Revelation Is Not Mainly About When the World Will End
Eschatology is not mainly about predicting the end, but about living rightly in light of the end. Revelation does not reveal when exactly the world will end, but it does reveal what the end will entail and whose side we want to be on. As many commentators note, the visions in Revelation primarily confront us with God’s demands and promises, they are not meant to satisfy our curiosity about minute end-time details.[1] Vern Poythress says it this way: “Revelation renews us, not so much from particular instructions about particular future events, but from showing us God, who will bring to pass all events in his own time and his own way.”[2]
Interestingly, “one in four Americans believe that the world will end within his or her lifetime.”[3] But America should never be the interpretive lens by which we interpret and think about eschatology. As Craig S. Keener has said,
If today’s newspapers are a necessary key to interpreting the book, then no generation until our own could have understood and obeyed the book… They could not have read the book as Scripture profitable for teaching and correction—an approach that does not fit a high view of biblical authority (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17).[4]
There have been many specific failed predictions. Actually, “The failure rate for apocalyptic predictions sits right at 100 percent.”[5] Sadly, sometimes what we think is in the Bible “is actually an indicator of our own biases and pre-conceptions.”[6] Hal Lindsey predicted the end in 2000. Many believe Y2K would be the end. Harold Camping said the rapture would happen on September 6th, 1994. His radio “station raised millions to get word of the end on billboards, pamphlets, and the radio.”[7] One newspaper “estimated that worldwide more than $100 million was spent by Family Radio on promotion of the date.”[8] For some who had “pinned their beliefs to this date, the failure of Camping’s apocalypse left them lost, with little trust in God.” They were “disappointed and adrift” and for some “there was financial ruin.”[9] That’s sad and unnecessary.
As we study eschatology, we should do so with the world and the scope of history in mind. Remembering intense tribulation has
been present at various times, with great severity and over large areas. We think especially of the Mohammedan invasion in the seventh and eighth centuries which swept across all of the Near East, up into Europe as far as Italy and Austria, across all of North Africa, across Spain and into France. The Black Plague ravaged Asia and Europe in the fourteenth century. The Thirty Years War devastated much of central Europe in the seventeenth century. There have been two so-called World Wars in our twentieth century. For a time each of those seemed to qualify as great tribulation.[10]
Also, “As for the Antichrist, various ones have been temporarily cast in that role: Attila the Hun in the fifth century; the pope at the time of the Protestant Reformation; Napoleon in the nineteenth century; Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin in the twentieth century.”[11]
As faithful Christians, we should do our best to present ourselves to God as approved, workers who have no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). We should know the “signs of the times”[12] and we must be faithful and ready for the return of Jesus. But, “because the exact time when Christ will return is not known, the church must live with a sense of urgency, realizing that the end of history may be very near. At the same time, however, the church must continue to plan and work for a future on this present earth which may still last a long time.”[13]
Notes
[1] Craig S. Keener, The NIV Application Commentary: Revelation, 32. Since Revelation is both apocalyptic and prophecy we must understand that its primary purpose is to provide words of comfort and challenge to God’s people then and now, rather than precisly predicting the future, especially in great detail. Visions of the future are not an end in themselves but rather a means by which people are to be warned and to comforted (Michael J. Gorman, Reading Revelation Responsibly: Uncivil Worship and Witness: Followingthe Lamb into the New Creation, 41).
[2] Vern Poythress, The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation.
[3] Jessica Tinklenberg Devega, Guesses, Goofs, and Prophetic Failures, 10.
[4] Keener, The NIV Application Commentary: Revelation, 30.
[5] Devega, Guesses, Goofs, and Prophetic Failures, 193.
[6] Ibid., 7.
[7] Ibid., 157.
[8] Ibid., 159.
[9] Ibid., 161.
[10] Loraine Boettner, “A Postmillennial Response” in The Meaning of the Millennium, 204-05.
[11] Boettner, “A Postmillennial Response,” 205.
[12] Wars, famines, earthquakes, tribulation, apostasy, antichrist(s), the proclamation of the gospel to the nations, and the salvation of the fullness of Israel.
[13] Anthony A. Hoekema, “Amillennialism” in The Meaning of the Millennium, 178-79.
We Miss our Way in So Many Ways
I appreciate this quote from Richard Lovelace: “The goal of authentic spirituality is a life which escapes from the closed circle of spiritual self-indulgence, or even self-improvement, to become absorbed in the love of God and other persons.”[1]
We miss our way in so many ways. Even our spirituality and self-improvement can be directed to the wrong ends and by the wrong means.
When our attention rests primarily on self, instead of Jesus our Savior, innumerable problems result. Notice the Apostle Paul said, “Him [Jesus] we proclaim… that we may present everyone mature in Christ” (Col. 1:28). It is when our mind, heart, affection, and will are drawn to Jesus that we are more and more transformed into His image.
closed circle of spiritual self-indulgence or self-improvement
Like a Pharisee, we can be so obsessed with ourselves that we miss God and the precious people made in His image.
