So what is the church? How did it get this way? Where is it going?
In this post, I’m not going to hit the “marks of a true church” or discuss whether or not children should receive the mark of baptism. I’ll be discussing differing understandings of what the church is, how it is to go about gaining converts, and what is to happen on Sunday.
I believe that there are two models of what the church is. One model is prevalent, yet not entirely Biblical. The other model is rarer, but Biblical. The first model is the church as Temple, the other is the church as Tabernacle
Church as Temple Model (Attractional)
The attractional church model is such that the church building is emphasized. Its mode of operation is such that Sunday morning is when ministry happens. The members of the church come in order to worship God. They come in order to serve and to tithe. Sunday is the day of worship and Christian service.
The mission of this type of church is to gain converts to Christianity. It does so by encouraging the people in the pews to invite their family, friends, coworkers, neighbors and even strangers to come to church. The people are then missionaries whose message is “Come and see for yourself!” This method gives the missionaries an easy and alluring message of “come and experience”.
Within this style of doing church, the mission that the people of the church is on is simply one of bringing people in. Then, the pastor of the church preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ in an engaging way. The people brought in then have the opportunity to respond en masse. Numbers are tallied, baptisms are performed. There is tangible results as the church grows.
[unbelievers]—–>->->Church<-<-<—– [unbelievers]
In order to facilitate this process further, with greater effectiveness, the attractional church fashions its culture after the culture that it is trying to reach. This cultural accommodation is done with wisdom in prudence (of course, not in all cases) with the purpose of communicating the gospel in such a way that unbelievers who have been brought in respond.
In essence, the attractional church model is characterized as the church building being the place where all ministry happens, including evangelism.
Church as Tabernacle Model (Missional)
The missional church model is such that the church building is not emphasized. The church is understood to be the gathering of believers for corporate worship through singing, the giving of tithes and offerings, and the exposition of the Word. Sunday is the day in which believers gather together.
The mission of this church is also to gain converts to Christianity, yet it does so in a drastically different way. Rather than the people of the pews bringing forth the message of “come and see”, they themselves are evangelists, bringing the message of the gospel and calling for repentance and faith to their family, friends, coworkers, and neighbors.
[unbelievers]<-<-<—-Church—->->->[unbelievers]
In order to facilitate this with greater effectiveness, the members of the church seek to understand the culture of their audience and tell the gospel message in such a way that it is clear to the audience. Yet the culture of the church does not follow that of the outside culture. In fact, the culture of the church as it gathers together would stand distinct among the culture around it.
In essence, the missional church model is characterized as the church building being the place where evangelists gather together to worship God and minister to each other.
Biblical Warrant
Church as Temple model
Proponents of this model do not lack Biblical reasoning behind their methodology. As its title suggests, proponents of this view cite the passages in the Old Testament regarding the Temple as indicative for how ministry should be done. The clearest of which for this purpose is 1 Kings 8:41-43.
[41] “Likewise, when a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes from a far country for your name’s sake [42] (for they shall hear of your great name and your mighty hand, and of your outstretched arm), when he comes and prays toward this house, [43] hear in heaven your dwelling place and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to you, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel, and that they may know that this house that I have built is called by your name.
The Temple then was understood as being a place where the foreigner was compelled to come, and upon coming, would be able to call upon the LORD. Thus, foreigners coming to the Temple, such as the Queen of Sheba, are seen as paradigmatic for the church operating today. The church should be drawing foreigners (unbelievers) in where they can respond to the call of the gospel.
Yet this would not give warrant for cultural accommodation in the church, as the Temple and its rituals stood in stark contrast to the Canaanite temples surrounding it. As such, this model of doing church finds Biblical grounding in the New Testament, specifically in the Mars Hill discourse found in the book of Acts. Indeed, there are churches which exemplify this tactic who have named their church “Mars Hill”. They see Paul’s accommodation of the gospel message in terms that his pagan audience would understand as paradigmatic of how a church can reach the outside world. The church accommodates to the culture around it in order to effectively communicate the gospel to it.
Church as Tabernacle Model
This model has stronger Biblical foundations.
Firstly, it must be said that the Temple in the Old Testament never functioned properly as an evangelistic tool. Without much delay, the Temple was defiled by wicked kings leading up to the exile. While some did “come and see”, it was Israel rather than the nations that was converted. Israel at this time began taking up the cultural practices, beliefs, and rituals of their pagan neighbors. Therefore, even without the people of Israel accommodating to gain an audience, Israel became identical to their audience.
Secondly, it must be said that the proper understanding of the Mars Hill discourse is one that rightly identifies it as taking place in the marketplace and not within the synagogue or house-church. There is no evidence whatsoever that Paul ever preached a message of “come and see” or that he taught of Christ in the house-churches the way in which he did at the Areopagus.
Now, the greatest Biblical precedent for the Missional model of doing church is found in the Great Commission. Christ commanded that the disciples go and make disciples, baptizing them and teaching them to obey all that he had commanded them. [ Quick note as an aside--Many have argued that the word "go" translated in English should be understood as meaning "as you are going" on account of it being a participle and not a verb in the imperative mood like "make disciples". However, this is a faulty understanding of the Greek participle and specifically how it is used here. It is an attendant circumstance participle meaning that it carries the mood the main verb that it attends, which would make it...imperative.] And it is evident that the command to go was not just for the 12, as Stephen and Philip are highlighted in the ensuing narrative as being on this same mission, not to mention Paul.
