pie but that doesn’t mean there is more pie. If mega churches are better stewards of the church flock and are more faithful in making disciples this is a positive thing. I, however, am not convinced this is the case (for reasons I have articulated here and elsewhere).
Mega Churches Attract Some but Repel Others
Mega church tends to not be for people on the margins. But Jesus was about people on the margins of society. At least in 2009, Myev Rees said, “The majority of megachurch-goers are white, middle-class or affluent suburbanites.” The numbers may have changed some but this seems to still tend to be the case. Regardless, large churches that seem to have it all together will only attract a specific demographic. What about all the people who find big polished churches plastic, overly institutional, and annoying?
These churches may attract a certain type of demographic, but there is a whole host of people it repels. So, if all the other negative aspects of mega church can be dealt with then they have their place but they’re not the solution to church decline.
Mega Churches Tend To Be About Brand Building and Less About Kingdom Building
Discipleship and evangelism have given way to branding and marketing. The net result is some churches are growing and the pastors reputation is booming. But sometimes the name of Jesus and His Church suffers as a result.
I recently read a newsletter from a church. It gave the number of people in the city and then said “We want every single person to know about ______ church.” They even hired a marketing company. The big asks in the email were (1) give more money and (2) leave a good Google review to help SEO/search results. I get it and I know the pastor who composed the email is genuine and loves Jesus and wants to see people continue to come to Jesus for salvation. But when did brand building become the emphasis and main strategy?
It’s about Jesus and His Name—the name that is about all other names—and not any name brand church. Buildings, brands, and institutions will fall but Jesus is the Lord forever. He deserves our eternal allegiance.
What Is the Solution?
The solution for church decline is not more of the same, and I don’t believe the solution is mega church[11] either. I think the solution is Christians getting back to the simple center of Christ and Christ-formed communities without all the unnecessary clutter, consumerism, and cultural-Christian baggage.
(I plan to lay out my thoughts on the solution in a future post.)
Notes
[1] Alan Hirsch, 5Q:Reactivating the Original Intelligence and Capacity of the Body of Christ.
[2] Hirsch, 5Q.
[3] https://research.lifeway.com/2021/10/20/small-churches-continue-growing-but-in-number-not-size/
[4] Ibid.
[5] “U.S. congregations are increasingly small, while U.S. churchgoers are increasingly headed toward larger churches.” So, “The larger a church is, the more likely it is to be growing.” (https://research.lifeway.com/2021/10/20/small-churches-continue-growing-but-in-number-not-size/) Is this because bigger churches are able to offer more amenities and a better experience?
[6] Of course, Paul would revisit the churches and write them letters encouraging them to pursue gospel health.
[7] See J.D. Payne’s helpful book, Pressure Points.
[9] Many, probably most, of the pastors I went to seminary with are not serving in ministry. This is for multiple reasons but one of the main reasons is most churches do not pay enough to reasonably live on.
[10] Mega churches can easily become a breeding ground for toxic leadership and lack of accountability.
[11] I, of course, realize that mega church is not the only alternative to decline. But the statistics show that smaller churches are growing smaller and larger churches are growing larger. Offhand, I’m not sure where the scales tip from “small” to “large” but I do believe we would do well to consider these trends and ask are they good? Is there anything we should or can do? What are the implications for more large churches and fewer small churches? Does this reflect Kingdom growth or primarily transfer growth? Does this lead to further fracturing of society, more disconnection, and more consumerism? What if any, are the alternatives?
*Photo by Paul Volkmer
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.
Why does your church meet in a house?
Well, we don’t always meet in houses. We also meet in coffee shops, parks, outdoors, and other locations. We could gather in a more traditional church building but meeting in these other locations is actually strategic.
Biblical Precedence
In the early church, where there was a Christian home, its uses were numerous. The book of Acts illustrates these homes being used for prayer meetings, Christian fellowship, communion services, entire nights of prayer, worship and instruction, impromptu evangelistic gatherings, planned evangelistic meetings, following up with inquirers, and organized instruction (Acts 2:46, 5:42, I0:22, 12:12, 16:32, 18:26, 20:7, 2I:7).[1]
It is of course fine for churches to gather in a church building. It can be a great blessing to steward a building for Kingdom purposes. But the Bible clearly never says that the church gathering must take place in a building reserved for that purpose.[2] Far from it, early Christians utilized houses to a great extent.
| Acts 2:46 | “their homes” |
| Acts 5:42 | “House to house” |
| Acts 10 | Cornelias’ house |
| Acts 12:12 | Mary’s house |
| Acts 16:32 | Jailer’s house |
| Acts 16:40 | Lydia’s house |
| Acts 20:20 | “House to house” |
| Romans 16:5 | Prisca & Aquila’s house |
| 1 Corinthians 16:19 | Prisca & Aquila’s house |
| Colossians 4:15 | Nympha’s house |
| Philemon 1:2 | Philemon’s house |
In fact, it’s intentional for the church not to hide behind the four walls of a church building. Jesus has called us to be light in a land of darkness, how can we be that when all the light is huddled up where it is bright inside? Jesus has called us to be salt in a world of decay, how can we do that when we are all locked up together in the shaker?
