The Solution for Church Decline is Not More of the Same
In his book Why Religion Went Obsolete, Christian Smith argues that a significant cultural shift has made traditional American religion increasingly irrelevant and unattractive. He argues that “Religion has not merely declined; it has become culturally obsolete.”[1] The irrelevance of religion is different than just decline or secularization.
The cultural air we unknowingly imbibe essentially contains pollutants that subtly shape people to not care about or have time or attention for religion. We may not like it but we can’t change reality by ignoring it. But it’s not just the surrounding culture that is at fault for the decline of church in the West. The church itself is liable. One of Smith’s chapter titles, “Religious Self-Destructions,” is spot-on.
Many Christian leaders don’t realize the extent of the problem or would rather stick to the same old ways. But if we keep doing the same thing, we’ll get the same results, but with less success. If Christian leaders don’t change course, they’ll burn out and become discouraged. They might think the answer is to do more of everything and make everything better, but that’s not the answer. If the problem is misunderstood we will not be able to come up with the correct solution.
Imagine someone buying a brand-new electric car. But when it starts acting up, they open the hood and start looking for the carburetor. They look around for spark plugs and try to change the oil. They’re frustrated because they don’t know what to do and nothing looks familiar. But they just keep trying to do the same old thing.
What’s the problem? They’re treating an electric car like it’s a gas-powered one. Same idea on the outside—four wheels, steering wheel, gets you from point A to B—but a completely different system under the hood. To fix it, they need a new kind of knowledge, a new toolset, and probably a whole new way of thinking.
Sometimes we try to fix new challenges in the church using recycled methodology. We assume what worked before will work again, without realizing the extent of change that has taken place and the challenges ahead.
We aren’t in Christendom anymore. Christians are speaking a dying language. Church buildings and institutions are increasingly seen as out of touch.
American religion’s demise has not been due to its farfetched belief contents—as most atheists and some secularization theorists would have it—but because of its own fossilized cultural forms that it was unable to shake. Religion in the Millennial zeitgeist felt alien and disconnected from what mattered in life—in short, badly culturally mismatched. The vibes were off.[2]
Christian Smith suggests getting down to the core. What are Jesus’ followers trying to do and why? What are the essential core traditions, identities, and missions—without which we would not exist—versus cultural positions that may seem non-negotiable but are actually liabilities? We can’t be satisfied with just trying to keep the status quo intact. A whole new paradigm is needed.[3]
The solution for church decline is not more of the same, and I don’t believe the solution is mega church either. I think the solution is Christians getting back to the simple center of Christ and Christ-formed communities without all the unnecessary clutter and cultural-Christian baggage.
(I plan to layout more of my thoughts in a few posts to follow)
Notes
[1] Christian Smith, Why Religion Went Obsolete, 2. “The decline of traditional American religion is a massive social change, the kind that doesn’t happen often, and it can be difficult to wrap one’s head around how such a massive change can occur.” (Smith, Why Religion Went Obsolete, 60) “In 2000, the median number of attendees at a worship service was 137 people. By 2020, that number was reduced to 65—a 52% loss in size in 20 years.” (Ibid., 32-33).
[2] Ibid., 338.
[3] Ibid., 372.
*Photo by Paul Volkmer
13 Concerns About the American Church
As Nadya Williams has said, we shouldn’t be nostalgic and idealize the past. I agree. The early church had its problems and its cultural Christians.[1] Yet, as we see from the New Testament, we must always pursue healthy Christians and churches. Eventually, the church will be completely holy and without blemish (Eph. 5:27). But until then we work for its maturity and health. It’s not idealistic to work towards the ideal; it’s biblical.
Here are 13 general concerns I have with the American Church:
- Consumerism and Entertainment Focus: The church growth model often prioritizes entertainment, convenience, and consumer satisfaction over discipleship, leading to superficial faith and anemic disciples.
- Structural Weaknesses: The typical American church structure, with its emphasis on buildings, branding, and professional clergy, often weakens the church body and individual believers.
- Misplaced Priorities: Churches often aim for “butts in seats” rather than “feet on mission,” focusing on numerical growth and branding instead of authentic discipleship and Kingdom-building.
- Isolation and Lack of Relationships: Many churches fail to foster deep, intergenerational relationships, contributing to loneliness and disconnection among members.
- Competition Among Churches: Churches often compete for attendees rather than collaborating to advance the Kingdom of God.
