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.
The Solution for Church Decline is Not Mega Church
In a previous post, I wrote that “The Solution for Church Decline is Not More of the Same.” However, the church in America, for the most part, operates with the Christendom paradigm. We are attempting to navigate the post-Christian, postmodern, late capitalist challenges of the twenty-first century with a pre-modern, pre-Enlightenment, 1700-year-old European template of the church. It’s like we are trying to negotiate New York City using a map of Los Angeles.[1] “The maps don’t fit the territories, and more importantly it does not fully square with the New Testament.”[2]
[I should probably say here that I was “inside the belly of the beast” of a mega church. I served on staff as a youth pastor, care pastor, and campus pastor. I have seen it from the inside with really good, faithful people, and I don’t think it’s the solution. Which is part of the reason why I’m not there anymore.]
Mega Churches Tend to Breed Consumerism
As churches grow, “there is a decline among churchgoers in per capita giving, willingness to volunteer, and a lower overall level of participation within the congregation. This lends credence to the stereotype that some attendees of larger churches are looking for a place to spectate but not serve.”[3] Whereas “Smaller churches (those with 100 or fewer each week) have high levels of member commitment. The congregations have greater percentage of member participation in weekly worship. Participants give more money per person and are more likely to volunteer. These churches spend less on staffing and give the highest percentage of their budget toward missions and charity.”[4]
Mega church tends to breed consumers and spectators instead of servants; fans instead of sold-out followers. The very structure of many churches’ “service” communicates that people are there to sit and be served. It seems people increasingly go to bigger churches for a good experience.[5]
The gathering of the church was always intended to build up the church body so that the church is better equipped and encouraged to be the church. But experience and entertainment-oriented gatherings mainly atrophy the ministerial muscles of the church. Putting on a show only severs the nerve to service.
Living in relationship and serving in our communities where we work, live, and play takes sacrifice and often the reordering of our schedules. It’s not convenient. We often make church convenient—online church, community on your terms when you want to make time for it, and a “worship experience”—but following Jesus has never been convenient. Jesus is the Lord, the boss of the universe for whom ever being will bow, we are to be allegiant to Him, whether it’s convenient or not.
There is a principle in the military that I think is instructive—“Train as we fight.” When I was in the army, we didn’t train with Nerf guns, and we didn’t throw tennis balls and act like they were grenades. Nope, we used real weapons and we did real pushups. I think the church sometimes gets this backward. Church training is the equivalent of “Duck Hunt.” It’s fun, it’s easy, and sometimes laughable. Jesus said, “If you’re going to follow Me you will need to take up your cross and be willing to give up everything.” Pastors often say that with their lips but the very structure of the church contradicts the teaching.
Mega Churches Can’t Grow Fast Enough
A mega church can’t grow fast enough to keep up with the rate of decline. Think of the quick and nibble multiplication of “rabbit churches” in contrast to the plodding, slow, and expensive “elephant churches.” The apostle Paul’s missionary method was not to plant elephant churches, but rabbit churches.[6]
We should intentionally pursue what makes for the rapid multiplication of healthy disciples. This will call for us to be collaborators, not competitors, and care about actual growth, not transfer growth. Buildings, budgets, and even butts in seats are not necessarily an indicator of health or faithfulness to Jesus’ commands.
With over four billion people without Jesus, it’s prudent to devise plans, strategies, and methods that facilitate the healthy growth of disciples, leaders, and churches. While there’s biblical freedom that allows for culturally influenced approaches, not all such expressions are conducive to healthy church multiplication.[7]
Mega Churches aren’t Set Up Well To Prepare the Next Generation of Leaders
Mega church isn’t set up well to prepare the next generation of leaders for the challenges of the future. “Most future pastors will come from larger churches, since that’s where the majority of churchgoers attend. But most of the pastoral jobs will be in small churches, since that’s the majority of congregations.”[8]
Most future pastors will not be prepared for the realities they will face at these small churches. They may need to be willing to work an additional job outside the church or accept substantially less money than they ever expected to live on.[9] These pastors’ philosophy of ministry and their conception of what it means to serve as a pastor will also need a redo.
Many people preparing for the pastorate have preconceived notions of what it’s like to be a pastor. Many see pastors as the equivalent of local rock stars. They see the lives of pastors as glamorous. Some want-to-be-pastors think pastors sit in their study, leave to speak to the masses, and after the applause return to their cloistered repose. Seminary often prepares pastors for the study and not the flock. The mega church, it would seem, often prepares pastors for social media, and not the flock. Disillusionment is the result.