In Greek mythology, Narcissus was a handsome young man who fell in love with his own reflection. Narcissus drowned while gazing at his own reflection in the water. We, too, can be dangerously focused on ourselves.
“Authentic spirituality,” as Lovelace says, escapes the clutches of such navel-gazing to the ideal that God always intended. That is, to be “absorbed in the love of God and other persons.”
absorbed in the love of God and other persons
Jesus made it so simple. We need simple. Love God. Radically love God with every ounce of your being—heart, soul, mind, and strength. And love others.
“The substance of real spirituality is love. It is not our love but God’s that moves into our consciousness, warmly affirming that he values and cares for us with infinite concern. But his love also sweeps us away from self-preoccupation into a delight in his unlimited beauty and transcendent glory. It moves us to obey him and leads us to cherish the gifts and graces of others.”[2]
Augustine said, “Love God and do whatever you please: for the soul trained in love to God will do nothing to offend the One who is Beloved.” The gravitational pull of the love of God transforms us.
Notes
[1] Richard F. Lovelace, Renewal As a Way of Life: A Guidebook for Spiritual Growth, 18.
[2] Ibid.
What sets Christianity apart? (part 3)
In Part One, we examined the commonalities among world religions and inquired whether they are fundamentally the same. We discovered that they’re not, and we examined two aspects that distinguish Christianity. In Part Two, we discussed four distinct aspects of Christianity that distinguish it from other religions. Here, we will finish by considering four aspects that set Christianity apart.
7. Positive World Impact
Jesus, a backwater country craftsman, has had an undisputed impact on history and the world. Stephen Prothero has said, “There is no disputing the influence Jesus has had on world history. The Library of Congress in Washington, DC, holds more books about Jesus (roughly seventeen thousand) than about any other historical figure—twice as many as the runner-up, Shakespeare. Worldwide, there are an estimated 187,000 books about Jesus in five hundred different languages.’ Jesus even has a country named after him: the Central American nation of El Salvador (“The Savior”).”[1]
Some people would dispute whether Jesus’ impact has been positive. But religion is generally seen as having a positive impact on humanity. This has been statistically demonstrated. That, however, is not to say religion hasn’t also had a negative impact in certain circumstances. We can quickly cite the Crusades and the September 11th attacks to prove that religion is not always applied in a good way. But, generally, religion is a net positive.[2]
Christianity is specifically good for humanity. This is true statistically and historically, which makes sense because I believe Christianity is true factually. Think of the impact Christianity has had on hospitals. Think of the names of hospitals you know of; most of their names are probably Christian. If not, even still, most of them have Christian histories. But it’s not just hospitals. Consider the sanctity of human life, the value of women, health care, education, science, the abolition of slavery, music, literature, art, and charities.[3] For more on this, I encourage you to check out How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin J. Schmidt, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World by Tom Holland, or several books by Rodney Stark.
Christopher Watkin even says that “the reason Jesus’s teaching does not take our breath away is that it has so completely transformed how we think and act already. As Tom Holland reminds us, it is only the incomplete revolutions that are remembered; those that triumph are simply taken for granted. The revolution brought about by Jesus’s teaching and life has triumphed so completely that, religious and secular alike, we take it for granted today.”[4] So, I believe Christianity had a uniquely positive impact on the world.
8. Salvation by Grace
Muslims believe there is salvation through submission. That is, if you confess and carry out the pillars of Islam, you may obtain salvation. Christians believe that “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). Christianity is unique because it teaches that salvation is by grace.
This is how Micah 7:18-19 says it: “Who is a God like You, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of His inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us; You will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.”
Salvation is by grace through faith. Here’s how Ephesians 2:8-10 says it, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
It should be understood that “faith works.” It does not stay stagnant. As Ephesians 2 says, Christians believe salvation comes through God’s grace as a gift, but that doesn’t lead to license to do whatever. It leads to a life filled with good works.
9. Exclusivity, Inclusivity, and Equality
Christianity is at the same time the most exclusive and inclusive religion. Christianity says that Jesus alone is the way, the truth, the life, and no one gets to God the Father except through Him (Jn. 14:6); and it says whosoever believes—red, black, white, rich, poor, whoever from wherever—will have eternal life.
So, on the exclusive side, Christians believe what 1 Timothy 2:5 says, that “there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” So, there is one way of salvation—Messiah Jesus. Yet, 1 Timothy 2:6 shows us how inclusive Christianity is. It says Jesus “gave Himself as a ransom for all.” There are no ethnic or cultural requirements.