The early Christians were out and about and mixing it up with nonbelievers. Paul had discussions at the Hall of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9) and evangelized outside among other places (Acts 16:13). It’s strategic for Christians to be amongst nonChristians.
I was meeting with two guys at a McDonald’s for some discipleship and a guy asked: “Are those Bibles?” We said, “Yep!” and invited him to join us. He did. And we shared the good news of Jesus with him and prayed over him with tears streaming down his cheeks. God worked through us that night. And God has worked through us in other ways as we are the church amongst and visibly mixing it up with our community.
Simplicity and Stewardship
One of our desires as a church and movement is that we would be simple so as to be easily replicable. Most people have access to some sort of location to gather as a church. So, meeting in homes is simple and allows for easy multiplication.
Meeting in homes and other simple locations also allows for the stewardship of resources. Church buildings cost a lot of money and can be a distraction and hindrance to the actual mission of the church. Church buildings are not necessary, faithful disciples who are willing to meet wherever are necessary.
Facilitates Hospitality
The Bible places a lot of value on hospitality. It even commands hospitality and hospitality is a qualification to be a pastor. I am convinced hospitality is really important and yet it is often not valued like it should be. I also think hospitality is a heavily untapped evangelistic tool. Meeting in different people’s homes breeds a culture of hospitality.
Facilitates Discipleship
Meeting in other places besides a traditional church building can help people have a healthy ecclesiology (theology of the church). It is a constant reminder that the church building is not the church, God’s people are the church. The church gathers to be built up and scatters to bless. God’s people are the Church seven days a week throughout the places we live.
Gathering as the church in the places where we work, live, and play also shows us that church is not disconnected from everyday life. There’s also just something about meeting together in certain spaces that facilitate relationships. I can’t say exactly what it is but there’s a special bond that’s made sitting in someone’s house sharing a meal.
Notes
[1] See Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, 218.
[2] God does not dwell in any type of building made with hands (Acts 7:48; 17:24) but rather dwells within His people (Eph. 2:22; 2 Cor. 3:16; 6:16).
A Diffrent Church Culture: Character instead of Charisma
What if we constructed a different church culture? What if we valued character over charisma? What if we had less scandal and pastoral burnout? What if church were different?
We don’t come out and say that charisma matters more than character, we don’t say that performance is the preference over pastoring, but that is often our modus operandi. Character takes a back seat to packing the seats. “The celebrity syndrome destroys accountability… The strong leader who builds a large and successful church is often not held to strict account.”[1] Too much is riding on the good name of the performer. So, coverups happen for the “good” of the church.
What if so much weight and expectation were never meant to be on one pastor? What if we have so many scandals and moral failures, partly because the pastorate was never meant to be what we’ve made it? “We expect the pastor to be a shrink in the pulpit, a CEO in the office, and flawless in every area of his life.”[2] Is this sustainable? Especially when he is also often called to be a celebrity.
It would seem that Christian leaders are especially under attack by the enemy.
One poll showed that nearly 40 percent of the pastors polled had had an extramarital affair since beginning their ministries. And the divorce rate among clergy is increasing faster than in any other profession. The statistics show that the divorce rate among the Protestant clergy in the United States is higher than the national rate 65 percent as compared with 50 percent.[3]
The reality is every pastor is tempted by power, pride, and pleasure. So, it is vital for pastors to have character and accountability, and not be unduly put on a pedestal. If they are put on a pedestal at all it should only be to say with the Apostle Paul: “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”
Yet, sadly, we essentially incentivize hypocrisy through social media. An unwritten role is that pastors have a good social media presence. Actual presence and character have been downplayed and what is seen on the screen is what is valued. The world has been turned upside-down and Satan is having a field day.