Mega Churches Tend to Constrict the Full Functioning of the Church Body
Churches often implicitly communicate that the pastor is the professional who does the ministry. This was never supposed to be the case. Rather, every member of the church body is to be equipped for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12). There is a concept in Christianity called “the priesthood of all believers” (see 1 Peter 2:4-9). It teaches that there is no special class of Christian. Jesus is the sole person who gives access to God (Jn. 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5), and no other special office is needed for that role. Jesus makes all of His people part of the “priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:5, 9). So, all Christians are to be active participants. The church is a body with many parts and many different giftings; it is vital that each part does its part (1 Corinthians 12:1-27, Romans 12:4-8, Ephesians 1:1-23). Let’s cast off any garb that could constrict the full functioning of Christ’s body.
Mega Churches Consolidate Resources
Mega churches consolidate resources. It is similar to what happens in a siege. It is a “game of attrition.” Mega churches have a type of efficiency that results from gathered resources and the ability to have fewer pastors per attendee, due to the potential for repeating church services and live streaming at other campuses. Higher-paying pastoral positions can be supplemented with lower-paying positions. Mega churches have found a way to get the “most bang for their buck.” But what are the unseen downsides to all the pizzazz of a mega church? Here are a few: superstar pastor culture,[10] less pastoral care, less connection and community, and a consumeristic mentality.
We should see it for what it is, a consolidation of resources and growth in one church, which is not necessarily growth in the Church. Also, mega churches are typically competitively consolidating and “taking over” other churches. Consolidation in partnership in mission is a praiseworthy goal. More often, however, the goal is much more partisan.
Here’s another way of saying it, a mega church may have a bigger slice of the pie but that doesn’t mean there is more pie. If mega churches are better stewards of the church flock and are more faithful in making disciples this is a positive thing. I, however, am not convinced this is the case (for reasons I have articulated here and elsewhere).
Mega Churches Attract Some but Repel Others
Mega church tends to not be for people on the margins. But Jesus was about people on the margins of society. At least in 2009, Myev Rees said, “The majority of megachurch-goers are white, middle-class or affluent suburbanites.” The numbers may have changed some but this seems to still tend to be the case. Regardless, large churches that seem to have it all together will only attract a specific demographic. What about all the people who find big polished churches plastic, overly institutional, and annoying?
These churches may attract a certain type of demographic, but there is a whole host of people it repels. So, if all the other negative aspects of mega church can be dealt with then they have their place but they’re not the solution to church decline.
Mega Churches Tend To Be About Brand Building and Less About Kingdom Building
Discipleship and evangelism have given way to branding and marketing. The net result is some churches are growing and the pastors reputation is booming. But sometimes the name of Jesus and His Church suffers as a result.
I recently read a newsletter from a church. It gave the number of people in the city and then said “We want every single person to know about ______ church.” They even hired a marketing company. The big asks in the email were (1) give more money and (2) leave a good Google review to help SEO/search results. I get it and I know the pastor who composed the email is genuine and loves Jesus and wants to see people continue to come to Jesus for salvation. But when did brand building become the emphasis and main strategy?
It’s about Jesus and His Name—the name that is about all other names—and not any name brand church. Buildings, brands, and institutions will fall but Jesus is the Lord forever. He deserves our eternal allegiance.
What Is the Solution?
The solution for church decline is not more of the same, and I don’t believe the solution is mega church[11] either. I think the solution is Christians getting back to the simple center of Christ and Christ-formed communities without all the unnecessary clutter, consumerism, and cultural-Christian baggage.
(I plan to lay out my thoughts on the solution in a future post.)
Notes
[1] Alan Hirsch, 5Q:Reactivating the Original Intelligence and Capacity of the Body of Christ.
[2] Hirsch, 5Q.
[3] https://research.lifeway.com/2021/10/20/small-churches-continue-growing-but-in-number-not-size/
[4] Ibid.
[5] “U.S. congregations are increasingly small, while U.S. churchgoers are increasingly headed toward larger churches.” So, “The larger a church is, the more likely it is to be growing.” (https://research.lifeway.com/2021/10/20/small-churches-continue-growing-but-in-number-not-size/) Is this because bigger churches are able to offer more amenities and a better experience?
[6] Of course, Paul would revisit the churches and write them letters encouraging them to pursue gospel health.
[7] See J.D. Payne’s helpful book, Pressure Points.
[9] Many, probably most, of the pastors I went to seminary with are not serving in ministry. This is for multiple reasons but one of the main reasons is most churches do not pay enough to reasonably live on.
[10] Mega churches can easily become a breeding ground for toxic leadership and lack of accountability.