Christianity is the most global religion. It has the largest number of adherents worldwide. Christianity is followed closely in size by Islam. But I am not making the ad populum argument here. Just because more people say they’re Christian doesn’t make Christianity true.[5] My point, rather, is that not only is Christianity the biggest religion, it is also the most culturally diverse. Muslims are more monolithic. Though that is not to say they are monolithic.[6] Take, for example, the Christian and Muslim religious texts. Islam’s scripture is only considered Allah’s word in Arabic.[7] Christianity seeks to translate the scripture into the languages of every people, tribe, language, nation, and tongue.
Prothero says Muslims “have always insisted that the Quran is revelation only in the original Arabic, Christians do not confine God’s speech to the Hebrew of their Old Testament or the Greek of their New Testament. In fact, while Muslims have resisted translating the Quran (the first English translation by a Muslim did not appear until the twentieth century), Christians have long viewed the translation, publication, and distribution of Bibles in assorted vernaculars as a sacred duty.”[8]
The Christian movement was diverse from the very beginning, ethnically and also socioeconomically (See e.g., Col. 3:11; Gal. 3:28). Christianity is the most ethnically dispersed religion, and Hinduism is the least dispersed.[9] Part of the reason Hinduism especially lacks diversity is because of its caste system. Even while India as a country no longer officially endorses the caste system, its effects are felt.
In contrast, Timothy Keller explains that the cross of Jesus should remove the pride and self-aggrandizement that lead to racial animosity and human disunity.[10] The Bible “insists on the equal value and dignity of all humans. The first churches united high and low classes, rich and poor, slaves and masters, and people of different racial backgrounds in uncomfortable, boundary-crushing fellowship.”[11]
Many may contend here that Christianity is unfair or bad because it says that Jesus is the only way. I’ve dealt with that objection elsewhere. But the fact that someone doesn’t like something does not make that thing untrue. We don’t have to like the truth for it to be true. “Comfort is important when it comes to furniture and headphones, but it is irrelevant when it comes to truth.”[12]
Others may object, if Christianity is the exclusively correct religion, then why are there so many world religions? Because we have a sensus divinitatis, or sense of the divine. This is for various reasons. For one, what can be known about God is plain to see, because God has shown it. “For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (Rom. 1:19-20). Second, Scripture also teaches and many people attest to having a conscience or the “law written on their hearts” (see Romans 2). Third, people have a sense of the divine because there is a spiritual realm. Most people throughout the globe and throughout history have believed in the spiritual realm. It is chronological and geographical snobbery to assume that we modern Westerners automatically know better.
So, the exclusivity of Jesus does not prove Christianity wrong. Although it may prove unpopular. It does make Christianity distinct from some other religions. Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions hold that there are many ways of salvation (although “salvation” may not always be the best term).
Related to inclusivity and exclusivity is Christianity’s view of equality. The Bible teaches the equality of all humans by saying all humans are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). It also explains that we are all equally fallen. That is, we all sin and do wrong things. Lastly, it says that salvation is freely offered to all through Jesus.[13] In a similar way, the Bible shows the worth of women repeatedly, while the Qoran, for instance, is often disparaging of women, many believe, even allowing for abuse.
Naturalism, the belief that no God exists, gives no explanation or reason for equality. People who don’t believe in God or the relevance of God might believe in equality, but their belief is not based on any foundation. The idea of equality is accepted as true without proof or solid reason to believe it.
10. Relationship with God
Christians believe that we can have a relationship with God. This is different from Hinduism, for example. Most Hindus believe that the whole of the universe is itself divine. And most Buddhists don’t believe in a divine being. Folk, polytheistic, and animistic religions mainly seek to pacify the gods. “Islam diagnoses the world with ignorance and offers the remedy of sharia, a law to follow. Christianity diagnoses the world with brokenness and offers the remedy of God himself, a relationship with him that leads to heart transformation.”[14]
As we saw in Part One, Christianity teaches that God is an eternally relational being. God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden in the beginning, He called Abraham to be His own, and He dwelt in the midst of His chosen people. God, in the form of Jesus, became flesh and lived among His people. Jesus taught His people to talk to God as Father. And we were even told that God dwells in us by His Spirit.
God is immensely relational. And God goes to great lengths so that His people can be with Him. In fact, the Christian scriptures say that God’s people will live with Him forever.
Conclusion
Christianity is unique among religions due to its Trinitarian Monotheism, belief in Jesus the Messiah who is the incarnate Son of God, and emphasis on His death and resurrection for humanity’s salvation. Christianity is both exclusive and inclusive, teaching that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone but available to all who believe. It offers a personal relationship with God, teaches salvation by grace through faith, and highlights human equality.
Notes
[1] Stephen Prothero, God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World—and Why their Differences Matter, 70-71.
[2] “Religion is one of the greatest forces for evil in world history. Yet religion is also one of the greatest forces for good. Religions have put God’s stamp of approval on all sorts of demonic schemes, but religions also possess the power to say no to evil and banality” (Prothero, God Is Not One, 9).
