Christopher Rush
Whatever Happened to Good Ol’ Meat-and-Potatoes Christianity?
A little over a decade ago in his book Kingdom Education, Dr. Glen Schultz quoted Barna Group research indicating something like 88% of kids growing up “in the church” leave it shortly after high school graduation (for several reasons, not just college experiences). In 2011, the Barna Group summarized five years of research with six reasons the youth are leaving the church: 1) the church is too overprotective, 2) their church presents Christianity as something shallow or irrelevant, 3) the church comes off as antagonistic to science, 4) the church communicates issues of sexuality poorly, 5) the church is too xenophobic and exclusive, and 6) the church seems unfriendly to those who doubt (some wording has been paraphrased).
Later last year, the Barna Group supplemented that research with five “myths” people erroneously believe why the youth are fleeing the church: 1) people lose their faith when they leave high school, 2) dropping out of church is a natural part of one’s spiritual journey, 3) college experiences are a key factor in leaving the church, 4) young Christians are becoming increasingly Biblically illiterate, and 5) young people will return to the church as always happens.
That list is not entirely helpful, since the Barna report elaborates on those ideas more specifically beyond what our present focus is here (readers are certainly encouraged to check out both of those articles), and not every point is relevant to our present inquiry. Some of these ideas are pertinent here, though, and since the following article was conceived before I read the Barna reports, it is somewhat comforting to be supported by such a reputable source (though “comforting” is perhaps an inappropriate term for such a distressing subject).
Our focus here is not just about why young adults/near-adults leave the church, though that is part of it. The Barna research concludes the church is somewhat to blame, but it is perhaps too lenient (perhaps because the main thrust of both articles is to get you to buy, and maybe read, the latest books by the president of Barna Group) and too narrow in its focus. Our purpose here is to broaden our vision beyond polls and standardized surveys. Some may consider this article a petty rant about personal grievances, a tirade against things I don’t particularly like. Admittedly, some of the initial items in the list may seem somewhat petulant, but that was not my intention in including them (the latter items should be overtly significant issues, at least). I consider them all valid contentions in an overall effort to encourage the church to examine itself and its practices. It’s time we are open to the possibility the church is (at least in part) responsible for the mass exodus of young parishioners. Perhaps the church deserves to lose the children.
1. Quiet Time
Admittedly, this is not a corporate church issue, but it can possibly be one part of the overall problem (why kids willfully reject the church and Christianity). As an aspect of Christian experience, the “quiet time” has undergone a diverse life of favor and disfavor. Is it Biblically supported? Some would look to Jesus’ example of leaving the disciples early in the morning to pray fervently for protracted periods of time as the basis for the “quiet time.” Others seem just to declare it to be an important, almost necessary, component of daily Christian life, based on nothing more than a fabricated aura of spirituality surrounding an atypical human act. The problems with basing one’s conception of the value of the “quiet time” on Jesus’ behavior are twofold: 1) we don’t have Scriptural evidence Jesus did this on a daily basis, 2) the verses usually indicate Jesus went away to pray for a long period of time. I have never heard those insisting on the “quiet time” call it a long period of time. Instead, those who advocate the “quiet time” make it a simple, brief, self-serving activity. It is never advertised as a half-hour or longer activity; most make it out to be a 10-minute activity necessary for one’s daily wellbeing or authenticity as a Christian. Jesus didn’t get away by Himself to make Himself feel better for praying to His father. “Quiet time” advocates tell you it is for your own good, that it will refresh you and give you energy for the day, like it is some sort of spiritual caffeine supplement. See the self-contradicting irony: it is both a necessary ritualistic component to authentic spiritual maturity as well as a convenient, unobtrusive make-yourself-feel-better/pick-me-up/start-the-day-off-right little treat. 10-minute “quiet time” devotionals are all about checking off Bible reading from a daily checklist, enabling the quiet timer to feel good about himself without having done anything substantial. True, reading the Bible can benefit people even without their will, but reading the Bible a few minutes a day just to do it is not genuine spiritual maturity. Advertising spiritual growth as a convenient, fit-it-into-your-schedule supplement certainly does not give an accurate view of the Christian life to the kids. Why maintain an allegiance to a faith that requires nothing more than 10 minutes of your day? The “quiet time” is not real. Christianity is not about making you feel better.