[11] I, of course, realize that mega church is not the only alternative to decline. But the statistics show that smaller churches are growing smaller and larger churches are growing larger. Offhand, I’m not sure where the scales tip from “small” to “large” but I do believe we would do well to consider these trends and ask are they good? Is there anything we should or can do? What are the implications for more large churches and fewer small churches? Does this reflect Kingdom growth or primarily transfer growth? Does this lead to further fracturing of society, more disconnection, and more consumerism? What if any, are the alternatives?
*Photo by Paul Volkmer
Why does your church meet in a house?
Well, we don’t always meet in houses. We also meet in coffee shops, parks, outdoors, and other locations. We could gather in a more traditional church building but meeting in these other locations is actually strategic.
Biblical Precedence
In the early church, where there was a Christian home, its uses were numerous. The book of Acts illustrates these homes being used for prayer meetings, Christian fellowship, communion services, entire nights of prayer, worship and instruction, impromptu evangelistic gatherings, planned evangelistic meetings, following up with inquirers, and organized instruction (Acts 2:46, 5:42, I0:22, 12:12, 16:32, 18:26, 20:7, 2I:7).[1]
It is of course fine for churches to gather in a church building. It can be a great blessing to steward a building for Kingdom purposes. But the Bible clearly never says that the church gathering must take place in a building reserved for that purpose.[2] Far from it, early Christians utilized houses to a great extent.
| Acts 2:46 | “their homes” |
| Acts 5:42 | “House to house” |
| Acts 10 | Cornelias’ house |
| Acts 12:12 | Mary’s house |
| Acts 16:32 | Jailer’s house |
| Acts 16:40 | Lydia’s house |
| Acts 20:20 | “House to house” |
| Romans 16:5 | Prisca & Aquila’s house |
| 1 Corinthians 16:19 | Prisca & Aquila’s house |
| Colossians 4:15 | Nympha’s house |
| Philemon 1:2 | Philemon’s house |
In fact, it’s intentional for the church not to hide behind the four walls of a church building. Jesus has called us to be light in a land of darkness, how can we be that when all the light is huddled up where it is bright inside? Jesus has called us to be salt in a world of decay, how can we do that when we are all locked up together in the shaker?
The early Christians were out and about and mixing it up with nonbelievers. Paul had discussions at the Hall of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9) and evangelized outside among other places (Acts 16:13). It’s strategic for Christians to be amongst nonChristians.
I was meeting with two guys at a McDonald’s for some discipleship and a guy asked: “Are those Bibles?” We said, “Yep!” and invited him to join us. He did. And we shared the good news of Jesus with him and prayed over him with tears streaming down his cheeks. God worked through us that night. And God has worked through us in other ways as we are the church amongst and visibly mixing it up with our community.
Simplicity and Stewardship
One of our desires as a church and movement is that we would be simple so as to be easily replicable. Most people have access to some sort of location to gather as a church. So, meeting in homes is simple and allows for easy multiplication.
Meeting in homes and other simple locations also allows for the stewardship of resources. Church buildings cost a lot of money and can be a distraction and hindrance to the actual mission of the church. Church buildings are not necessary, faithful disciples who are willing to meet wherever are necessary.
Facilitates Hospitality
The Bible places a lot of value on hospitality. It even commands hospitality and hospitality is a qualification to be a pastor. I am convinced hospitality is really important and yet it is often not valued like it should be. I also think hospitality is a heavily untapped evangelistic tool. Meeting in different people’s homes breeds a culture of hospitality.
Facilitates Discipleship
Meeting in other places besides a traditional church building can help people have a healthy ecclesiology (theology of the church). It is a constant reminder that the church building is not the church, God’s people are the church. The church gathers to be built up and scatters to bless. God’s people are the Church seven days a week throughout the places we live.
Gathering as the church in the places where we work, live, and play also shows us that church is not disconnected from everyday life. There’s also just something about meeting together in certain spaces that facilitate relationships. I can’t say exactly what it is but there’s a special bond that’s made sitting in someone’s house sharing a meal.
Notes
[1] See Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, 218.
[2] God does not dwell in any type of building made with hands (Acts 7:48; 17:24) but rather dwells within His people (Eph. 2:22; 2 Cor. 3:16; 6:16).
The Explosive Potential of Discipleship
The Explosive Potential of Discipleship
Not only did Jesus disciple and tell us to disciple,[1] there is potential for explosive Kingdom growth when we focus on discipleship. If we want to be about the work King Jesus has called us to, we must not be about brand building, but discipleship building; we must be about discipleship, not entertainment.
Jesus had just three years to launch a global movement, the length of His public ministry. Just three years to reach people that would eventually reach the ends of the earth.[2] What would He do? There was no social media, no radio, no television, and public transportation was nothing like what we know. How would God’s plan to bless all nations through Messiah Jesus ever happen?
