En Route

Before reading further, stop and answer this question: If you were telling a friend about your church, how would you describe it? Would you talk primarily about the Sunday morning or Wednesday services? Would you talk about how nice the building is?

If you were to survey members of evangelical churches and ask them to describe their churches, I suspect a common response—perhaps from the majority—would focus on the worship style (the worship “experience”) or on the pastor’s preaching. Those who really like their church might be inclined to reference just how wonderful the music is or how good the preaching is. A second emphasis might be on the building, especially if it is new or “nice.” When people are looking for a new church, isn’t the primary focus on what a church offers—both in services and facilities—on Sunday mornings?

It seems that most churches are characterized and identified by the Sunday morning gathering and buildings. But it wasn’t this way in the New Testament—the churches were not defined in their respective communities by their weekly corporate gatherings (and the buildings necessary to house them), but rather by the organic presence and influence of people who had fully surrendered everything over to follow and serve their King.

My suspicion is that the current mindset is the result of the revivalistic influence of the 19^th and 20^th centuries. In the revival meetings that swept across the South, success was measured by numbers—the number of people who attended and the number who made “decisions.” Unfortunately, since success was so often measured by such numbers, it was easy for evangelists to make their objective high numbers in attendance and decisions. Of course, the inclination would be to adjust the message and methods in order to reach the objective. Tragically, in too many cases baptisms resulted from emotional pleas by effective and passionate communicators, rather than serving as a testimony of a person’s repentance from sin and rebellion and surrendering over to the Lordship—the rightful rule—of Christ.

It was an easy step from there for churches to adopt the same model, using the Sunday morning service as a means of attracting the lost in order to present the Gospel—in such a model it would naturally follow that methods, models, facilities, and budgets would be adjusted in order to reach the objective of increased attendance and baptisms. In fact, the church growth movement of the last 20 years was based on this model. Consequently, incredible resources have been funneled into these Sunday morning services and the facilities that accommodate them.

But that was not the nature of churches in the New Testament (for a contrast of evangelistic models between the NT and today, look at my blogs from May 8-13).

Consider these contrasts: A common model in our churches today is to reach the community primarily through our Sunday morning gathering—we invite the lost so they can hear the Gospel. Consequently, we shape the gathering (the music and sermon presentations) and direct the funds and energies to make it appealing and attractive. And remember, like it or not, we are inclined to measure success by the numbers reflected in attendance and baptisms. So we falsely conclude that the more we attract and baptize, the more successful we are. Tragically, even today baptisms so often follow emotional pleas from effective and passionate communicators, rather than following a person’s repentance of sin and rebellion and surrender over to the Lordship—the rightful rule—of Christ.

In the New Testament, however, it was not so. The church reached its community by taking the Gospel of the Kingdom to the people—they were daily proclaiming  the loving truth of Christ in the public square and from house to house (this is the “message” of the Kingdom), and they were daily demonstrating the loving truth of Christ (this is the “ministry” of the Kingdom). Those who repented and placed faith in Christ were then incorporated into an ongoing, daily fellowship where they could be nurtured and strengthened. They were not identified primarily as a congregation that met once a week, but rather as a vibrant community of faith fully committed to the King and to each other—seven days a week. Their success was not measured by the numbers that attended the weekly service, or even the numbers that they baptized, but by their obedience to the Lord’s mandate to make disciples.

This is NOT to suggest that the weekly corporate gathering is insignificant or optional—the Scripture is clear that the churches gathered corporately for worship and instruction by the pastor from God’s Word—but this was merely one component of a much larger dynamic, not the sum total as it has become today. And its primary focus was not outreach (and certainly not entertainment), but rather genuine, God-exalting, Christ-centered worship and definitive, effective, and unadulterated instruction from His Word. 

We see two contrasting paradigms here—one from the New Testament and one that has evolved over the last 100 years—is there any doubt which should be preferred? Also, consider this: Jesus commanded us to make disciples—the church in the New Testament obeyed that command effectively and successfully without such a heavy focus on the Sunday morning service. We, however, have spent billions of dollars on our Sunday morning services and the buildings to house them, but where are the resulting disciples? The church in the NT shaped an entire culture—it changed the world. With all of our billions spent on our present paradigm, what kind of return are we getting on the investment?