- Overemphasis on Buildings: The focus on church buildings and facilities can detract from investing in the church body and being on mission where we work, live, and play.
- Complexity Over Simplicity: The traditional church model is often too complex, making it difficult to replicate and hindering the rapid multiplication of disciples and churches.
- Artificiality Over Authenticity: Churches sometimes prioritize staged experiences and curated appearances over genuine, messy, real-life Christian community.
- SuperPastor Culture: The emphasis on charismatic leaders and professional clergy can overshadow the ministry of the church body and lead to pastoral burnout and scandals.
- Neglect of Shepherding: Pastors are often elevated as performers or managers rather than shepherds who deeply know and care for the flock.
- Fad-Driven Practices: Churches sometimes chase cultural relevance and trends at the expense of being historically and spiritually rooted.
- Charisma Over Character: The church often values charisma and influence over Christ-like character, leading to moral failures and scandals.
- Jesus as Savior, Not Lord: The church sometimes emphasizes Jesus as Savior without fully embracing His Lordship, resulting in a lack of obedience and whole-life allegiance. Discipleship is often about knowledge acquisition, not obedience.
We need a radical reformation of the church, focusing on discipleship, authenticity, simplicity, and Kingdom collaboration rather than consumerism, competition, and superficial growth.
What if church were different?
[1] See Nadya Williams, Cultural Christians in the Early Church: A Historical and Practical Introduction to Christians in the Greco-Roman World.
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).
Let’s be the church, not watch church
Many churches have focused a lot of attention on their online presence—online services and social media. There are upsides to these things but what are the potential downsides? In this blog series, we’re asking, “What if church were different?”
Throughout church history, physical presence has mattered a great deal for multiple reasons. And it still matters. Why does physical presence matter?
Jesus’ Physical Presence
This point is the most succinct and it packs the most punch. The incarnation of Jesus is the ultimate sign that points to the importance of physical presence. In Jesus, God took on flesh. He was physically present among people (see e.g., John 1:1-3,14). God values physical presence.
Jesus’ “life is the full truth of living, Jesus is the standard by which life is to be measured.”[1] And Jesus shows us that physical presence matters deeply. Because Jesus was very much present physically.
Shut-ins Need Physical Presence
It is often said that online services are for shut-ins. I appreciate churches thinking of shut-ins but it would also be good to visit those shut-ins. I wonder what percentage of shut-ins utilize online services versus able-bodied people? I think churches investing in and visiting shut-ins would be a wiser and better use of resources (especially when there is already all sorts of church service content available). Our epidemic of loneliness and social isolation is not being helped by the internet and online services. People need actual people.
Online Presence cannot replicate Physical Presence
Actual physical presence has been important for centuries in order to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the saints. Part of the reason the Lord’s Supper is sometimes referred to as “communion” is because through Jesus we have communion with God and with one another.
Physical presence is important so we can practice the “one another passages.” For example, we are to accept one another (Rom. 15:7), bear with one another (Eph. 4:2; Col. 3:13), forgive one another (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13), pray for and confess sins to one another (James 5:16), cheer and challenge one another (Heb. 3:13; 10:24-25), admonish and confront one another (Rom. 15:14; Col. 3:16; Gal. 6:1-6), warn one another (1 Thess. 5:14), teach one another (Col. 3:16), bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2), submit to one another (Eph. 5:21).
In Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam argues that social capital in the U.S. has declined, as people are less engaged in civic life, social organizations, and community activities. He attributes this to factors like television, suburbanization, and generational changes, warning that this trend weakens democracy and social trust. He calls for efforts to rebuild connections and foster civic engagement. He says, “The single most common finding from a half-century’s research on the correlates of life satisfaction, not only in the United States but around the world, is that happiness is best predicted by the breadth and depth of one’s social connections.” Online presence cannot replicate physical presence.
Discipleship Needs Physical Presence
Following Jesus isn’t just informational, it’s transformational. We are Jesus’ apprentices. We seek to imitate others as they imitate Jesus (1 Cor. 11:1). This requires physical presence.[2]
You can curate your playlist but you can’t curate your pastor or the people of the church. You can skip a podcast with content you don’t like (but maybe need to hear!) but you can’t, or at least you shouldn’t shush the people sitting with you in church. We can be our own DJ of “digital church,” we can form it in our own image to fit our whims, but real church—the gathering of Jesus’ blood-bought body—works to reform us in Jesus’ image. Jesus DJ’s us.