[Editor’s note: the above paragraph was written before this year’s Retreat. Mrs. Lane’s enjoining to spend 45-plus minutes of quiet, solitary Bible reading and meditation, with actual interaction with the meaning and implications of lengthy Bible passages is clearly different from what most people advertise the “quiet time” to be. By all means, spend a great deal of time regularly praying and studying and meditating on the Word of God free from distractions.]
2. Altar Calls
Part of the danger of altar calls is the notion of “Seeker Churches.” What part of Romans 3:11 is unclear to people who administrate the functions and operations of local churches? As will be addressed later, evangelism is not a corporate church function. The church gathers to glorify God and grow mature. Messages designed to communicate the importance of becoming born again, directed primarily to the unregenerate visitors who may or may not be present in the (for lack of a less accurate word) audience cannot be the sole presentation from the pulpit/stage.
Not that I am denying the importance of people learning for the first time the importance of regeneration — let’s not be ridiculous. Likewise, let’s not be ridiculous by looking to Acts 2:41 as some sort of permission to do this. I’m not denying the Spirit can convict and seal 3,000 souls today, but Peter is not addressing a church meeting, either. He is speaking to an audience of all unsaved people (except for the 10 other Apostles). Paul and Peter both rail against churches spending too long on basic doctrine without moving on to more advanced spiritual substance (1 Corinthians 3:1, 1 Peter 2:2). I don’t understand why churches think ending each message every week with a “now that you’ve finally been convinced of the truth of the gospel thanks to this one message and the peppy music you heard, come up and prove how you are now saved” call to the audience is a sign of genuine conversion or rededication. Shouldn’t actual discussions between those who are spiritually mature and those who are apparently coming to Christ occur before any public display is made? How do we know it is genuine conversion and not just an emotional response to the many emotionally-driven elements of the contemporary church service? I am not outright denying the possibility anyone could ever “get saved” in a church service, especially in light of Acts 2:41 as we have just referenced, but we should also acknowledge the Bible makes it clear genuine conversion is known by the fruit in the life of the person now saved and being saved, and that takes some time. The problem is the pressure altar calls make on people to react immediately the way the church people want them to react, and despite the many times Jesus encourages those hearing Him on the Sermon on the Mount to “do their business with God the Father” in secret, altar calls demand an immediate, public display of nascent righteousness. It is often difficult to accept the validity of these — and I have been to two Promise Keepers conventions. Certainly baptisms are to be public displays of justification, but altar calls are not “come up and get baptized,” but rather “come up and get saved” most of the time.
Concerning the altar calls that aren’t justification related, I am frequently confused by these as well. Admittedly I am personally averse to situations of embarrassment. Not that those who heed the call are concerned about looking embarrassed, especially if they are actually being moved by the Spirit to seek immediate counsel, but just as churches should never do an “open mike response session,” enjoining spontaneous public displays of repentance, rededication, or just plain outbursts of catharsis could hardly be what Paul had in mind when he wrote on the importance of structured worship meetings done decently and in order (1 Corinthians 14:26-40).
Altar calls are not doing things “decently and in order.” Children who grow up in the church and never experience something those around them consider worth going up to the altar may feel their experience of Christianity is inferior, and thus maybe they aren’t “doing it right.” Instead of pressuring people to respond in such an emotionally-charged way and have these dramatic experiences, perhaps churches should encourage those so moved to seek out one of the multiple leaders of the church for authentic discussion and verification, and then the church can be notified in an orderly manner about the great ways the Spirit is moving in the lives of those in the local body. Everyone is benefitted/edified that way, which is partly why the Church exists in the first place, and the kids are not awkwardly pressured to leave their seats week after week (before they leave their seat for good).