[3] “By far the largest faith-based charity, according to the study, is Lutheran Services of America, with an annual operating revenue of about $21 billion. The study counted 17 more faith-based charities, all among Forbes’s 50 biggestcharities in America, with revenues ranging from $300 million (Cross International) to $6.6 billion (YMCA USA).Almost all the charities are Christian, except for the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, with an annual operating revenue of $400 million” (Julie Zauzmer, “Study: Religion contributes more to the U.S. economy than Facebook, Google and Apple combined” [September 15, 2016]).
[4] Christopher Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture, 372.
[5] It doesn’t even make those people who say they’re Christian acturally Christians.
[6] Islam has many expressions. It is not monolithic. We are wrong if we think we understand Muslims because we have met one or read the Qur’an. That is a simplistic and false understanding. “Islam is a dynamic and varied religious tradition” (James D. Chancellor, “Islam and Violence,” in SBTS, 42.). In the same way, if you have met a Christian and read the New Testament, for example, that does not mean that you understand Christianity. “The range of contemporary Muslim religiosity varies tremendously. One of the reasons for this is that people understand and ‘use’ religion in a variety of ways; that is true whether we are dealing with Islam or Christianity or any other religion.” (Andrew Rippin, Muslims: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (New York: Routledge, 2012), 311.)
[7] “Today the Quran is, of course, a book. But only about 20 percent of the world’s Muslims are able to read its Arabic, and even for them the Quran is, like the Vedas to Hindus, more about sound than about meaning” (Prothero, God Is Not One, 41).
[8] Prothero, God Is Not One, 67.
[9] See “The Global Religious Landscape,” Pew Research Center, December 18, 2012, http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/.
[10] Timothy Keller, “The Bible and Race” https://quarterly.gospelinlife.com/the-bible-and-race/
[11] Rebecca McLaughlin, Confronting Christianity.
[12] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 137.
[13] See Christopher Watkin, 𝐵𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦, 116.
[14] Prothero, No God But One, 45.
* Photo by Willian Justen de Vasconcellos
What’s Keeping Churches from Making Disciples?
Most churches know that discipleship is the main mission of the church. It’s in most mission statements. Yet, what kind of person does the church produce? The Christ-commanded product is a disciple who makes disciples.[1] “But for many churches, discipleship ranks toward the bottom of their priorities.”
Disciples trust Jesus as Lord and Boss, and follow Him by imitating His life and obeying His teachings.[2] Jesus calls disciples to deny themselves, take up their cross daily, and follow Him. This means disciples have repented of sin, forsaken the world, and committed their lives to follow Him. Historically, being a disciple involved learning, studying, and passing along the master’s teachings.[3]
Is this what the church is making? Many would say no. To a great extent, I agree. Even back in 1988, Bill Hull said,
The evangelical church has become weak, flabby, and too dependent on artificial means that can only simulate real spiritual power. Churches are too little like training centers to shape up the saints and too much like cardiopulmonary wards at the local hospital. We have proliferated self-indulgent consumer religion, the what-can-the-church-do-for-me syndrome. We are too easily satisfied with conventional success: bodies, bucks, and buildings. The average Christian resides in the comfort zone of “I pay the pastor to preach, administrate, and counsel. I pay him, he ministers to me… I am the consumer, he is the retailer.”[4]
While churches are biblically mandated and should be structured to make disciples, many churches prioritize attendance and attractive programs over discipleship, which results in discipleship deficiencies. Discipleship involves more than mere head knowledge; it involves intentionally instructing Jesus’ followers to “observe all that Jesus commanded” and to become disciple-makers themselves.
So, Hull says, “The crisis at the heart of the church is that we give disciple-making lip service, but do not practice it.”[5] If that’s the case, what are some of the issues keeping churches from making disciples?
1. Cultural Values
The cultural air that we breathe has an imperceptible impact. Christian Smith does a good job explaining some of the cultural values that we can easily unknowingly imbibe in his book, Why Religion Went Obsolete.
David Foster Wallace once told this story:
There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way. The older fish nods at them: “Morning, boys, how’s the water?” The two young fish swim on for a bit, and then one of them looks over at the other. “What the heck is water?”
It can be very difficult to be aware of our own culture and the impact that it is having on us.[6]
Our culture of consumerism and materialism is a big factor. So, Soong-Chan Rah, for example, has said,
Market-driven church that appeals to the materialistic desires of the individual consumer has resulted in a comfortable church, but not a biblical church. The church’s captivity to materialism has resulted in the unwillingness to confront sins such as economic and racial injustice and has produced consumers of religion rather than followers of Jesus.[7]
My point here is that our culture, even our church culture, does not place high value on discipleship. Although we may say we do. Our actions, or inaction, speak louder than our words.
We must let the Bible dictate our church culture, not culture.
2. Budgetary and Building Needs
Related to number one above, we have a church culture in America that is very dependent on buildings and budgets. We often think that for the church to continue, it has to “pack the pews” so the doors can stay open and the lights can stay on. Thus, the budgetary concerns can easily take precedence over all other concerns.