Our weekly gatherings are indeed essential (to the extent that they accomplish the God-ordained purposes spelled out in Scripture), but they are not sufficient, or even primary from a biblical standpoint (can you point to a biblical example in which it was identified as primary?). In a biblically balanced model, they are designed to complement and supplement the ongoing life and development of Christ’s Body. Oh that we would return to that balance.

Some final thoughts—for now. First, some who read this series might respond that I rely too heavily on the Book of Acts and that today’s church should not be based on the model of the churches in Acts.  In one sense they are correct—some of what we see in Acts reflects culture and historical specifics that don’t translate into 21st century Western civilization. It does not make sense to follow Paul’s model of going to the synagogue every Sabbath to reason with the Jewish worshippers, nor should we attempt to follow the Jerusalem model of going to the temple every day for Bible study—historically and culturally, we are in a different world that makes some practices in Acts unrealistic.  But there are principles that should transcend the centuries—the focus and nature of the Gospel have not changed, and we dare not dilute it in order to attract people to it; the primary evangelistic effort was accomplished by going to the lost rather than inviting the lost to a church service; evangelism was not so much a one-shot canned presentation as it was an ongoing dialogue and presence; the church should be absolutely and overwhelmingly obsessed with the person and work of Jesus, the Christ; the primary mission of the church is undeniably to make disciples; and more.   

Next, readers should not conclude that I have a particular church (or churches) in mind—what I have described in these blogs is systemic.  So much of evangelicalism has lost sight of these fundamentals.

Next, we should be concerned lest history repeats itself—so much of what we see practiced in evangelical churches across our nation is there because of a particular tradition, not a reliance upon God’s Word–kinda like in Martin Luther’s day.  So much of what is emphasized in evangelical churches is because of what prominent church personalities emphasize, not what the Bible emphasizes—kinda like in Martin Luther’s day.  And so much of the passionate emphasis on giving is wrongly connected to and motivated by the prospect of getting people out of hell and into heaven, rather than relying on the biblical pattern and emphasis on disciples fleshing out the Gospel—kinda like in Martin Luther’s day. 

None of what I have emphasized has flowed from anger–but I must confess a sense of urgency and alarm as I study what God’s Word says and then look up and compare it to what is happening  all around us. 

May the Lord in His mercy help us all to become increasingly obsessed with Him and His Word, and then to live humble, grateful, and obedient lives in return. 

The final observation is this: A biblically consistent church is more identified by and with the Person and work of Jesus Christ, rather than the personality and work of its pastor. I know this may seem extreme, but consider our current situation in Western evangelicalism.  Stop and think of a prominent church—any church—now, can you separate that church from its identification with its pastor?  Most often, when we think of a church, we automatically think of its pastor.  It’s as if the church is inextricably linked to the pastor’s personality. And so much of that is related to his performance and skills—as a preacher, or a shepherd, or a counselor, or an administrator.  Now, stop and think of the five most recognized and prominent churches in the nation.  Can you think of those churches without thinking of each pastor?

Don’t get me wrong—I praise God for the godly men He has raised up for these times.  He has used some of them in mighty ways for His purposes and to accomplish His plan. If it weren’t for the ministry of some of these men, our plight would be even worse than it is.  The problem is, you don’t find this pastoral prominence in the New Testament. Again, stop and think: how many names of pastors can you identify in the New Testament?  Probably not very many—and it’s not because there was a shortage of churches—by the end of Paul’s ministry, there were countless churches on the east and north sides of the Mediterranean.  But starting in Jerusalem, give me the names of the pastors of any of them.  Some scholars believe James was the “senior” pastor in Jerusalem, some say Timothy in Ephesus, and some say Titus in Crete. History tells us that Peter headed up the church in Rome, but Scripture doesn’t mention it.

This isn’t to suggest that there weren’t pastors in each church, it’s just that they were not prominent. One observation could be: “Just think how effective the advance of the Gospel would have been if they only had some decent pastors back then like we have now!”  The more appropriate observation is that the primary focus was not on the pastors—the churches’ growth and survival was not linked to the personality and abilities of the pastor—the focus was on the Person and work of the Christ.  These churches were obsessed with Him.  Which makes sense—He was their King, they were seeking first His Kingdom, they were proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom, and the church was actually founded on this understanding (Matt. 16:16-18).  Their identity, health, and growth were inextricably linked to, and dependent solely upon, Jesus.

