In my time in the contemporary church, I’ve experienced several different ecclesiological models and have come to notice that most churches follow (perhaps unknowingly, in some situations) a very simple model  to facilitate both mission and discipleship. I have found it helpful to diagram these models for the sake of better understanding them, and am still in the process of drawing conclusions, at least in some respects. While these diagrammed models and their explanations are largely based upon my personal experience, I want to be clear that I am not criticizing any particular church; if I am critical of a certain model, I do not want people to think I am slamming the Body of Christ. I am trying to figure this out as much as anybody. So, for your consideration, I submit my three diagrams along with the insights I’ve had, in the hope that by sharing my ideas, I may benefit from the critiques and comments of others. 

1. The Linear (“Seeker-Driven”) Model

This model is by far the most common in the contemporary church today, but it is also the model I disagree with the most. Under the “seeker-driven” model, people are drawn to a weekly event (that is, a church service) through attractional “ministries” such as gourmet coffee, high quality music, and various entertaining gimmicks. The idea behind this model is to get as many people to come to a Sunday church service as possible and then try to herd them into small groups, where discipleship takes place. Thus, the mission of the church consists, for the most part, in this attractional method of marketing and promotion. Sunday services are mostly about reaching out to visitors and less about discipling the congregation; therefore it is common to hear topical sermons which are often watered-down from Scripture. This is done intentionally to make visitors feel welcome, in the hope that they may join the church and eventually plug into small groups where they will (ideally speaking) experience spiritual growth.

While this model is effective in bringing in large numbers of people, it also has many flaws, in my view:

• Spiritual growth is viewed as an assembly line, except the machinery often breaks down late in the process; this often means many churchgoers but few who are discipled.
• There is an overall view of “church” as a weekly event, rather than a community of people.
• Visitors to a service are often treated as numbers making up an audience of consumers rather than real people.
• Mission and discipleship are viewed as two separate processes which generally take place through well-orchestrated programs.
• Because of these things, church easily becomes a mere additive to a person’s life, rather than being central to all things.
• As a result, it is more difficult to stir members to participate in evangelism and discipleship; various programs, which try to fix this problem, thus become the lifeblood of the church. 

2. The Cyclical (“Missional Community”) Model

The “missional community” model, however, is a radically different alternative to the “seeker-driven” model of a church. Church is rightly viewed as a community of people rather than a mere event; Sunday services receive much less emphasis and become more like celebrations of family than altar calls. Within the larger church community, however, there are smaller “missional communities” which in many respects are microcosms of the church as a whole, being more than just small groups while still submitting to authority and leaders of the larger church (therefore remaining a little less than house churches). Thus, instead of treating people like consumers, this model treats them like neighbors and seeks to bring them into the community by means of interpersonal relationships, not bells and whistles. This requires that the members of the church take ownership of their faith and responsibility to make disciples, which may prove to be difficult. However, the idea of people reaching people is attractive. Furthermore, discipleship and mission are essentially understood to be two sides to the same process; both are accomplished by preaching the Gospel, which is the necessary curriculum both for believers (members) and unbelievers (non-members). In this way, the “missional community” model of church is cyclical in nature; as people are brought in to the community of faith by means of relationships, they also bring others into the community in the same manner, and the Gospel is preached to all as the source of spiritual growth. 

I feel like this model is pretty solid; I hesitate to say that there are “weaknesses” to it, but I do think that this model makes some things more difficult:

• The success of this model relies heavily on the church members rather than programs or systems. This means that if the community is not active in pursuing relationships and preaching the Gospel, it will become inward focused and fail to grow.
• Also, it is important to remember that society still generally sees Sunday as “church day,” and therefore we should be considerate of first-time visitors in our weekly services. 

3. The Overlapping (“Funnel”) Model

One other model which is perhaps viable is what you might call the “funnel” model, in that both weekly events (services) and small groups are designed to “funnel” new people into the church community, where discipleship takes place. This model takes a two-pronged approach and is, in some ways, a combination of the two previous models; it utilizes both attractional ministry (i.e. marketing) and relationships, although perhaps to lesser degrees than the other models. Mission and discipleship may be somewhat distinct from one another, but they are not nearly as disconnected as they would be in the “seeker-driven” model. Both occur in weekly events, as well as in small groups. You will see that I used a Venn Diagram to illustrate this. Also, like in the “missional community” model, the Gospel remains central to the discipleship process and is preached both to believers and unbelievers as the A-Z of the Christian faith. 