Here’s our thinking: What good can the church do if the church closes? Sunday comes quickly, and we need to have good sermons and programs if we hope to bring in the tithe or at least some form of giving.
Discipleship can easily take a back seat. Discipleship can be slow. Jesus walked, talked, and trained His disciples. This took time. Lots of time. Actual years. Yet, a movement of multiplication can happen when we make disciples.
We have conditioned ourselves for a type of fast-food or industrial revolution discipleship mentality. We want disciples quick, right off the express line. But that’s not how disciples have ever been made. But perhaps, especially now in our increasingly post-Christian, Bible-illiterate world.
We must care more about building up the actual body of Christ and not prioritize the church building (and budget).
3. Pastoral Identity Issues
Sadly, having been in pastoral ministry for 17 years and worked in various church contexts, sometimes there are pastoral identity issues that prevent pastors from investing in discipleship. It doesn’t feed a pastor’s ego if a lot of people don’t show up (however, “a lot of people” is defined). But Jesus didn’t always have a lot of people around Him. And sometimes when He did, He would say some very controversial things, and then many would leave. Christ’s goal was not a crowd, but “little Christs.”
A pastor’s ego is not fed when he equips others to do the work of the ministry, when he gives away ministry, helps others faithfully lead, shrugs out of the limelight, and pushes others towards success. But Christian ministry was never supposed to be about anyone’s ego.
But you know what is fed when a pastor doesn’t feed his ego? The church is fed, and it thus grows in both size and maturity because it is functioning as Jesus always intended it to function. Not as a one-person show, but as the church body being loving light wheresoever the church body finds itself throughout the week.
The church is an immaterial reality, and it was never meant to be bound by a material building; it was always meant to find physical expression in the living and breathing, walking and talking (incarnate), temples of God that Jesus’ people are. Just as the word of God was not bound, although Paul was bound in prison, God’s church is not bound to a building.
It is most healthy when it’s out loving in the wild world. That’s what it was always meant for. The telos or purpose of a candle is to be a source of light in darkness. It’s the same with the church. The church is called to be light in darkness and salt in a world of rot and decay. Notice, Jesus did not give the church something aspirational when He said, “You are the light of the world.” Jesus said something ontological. He said what we are.
I’m concerned that many pastors’ call to serve the church is self-serving. Pastors are often concerned about “their” church, not the Church. Pastors, sad to say, can be more concerned about their building being full rather than heaven being full.
The church is to make much of Jesus the Good Shepherd and not exalt any human.
4. Lack of Leadership Diversity (APEST)
“APEST” stands for apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers. The Lord of the church has given these varied gifts to the church so that it will be balanced and mature (see Ephesians 4). Sadly, however, these gifts often find expression disconnected from the other gifts.
(It’s important to note that when I talk about APEST, I am talking about gifting. Not office or authority.)
Churches with certain types of leaders will move in certain directions. Teacher types tend to be thinkers, writers, researchers, and theologians. Shepherds tend to be carers, counselors, and community builders. Evangelists tend to be recruiters to the cause, apologists, and networkers. Prophets tend to call people to change, have holy criticism, and care deeply about social issues. Apostles pioneer, innovate, and create new approaches and structures.[8]
It seems the most common type of church, at least in the West, is the shepherd/teacher church.[9] This often results in a “knowledge-based community where right doctrine is seen to be more important than rightdoing.”[10] There is often an overemphasis on the sermon and Sunday service, and community, discipleship, and evangelism are an afterthought.
Again, diversity and balance are important. “The one-dimensional teaching church attracts people who love to be taught and tends to alienate other forms of spiritual expression. This is seldom a good thing because such churches simply become vulnerable to groupthink or even mass delusion. This has happened way too often… witness the many one-dimensional charismatic/vertical prophetic movements of the last century. Or consider the asymmetrical mega-church that markets religion and ends up producing consumptive, dependent, underdeveloped, cultural Christians with an exaggerated sense of entitlement.”[11]
The fact that “we have sought to negotiate our way in the world without three of the five functions (by elevating teaching and shepherding and neglecting evangelism, the prophetic, and the apostolic) accounts for so many of the problems we face in the church.”[12]
5. Lack of Commitment to the New Testament Ideal
Many times, we don’t know what we’re aiming for when it comes to disciples. We often lack a clear definition, or it’s a knowledge-based definition. Churches often emphasize orthodoxy (right belief) over orthopraxy (right practice). This results in many churchgoers who know a lot but don’t necessarily do a lot. But the great commission doesn’t just say “teach.” Its aim is practice. The Great Commission says, “teach them to observe everything I have commanded” (Matt. 28:20).
The church body is made up of individual members who together and separately worship, reflect, and share. The church is not an institution or an event. It is a living and moving organism. It is embodied all over every sector of society. So, we must ask, are disciples being made who make disciples who know, grow, and go?