We can filter and unfollow our online community and we can turn it off and on. We can accept, block, and unfollow “friends.” But in real-life discipleship in apprenticeship with Jesus, we must love everyone.
One of the strategies of the enemy at war is to divide the army so that they are more easily defeated. If the arm is divided, they can’t support one another and encourage one another. That is to a great extent what has happened to many Christians today. They are very much on their own and vulnerable to the attack of the enemy.
The Apostle Paul used the “technology” of the time and wrote the amazing letter to the Romans—quite a gift!—but he says, “I long to see you, that I may impart some spiritual gift to strengthen you” (Rom. 1:11). John repeatedly talks about the importance of seeing people “face to face” (2 Jn. 12; 3 Jn. 14). Actual physical presence is important.
Actual “Church is a resistance to certain ways of being formed.”[3] Church is about Jesus, loving Him, and others. It’s not about convenience. Online often malforms us, Jesus wants to form us in His image. If we’re online we’re not putting our life on the line for Jesus and others.
Jesus’ Ideal is Physical Presence
Imagine the scenario in heaven where Jesus is sharing His plan for the redemption of the church… Jesus says, “I want to purchase people from every tribe, language, nation, and tongue so that they will be a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for My own possession, so that they will sit in front of their TV and watch a church service. That’s my dream. That’s my big plan to transform the world and spread love.”
That’s crazy and not Jesus’ ideal. 1 Peter 2:9 says Jesus has made us His chosen race, royal priesthood, holy nation, and people for his own possession, so that we may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called us out of darkness into his marvelous light. What Jesus is doing is creating a bunch of little christs and spreading His love. In other words, God‘s plan for the transformation of all the world is not a bunch of couch potatoes, but an army of little Jesuses.
Plus, we lose out on glorifying Jesus in our diversity if we’re online and not in person. As Kendall Vanderslice has said, “Church is one of the few remaining institutions that brings people together across generations, across physical and cognitive abilities, across relationship status and life stage.”[4]
Conclusion
The world is often a lonely place, especially in America. The Mayo Clinic recently shared an article on the importance of friendship and how to be a friend. The word is realizing what the church has known for centuries and seems to be forgetting. Let’s be the church, not watch church. Let’s be friends, not just accept friend requests. In a world of loneliness, let’s love and open the doors of our homes and hearts.
Notes
[1] Norman Wirzba, Food and Faith: A Theology of Eating, 195.
[2] 1 John 2:6 says, whoever says Jesus abides in them ought to walk in the same way in which He walked. James tells us, “Be doers of the word, and not hearers only” (1:22). Jesus said, “Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord’ and do not do what I tell you?” (Lk. 6:46). See also 1 Cor. 4:14-17; 1 Thess. 1:4-10; Heb. 13:7-8.
[3] Kendall Vanderslice, “The Church of the Chronically Online” 56 in Common Good issue 17.
[4] Vanderslice, “The Church of the Chronically Online,” 56.
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦
The Modern American Church is Sick
The modern American church is sick. Let me count the ways… Here I’ll just give two. I hate being doomsdayish. But the writing is on the wall.
Invitation/Evangelism
Sadly, many church leaders equate evangelism with church invitation. In his book Meet Generation Z, James Emery White talks about Michael Green’s book on the staggering growth of the early church. He says Green’s book Evangelism in the Early Church had one huge conclusion: the early church “shared the good news of Jesus like gossip over the backyard fence.” Yet, right after this, White says, “In other words, a culture of invitation was both cultivated and celebrated.”
White, however, is not talking about sharing the good news of Jesus. He is talking about inviting people to a church service.
It’s not difficult… We create tools to put into the hands of people to use to invite their friends all the time… We celebrate and honor people who invite people all the time… Such tools can be something as simple as pens with the name of our website on them that people can give to someone. (Meet Generation Z, 151).
I know this is just a little quote but it does highlight that church leaders are stretching to try and get their people to invite others to church. That’s the big push. So, we make it so “It’s not difficult.” We seem to think, the people in the church are only so capable or faithful. We apparently can’t expect too much. We celebrate the faithful few who give their coworker a church pen and invite them to a Christmas Eve service.