Jesus chose to invest heavily in just a few people and help them to become like Himself. That was His big cosmic plan. And it was utterly time-consuming. “But within seventy years, the cadre of people around Jesus had taken His good news into every corner of the Roman world. Do we have better efficiencies in mind?”[3] (If so, we’re foolishly not following the One who is Wisdom incarnate).
Westerners are in love with well-packaged mass marketing of the gospel. In church, as in advertising, growth is a numbers game about getting as many impressions as possible out to the masses. Mass communication and evangelism may have their place, but they show no signs of dramatically transforming the world. But Jesus gave almost all of His attention to intentionally discipling just twelve men, especially focusing on four of them. The results speak for themselves. Can we do better, investing in Christian mass messaging and once-a-week preaching services?[4]
What did Jesus’ discipleship look like?
Dann Spader identifies the major discipleship methods in Jesus’ life and ministry. Jesus tells us to make disciples and He shows us how to make disciples.
- Jesus was deeply committed to relational ministry.
“Every aspect of Jesus’ ministry was relational. To Jesus, relationships were not a strategy; they were part of being full human.”[5]
- Jesus invested early in a few.
He started slow to go fast.
- Jesus often slipped away to pray.
“More than forty-five times in the Gospels, Jesus escaped the crowds to pray.”[6]
- Jesus loved sinners profoundly.
- Jesus balanced His efforts to win the lost, build believers, and equip a few workers.
“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]
Discipleship is about Obedience, Not Knowledge Acquisition
The Great Commission says, “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded,” not “teaching them to know a bunch biblical data.” Knowledge certainly has it’s place but it’s condemning if not applied (see Matt. 28:20). Knowledge should have its effect, for one, it should humble us. We must be mindful of our minds. Yet, sadly, “There is a misconception that if people know what is right, they will do what is right. Experience tells us that this is not the case, yet we function as if it is.”[8] We need more apprenticeships and less classrooms.
The Discipleship of a Few Led to the Discipleship of Many
Jesus did not just choose the educated and the especially gifted to be His apprentices. He chose common people like you and me. Yet within two years after the Spirit was given at Pentecost this ragtag group “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!”[9]
Despite the harassment and persecution the Church faced across the decades the movement continued to grow to some “1000 Christians in 40 AD, about 7 to 10,000 in 100 A.D., about 200,000 or a bit more by 200 A.D., and by 300 A.D. perhaps 5 to 6,000,000.”[10] People were discipled to follow Jesus and they did and the Jesus movement spread like wildfire.[11]
As Michael Green in his classic book, Evangelism in the Early Church, says,
It was a small group of eleven men whom Jesus commissioned to carry on his work, and bring the gospel to the whole world. They were not distinguished; they were not well educated; they had no influential backers. In their own nation they were nobodies and, in any case, their own nation was a mere second-class province on the eastern extremity of the Roman map. If they had stopped to weigh up the probabilities of succeeding in their mission, even granted their conviction that Jesus was alive and that his Spirit went with them to equip them for their task, their hearts must surely have sunk, so heavily were the odds weighted against them. How could they possibly succeed? And yet they did.[12]
How did they succeed? Well, it was clearly through the power of the Holy Spirit. He empowered these early Jesus followers to practice passionate discipleship.
If we make disciples as Jesus told us and showed us it may not look “sexy” or effective but at times Jesus’ ministry didn’t look successful either.[13] “A lot of disciple-makers feel successful when they have a large crowd of people listening to their teaching and following their lead. Catalyzing Disciple-Making Movements, however, requires disciplemakers to give up the spotlight.”[14] It’s about Jesus’ fame, not ours. It’s about making disciples, not fans.
We need to change our perception of success. We need to measure the number of leaders we train, the number of leaders those leaders identify and train, the number of people who are sent out to start groups, and the number of groups that replicate.[15] We need to be about building the Kingdom, not our kingdom.
Simple church structures that facilitate discipleship our essential. We need to do away with as much of the trappings of religion as we can. We must not sell Christianity as “cool.” If we make Christianity simply “cool,” what happens when and where it’s not “cool”? Cuddling Christians must also go. Jesus said, “If you lose your life, you will find it” (see Matt. 16:25; Lk. 9:24; Jn. 12:25). He didn’t say, “Following Me is a cool bonus.” Jesus is life and loving and following Him is what life is about.
Notes
[1] And note that the “going” Jesus is talking about in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16-20) is not a special event, such as a mission trip. Instead, we are to make disciples as we go to work, as we go to school, as we go out into our neighborhood” (Dann Spader, 4 Chair Discipling, 36-37).
[2] Jerry Trousdale, Miraculous Movements, 40.
[3] Trousdale, Miraculous Movements, 40.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Dann Spader, 4 Chair Discipling, 30.