The New Testament ideal is every believer practicing the missional mandate. It’s not just about knowing, but about going and doing all that Jesus commanded. The church must have growth goals or metrics that match the mission that Jesus has given to the church.
6. Lack of A Model to Emulate
The Apostle Paul said, “Imitate me as I imitate Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). Jesus is the New Testament ideal. We are to imitate Him. And “Jesus poured His life into a few disciples and taught them to make other disciples.”[13]
So, we have an example to emulate in Jesus and Paul. Christian leaders must also provide examples and practice what they preach.[14] If pastors, for example, are—intentionally or unintentionally—held up as the Christian ideal, there are certain implications. If pastors mainly study and teach publicly or mainly function as CEOs, then that’s what is being modeled to people. And not lived everyday discipleship.
Conclusion
Good things often distract from the best things. And actually, some of the things churches do that they think are good only serve to create a culture of consumerism. Things must change. We must obey Jesus and make disciples who make disciples. We must make whatever structural and organizational changes are necessary to ensure we’re carrying out Jesus’ commission.[15]
I propose a new approach to “doing church” because, to a great extent, the way we’re currently doing church, at least in the West, is not working. We are not making disciples who make disciples in accordance with our Lord’s command. To a great extent, the church is making sitters. We must take our Boss’s words seriously and make structural and organizational changes.
Transformation happens less by argument and more by creating new rhythms and practices that shift not only people’s thinking but also their values and core commitments. We think, practice, and love our way into transformation. As Alan Hirsch has perceptively said, “The best way of making ideas have impact is to embed them into the very rhythms and habits of the community in the form of common tools and practices.”[16]
We need to stop just talking about discipleship and having programs for discipleship. We need something more radical. We need to scrap the old ways that allow for abstraction, and instead create regular rhythms that embody application.
Notes
[1] See Bill Hull, The Disciple-Making Pastor, 14.
[2] See Michael S. Heiser, What Does God Want? (Blind Spot Press, 2018), 94–95 and Ken Wilson, Finding God in the Bible: A Beginner’s Guide to Knowing God (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2005), 86.
[3] Robert B. Sloan Jr., “Disciple,” in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. Chad Brand et al. (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 425.
[4] Bill Hull, The Disciple-Making Pastor, 12.
[5] Hull, The Disciple-Making Pastor, 15.
[6] Alan Hirsch, 5Q: Reactivating the Original Intelligence and Capacity of the Body of Christ.
[7] Soong-Chan Rah, The Next Evangelicalism, 63.
[8] There are a few Johns who stick out as teachers. John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and John MacArthur. Here are some other examples: George Whitefield (evangelist/apostle), John Piper (teacher/prophet), Charles Spurgeon (evangelist/prophet), Mother Teresa (shepherd) Richard Baxter (shepherd/teacher), Teresa of Avila (prophet/teacher), St. Patrick (apostle/shepherd) John Wimber (apostle/evangelist), David Platt (teacher/prophet), Hudson Taylor (apostle/evangelist), Catherine Booth (apostle), Dietrich Bonhoeffer (prophet/teacher), Billy Graham (evangelist), and Martin Luther King Jr. (prophet).
[9] “The church is actually perfectly designed by shepherds and teachers to produce shepherding and teaching outcomes. The organizational bias of the inherited form of church organization is in a real sense a reflection of the consciousness of the people who designed it in the first place!” (Alan Hirsch, 5Q).
[10] Hirsch, 5Q.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Spader, Four Chair Discipling, 36. “These few disciples, within two years after the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost, went out and “filled Jerusalem” with Jesus’ teaching (Acts 5:28). Within four and a half years they had planted multiplying churches and equipped multiplying disciples (Acts 9:31). Within eighteen years it was said of them that they “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17;6 ESV). And in twenty-eight years it was said that the gospel is bearing fruit and growing throughout the whole world” (Col. 1:6). For four years Jesus lived out the values He championed in His Everyday Commission. He made disciples who could make disciples!” (Ibid.).
[14] Jesus had a specific method which we would be wise to observe and follow. See, for example, Matthew 9:35-39: “Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.'” Jesus went, taught, proclaimed, healed, saw, and had compassion. He equipped disciples and sent them out into the harvest. He didn’t want them to sit in a building or do ministry in a building. What’s needed and what Jesus told us to pray for is laborers sent into the harvest.
[15] “Not much will change until we raise the issue and create controversy, until the American church is challenged to take the Great Commission seriously” (Hull, The Disciple-Making Pastor, 15).
[16] Hirsch, 5Q.
*Photo by Nellie Adamyan
What sets Christianity apart? (part 2)
In Part One, we found that part of what sets Christianity apart is trinitarian monotheism and God’s eternal love. Here we will add four more aspects that set Christianity apart from other religions.