Jesus did not give the other disciples a distinct mission of bringing people to hear the words of Peter or any of the 12. All followers of Christ have the same marching orders. There is no “professional” to bring unbelievers to in order that they may hear the gospel. By Christ command, we are all such “professionals” and to disregard our commission is a serious thing indeed.
This model of Church likewise sees precedent in the way in which Paul preached Christ at Mars Hill. But instead of shaping the culture of the church to mimic that of Paul’s evangelistic speech in one setting, the members of the church see how they too should seek to understand the culture that they as individuals (just as Paul) can preach Christ into an alien culture.
Paul tells the Corinthians that we, not a building, are the Temple of God. Therefore, the Temple of God is mobile again, just as the Tabernacle was. So God is not confined to one space. Ministry is not confined to one space. Evangelism is not confined to one space.
So What?
I believe that the first model of doing church is systemic in the North American context. I believe that truly missional churches are exceptionally rare. Sure, the first thing that pops into ones mind when discussing the Temple model of doing church is mega-churches. Sure, the vast majority of churches sure aren’t attracting many people, but that does not mean that they don’t think in this way. The mega-churches are not mega-sized because they do church in this way. Its just that they are mega-sized because they do church that way well. They are effective in their methodology. But that does not necessitate that their methodology is correct or even unique. Most small churches think in like manner with mega-churches, yet are wholly ineffective in doing it. Truly missional churches are rare indeed.
So how did we get here? Why do so many churches think this way? I’m sure that there are a multitude of factors at play in this mindset. I will only pinpoint what I think are the major ones and most recent ones (there are many factors that go much further back in history, but I need to wrap this thing up).
Discipleship had taken a back-seat for far too long. The church was not equipping the people for ministry and as such, the people felt wholly inadequate to tell anybody anything of Jesus other than that they rather liked him.
Billy Graham. Billy Graham led tent-meeting evangelistic revivals. He was the first major evangelist that North America had seen since the Great Awakening. Entire towns flocked to hear him speak. People invited unbelievers to come and hear the “professional”. Pleas were given for people to bring their friends soon because who knows, they just might die tomorrow in a car accident. Evangelism became an event even more than it had during the Great Awakening. Furthermore, Billy Graham gave evangelistic messages and then left town, leaving the people to join churches as they saw fit. Surely ministers in said towns enjoyed the bump in attendance and sought to be like Billy Graham in order to drive up numbers or (more piously) reach more for Christ. Reports of individual conversions were dwarfed by news of hundreds and even thousands praying a prayer all at the same time. It seemed more effective to bring them to the professional.
Passivity is due to sin. The people in the pew give up their call to take part in the mission of the church because it is much easier to be passive. Inviting someone to come to a building is much easier to do than inviting someone to die to self, pick up his cross, repent of all his sin, and follow Jesus in a world that hates Him and His followers. Naturally, when a pastor tells people that simply inviting someone to sit in a chair in a specific building in town for an hour to an hour and a half, constitutes their part in evangelism, the people breathe a sigh of relief and agree. The duty of evangelism has been taken away from the members of the church and the members acquiesce.
In the small city where I live, there is mega-church. I often run across people that delight in telling me what their church is doing, how many prayed that prayer along with the pastor (you know, the one where everyone is supposed to bow your heads and close your eyes). They often say, “It is just so awesome being a part of a church that is really making a difference. We are really making an impact in this city for the Lord.” Sometimes when I hear this, I confess that I get a bit jealous of their success. Sometimes I get defensive as they try to get me to leave my church and come to theirs. Other times, I chuckle. I chuckle because very often, these are people that do absolutely nothing in that mega-church. Their involvement in it is the same as a fan of a football team sitting in the stands. Fans of football teams often say “we” when they mean “the team that I root for but am not a part of in any other way, let alone play for”. It seems as though a similar mindset has sprung up in churches. If you are a devotee of a football team, you are not involved except emotionally. Passive members of attractional churches are often merely devotees of a specific pastor, they are not involved except emotionally. And this observation does not rest solely with mega-churches.
Truly Missional Churches
Truly missional churches are truly about the mission of God. Each individual takes up his or her responsibility to preach Christ to the world. Not all are given the gift of evangelism, but all are tasked with the mission of evangelism. The church is a gathering of missionaries, not a big-tent revival. The church is distinct from the world. Missionaries accommodate their message with prudence to meet the culture around them. They then bring in converts (or even those curious to come and see after hearing the gospel message) to a new culture, one shaped and formed by Christ, and not the unbelieving culture around them. And to do this, requires a major paradigm shift. Pastors must give the mission of evangelism back to the people in the pews. After all, we are to invite people to follow Christ rather than the pastor.
[Note that my statements regarding Attractional churches are, at times, broad generalizations. I am not saying that Attractional churches do not have any element of being Missional, indeed, some even have the term in their mission statements. It is just that the bulk of what they do and why they do it is found in the Attractional paradigm. Also, the church that I currently attend wants to be missional, yet it has not been able to change its way of thinking away from being Attractional. It is hard work to get there, but it is what must happen for the church to do what it is called to do.]
Recent Comments