The early church was willing to do more than give out pens with the church’s name on it. Let me get all nerdy and drop some biblical language facts. Do you know where the word “martyr” comes from? “Martyr” means someone who dies for their beliefs. “Martyr” comes from the Greek word which means “witness” or “one who gives testimony.” The early church was filled with witnesses—martyrs—who lovingly told others about Jesus, regardless of the cost. We celebrate and cultivate invitation to a church service. There’s a little bit of a difference.
This is what Michael Green says,
Communicating the faith was not regarded as the preserve of the very zealous or of the officially designated evangelist. Evangelism was the prerogative and duty of every church member. We have seen apostles and wandering prophets, nobles and paupers, intellectuals and fishermen all taking part enthusiastically in this the primary task committed by Christ to his Church. The ordinary people of the church saw it as their job: Christianity what supremely a lay movement, spread by informal missionaries. (Evangelism in the Early Church, 516)
He is clearly talking about evangelism, not invitation. They are not the same. He goes on:
Unless there is a transformation of contemporary church life so that once again the task of evangelism is something which is seen as incumbent on every baptized Christian, and is backed up by a quality of living what outshines the best that unbelief can muster, we are unlikely to make much headway through techniques of evangelism. People will not believe that Christians have good news to share until they find that bishops and bakers, university professors and housewives, bus drivers and street corner preachers are all alike keen to pass it on, however different their methods may be. And they will continue to believe that the Church is an introverted society composed of ‘respectable’ people and bent on its own preservation until they see in church groupings and individual Christians the caring, the joy, the fellowship, the self-sacrifice and the openness which marked the early church at its best. (Evangelism in the Early Church, 517-18)
Listen, I am not saying it is bad to invite people to church. There can be a place for that. But we should not equate evangelism and invitation. And we are all called to actually “gossip the gospel,” not hand out a handout.
Transfer Growth/competition within the Kingdom
How can a kingdom divided against itself stand? I’ve talked about this elsewhere but I think Jesus makes a good point (even if the context in which He said that was different. See Matt. 12:26; Mark 3:24).
I heard a story from a friend. They overheard some other friends talking: “I saw the addition to y’all’s church. It looks great! How’s it going?” That’s when a kid chimed in: “My friends are coming from their churches because they’re not doing good.” I think, “From the mouths of babes” is appropriate here.
A lot of churches across America aren’t doing well. A 35,000-square-foot church building in my area with a 400-seat sanctuary just sold for $65,000. Some may celebrate that another church down the street is adding a multimillion addition, but where is the actual growth? Is it Kingdom growth? Are new people crying out Jesus’ praise who previously didn’t, or are we rearranging furniture?
I’m not saying there are no reasons to decide to go to a different church, there are. The way that we think about transfer growth, however, is important. Again, not to pick on James Emery White but his book’s on my mind and in my hand because I just read it. He talks about visiting a church over the summer which “was one of the most programming-challenged services I’ve ever attended.” He doesn’t specify but I imagine it wasn’t very smooth and maybe awkward at points. But he goes on to say that though the service wasn’t very good, his kids liked the kid’s ministry.
Here’s the lesson: you can drop the ball in the service but ace it with the kids and still have a chance that a family will return. But no matter how good the service is, if the children’s ministry is bad, the family won’t come back… Children are at the heart of your growth engine. (Meet Generation Z, 150).
Basically, we need to have better religious goods and services than the church down the street, and an important part of what we need to offer is a really good children’s ministry. Notice the goal is not discipleship of parents so that they love and teach their kids, and it’s not discipleship of the kids; no, it’s an experience for the kids.
Conclusion
I get it, I don’t want things to be bad or awkward. But maybe the whole paradigm is messed up? Perhaps church was never supposed to be structured with a stage and an audience to entertain? Perhaps the church was never meant to be something we attend or a building? Perhaps “we are family” was never meant to be a church tagline but a reality? Perhaps service is meant to be something that the church provides to the world and not something church leaders provide to church members?
I agree that we should do things well. But it is imperative that we do the right things. 1 Corinthians 10:31 is often quoted by church leaders: “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” Of course, I agree with this verse. But this verse doesn’t give us carte blanche to use any methodology.
I appreciate what J.D. Payne wisely says in his book, Pressure Points:
With over four billion people in the world without Jesus, it is not wise to develop strategies that support methods which are counterproductive to the healthy rapid multiplication of disciples, leaders, and churches. Just because there is much biblical freedom in our culturally shaped methods does not mean that all such expressions are conducive to the multiplication of healthy churches across a people group or population segment.