3. Kids on Stage
Similarly, some churches seem to take a perverse pleasure in embarrassing the children of their congregation. I’m not just talking about the annual, painful to anyone whose child is not on the stage at the moment (and even to some whose are), Christmas Pageant (which may or may not be Biblically accurate), though that is part of the problem. I’m talking about the entire practice of bringing the children on stage to sing some songs, do some skits, or whatever other nonsensical reason old people give for wanting to make young people cry. Sure, some kids have real talent at an early age. Let them be the ones who sing for the grownups. Let the gifted actors do the plays (written by actual, professional playwrights, please — never any skits). Don’t make all the kids in the nursery or children’s care wing come up and “sing” for us. Most aren’t really singing, not well. Most are shouting. Others are not paying any attention. Some are scared out of their minds. Some are crying. Are the adults doing anything to soothe these poor children? No. No, the grownups who have been given charge of the wellbeing of these children by God are sitting far away, laughing at their misfortune. Perhaps the parents think the kids will not remember these experiences, since they are just kids. Take it from me, kids remember these embarrassing and painful situations. If you don’t want kids to leave your church when they grow up, stop putting them in embarrassing and painful situations. Stop doing stupid things in general.
4. Gym Night
I have enjoyed some quality Gym Nights over the years, don’t get me wrong. The problem is not with gym nights ontologically — the problem is akin to some of the reasons the Barna Group found in their surveys over the years: if “Christianity” is solely about fun, without any doctrinal substance, the church is not a relevant or important aspect of life. Clearly this is not true: Christianity and corporate church life are integral (i.e., necessary) for life to be done correctly. Churches, then, need to stop advertising it as a meaningless garden party. It’s one thing to appeal to the “video game crowd,” but another to appeal so much the experience is nothing distinct from their normal video game habits. Churches would do well to remember the old adage: “what you win them with is what you win them to.” If Gym Night has an equal balance of athletic/hobby activities and authentic worship/devotional/purposive sanctification activities, keep the Gym Nights coming. If, however, as seems to be the case too often today, Gym Night is nothing more than a “hey, we do those things, too” open house with no Biblical message or teaching involved, shut it down. Christianity does not need to be “cool.” The kids are choking to death on “cool” in the unregenerate world. Christianity needs to offer the Word of Life. As the Barna Group found, the kids have nothing substantial upon which to ground their ephemeral faith. Give them authentic experiences and sound, doctrinal content. If our message of the cross is not a stumbling block, it’s not an accurate message. Don’t water down the gospel just so you have enough bodies for Scavenger Photo Hunt Night.
5. Small Groups
As with Gym Nights, the problem is not “small groups qua small groups.” The danger is the growing dependence on small groups as a substitute for corporate worship church meetings. If a church is so large it needs to advertise small groups as the way to get to know people and build relationships instead of at corporate meetings, it’s probably time to break off and form a new local church or two.
Small groups can serve very useful functions in the development and maturity of the individual Christian and the church body as a whole, but not if it is just “Gym Night for Adults.” I’ve been to planning meetings and informational sessions in which the whole point of starting some men’s small groups was to give men an opportunity for a social club and pretend it was somehow authentic Proverbs 27:17 in action. Concerning the recent trend of sermon-based small groups … blerg. I acknowledge my personal experience of Christianity is quite distinct from most people’s experience. Sermon-based small groups aren’t my idea of a useful time, but for some perhaps it is — so I don’t want to just tear them down wholly.
Small groups need to be purposed for spiritual growth and maturity. I’m obviously not saying grownups aren’t allowed to have fun as Christians, nor am I saying every moment of small group time has to be super-spiritual and ultra-sanctified. Fellowship is a necessary component of Christian/church life, clearly, but if we proclaim the point of corporate church life is solely to sing a few songs together and hear a topical sermon in the same room together, and maybe taking the Lord’s Supper once a quarter (if time permits), our conception of church life has become woefully distorted. If the adults can’t model healthy, genuine mature Christian community for the kids, it’s no wonder they feel no need to continue with church life once they become adults.