3. The Incarnation of God
Christians believe that God loves the world so much that Jesus took on flesh and became man to die for the sins of the world (Jn. 1:1-3, 14, 29; 3:16). Other religions, such as Greek mythology, believe in gods who appeared in human form for various reasons, including love or punishment.[1] Greek gods, however, only temporarily took on human form. Jesus permanently became human.[2]
In Hinduism, the incarnation of a deity usually refers to Vishnu, who is said to have appeared in various avatars (e.g., Rama, Krishna, Narasimha, and Varaha). Other than Hinduism and various mythologies (which most people no longer take seriously), the concept of the incarnation of God is uncommon. However, Wikipedia does give a list of other people who have been considered deities. Egyptian pharaohs were considered deities, and North Korea’s Supreme Leader is considered a deity, for example. Interestingly, even on Wikipedia, Jesus is in a class of His own. He is listed by Himself under the “Controversial Deification” heading.
The Hindu avatar comparison to Christian incarnation is not as clear as it might at first seem. There are clearly some important distinctions between the Hindu and Christian beliefs regarding incarnation.[3] First, Hindus claim many divine incarnations have appeared throughout history, while Christians believe Jesus is unique—the only begotten Son of God. The Christian Bible teaches that Jesus appeared “once to bear the sins of many” and “will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him” (Heb. 9:28). So, second, we see that the purpose of avatars and the purpose of Christ are different. The avatars do not take away or bear sin. Third, in contrast to Hinduism, Christianity teaches that Jesus is Immanuel, God with us, and that He is still with us by the Holy Spirit. Lastly, the avatars in Hinduism appear for a time to balance out good and evil; in contrast, Jesus came and will come again to forever banish evil and sin.
So, Christianity’s belief in the incarnation of Jesus sets it apart from all other religions. The Creator became creation, the eternal entered time. As is sometimes said, there are many who would be god but only one God who would be man. Or, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, ”While we exert ourselves to grow beyond our humanity, to leave the human behind us, God becomes human.”[4]
4. Messiah Jesus
Muslims say they believe Jesus was the Messiah. In fact, the Quran explicitly refers to Jesus as the Messiah. One of the disagreements between Christians and Muslims, however, is what it means that Jesus was the Messiah. Muslims do not believe Jesus was God in flesh or that He was crucified.
It is true that the expectation presented in the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament for Christians) for the Promised One seems almost impossibly diverse. How could any one person fulfill the many expectations? How could it make sense for the “Ancient of Days” (Dan. 7:9, 13, 22) to be a descendant of king David (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Is. 11:1; Jer. 23:5-6)?
The messianic expectations appeared to be nothing more than unrelated and random shards of glass. Yet, the New Testament authors, over and over, argue that Jesus is in fact the Promised One, the long-awaited Messiah, who fulfills the prophecies, patterns, pointers, and promises (2 Cor. 1:20). Jesus, who was from Nazareth (of all places) is believed to be the one who will crush the serpent of old and lead the way back into Eden, bless all the nations of the earth, and set up His righteous and eternal Kingdom. The New Testament helps us see that the Old Testament predictions work together to form an astounding, almost unbelievable, stained-glass picture of Jesus, the long-awaited, promised Messiah.
Regarding prophecy, there are several Old Testament passages we could consider. Here’s a sample:
- His appearance will be disfigured (see Isaiah 52:14 and Matthew 26:67).
- He will be despised and rejected (see Isaiah 53:3 and John 11:47-50).
- He will take sin upon Himself (see Isaiah 53:4-6, 8 and 1 Corinthians 15:3).
- He will be silent before oppressors (see Isaiah 53:7 and Matthew 14:60-61).
- He will be assigned a grave with the wicked and with the rich in His death (Isaiah 53:9 and Mark 15:27-28, 43-46).
- He will be a descendant of David (see 1 Chronicles 17:11-14 and Luke 3:23, 31).
- He will be born in Bethlehem (see Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:1).
- He will be preceded by a messenger (see Isaiah 40:3-5 and Matthew 3:1-2).
- He will have a ministry of miracles (see Isaiah 35:5-6 and Matthew 9:35; 11:4-5).
- He will enter Jerusalem on a Donkey (see Zechariah 9:9 and Matthew 21:7-9).
- His hands and feet will be pierced (see Psalm 22:16 and Luke 23:33).
- He will be hated without reason (see Psalm 69:4 and John 15:25).
- His garments were divided, and lots were cast for them (see Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24).
- His bones were not broken (see Psalm 34:20 and John 19: 33).
- His side was pierced (see Zechariah 12:10 and Jn. 19:34).
- He, the Mighty God, was born (see Isaiah 9:2-7 and Matthew 1:23).
Christianity is set apart from all other world religions because it says that Messiah Jesus, who is God incarnate, “died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3).