Along these lines, Mike Cosper shared that too many of his friends “threw themselves whole-hog into the creation of a persona and devoted all of their energy (and often, the energy of several staff members) into the maintenance of the mask they wore. This left the rest of their life and the rest of their soul unattended, and the darkness they ignored or avoided or pretended didn’t exist eventually shipwrecked their lives, their careers, and in many cases, their families.”[4]
Paul David Tripp astutely points out that the desire and obtainment of fruitful ministry and success can be pursued and obtained for the wrong reasons. One can easily desire more baptisms, a bigger budget, and more buildings not for the glory of God and Kingdom growth, but for the fame and self-worth/identity of the lead pastor. The human heart is fickle, even the pastor’s heart.
“A leader whose heart has been captured by other things doesn’t forsake ministry to pursue those other things; he uses ministry position, power, authority, and trust to get those things. Every leadership community needs to understand that ministry can be the vehicle for pursuing a whole host of idolatries.”[5]
Continued Christian character must be a qualification for leadership, not charisma alone. It is easy to use the right things to the wrong ends. Vance Pitman once pointed out that every man that has an affair in ministry, had an affair with ministry first. Paul David Tripp gives invaluable counsel regarding leadership within the church in his book Lead.[6]
Leaders and teachers can “profess to know God” and yet “deny Him by their works” (Titus 1:16).[7] That’s partly why Christian leaders need to meet the biblical qualifications (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1:1-9). It is easy to want to teach for shameful gain (Titus 1:11). Yet, those who teach must do so out of love for Christ and others; and have character that commends the message (v. 6-9).
Christians, especially Christian leaders, should demonstrate love, joy, kindness, impartiality, mercy, faithfulness, reasonableness, gentleness, goodness, grace, patience, purity, peace, sincerity, and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23; James 3:17). Christians should never be characterized by quarreling, conceit, hostility, gossip, jealousy, rivalry, anger, envy, enmity, slander, strife, dissensions, divisions, or disorder (2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:19-21). In Exodus, we are told that those who were to be placed in leadership were those who feared God, were trustworthy, and hated bribes (Ex. 18:21). Christian leaders who are fit to lead are those who care for the flock and not just for themselves; who feed the flock and not just themselves (Ezek. 34:1-10).
Christian leaders should be motivated to serve out of love of God, and love of people. Not money, not fame, not power. The Apostle Paul said, “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which He bought with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). Christian leaders have a weighty calling. They are to care for the precious people Messiah Jesus purchased with His very own sacrificial death. That is not something to take lightly. Christian leaders are to shepherd the flock of God that is among them, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have them; not for shameful gain, but eagerly (1 Pet. 5:2). Christian leaders “will have to give an account” of their leadership (Heb. 13:17).
So, in evaluating a Christian leader, we should ask: “Does this person demonstrate strong Christian character? Does this person show compassion and concern? Is this person motivated by love of God and neighbor?” We should not merely ask: “Does this person have charisma and influence?”
Notes
[1] Colson and Vaughn, Being the Body, 332.
[2] Ibid.,332.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Mike Cosper, Recapturing the Wonder: Transcendent Faith in a Disenchanted World, 83.
[5] Paul David Tripp, Lead, 109-110.
[6] “Every leader needs to be the object of ongoing discipleship, every leader needs at moments to be confronted, every leader needs the comforts of the gospel, every leader needs help to see what he would not see on his own, and every leader needs to be granted the love and encouragement to deal with the artifacts of the old self that are still within him. If this is so, then we cannot be so busy envisioning, designing, maintaining, evaluating, and reengineering ministry that we have little time to care for the souls of the ones who are leading this gospel work. A spiritually healthy leadership community participates in the ongoing personal spiritual growth of each one of its members” (Tripp, Lead, 86).
[7] Healthy doctrine is vital (1 Tim. 1:10; 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9, 13) and so are good works (1 Tim. 2:10; 5:10, 25; 6:18; 2 Tim. 2:21; 3:17; Titus 1:8; 2:3, 14; 3:1).
Empowering the Church Body: Beyond the SuperPastor
What if church were different? What if we emphasized the ministry of people instead of a “SuperPastor”? When we say, “I follow Paul,” or, “I follow Apollos,” we are being merely human. What then is Apollos? What is Paul? We are all God’s fellow workers (1 Cor. 3:4-9).
What if we emphasized the ministry of the church body instead of one “professional”? The early church leaders valued the ministry of the church’s people, the ministry of the “non-pastors.” We see this, for example, in all the people Paul greeted in his letters. He knew them and appreciated them. And part of this was valuing the ministry of women. Romans 16 mentions 29 people and 10 of them are women.[1]
Church as event communicates that the special people on the stage are equipped to do the work of the ministry. The people who sit in the audience are simply passive and not gifted to do ministry. That is exactly backward. God has given leaders to equip the saints for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:12), God has already given the people of the church various gifts (Rom. 12:6-7; 1 Pet. 4:10-11).