This in no way diminishes the role of pastor—God has demonstrated in Scripture His design to specifically and strategically place pastors in position to teach and apply His Word and to be undershepherds to His sheep. But when our churches become so enamored with the pastor that they are more excited about him, his sermons, and his vision than they are about Jesus Himself, the pastor competes with Jesus for the position of prominence. And a church that is dependent upon the pastor for its health, identity, and growth—a church in which its identity is so closely linked to its pastor—is a church that borders on idolatry and should not be surprised if God removes His hand of blessings.    

In the last blog, I finished with the following question: “So, despite the fact that this was not the pattern or strategy of the church in the New Testament, is there anything “wrong” or inconsistent with using the Sunday morning corporate gathering as the primary means of reaching the community with the Gospel?”

The problem with that question is that it is not the best question to ask.  A better question would be: “What was the pattern and strategy of evangelism in the New Testament, particularly in Acts?”  In Acts we find some startling examples of what the early Christians did not do, and then what they did.

First, you do not find the pattern or practice of intentional, planned, and strategized attempts to amass crowds for the purpose of presenting the Gospel.  Indeed, there are some examples of gospel presentation to large crowds or groups, but those were spontaneous “outbreaks” of evangelism, not orchestrated events or gatherings.  Rather than giving all of the references in Acts, I would encourage you to read through the book of Acts and look for accounts of gospel presentations to crowds, and see if you can find any where the churches hosted the gatherings for the purpose of presenting the Gospel, especially in a specific gathering place identified with those churches.  I think what you will find is that in most, if not in all, accounts the presentation to crowds was spontaneous.

Second, you see that the most common means of gospel presentation in Acts was ongoing—sometimes daily—presentation, rather than “one-shot” presentations.  Yes there are a few accounts of one-shot presentations, but over the course of the years covered in the book of Acts there are relatively few examples of this approach compared to regular, ongoing presentations (5:42; 14:2,3; 17:2;18:4; 19:8-10).  In some cases Paul spent a great deal of time in an area, even up to two years, daily discussing the truth of the Gospel.  In fact, I think it is safe to say that the advance of the Gospel beyond Samaria is more tied to an ongoing, even daily, presence and presentation of the Gospel than to one-time, memorized and formulated presentations, or by a preacher presenting a 30-minute sermon once a week. 

Next, you see that the most common practice in Gospel presentation, especially by Paul,  was that of systematic teaching, discussion, and ”reasoning” (it’s the Greek word from which we get our word “dialogue”) with people. Yes there were sermons, but it appears that most of the advance of the Gospel through the missionary journeys was not through evangelistic sermons, but though extended dialogue and discussion.

Finally, there is the location factor.  Today we invite people to our church buildings and worship services so they can hear the Gospel.  In Acts, the people made it a specific point to take the Gospel into the public arena and present it there.  Every account of Gospel-presentation in Acts involves God’s people being “out there” in the public. The references to the temple in the first few chapters are examples of Christians being in the public square where all the people regularly gathered. Paul went to synagogues because he knew that’s where he knew he would find people who needed to know about the Christ. He went to the river in Philippi because he knew people were there.  Not only do we not find examples of Christians inviting the lost to “church” to hear the gospel, we find the opposite—Christians going out to where the lost were and patiently, lovingly, and regularly discussing, presenting, and living the truth of the Gospel. 

But this shouldn’t surprise us, because Jesus commanded them to “Go,” not “Invite.”

And if this was the pattern and practice of first-generation Christians, do we have any compelling reason why we should approach evangelism differently, or to think that we can somehow improve on this example?

Continuing with the observation that a biblically consistent church focuses more time, energy, and financial resources on taking the Gospel out into the community and training its members to “go” than on getting the lost to “come” to a worship service to hear the Gospel. 

As I mentioned in the last blog, there is a dominant emphasis in our churches today on attracting the lost to a church building for a church service so they can hear a presentation of the Gospel.  And let me say at the outset that I whole-heartedly agree that it is appropriate to invite a lost person to a church gathering in which the Bible is clearly and effectively taught and where a biblically consistent Gospel is unashamedly and unreservedly proclaimed (see the blog from April 24).  Paul certainly alludes to this as a possibility in his discussion of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:23, in which he says, “if the whole church should assemble together… and unbelievers enter.”  I would never discourage exposing unbelievers to genuine worship, Bible teaching, and a consistent focus on the true Gospel.