We should intentionally pursue what makes for rapid multiplication of healthy disciples. This will call for us to be collaborators, not competitors, and care about actual growth, not transfer growth. Buildings, budgets, and even butts in seats are not necessarily an indicator of health or faithfulness to Jesus’ commands.
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
What if we believed Jesus was Lord, not just Savior?
What if church were different? What if we believed Jesus was Lord, not just Savior? There was a long debate on this very topic. It’s known as “the Lordship controversy.”
It is true that faith alone saves, but the real genuine faith that saves is never alone. If Jesus is Savior, He is also Lord (Eph. 2:8-10). We prove Jesus is our Savior by showing that He is our Lord (Matt. 7:21; Jn. 8:31; 15:8). He is no Lord if He does not reign. We indeed struggle and we strive as we follow our Savior. In Christ Jesus, we are all simultaneously saints, sinners, and sufferers, seeking to conform our likeness to Jesus.
But I fear that we as contemporary Christians have picked over what is known as Christianity and have taken what we think agreeable and ignored what we consider unpleasant. It is much the same way that a two-year-old eats. The child eats what it feels it will enjoy and pitches everything of seemingly no value. The problem with this is that any baby on its own will not eat as it should and will, therefore, become malnourished, sick, and run the risk of death. I fear this is a problem in the US Church today.
A survey The Barna Group conducted in 2006, found that
“Faith commitments sometimes play a role in what people do – but less often than might be assumed. In comparing the lifestyle choices of born again Christians to the national norms, there were more areas of similarity than distinction… In evaluating 15 moral behaviors, born again Christians are statistically indistinguishable from non-born again adults on most of the behaviors studied.”[1]
This should not be the case. 1 John 2:3-6 states,
“We know that we have come to know [Jesus Christ], if we keep His commandments. Whoever says ‘I know Him’ but does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps His word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: whoever says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked.”
James, similarly, tells us, “Be doers of the word, and not hearers only” (1:22).
Jesus said, “Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord’ and do not do what I tell you?” (Lk. 6:46). If Jesus is Lord, and He is, He demands and deserves our full allegiance. We are commanded by the Lord Jesus to make disciples, it’s not an option. That’s not all though. We are told to teach the disciples to observe all that Jesus has commanded. We’re called to do much more than make converts, we are essentially commanded to multiply little Christs.[2]
Notice also that the Lord, who has all authority in heaven and on earth, has said, “Teach them to observe all that I have commanded them.” He didn’t say, “Teach them to understand everything I have commanded them.” Obedience is first. We often get that backward. We often focus so much on understanding every little jot and title that we don’t have any time or energy left to do what our Lord has given us to do.
When I was in Army boot camp and the drill sergeant told me to do something, I did it. I did it quickly. I didn’t ask why. I didn’t ask for a definition. I just did it. And I screamed “Yes drill sergeant! Moving drill sergeant!” I listened and I obeyed. The drill sergeant deserved and demanded respect and it was given. The drill sergeant was the boss and so there was obedience.
Jesus is the boss for whom every being in the entire universe will bow. He is the Creator, we are creation. What He says, we must do. Jesus is the Lord, not just the Savior.
Notes
[1] “’Born again Christians’ are defined as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents are not asked to describe themselves as ‘born again.’” The Barna Group, American Lifestyles Mix compassion and Self-Oriented Behavior, February 5, 2007. From: http://www.barna.org/donorscause-articles/110-american-lifestyles-mix-compassion-and-self-oriented-behavior on 6-15-10.
[2] Many passages tell us to be like Christ. For example: Matt. 16:24; 19:21; Jn. 13:14-15, 34-35; 17:18; 20:21; 1 Cor. 11:1; Eph. 5:1-2; Phil. 2:5-11; 1 Peter 2:21; 1 Jn. 2:6; 3:16; 4:9-11.
A Diffrent Church Culture: Character instead of Charisma
What if we constructed a different church culture? What if we valued character over charisma? What if we had less scandal and pastoral burnout? What if church were different?
We don’t come out and say that charisma matters more than character, we don’t say that performance is the preference over pastoring, but that is often our modus operandi. Character takes a back seat to packing the seats. “The celebrity syndrome destroys accountability… The strong leader who builds a large and successful church is often not held to strict account.”[1] Too much is riding on the good name of the performer. So, coverups happen for the “good” of the church.