[6] Spader, 4 Chair Discipling, 14.
[7] Ibid., 36.
[8] Watson, Contagious Disciple Making, 204. “Transmitting information in the discipleship process is imperative, but it is not the most important aspect of the disciple-making process. Disciples do not just know what the Master requires; they do what the Master requires in every situation regardless of the consequences.” (Watson, Contagious Disciple Making, 204)
[9] Dann Spader, 4 Chair Discipling, 36.
[10] Larry W. Hurtado, Destroyer of the gods: early Christian distinctiveness in the Roman world, 3.
[11] Rapid Church growth is still possible. J.D. Payne notes in his book, Discovering Church Planting, that when Francis Asbury, the Methodist minister, began his work in America there were some 600 Methodists in America, but at the time of his death there were over 200,000. Here’s a summary of some of what can be gleaned from early Methodism: 1) Abundant Gospel Sowing, 2) Evangelistic Zeal, 3) Contextualization, 4) Sacrifice, and 5) Simple Organization.
[12] Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, 13.
[13] Jesus didn’t have a building or apparently much of a budget and He would often say things to disturb the masses to the point that they would leave. Yet, now reportedly 31.6% of the world’s population affiliates with Christianity.
[14] Watson, Contagious Disciple Making, 112.
[15] Ibid., 113.
What if church aimed at something different?
What if church were different and aimed at something different? What if something radically different is needed, and needed right now? What if God is calling us to multiply movements, not names and brands? What if it’s about Jesus, His Kingdom, and the lost people He is calling, and not about a denomination or third-order doctrinal matters?[1] What if we need to focus on micro-movements and not mega organizations?
In the 2004 Olympics, Matt Emmons was way out in front. He had nearly clinched gold in the fifty meter, three position rifle final. All he had to do was hit the target. He didn’t have to get a bullseye; he just had to hit the target—something he could seemingly do with his eyes closed. He took aim, pulled the trigger, and hit the target. The only thing was, it was the wrong target.
He did not get gold that day. He didn’t get a metal. The only thing he got was disqualified. It’s possible to do a really good job, even the best job, and fail. If we aim at the wrong thing, we’re wrong even if we hit the target.
What if we have been aiming at the wrong target? The Apostle Paul, referring to Christian ministry, says, “Let each one take care how he builds” (1 Cor. 3:10). We must be intentional and aim well.
What if the modern church has often listened to business wisdom instead of biblical wisdom? What if we have built on a different foundation than the one the Bible commends to us? What if the church has cared too much about the esteem of man, and Christ and His word have fallen in our esteem?
We easily prize and prioritize the wrong things. We listen to the wrong voices and value and build the wrong things. Jesus wants us to listen to Him, value the Kingdom, and be about the Kingdom. Several years ago Kent Hughes wrote Liberating Ministry from the Success Syndrome. He says true success in ministry is not measured by worldly metrics like numbers or popularity. The book emphasizes the importance of focusing on the spiritual well-being and transformation of individuals rather than solely chasing large congregations.
What if we’ve been aiming at a good social media presence when what we need is actual presence? What we need is not pastors who look good, but who are good. What if we’ve unknowingly been capitulating to the culture and bought into a coy lie?
What if “butts in seats” is not what we should be aiming for but feet on mission? What if mega comfortable, convenient, and cool is the wrong target, so even if we hit it we’re liable to be disqualified? Again, we must “build with care” (1 Cor. 3:10). What if we’re building with straw and the End will disclose the futility of our efforts? (1 Cor. 3:12-13)
If disciples are what our Lord delights in, and disciples endure the Day, then that must be our aim. We must aim and build differently. Buildings and brands are not the goal; a band of radical Jesus followers is; that’s who turned the world upside down in the beginning (and without a budget).
Fruitfulness is faithful disciples. We must work like Jesus and Paul did. And we must create contexts most likely to produce faithful followers, not fans.
What if we had deep instead of surface relationships, discipled instead of entertained, and emphasized the church body instead of the building? What if we were intergenerational instead of isolating, cared about character instead of charisma, and emphasized the ministry of people instead of “superpastors”? What if pastors deeply knew people, we were authentic instead of artificial, and simple instead of complex?
What if churches were co-laborers instead of competitors? What if churches were closer to the biblical ideal and cared more about the Kingdom and less about their brand? What if the renown and reputation of Jesus was the all-consuming focus? What if we all said, “May Jesus increase, and I decrease?” What if pastors sought to “put themselves out of business”?