However, there is no evidence in the New Testament that the early Christians used their corporate times of worship and Bible study as a strategy for evangelism, much less that it was the primary focus of their evangelistic effort. An additional and interesting insight comes from 1 Cor. 14:23—in New Testament Greek there different uses of the word ”if.” One one use assumes the likelihood of what follows, such as “if the sun comes up tomorrow, I’ll go to work.”  The other does not assume the likelihood, such as “if the Titans win the Super Bowl this year…”  Such an outcome is possible, but certainly not assumed.  In this passage, Paul uses this second form, indicating that while the scenario of a lost person joining the larger, corporate worship gathering is possible, it is certainly not assumed- -thus it was not the common practice of the first-century church in Corinth- -nor do we see it anywhere else in the New Testament as a practice or pattern.

So, despite the fact that this was not the pattern or strategy of the church in the New Testament, is there anything “wrong” or inconsistent with using the Sunday morning corporate gathering as the primary means of reaching the community with the Gospel? More on that in the next blog.

The next observation is that a biblically consistent church focuses more time, energy, and financial resources on taking the Gospel out into the community and training its members to “go” than on getting the lost to “come” to a worship service to hear the Gospel.

Over the last 100 years, the notion has become popular that the most effective way to present the gospel to the lost is to get them to “come to church.”  As a result, churches have poured incredible levels of resources into church buildings and into the Sunday morning service in order to attract people. The hope, which is well intentioned, is that by attracting them, the lost will have the opportunity to hear and respond to the Gospel.

One of the flaws in this approach is that it ignores the method and message of Jesus.  Jesus never attempted to attract people to one central location so He could preach to them once a week. He went out to them. And there is no doubt that people were drawn to Him, but it was not because of His production and cultural relevance, it was because of His ministry to them.  In fact, what we see with Jesus in the Gospels is that whenever there was the proclamation of the Gospel, there was a corresponding compassionate demonstration of the Gospel.  Jesus personified compassion, and people respond to compassion. 

Furthermore, Jesus’ message was definitely not very attractive.  He told people that if they wanted to follow Him they had to deny themselves (which goes against human nature), take up their cross (be willing to die a cruel death), and follow Him (even if it is to undesirable destinations).  He told the rich young ruler he had to sell everything.  He emphasized total sacrifice and surrender as a prerequisite to entering His Kingdom. Jesus never coddled anyone into following Him–He never offered or emphasized an attractive eternal “benefits package” in order to draw them in.  He never begged anyone to follow Him.  He preached the Gospel of the Kingdom, which called the hearers to repent and submit accordingly. He presented Himself as the Messiah/King, and He offered people the opportunity to follow Him if they would acknowledge Him as such. And He devoted a substantial portion of His ministry to taking that message out to the people where they were, rather than attempting to attract them into a central location. And you don’t see him emphasizing the personal benefits of following Him in order to attract potential followers.

But what about the example of the Church in Acts?  More about that in the next blog. 

The second observation is that a biblically consistent church is motivated—it is absolutely driven—first and foremost by the radical, life-changing reality and impact of the gospel. 

At first glance, this may seem ridiculously obvious, but stop and consider what seems to motivate many of our churches.

Some churches seem to be driven by a desire to grow, some by numbers (attendance, baptisms, budgets), some by image.  Some say that each of these is connected to a desire to see people saved from hell and delivered to heaven (and they would say that is the goal of the gospel).

The reality is that Jesus never commanded His followers to focus on any of these as a goal or motivation.  He never offered Himself merely as a “get out of hell free” card.  He Himself preached the “Gospel of the Kingdom” (Matthew 4:23; 9:35), and He expected His followers to do the same (Matt. 24:14).