6. Worship Leaders
Again, I’m not here to excoriate the entire group of this newly-created entity called the “worship leader.” I know a few members of this group, and they are not in question here. Clearly we are in a bit of a crisis of terminology, symptomatic of the larger epistemological crisis of why the kids are fleeing the church. Frequently we will hear speakers remind us “worship is not just singing,” but in our programs (I’m sorry, “bulletins”) we look down and see “Worship Leader” for the name of the person who leads the band (excuse me, “worship team”). If we want the kids to know and worship accurately, we should probably start using terms correctly, especially in the literature we hand out to everyone who comes into the church (pardon me, “church building”).
I’ve visited local churches in which the worship leader spent nearly all of the time with his eyes closed, engaged in some secret business to which none of us were privy. I certainly don’t begrudge a Christian from worshipping and experiencing God privately, but if a person is supposed to be a leader of other people, even for only 20-some minutes a week, it’s not too much to ask that the person keep an eye on the people he is supposed to be leading.
You can always tell the worship leaders who spend a great deal of time listening to live albums of their favorite Dove Award-winning professional bands, since they try to recreate the mood and audience reactions immediately and on nearly every song, even if the congregation in front of them is wholly unprepared for it. Then they will tell us to spend a few minutes with the Lord individually, right where we are. This may sound like a good idea, but aren’t we gathered for corporate worship? Why are we supposed to do individual things in a corporate church meeting? Can we not effectively worship God solitarily at home, or does your musical accompaniment make it more authentic?
Similarly, you can also tell the worship leaders who are really frustrated preachers. During the super-spiritual quiet part of the song, the worship leader will go off on a ten-minute mini-sermon, usually motivated by his frustrations with the congregation and why they aren’t spiritual enough. Worship leaders: stop talking. The kids wisely do not connect “being talked down to” with “worthwhile Christianity.” Stop being part of the problem. Stop telling us to “make this our prayer this morning.” It’s not a prayer, it’s a song. Why are you telling us we sound great? and why are you demanding we sing louder? You aren’t the judge of our worship; we aren’t singing to you. And you can stop going to the a cappella bridge every time and stop singing, telling us to do all the singing for you. Leading by abstention isn’t really leading. Oh, and worship leaders: the words to the song are being projected up on the screen. You don’t have to keep telling us what words are coming next.
7. Accompanied/Extemporaneous Prayers
It’s quite possible the most annoying things worship leaders do is accompany prayers, whether from themselves or someone else (like the preacher). Are we supposed to be listening to the words being prayed over us (or at us, depending on the temperament of the person doing the praying) or the music being played? Stop with the sensory overload. First you rail against the kids’ constant digital music obsession (while you tell them to go have a quiet time), and then you put music to the prayers, as if they must be more palatable or entertaining for the congregation. Let’s try to avoid hypocrisy if we want the kids to remain active within our ranks.
The more time I spend in Virginia, the more I tend to agree with C.S. Lewis concerning the value of traditional, planned-out prayers, such as are found in the Book of Common Prayer. Extemporaneous prayers are not, as everything under scrutiny in this article, naturally and wholly repugnant, especially when occurring in a Breaking of Bread service, but the practice of it needs improvement. An emotive background score is not going to salvage a theologically spurious and structurally disorganized prayer. Rambling is one of the things Jesus specifically warned against concerning prayers: don’t use too many words like those who want to be noticed, He said. If you are going to pray, great — I’m certainly not discouraging prayer; just try to be accurate and coherent. Especially if you know you are going to be leading an official leading prayer in the forthcoming service: there is nothing unspiritual about planning your prayer out in advance. Certainly we in the congregation benefit more from orderly, planned out sermons; why do we think prayers have to be spontaneous in order to be spiritual? A good planned-out prayer can be quite beneficial, perhaps even more so than a heartfelt, impromptu “thank you, Father, for dying on the cross for us, and as the preacher comes to give us Your word, Lord, we ask that your Son be with us during this meeting.” Poor doctrine, no matter how heartfelt, is not really beneficial or spiritual. Not that I’m disagreeing with the Bible, which clearly says the Spirit helps translate our oft-times feeble and erroneous prayer, but why not do our part and pray accurately and preparedly when we have the chance? As mentioned above, chaotic disorganization is not appealing to adults; it certainly isn’t appealing to the youth struggling to overcome their own internal near-adulthood chaos.