What if the church sought to be the church, not just go to church? What if the church didn’t just care about orthodoxy but cared about orthopraxy, too? That is, what if people didn’t just know how to define love or find verses about it in the Bible, but radically loved all those they came in contact with. What if churches were appealing, not mainly because of their architecture, programming, and hipness, but because Jesus’ love radiated out of them‽ What if the world was turned upside-down—in the best of ways—not by moralism, music, and monologues from the stage, but people loving Jesus and other people in real life?
My proposal for the church is: let’s be different. Let’s do these things. Let’s radically love Jesus and others and let the chips fall where they may. Everything else is stubble and dross. Brands will fade, buildings will burn, but souls and our Savior are forever.
Notes
[1] Sadly, some people seem more anxious to convert people to their peculiarities, than to convert souls to Christ (Iain H. Murray, Pentecost Today?, 151).
Should Pastors be Paid?
Should pastors be paid? What does Scripture say? It says worthy pastors are worthy of pay. Although, there are times when a ministry leader may strategically choose not to get paid.
Biblical Support for Pastoral Pay
Jesus said, “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (Lk. 10:7 cf. Matt. 10:10). John and Paul agree. John wrote, “You will do well to send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God… Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be fellow workers for the truth” (3 Jn. 6, 8).
Paul has a lot to say about the topic in his letters. He says,
- “Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches” (Gal. 6:6).
- “Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?… If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?… In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:7,11,14).
- “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages.’” (1 Tim. 5:17-18)
- “You Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again… I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.” (Phil. 4:15-18).
It seems Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, in part, to raise support for his planned ministry in Spain (Rom. 15:20-29). Paul is about Christians supporting Christian work. He told Titus to send along his fellow workers, and he said, “See that they lack nothing” (Titus 3:13). “Every time the New Testament addresses financial support of church staff and missionaries, it underscores generosity.”[1]
Reasons to Abstain from Pastoral Pay
Paul said, “For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ” (2 Cor. 2:17). Pastors and all Christian workers, are never to be “peddlers of God’s word,” we are rather servants commissioned to obey our master. Sometimes it is wise to abstain from pay to make it clear that one is serving the Master and not mammon.
Paul clearly was not in ministry to get rich. He said this to the elders in Ephesus: “I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me” (Acts 20:33–34).
At times Paul worked as a tentmaker to support his own ministry. In each instance, he had a specific ministry objective in mind.[2] One of the reasons Paul sometimes didn’t take pay for his ministry was to set an example.
You yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate (2 Thess. 3:7–9).
Jamie Dunlop who wrote a helpful book on Budgeting for a Healthy Church, rightly says:
In general, you should pay those who labor to provide teaching for your congregation. Of course, Paul himself sometimes went without the money he deserved (1 Cor. 9:12). But when he did so, his rationale was not one of financial frugality; it was because he didn’t want young congregations to be confused by his pay (1 Cor. 9:12; 1 Thess. 2:5-10). Even then, he pointed out that his not being paid was the exception, not the norm (1 Cor. 9:6-7). In fact, he even goes so far as to describe his support by one church in the planting of another as “robbing other churches” (2 Cor. 11:7-8). Necessary sometimes, but not ideal: normally, a church should support its own pastor.[3]
There were times the Apostle Paul decided not to take pay; instead, he decided it would be best to pay his own way for a season. There could be various reasons for this. In 1 Corinthians 9:12, Paul says he could choose to get paid for his ministry but decided not to make use of that right so as not to “put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:12). It seems at another point he did receive financial support from others while he ministered to the Corinthians though (2 Cor. 11:7-9). So, there are a few different reasons why it might be appropriate for pastors and missionaries to abstain from support, at least for a season.
Potential Problems with Pastoral Pay
There are some potential dangers to paying pastors. Here are two from Jamie Dunlop: professionalization and consumerism.
Staff can infantilize the congregation by doing ministry instead of equipping the congregation to do ministry. In fact, the very existence of a staff position can communicate to the congregation that ‘real’ ministry belongs in the hands of trained professionals… Staff can customize ministry for the preferences and needs of specific segments of the congregation. That may encourage a congregation’s consumeristic tendencies, teaching them to value your church based on how well it meets their felt needs.[4]
Sometimes employing professional pastors is asking for problems. John Piper wrote Brothers, we are not professionals for a reason. Pastors sometimes know the seminary world and the passions of their professors, but not the struggles and problems of the people in their pews. They can read Greek but won’t speak in the language of their people. Pictures are posted on the church’s social of the pastor shaking hands but don’t ask him for a hand, he’s far too busy keeping the business of the church going.
Pastors also often tell their people to evangelize but they themselves may not have really talked with an unchurched person in months (or had the opportunity to do so). Pastors can be distant, aloof, and hard to reach. These are some of the potential problems of a “professional pastoral class.” I am not saying it is always that way but it is wise of us to be aware of the downsides of pastoral pay.