What if so much weight and expectation were never meant to be on one pastor? What if we have so many scandals and moral failures, partly because the pastorate was never meant to be what we’ve made it? “We expect the pastor to be a shrink in the pulpit, a CEO in the office, and flawless in every area of his life.”[2] Is this sustainable? Especially when he is also often called to be a celebrity.
It would seem that Christian leaders are especially under attack by the enemy.
One poll showed that nearly 40 percent of the pastors polled had had an extramarital affair since beginning their ministries. And the divorce rate among clergy is increasing faster than in any other profession. The statistics show that the divorce rate among the Protestant clergy in the United States is higher than the national rate 65 percent as compared with 50 percent.[3]
The reality is every pastor is tempted by power, pride, and pleasure. So, it is vital for pastors to have character and accountability, and not be unduly put on a pedestal. If they are put on a pedestal at all it should only be to say with the Apostle Paul: “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”
Yet, sadly, we essentially incentivize hypocrisy through social media. An unwritten role is that pastors have a good social media presence. Actual presence and character have been downplayed and what is seen on the screen is what is valued. The world has been turned upside-down and Satan is having a field day.
Along these lines, Mike Cosper shared that too many of his friends “threw themselves whole-hog into the creation of a persona and devoted all of their energy (and often, the energy of several staff members) into the maintenance of the mask they wore. This left the rest of their life and the rest of their soul unattended, and the darkness they ignored or avoided or pretended didn’t exist eventually shipwrecked their lives, their careers, and in many cases, their families.”[4]
Paul David Tripp astutely points out that the desire and obtainment of fruitful ministry and success can be pursued and obtained for the wrong reasons. One can easily desire more baptisms, a bigger budget, and more buildings not for the glory of God and Kingdom growth, but for the fame and self-worth/identity of the lead pastor. The human heart is fickle, even the pastor’s heart.
“A leader whose heart has been captured by other things doesn’t forsake ministry to pursue those other things; he uses ministry position, power, authority, and trust to get those things. Every leadership community needs to understand that ministry can be the vehicle for pursuing a whole host of idolatries.”[5]
Continued Christian character must be a qualification for leadership, not charisma alone. It is easy to use the right things to the wrong ends. Vance Pitman once pointed out that every man that has an affair in ministry, had an affair with ministry first. Paul David Tripp gives invaluable counsel regarding leadership within the church in his book Lead.[6]
Leaders and teachers can “profess to know God” and yet “deny Him by their works” (Titus 1:16).[7] That’s partly why Christian leaders need to meet the biblical qualifications (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1:1-9). It is easy to want to teach for shameful gain (Titus 1:11). Yet, those who teach must do so out of love for Christ and others; and have character that commends the message (v. 6-9).
Christians, especially Christian leaders, should demonstrate love, joy, kindness, impartiality, mercy, faithfulness, reasonableness, gentleness, goodness, grace, patience, purity, peace, sincerity, and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23; James 3:17). Christians should never be characterized by quarreling, conceit, hostility, gossip, jealousy, rivalry, anger, envy, enmity, slander, strife, dissensions, divisions, or disorder (2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:19-21). In Exodus, we are told that those who were to be placed in leadership were those who feared God, were trustworthy, and hated bribes (Ex. 18:21). Christian leaders who are fit to lead are those who care for the flock and not just for themselves; who feed the flock and not just themselves (Ezek. 34:1-10).
Christian leaders should be motivated to serve out of love of God, and love of people. Not money, not fame, not power. The Apostle Paul said, “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which He bought with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). Christian leaders have a weighty calling. They are to care for the precious people Messiah Jesus purchased with His very own sacrificial death. That is not something to take lightly. Christian leaders are to shepherd the flock of God that is among them, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have them; not for shameful gain, but eagerly (1 Pet. 5:2). Christian leaders “will have to give an account” of their leadership (Heb. 13:17).
So, in evaluating a Christian leader, we should ask: “Does this person demonstrate strong Christian character? Does this person show compassion and concern? Is this person motivated by love of God and neighbor?” We should not merely ask: “Does this person have charisma and influence?”
Notes
[1] Colson and Vaughn, Being the Body, 332.
[2] Ibid.,332.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Mike Cosper, Recapturing the Wonder: Transcendent Faith in a Disenchanted World, 83.
[5] Paul David Tripp, Lead, 109-110.