5. The Resurrection
Christians believe that Messiah Jesus died as predicted, but that He didn’t stay dead; He rose, conquering sin and death. Christians believe that the resurrection of Jesus is the firstfruits of more to come. The resurrection of Jesus is like the down payment with a whole lot more to follow. He is the “test of concept” that proves that God will one day soon set the world aright.[5]
So, Christians believe time is going somewhere. The world itself groans to be fixed, and the Bible says that the resurrection of Jesus proves it will be fixed.
6. Historical Evidence
Christians do not base their beliefs on a dream wish. There are legitimate historical grounds for their beliefs. This sets Christianity apart from all other religions. Now, some other religions claim historical and archeological support, but the evidence for Christianity is much more convincing.
So, for instance, Douglas Groothuis has said, “The New Testament witness is far better established historically than the revisionism of the Quran.”[6] The New Testament documents are amazingly historically reliable. “Nearly 100 biblical figures, dozens of biblical cities, over 60 historical details in the Gospel of John, and 80 historical details in the book of Acts, among other things, have been confirmed as historical through archaeological and historical research.”[7]
Further, we can gather a substantial amount of information about Jesus through nonbiblical historical writers. From Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian, Thallus, and Celsus, we see Jesus clearly existed and had a brother named James who was killed when Ananus was High Priest. Jesus was known to be some kind of wonderworker, wise man, and teacher. Yet, He was regarded by His followers to be divine. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, and His crucifixion seems to have been accompanied by a very long darkness. Surprisingly, His crucifixion didn’t squelch the Christian movement.[8] Historical writings outside of the New Testament corroborate the accuracy of the New Testament.
The English philosopher Antony Flew, while not a believer in the resurrection of Jesus, said, “The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”[9] Not only does the historical evidence point in the direction of Christianity, but the positive historical impact does too. We’ll look at that in “What sets Christianity apart” (part 3).”
Go to Part Two three here.
Notes
[1] E.g., Zeus, Poseidon, and Apollo.
[2] The New Testament repeatedly teaches that Jesus is God in flesh. Jesus and the New Testament writers over and overclaim Jesus’ divine nature. We see the creedal formula “Jesus is Lord” (1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11). “Lord” was used in the LXX to translate the divine name, so this designation very often equates Jesus with God. Jesus’ title is “Son of God” which implies He is of the same nature as God (Matt. 11:27; Mk. 12:6; 13:32; 14:61-62; Lk. 10:22; 22:70; Jn. 10:30; 14:9). Jesus is eternally preexistent (Jn. 1:1; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 13:8; Rev. 22:13). He has authority to forgives sins (Mk. 2:5-12; Lk. 24:45-47; Acts 10:43; 1 Jn. 1:5-9). He is even explicitly referred to as “God” (Matt. 1:21-23; Jn. 1:1-14; Titus 2:13; 1 Jn. 5:20; Rom. 9:5; 2 Pet. 1:1). And Jesus was condemned for who He claimed to be (Mk. 14:61-64; Jn. 8:58-59). Yet, the writers say it is right to worship Him (Matt. 2:11; 14:33; 28:9; Jn. 20:28; Heb. 1:5-9; Rev. 5). So, Jesus claimed to be the Lord and the New Testament confesses Him to be Lord. The Early Church taught that Jesus was God, too. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50-117) said in his Letter to the Ephesians, “Our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit” (18.2 cf. 19.3; Letter to the Romans, 3.3; Letter to Polycarp, 3.2). Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69-155) said, “The Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth…, and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead (Philippians 12.2). Justin Martyr (100-165) said, “Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God” (Dialogue with Trypho, 128), and he said that he would “prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts” (Dialogue with Trypho, 36). We also have early archeological evidence from around 230AD. Ancient remains of an early church were discovered in the Megiddo prison in Israel. The church has ornate religious mosaics and an inscription that says, “God Jesus Christ” (Vassilios Tzaferis, “Inscribed ‘To God Jesus Christ,’” 38-49 in Biblical Archaeology Review March/April 2007 Vol 33 No 2).
[3] Kyle Brosseau, “How to Explain the Incarnation to Hindus.”
[4] Bonhoeffer, Ethics, 84 as quoted in Biblical Critical Theory 360.
[5] “The resurrection raises our consciousness to a new set of possibilities in this world and shows us that the way things are is not the way they will always be” (Christopher Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory, 442). “The resurrection is not a one-time happening but the beginning of a new and ongoing age.” (Ibid., 457).
[6] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 664.
[7] Holden and Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible, 181.
[8] See Boyd and Eddy, Lord or Legend?, 135.
[9] See Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 583.
* Photo by Willian Justen de Vasconcellos
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. Success is making apprentices of Jesus who:
1. Go into the 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.
2. Grow 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.
3. Give their 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 sick of 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.
4. Gather 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? And 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]
The mission of the church is not to gather a crowd. The mission of the church is to make disciples who make disciples.
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
in X 