Reasons I’m Currently Abstaining from Pastoral Pay
Ministry is not, nor should it ever be, about money. We all, like the Apostle Paul, should seek to authentically love Jesus and others regardless of pay. Of course, pay is not bad. It can be a great blessing. But, here are the reasons I’m currently choosing to be a “tentmaker.”
Setting an Example
The Apostle Paul cared about setting an example for people to follow too. He told the Ephesian elders, “In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’” (Acts 20:35). And in 1 Corinthians 11:1, Paul says, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”
I’m calling people to imitate me; be relational, evangelistic, and minister to others. I want to practice what I’m preaching. I want to prove that it is feasible to be a faithful Christian witness where we work, live, and play without being “a professional Christian.” I want to replicate myself in others and not every leader will be able to be paid for their labor.
I’m currently able to work a “secular job” and (at least somewhat) keep up with “equipping the saints for the work of the ministry.” One of the reasons I can (at least somewhat) keep up with ministry besides the flexibility of my job, my awesome wife, and the support of my family (my mom and father-and-mother-in-law!), is that I’m not the only minister. The New Testament teaches the “priesthood of all believers” and says every part of the body of believers is gifted. When the pastor has a “secular job” it means the body must function as a body. It shouldn’t and it can’t just fall on the pastor. Everyone must pull weight and minister (This is definitely a point in favor of a plurality of pastoral leadership too). In this way, I believe bi-vocational ministry facilitates body-vocational ministry.
Stewardship and Simplicity
I trust God has plans for the micro-church movement we’re working on, and that’s what we’re working towards. We want to see God save people out of the harvest who will reach their community where they are. Our ministry model at this point does not require a pastor to get paid so we believe it is good stewardship to invest that money in the future and in mission work.
We want to be prepared to move when opportunities come. More and more church buildings will close. Down the road, I envision our church buying a building to support the local community as well as serve as a stream of revenue (eg., remote working space, coffee shop, venue). We want to facilitate local ministries and invest in training the next generation to reach people where they work, live, and play. My not taking any income at this point is an investment in the future. It also serves to prove the feasibility of the micro-church movement. As Christians, we can and must be able to be the church, even without a paid pastor and even without a budget.
God’s word is not bound; it’s not bound by a building or a budget. Sometimes we try to restrict the Spirit to specific borders but He is pretty good about breaking our preconceived notions. We also believe in simplicity because simplicity helps us focus on Jesus, ensures people are doing the real-life ministry they are called to, and best facilitates multiplication. No need for salaried pastor positions in the micro-church movement allows for easy replication.
Other Reflections Regarding Pastoral Pay
When is a pastor/missionary worthy of pay?
Paul answers that question. For example, he says, “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching” (1 Tim. 5:17). Some pastors collect a healthy salary but spend their time behind a desk surfing the web and writing or reading about archaic unconnected theological drivel.[5] They’re not shepherding the sheep, equipping the saints, reaching the lost. They’re disconnected from their people and their problems. They’re a hireling (Jn. 10:12).
Others don’t take their job seriously because they don’t take God seriously. Still others pastor as a point of pride. They, as Jesus says, “like the recognition in the marketplace” like the Pharisees (Lk. 11:43). A “worker” like that is not worthy of his wages. I would argue that worker should take seriously what the Lord Jesus has called them to do because Jesus will call His pastors to account (Heb. 13:17).
The pastor who I think is worthy of pay can honestly say something like this:
I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me. For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ (Col. 1:24-2:2)
I’d feel good about you paying for his labor. But not someone sitting in a cushy office making announcements from the chair about how you need to get your life together, fix your marriage, etc. but doesn’t lift an actual hand to help. That person is not a pastor but is like a Pharisee Jesus criticized (Matt. 23:4).
Many “pastors” are managers, not pastors.[6] They don’t teach or shepherd and may not meet the qualifications of a pastor. Instead, their role is to keep the corporate church running and keep the felt needs of people met. Perhaps a lot of church budgets are going to things that are sub-biblical, not necessarily wrong but not the wisest choice for the best long-term Kingdom impact?
What if the office of Deacon functioned as it did in the early church, and pastors were able to pastor and churches didn’t have to hire “pastors” or “ministers directors” to do the ministry that Deacons could do? What financial resources might that free up? The early church gave money generously for the relief of famine, for example. What ministry might the church be able to do if so much wasn’t spent on staff, sanctuaries, and services?
Notice I’m not saying there isn’t a place for spending money on each of those things, but it sometimes seems like the American church thinks those things are the solution, are ministry, and lead to growth. They may lead to growth, but we should be concerned with healthy growth. Tumors grow. They can grow a lot. There is a difference between growth and healthy growth. When Jesus walked the earth with His disciples we clearly see He cared about healthy growth. Jesus still cares about healthy growth.