8. Contemporary Christian Music
Little needs be said here, surely. Churches should really stop treating the singing of hymns like some sort of special treat or palliative to the older generations, as if they need to be coddled or appeased once in a while. You certainly don’t need me to tell you the depth of theological content in songs of the church has steadily decreased over time to its current abysmal state of emotive shash. While that is an unabashed generalization, it is more accurate than not in most cases. Perhaps your experience is different. Send me the address and meeting times of your local church. The blatant rejection of the worship-musical output of the history of the church connects to the next point.
9. Rejection/Ignorance of Church History
I suggest to you kids would not leave the church so quickly if they 1) knew God accurately and 2) knew the church accurately. Assuming these kids who leave the church are actually born again Christians (not to open up a whole other can of worms), if they knew God increasingly more accurately, why would they possibly walk away from Life itself? And if they knew what the church was, its history, its musical history, its theological and doctrinal history, its heroes and shapers and martyrs, would they really be so quick to walk away from a history that truly belonged to them in substantial ways, both emotional and intellectual? if they truly considered themselves members of an integrated Body? Doubtful.
It’s bad enough preachers throw down volumes of systematic theology as some sort of anathema to genuine Bible study, but to keep the congregation ignorant of the life history of the organic organization to which they are declared a vital part (either unintentionally or willfully) is inexcusable. Even if it is a supplementary “Sunday School” class on Church History, or a small group that meets to read and discuss key works of theologians or missionaries or martyrs of the faith throughout history, do something to make the kids and the older people aware of the history of this thing called the church. Too many Christians go around thinking the church exists solely for them and their particular weekly needs. The church is far older and more important than that. I’m not saying every local church has to have a lending library, but each church should make awareness of the history of the church (the one Body of Christ) a priority. Clearly this cannot happen in “seeker-friendly churches” designed mostly for evangelistic outreach. Apparently the purpose of those sorts of groups is to “get people into Heaven.” However … that’s not what the Body of Christ is about.
10. Governing Structure
This may seem out of place, since it isn’t an aspect of in-service church experience, but it is quite possibly an important aspect of church life whose impact is generally ignored. Related to the significant issue of mega-churches, if the local church is not enabling and encouraging the regular use of each member’s spiritual gifts, given to them by the Holy Spirit Himself, the church is not functioning properly.
How this relates to governing structure and the children fleeing the church may seem tenuous, but it is connected. As boggling to the mind as it may seem, despite the clear governing structure indicated throughout the New Testament (especially the Pastoral Epistles), a significant number of churches have, for all intents and purposes, one person at the top called the “head pastor.” Where is this position in the New Testament? That’s right: nowhere. The church is not a feudal organization. Perhaps the head pastor talks about how great the board of elders is, but if he is the man doing all the teaching virtually every week, things are not right.
Added to this confusion, American churches in the 21st century seem to be in the habit of advertising for new pastors and leaders across the country. What does this tell the kids in the congregation? There is no future for you here, basically. If we want new help, if we have positions (new or old) to fill, we will find them from the national marketplace, not from within. In total contrast to Paul’s direction for the governance and promulgation of church leaders, solely through one generation discipling the next, churches would rather steal from one another. So the kids see no future in the church. If anyone else in the congregation has the gift of preaching, he certainly can’t use it here, since the head pastor is responsible for 40-some sermons a year. And we wonder why the average length of the pastorate in America today is about 18 months. Maybe if churches operated more Biblically, with a multitude of teachers and preachers under the governance of elders, supported by a multiplicity of deacons, the leaders wouldn’t get burned out so quickly, kids would see value in staying loyal to the local church (since the local church is actually loyal to its members), and the church would more likely be growing spiritually and not just numerically.