When the disciples preached the Gospel throughout Acts, it consistently directed listeners to the King (”the Christ”) and His Kingdom. (If you want to download and endure my Bible study on this topic from last Sunday night, click here http://www.mediafire.com/?fgdfqg2w0ce )

The incredible truth of the Gospel is that because of His immeasurable and incomparable love, the Almighty King of the universe—the One who has absolute and ultimate authority over every kingdom, king, and inhabitant on earth; the One who created all the heavens and the earth, and therefore has absolute and ultimate ownership of everything in the universe; the One who deserves full obedience, submission, reverence, and faithful allegiance from every person on earth; the One whom we all have rejected and rebelled against, setting ourselves up as our own personal kings instead—this very King, because of love, demonstrated ultimate humility by taking on flesh and living the life of a humble man; He presented Himself as King to the Jewish people and was rejected as such; He was arrested, tried, convicted, and executed merely for claiming to be King; and He willingly paid the ultimate penalty for our rebellion—a penalty we could never pay—by dying a criminal’s death on the cross. 

What an incredible irony, that the King would be executed, simply for being the King, BY those refusing to submit to Him as King, and FOR those refusing to submit to Him as King! 

But He demonstrated His absolute and ultimate authority over all things, including death, by rising from the dead on the third day!  As a result, all who are willing to bow before Him and acknowledge Him as King, all who repent of  rejecting and rebelling against Him as such, all who ask to be forgiven for that rebellion, will be once for all forgiven and pardoned for that rebellion, delivered from the wrath of God that is truly deserved, and warmly welcomed into a restored and loving relationship with Him for now and all eternity.  

That reality is dramatic and life changing, and our churches should be driven by that reality, seeking to help others see the need to recognize Jesus as more than a ticket out of hell and into heaven, as more than the heavenly “fix-it man” who solves all my problems, as more than a heavenly lover whom I “fall in love” with.  The goal of the gospel is not getting people out of hell and into heaven; it is getting people to recognize Jesus for who He is and to submit to Him accordingly.

We need to be driven by the reality that He is the True and High King of the universe Who, because of love, paid the ultimate penalty for our rebellion, and though we deserve nothing less than full punishment, He offers us a restored relationship with Him if we repent and surrender our lives over to Him as true King.

As I search the New Testament for characteristics of a Bible-based church, several points jump out.

First, it is focused on the overarching purpose of glorifying God.  The clearest support for this is in Ephesians 1: 3-14 where we find the emphasis three times in conjunction with our salvation: we were chosen in eternity past by the God the Father (vs. 4) to the praise of His glory (vs. 6); we were redeemed through the blood of God the Son (vs. 7) to the praise of His glory (vs. 12); and we were sealed for all eternity by God the Holy Spirit (vs. 13) to the praise of His glory (vs. 14).

All of these, particularly vs. 12, clearly indicate that the purpose of our salvation is that God would receive all glory and praise.

How are we doing in fulfilling this purpose—is our first reaction to look at our churches and give glory to our pastors, to our strategies, to our buildings, to our ministries, to our members, and to our Sunday School classes and teachers; or do we look at the undeniable reality of the radical change that is so obvious in the lives of our members as a result of the Gospel and the resulting impact in the broader community, and then stand back and declare: “Wow! All glory and praise be to the Father!”

It seems to me that in our current culture, which is saturated by a consumer-centered and consumer–driven perspective, we may be asking the wrong questions.  Christians must avoid the subtle-but-dangerous temptation to approach church with a perspective that has been shaped by our secular culture, asking such questions as, “Does this church meet my needs?” or “Does it offer the programs that I’m looking for?” or “Does this church measure up to my list of preferences?” or “Does it have the preaching and worship style that pleases and inspires me most?”  You don’t find that mindset in the Bible—you don’t see Christians in Acts shopping for the “right” church.  Instead, it would be more biblically consistent to ask, “What must we (I) do in order for us to be a more biblically consistent church—to be the church that measures up to His expectations according to what He has specifically laid out in Scripture?”  Indeed, I’m not finding much in Scripture that suggests God is greatly concerned about my preferences.

And by the same token, it is so dangerous for churches to cater to our consumer-centered culture, asking, “What must we do to get more people to come,” striving to attract people through a consumer-based approach. You don’t see that in Scripture, either.  It seems the most consistent—and effective—strategy was to go out and boldly proclaim the Gospel, without any frills and with all of its costs and expectations, and to make disciples (take another look at Acts 14).  In fact, for us to do otherwise produces self-centered, consumer Christians.