Conclusion
Yes, pastors should often be paid if they are doing the ministry Jesus has commissioned them to do. The laborer is worthy of his wages. But this assumes he is laboring. He’s not just lazily soaking up a salary. We also see in the New Testament that there are reasons for ministry leaders to abstain from receiving pay. Trends point to this becoming a more common reality. Will pastors be willing and able to pastor with little to no pay? And what may need to change for churches to pivot from the current model to the realities facing us in the future? (I propose some changes in my series, “What If Church were Different?”)
Notes
[1] Jamie Dunlop, Budgeting for a Healthy Church: Aligning Finances with Biblical Priorities for Ministry.
[2] Steve Shadrach, The God Ask, 79.
[3] Jamie Dunlop, Budgeting for a Healthy Church: Aligning Finances with Biblical Priorities for Ministry.
[4] Jamie Dunlop, Budgeting for a Healthy Church: Aligning Finances with Biblical Priorities for Ministry.
[5] Of course, this is not to say that theology and doctrine are not important. They are. See e.g., “The Practical Importance of Doctrine” and “True Knowledge Should Truly Humble.” Pastors are to minister to their actual people. Theological truth is supposed to be directed to particular practical and pastoral aims.
[6] “Although there are exceptions, the traditional Western approach to theological education is to train pastors to be managers of the status quo, not to lead churches for global disciple making. Maintaining ministry structures is the standard.” (J. D. Payne, Apostolic Imagination: Recovering a Biblical Vision for the Church’s Mission Today)
Photo by Gift Habeshaw
Authentic Church: Moving Beyond Performance
What if church were different? What if we were authentic instead of artificial?
We’ve communicated for decades that church is essentially a performance that you sit down and watch. Is it any wonder so many have decided church is irrelevant? If that’s what church is, it is to a great degree irrelevant. When surveyed, the unchurched gave “There is no value in attending” (74%) as their top reason for abandoning the church.[1] We can get better entertainment at home or half a million concert venues, amusement parks, or sporting arenas. The church can never offer all that the world can, but the church offers something the world can never offer. Have we sold our birthright for a meager porridge?
People long to be real. There’s even a social media platform called “Be Real.” Christians must be real, for real. Distrust in corporations and institutions is very high[2] and most churches have all the markings of a corporation.
What if we did away with the stage and a staged experience? What if instead of curating a culture that looks perfect and happy, we were able to be honest even when we’re struggling? We need a hospital instead of a beauty pageant. We need people to be able to be their sick selves and get better rather than just plastering on a fake face.
Scripture calls us to “bear one another’s burdens” (Gal. 6:2) and “confess our sins to one another” (James 5:16). If we are to carry out these commands of Scripture, we must have a culture that supports and allows their practice, not that contradicts their practice.
Also, the very structure of the “church service” is often artificial. Going to a “service” where we sit in a chair or pew is disconnected from most other parts of our lives. It is more similar to going to a movie or a theatrical performance and is not integrated with the rest of our lives. Many churches have community groups to provide a real-life Christian experience. Churches see the need for real-life Christian relationships, and a Sunday service doesn’t and can’t provide that. It is, however, much more convenient to just “get fed” at church and not bother with being the church, so often people opt out of authentic community.
Christians are to shine as lights in the world but that doesn’t mean they have to be “shiny happy people.” The word hypocrite comes to us from Greek and means to “pretend” or “play a part” as in a theatrical performance. Christians, however, have no need for a mask. As Christians, we know we are all simultaneously saints, sinners, and sufferers. That’s the reality. But many “church services” don’t take those simultaneous statuses into account. The biblical worldview communicates that there is a time for sorrow and a time for rejoicing (Ecc. 3:4; 2 Cor. 6:10). There is a time to lament and a time to dance and praise. But we often lack that breadth of expression. Yet, how can we bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2) if we shy away from the fact that we have burdens?
Jesus often hungout with the lower-class rabble and rebel rouses. Modern American Christianity often communicates that cookie-cutter, middle class is the ideal. Can we expect people in the church to be real, honest, and seek help with their challenges when the church service presents a squeaky clean picture of what it means to follow Jesus? Again, if “the medium is the message,” the message is Christians live super happy, put-together lives. Is it any wonder those who are suffering or struggling don’t want to share, or “go” to a church where perfection is televised from the stage?
Notes
[1] See James Emery White’s book, Meet Generation Z, 84 where he references research done by the Barna Group for his previous book Rethinking the Church. It should be noted that this data is old as that book came out in 1997.
[2] Office of the Surgeon General, Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on the Healing Effects of Social Connection and Community, 13.
in X 