11. Topical Messages
Topical messages have their time and place: holidays, kairotic moments, seasons of that sort. However, if the kids get nothing but topical sermons week after week, year after year, we should not be surprised the kids walk away from the church. A steady diet of topical messages gives the kids the impression the Bible is a disjointed, unconnected encyclopedia. Spiritual maturity does not come from an ignorance of the Bible as a connected whole. Advertising the annual “preaching through a whole book of the Bible!” as if it is a rare delicacy is not terribly impressive, especially since the “preaching through a whole book of the Bible” means the preacher covers multiple chapters in one sermon while talking about only a couple of verses. This is not a rigorous commitment to the Apostles’ teaching. Without a commitment to systematic, expository preaching, the church is not going to grow spiritually.
Perhaps you will think that is too bold a claim to make. The New Testament, however, disagrees: read Hebrews 5:11-6:2 and 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 as key examples of the importance of maturing from basic principles of the faith to maturity. Maturity — genuine knowledge, in fact — comes from understanding truth, reality itself, in terms of relationships (see The Idea of a University by Cardinal Newman). Knowing the flow of the Bible, God’s providential work through history, does not come from a few verses here and a few verses there. Jesus’ extensive knowledge of the Old Testament did not come from a topical survey of some pertinent messianic prophetic passages. To consider Paul’s use of the OT as a topical approach is to misunderstand him completely. Viewing Hebrews as nothing more than a pastiche of unrelated verses or concepts is bad hermeneutics (to put it nicely). Topical messages cannot be the only approach to Bible preaching. The congregation may enjoy topical sermons more, preachers may enjoy giving them more (since they are easier to prepare — and by “prepare” I mean “download from some other pastor’s website”), but I’m quite certain the Bible actually condemns giving messages to people just so they will feel better. Something about ear tickling, as I recall.
For you pastors out there who will respond “I don’t have time to prepare expository messages each week,” I refer you to the previous reason kids leave the church. The reason you don’t have time to do your job accurately is 1) being an elder has become a salaried position (this could have been addressed earlier, but it is such a mind-blowing notion to me I don’t have the heart to talk about it at length), and 2) you are trying to do too much. Follow the Pastoral Epistles and develop multiple teachers and preachers capable of effectively dividing the Word of Truth to the people. If multiple teachers and preachers are on the rotation, including all of the elders, all of you will have time to prepare systematic expository messages. Everyone wins. And more importantly, the church operates correctly, the children grow and will more likely find no reason to leave the church; most importantly, God will be more glorified through it all.
12. Matthew 28:19-20 vs. Acts 2:42
Finally we have the crux of the issue, at least as far as I see it. The Barna Group and others view this issue differently, and that’s fine — I’m not saying I’m more right than they are. The point of this overview was to present other potential reasons why the kids don’t stay in the church after they grow up. The absence of doctrinal truth is most likely the main reason — since the church has not given them an accurate understanding of who God is, what the church is, who they are in Christ, the purpose of life, and all the rest of the key answers to existence available only through God’s revelation, we shouldn’t be surprised they don’t stick around for more of the same. The main issue, as I see it, then, is on what fundamental principle or idea the local church functions: Matthew 28:19-20 (the so-called “Great Commission”) or Acts 2:42.
Some of you are already antagonistic, since I had the audacity to call the revered “Great Commission” “so-called.” Others of you will say something akin to “the church has had a long history dating back to Genesis 12 and YHWH’s covenantal promise to Abram, and though Matthew 28 occurs before Pentecost it is still part of the lengthy outworking of God’s single-yet-multifaceted plan to return mankind to the Tree of Life and full relationship with Him.” Obviously. I’m not denigrating either the importance of Matthew 28:19-20 or the validity of its connection to Acts 2:42 (and their origin in Genesis 12 and even Genesis 1-2). What I am saying here is in the practical operations of local churches in America in the 20th-21st centuries, noticeable differences exist between churches grounded upon Matthew 28:19-20 and those grounded upon Acts 2:42, and the churches driven by Acts 2:42 seem (to me, at least, and feel free to rebut) more Biblically authentic.
In Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus is talking directly to the Apostles. As you know, the debate is whether Jesus’ words to them also apply to the people who later become disciples of Christ after Pentecost. The Apostles are unique to the church, which sounds painfully obvious, but many people tend to forget that simple truth. Few Christians seem to grab hold of the several diverse commands Jesus gave His followers before His crucifixion, though many are quite eager to glom on to Jeremiah 29:11, since it makes them feel so good. What is it about Matthew 28?
The parallel passages have significant contributions to the notion of going into all the world and making disciples. Luke 24:48 says “You are witnesses of these things.” Part of the reason Jesus sends the Apostles out to the world is they actually saw Jesus, His sufferings, and His resurrection. We are not witnesses of any of those things. Mark 16, most of which is somewhat suspect, adds quite unusual aspects to the effects of evangelism according to the Great Commission: “in My name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents by their hands and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover” (Mark 16:17-18). If these things are supposed to accompany evangelism as prescribed by the Great Commission, not too many people in North America have been recipients of the Great Commission. John 20:23 adds Jesus saying “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness for any, it is withheld.” Do non-apostles have the same authority? Effectively, by claiming the Great Commission for all Christians, one is claiming every Christian has the ability to pick up snakes and drink poison with impunity, forgive the sins of everyone or not at their own discretion, and every Christian actually witnessed the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
We can’t just take one version of the Great Commission and not the others, can we? Some would say we could, arguing since the Matthew account is outside, and Mark, Luke, and John are inside, the different gospels aren’t really talking about the same particular event, in that Jesus was spending His post-resurrection forty days with the Apostles talking about many important things. But since they are so similar, can these different versions really be talking about different sendings? How many times is Jesus commissioning His disciples? Especially since they are to wait around until Pentecost, it doesn’t make much sense to say Jesus is really giving them different commissions. Acts 1 also emphasizes the people who receive the “Great Commission” are eyewitnesses to Him: “you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (verse 8). Once the hundreds of people listed in 1 Corinthians 15 and everyone else who actually saw Jesus were dead, clearly no one else who took up the mantle of the Great Commission could be following it literally.
The New Testament emphasis on evangelism is actually more on personal lifestyle than actual departure from one’s location. Paul says some evangelists are given as gifts to the church, but others are given different gifts, so not everyone has the “gift of evangelism.” The Great Commission is not the same thing as 1 Peter 3:15’s “ready defense,” and Peter is certainly addressing members of the church. Paul’s oft-used Romans 10 passage about the importance of evangelists going out into the world also includes the oft-overlooked reminder these people are sent out by the church, in that most people are actually staying behind in a supportive role.
All of this to say I’m still a bit skeptical the Great Commission is literally for every Christian to follow, since only a limited number were actual witnesses to the content to be spread by the recipients of the Great Commission, and the New Testament epistles emphasize personal lifestyle evangelism more than actual packing up and going somewhere else for most Christians. Evangelism is not a corporate church function, since it exists as an entity for the growth and maturity of itself. “Now,” as Bill Cosby said, “I told you that story to tell you this one.”
Churches built on the “Great Commission” seem to be essentially the kinds of churches described throughout this article: their main focus is not on the actual Christians within the congregation but everyone else in the community. Their definition of success as a church is increased attendance. Of course I’m not saying it’s bad for churches to grow or care about people not on the attendance roster. I would be ecstatic if everyone in the world became an authentic Christian. But success for the Body of Christ is not solely numerical growth, especially if numerical growth is based solely on statistics of numbers of people who walk in the door, with no knowledge of whether these people are actually Christians or not. Success for the church is identical to success for the individual Christian: conformity to Christlikeness. This is spiritual growth, not just numerical growth. Transfer from the Kingdom of Darkness into the Kingdom of Light (justification) is crucial, obviously — but purpose does not cease there. If it did, the church would not exist at all: Christ would just call us home immediately upon regeneration, and the sealing work of the Holy Spirit would not occur.