[6] “Every leader needs to be the object of ongoing discipleship, every leader needs at moments to be confronted, every leader needs the comforts of the gospel, every leader needs help to see what he would not see on his own, and every leader needs to be granted the love and encouragement to deal with the artifacts of the old self that are still within him. If this is so, then we cannot be so busy envisioning, designing, maintaining, evaluating, and reengineering ministry that we have little time to care for the souls of the ones who are leading this gospel work. A spiritually healthy leadership community participates in the ongoing personal spiritual growth of each one of its members” (Tripp, Lead, 86).
[7] Healthy doctrine is vital (1 Tim. 1:10; 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9, 13) and so are good works (1 Tim. 2:10; 5:10, 25; 6:18; 2 Tim. 2:21; 3:17; Titus 1:8; 2:3, 14; 3:1).
What if church were historically & spiritually rooted instead of following a fad?
What if church were different? What if we were historically and spiritually rooted instead of following a fad? As Kendall Vanderslice has said,
It is good to have words we repeat that were thoughtfully written by generations past, to have sacraments we share that remind us over and over again that we are part of something so much bigger than ourselves, so much bigger than our moment in time, so much bigger than the community of people immediately around us.[1]
What if we didn’t practice empty rituals but appreciated the rich history of the Church, recited her creeds, sang her songs, and told her stories? Os Guinness has said,
By our uncritical pursuit of relevance we have actually courted irrelevance; by our breathless chase after relevance without a matching commitment to faithfulness, we have become not only unfaithful but irrelevant; by our determined efforts to redefine ourselves in ways that are more compelling to the modern world than are faithful to Christ, we have lost not only our identity but our authority and our relevance.[2]
The Church has a long history of timeless relevance. The Church has “the words of life” (Jn. 6:68). What if we tapped into that history and showed people Christianity has unmatched depth and answers to life’s deepest questions? But what if we weren’t stuffy and ritualistic?
We will worship so we must worship wisely. Intentional liturgy is vital. As the gathered church we purport to worship the Lord, so we must do so in an intentionally biblical and wise way. By my calculations, most Christians spend around half a year of their life participating in the gathered worship of the church. We must make the best use of that time! The gathering of the church is an important way the church is equipped to be the church scattered.
It is of utmost importance that the liturgy of the gathered church be deliberate. Even simple, seemingly insignificant, things in worship communicate doctrine and teach people. This is true, for example, of terminology (“priest” or “pastor”) and architecture (simple or elaborate; God’s people are the temple, or the building is the temple).
Liturgies have been in use in Christian worship from the earliest of times so it’s important that we consider what liturgy means and its place in the life of the church. All churches have a liturgy but some churches seem to be less intentional about their liturgy. It seems some churches operate on a default liturgy. A pastor may inherit a liturgy from the previous pastor and it remain essentially unchanged for generations. That, however, is problematic for a few reasons. As Timothy C.J. Quill has said, “Worship practice reflects and communicates the beliefs of the church. Liturgy articulates doctrine.”[3] Eric L. Johnson has said, “Worship reorders our hearts by putting everything else in perspective.”[4] So, liturgies are formative. The liturgy of the church whether “more liturgical” or “more nonliturgical” is vital to think about because the way one worships shapes the way one believes and lives.