Even though Paul was the church planter par excellence, he practiced partnership and co-leadership, which Jesus Himself established (cf. Mark 6:7). Jesus turned the world upside down in part through the hands of 12 ordinary men who had clearly been with Him (Acts 4:13).
Paul followed this same pattern. He was almost always with a colaborer[2] and always desired to be with them. When Paul was separated from his colaborers he said, “Come as soon as possible” (Acts 17:15 cf. 2 Tim. 4:10-12; Titus 3:12-13) and he waited for them (Acts 17:16). Paul mentions his fellow shepherds—Timothy, Titus, Silas, and Barnabas—all over the place.[3] From his first church-sponsored “mission trip” (11:30 cf. Gal. 2:1) to his last (notice “we” in Acts 28) he sought to be with fellow laborers. We also see Paul “appointed elders [pl.] for them in each church” (Acts 14:23; cf. 11:30; 15:2; 20:17-18; 21:18; Titus 1:5), which also establishes the importance of co-leadership.[4]
Pastors are important. Pastors ensure attention is concentrated in the right place—on Christ. No pastor should ever be the focus. Jesus should ever be everyone’s focus. Jesus is central. Everyone else plays a supporting role. But everyone must play their role. The church is a body and Jesus is the head. Every part of the body must be engaged and functioning properly for the body to flourish (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 4:16).
The church is the body, and each member is to do their part for the body to function as it is supposed to (1 Cor. 12:4-31). Each member is equipped with gifts from the Spirit (Rom. 12:3-8) and is to employ them for the common good (1 Cor. 12:7). Sadly, but not surprisingly, a Gallup survey found that only 10% of church members in America are active in any kind of personal ministry.[5]
The church is supposed to be the furthest thing from fans sitting in the stands. The church is more like the football team on the field. The church gathers once a week in a huddle to remember and carry out the play. The church works together to hold tight to the gospel and move it forward. Sideline Christianity is not biblical Christianity. Every single Christian—not a special breed of Christian—is to be on the field, whatever that particular field is, loving Jesus and loving others. We all have a part to play, and when we aren’t doing our part gospel movement is hindered.
May pastors stop building fans and equip the saints. And may the saints stop sitting in the stands and get on the field. The war is raging. The time is now.
Notes
[1] The New Testament, in contrast to the literature of the time, knows the inestimable worth of women. Here is the list of the females mentioned: Phoebe (Rom. 16:1-2), Priscilla (Rom. 16:3-5), Mary (Rom. 16:6) Junia (Rom. 16:7), Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis (Rom. 16:12), Rufus’ mother (Rom. 16:13), Julia and Nereus’ sister (Rom. 16:15). Women were valuable colaborers in the early church. Here are some other women Paul mentions in his letters: Claudia (2 Tim. 4:21), Priscilla (Acts 18:25; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19), Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11), Nympha (Col. 4:15), and Apphia (Philemon 1:2).
[2] See Acts 11:30; 12:25; 13:2, 13, 42-43, 46; 14:1 [“they”]; 15:2, 25-27; after a disagreement Silas goes with Paul v. 40; 16:3, 25; when he went to Corinth he connected with Aquila and Priscilla 18:1-3; when he went to Antioch he took them with him v. 18; in ch. 19 he found other believers; 20:4-5.
[3] For Timothy see Acts 16:1, 3; 17:14, 15; 18:5; 19:22; 20:4; Rom. 16:21; 1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10; 2 Cor. 1:1, 19; Phil. 1:1; 2:19, 22; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1; 3:2, 6; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:2, 18; 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:2; Philemon 1; Heb. 13:23. For Titus see 2 Cor. 2:13; 7:6, 13-14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18; Gal. 2:1, 3; 2 Tim. 4:10; Titus 1:4. For Silas see Acts 15:22, 27, 32, 40; 16:19, 25, 29; 17:1, 4, 5, 10, 14-15; 18:5; 2 Cor. 1:19; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:12. For Barnabas see Acts 9:27; 11:25; 12:25; 13:2; 15:2, 36-41; 1 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 2:1, 13.
[4] Even in Paul’s address to churches, he often includes his colaborers. For instance, 1 Thessalonians 1:1 says, “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church…” (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; Philemon 1). Also, from the time of his conversion Paul realized the importance of discipleship since he was taught by Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), Ananias (Acts 9:17), Peter (Gal. 1:17), and heard from Peter about Jesus’ own emphasis on discipleship.
[5] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church, 365-66.
in X 