In contrast are churches built on Acts 2:42: “And they devoted themselves to the Apostles’ teaching, fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer.” Here we have the conduct of the original church in clear, concise language. These are the activities of the church. The rest of the New Testament corroborates this so evidently it needs no elaboration here. Churches built on Acts 2:42 exist for the spiritual growth of the Body of Christ. Obviously visitors are encouraged and welcome — it’s not like non-Christians are banned from coming through the doors — but sermons are not directed at them. Acts 2:42 churches value evangelism, they send out and support missionaries, and they equip and encourage those in the congregation to be prepared with a ready defense for the hope found within them. They regularly celebrate communion and strangely enough never run out of things to say about Jesus and what He has done. They know personal lifestyle evangelism is far more effective in reaching lost souls than altar calls — perhaps they got that from Jesus’ example in the gospels. They are governed by a plurality of elders, supported by a plurality of deacons, and disciple the successive generations in the intellectual content of the faith, the history of the church, and the use of their spiritual gifts. Instead of trying to make church fun for the kids, giving them nothing substantial upon which to base their faith as they grow, churches founded on Acts 2:42 focus on the Head of the church as the source, reason for, and purpose of life itself.
Meat and Potatoes
The purpose of this monograph was not to rant against the things American Christianity enjoys which I personally dislike, though it may have seemed like that. I didn’t say much at all about a great number of things that irritate me, which I admit is probably small comfort. Likewise, my intent was not to set up a straw man argument, making Matthew 28 churches all bad and Acts 2:42 churches all good, and while I admit it could be interpreted that way, it would be dishonest to reject the position outright: the distinctions are real. I have seen them in many churches across the country. Churches are geared either for those who aren’t there yet (Matthew 28) or those who are (Acts 2:42).
Matthew 28 churches, despite their claim they exist to make disciples, rarely do that very thing. In an effort to always be appealing and entertaining, they rarely go beyond the elemental things (if spiritual matters are ever discussed at all). God’s wrath and justice are never mentioned, and the kids must always have a good time (especially at Trunk-or-Treat). Missions trips are often undertaken, surely … but hardly ever (if even then) are they advertised for the sake of those who haven’t heard the gospel. They are something to make you, the Christian, feel better about yourself, as if missions trips exist solely to make you feel like a better Christian, to get out of your comfort zone, and check off the “short-term missions trip” from your Pillars of Christianity checklist, like reading through the Bible in a year, going to that super-spiritual youth retreat every summer, and, of course, making sure all of your radio presets are set to music both positive and encouraging. Matthew 28 churches are eager to declare the time for Bible study is over: now’s the time for action. Since the emphasis is always on going away to feel better about yourself, it is bemusing they are irritated the children actually heed that message. It is quite possible these churches deserve to lose the children.
Acts 2:42 churches, whose reason for existing is not just to get larger numerically so they can afford to hire more staff but instead abet spiritually maturation of the Christians within the congregation, are more likely to retain the kids as they grow older, since they aren’t trying too hard to be fun and relevant. Instead of fun and games, these churches provide truth and life. That’s what the kids want. That’s what the kids need. That’s the Christianity we all need.
Pass me the meat and potatoes, please. The children and I are hungry, and we wouldn’t mind staying for dinner.
References
Barna Group. “Five Myths about Young Adult Church Dropouts.” 19 September 2012.
—. “Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church.” 18 September 2012.
Schultz, Dr. Glen. Kingdom Education: God’s Plan for Educating Future Generations. 2nd ed. Nashville: LifeWay Press, 2003. 1998.
Redeeming Pandora 