We must hold to the traditions that we were taught (2 Thess. 2:15) and maintain them (1 Cor. 11:2). There is a place for Christians to be historically rooted. The gathering of the church must be carried out according to God’s revealed will. We want to worship God in the way He has prescribed as best as we can.[5] We should acknowledge, however, that “The New Testament does not provide us with officially sanctioned public ‘services’ so much as with examples of crucial elements.”[6] Even though the New Testament does not give us a complete manual of what the church gathering should be like,[7] it does give us clear things to do.[8]
I really appreciate this summary by Edmond Clowney:
The New Testament indicates, by precept and example, what elements of [corporate] worship are. As in the synagogue, corporate prayer is offered (Acts 2:42; 1 Tim. 2:1; 1 Cor. 14:16); Scripture is read (1 Tim. 4:13; 1 Th. 5:27; 2 Th. 3:14; Col. 4:15, 16; 2 Pet. 3:15, 16) and expounded in preaching (1 Tim. 4:13; cf. Lk. 4:20; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; 4:2). There is a direct shift from the synagogue to the gathering of the church (Acts 18:7, 11; cf. 19:8-10). The teaching of the word is also linked with table fellowship (Acts 2:42; 20:7, cf. vv. 20, 25, 28). The songs of the new covenant people both praise God and encourage one another (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:15; 1 Cor. 14:15, 26; cf. 1 Tim. 3:16; Rev. 5:9-13; 11:17f; 15:3, 4). Giving to the poor is recognized as a spiritual service to God and a Christian form of ‘sacrifice’ (2 Cor. 9:11-15; Phil. 4:18; Heb. 13:16). The reception and distribution of gifts is related to the office of the deacon (Acts 6:1-6; Rom. 12:8, 13; cf. Rom. 16:1, 2; 2 Cor. 8:19-21; Acts 20:4; 1 Cor. 16:1-4) and to the gathering of believers (Acts 2:42; 5:2; 1 Cor. 16:2). The faith is also publically confessed (1 Tim. 6:12; 1 Pet. 3:21; Heb. 13:15; cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-3). The people receive God’s blessing (2 Cor. 13:14; Lk. 24:50; cf. Num. 6:22-27). The holy kiss of salutation is also commanded (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Th. 5:26; 1 Pet. 5:14). The people respond to praise and prayer with the saying of ‘Amen’ (1 Cor. 14:16; Rev. 5:14; cf. Rom. 1:25; 9:5; Eph. 3:21 etc.). The sacrament of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are explicitly provided for. Confession is linked with baptism (1 Pet. 3:21); and a prayer of thanksgiving with the breaking of bread (1 Cor. 11:24).
Another foundation of healthy church gatherings is public sharing. The church is instructed in 1 Corinthians 14:26 that when it comes together each one should have a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. When the church family gathers each member should be prepared to do its part and share something to build up the others who are present. The operation of spiritual gifts[8] for the upbuilding of the body is important because “each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (1 Cor. 12:7). Each part of the body playing its part is vital (Rom. 12:4-8). It’s good to be “eager for manifestations of the Spirit” but it’s even more important that we “strive to excel in building up the church” (1 Cor. 14:12).
So, what would it look like for churches to have an intentional liturgy and recite creeds like the Nicene Creed but also leave room for authenticity, lament, relationship, and the moving of the Spirit? I’m not entirely sure. But my church is working towards it. I do know if we are to move in this direction we must plan differently. We must make room for the creeds, communion, and the moving of the Spirit. We must have intentional congregational prayer and not just as a ploy to move people on and off the stage.
Notes
[1] Kendall Vanderslice, “The Church of the Chronically Online” 56 in Common Good issue 17.
[3] Timothy C.J. Quill, “Liturgical Worship,” 19 in Perspectives on Christian Worship.
[4] Eric L. Johnson, God & Soul Care, 171. “Christian liturgical practices… reorient our hearts and our identity to our ultimate concern” (Johnson, God & Soul Care, 172).
[5] I appreciate what Michael A. Farley says: “Evangelical scholars employ a range of very different hermeneutical strategies in applying the Bible to worship. This is not surprising, of course, since evangelicals are divided over the theory and practice of biblical hermeneutics in many areas of theology. The first step toward progress in reconciling divergent views is a clear recognition and accurate characterization of the diversity of hermeneutical approaches to constructing a biblical theology of worship. If discussion can take place at this level, evangelicals can avoid the frustrating experience of talking past one another without comprehending why one’s arguments are not persuasive to one’s interlocutors” (“What Is “Biblical’ Worship? Biblical Hermeneutics and Evangelical Theologies of Worship,” JETS 51/3 [2008]: 610).
[6] D.A. Carson, Worship by the Book, 52.
[7] Farley, “What Is “Biblical’ Worship?,” 610. “There is no single passage in the New Testament that establishes a paradigm for corporate worship” (Worship by the Book, 55). “The New Testament allows significant freedom to test and mold the forms of local churches to cultures, contexts, and circumstances” J. Scott Horrel, “Freeing Cross-Cultural Church Planting with New Testament Essentials” in Bibliotheca Sacra 174 (April-June 2017), 224).
[8] Clowney, “Presbyterian Worship,” Worship: Adoration and Action, ed. D.A. Carson, 117 as quoted in Worship by the Book, 48.
[9] See “The Work of the Spirit within the Church” at https://www.academia.edu/43153921/The_Work_of_the_Spirit_within_the_Church
in X 