In many cases, I find that this model is followed by people who initially pursue the “missional community” model but (perhaps due to a lack of church growth or pressure to perform) end up only partially adopting the cyclical, “missional community” approach (they may even call their small groups “missional communities,” but they do not fully function that way; true missional communities are not an extension or ministry of the church but the very composition of the church). My question is whether or not this model is legitimate; does it achieve the best of both worlds or compromise between good and evil?

As of now, my feeling is that this third model is, in fact, legitimate; as long as the Gospel is the center of both mission and discipleship, I think it is viable. While I am not a fan of marketing, I do not think its use automatically disqualifies this way of doing things, as long as one is careful to avoid “selling out” in respect to attractional ministry. Furthermore, it seems that with this model, the health and growth of the church is less dependent upon the members of its community doing their job to evangelize, but at the same time, it is not completely rooted in programs or systems, either. This perhaps puts more stress on the leadership to disciple people, but an ample numbers of diverse leaders should be able to do the job. Then again, should the health and growth of a community not rely primarily upon its members? Does this model run the risk of hindering communal life? And is it really just trying to escape failure by putting its hope in structures and systems, or are the added structures and systems valid organizational tactics which aid in the cause of the Gospel? 

I don’t think that I would personally choose this third model over the “missional community” model, but I would much rather see churches follow this model fall victim to the seeker-driven craze. In many respects, I am still pondering all of this, and I continually find myself having more questions than answers. For this reason, I would appreciate any feedback. Feel free to alter my models, offer additional alternatives, or shoot down everything I’ve said. And in the end, may God—not any particular model for “doing church”—receive glory.

When nonbelievers look and scoff at Christians as foolish, silly and dumb, we know that the joke’s on them. But perhaps their criticism of Christianity as anti-reason is somewhat valid, at least in the way the Christian faith manifests itself in the contemporary church?

Amid the present-day milieu of  decaying modernity (and the subsequent increase of religious pluralism), I believe that there is a rapidly growing need for intelligent Christianity in America, a nation which appears to be earnestly pursuing the status of a “liberated” post-Christian society. It seems now that we are casting off the shackles of foolish superstition, we are free to experience true life—or so we think. The fist of dogmatism finds any fragment of legitimacy it once grasped now slipping right through its tired, arthritic fingers. 

Thus, in order to appeal and witness to this ever-changing culture, it is, in my mind, imperative that Christians are educated and equipped to effectively relate to and participate in even the most sophisticated societal discourse. This doesn’t mean just watching secular movies to “keep up” with what’s going on in the world. It requires significant learning in areas of philosophy, logic, and rhetoric which will enable us to truly engage those around us in an intelligent and level-headed manner, for the sake of the Gospel. I suspect that this is a bit controversial, and I am willing to dialogue, but let me at first list a few short reasons why I hold this opinion.

1. We have a responsibility to preach the Gospel to people, not just into a vacuum. 
I understand that “the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12 ESV). I recognize that God can (and in many situations does) use the proclamation of Scripture alone to convict and convert people. However, we cannot misapply the fact that God’s word is powerful to excuse a lack of responsibility on our part. We are instructed to make disciples (Matthew 28:19), and doing so requires some tact. Being able to understand a person’s worldview in order to carefully and shrewdly critique and subvert it allows us to communicate the Gospel more effectively. Furthermore, knowing what we’re talking about adds legitimacy  to our faith claims, especially in a society which no longer privileges Christianity nor takes it for granted.

2. Anti-intellectualism is not helpful to the Body of Christ.
If you know me, you know that I don’t completely buy into our society’s extreme glorification of a college education, and that I very strongly believe that salvation is by grace alone—not knowledge. However, the developing worldwide religious landscape consists of rapidly developing Pentecostalism, which is particularly flourishing in Third-World countries (albeit not absent in the U.S). While I rejoice that people are coming to know the name of Jesus, I am concerned over the potential for a dangerous misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit and a general disdain for rational decision-making. In 1 Corinthians 14:14-23, Paul encourages believers to use their minds in (rather than detach them from) corporate worship. God gave us a rational mind so that we might bring glory to him and edify other believers by using it appropriately.

3. Most people—even in the church—don’t have a Christian worldview.
Perhaps this is more indicative of a theological problem or a flaw in our discipleship methods, but Christians should be able to comprehend how the Gospel of Jesus should determine the way they view the world. Of course, we’re not going to agree on everything, but the foundational understanding that Jesus’ death and resurrection is so significant that it actually defines who we are and how we think about things needs to somehow be built into our discipleship processes. I realize that not everyone has the same I.Q., but most people should be able to learn how to view things through the lens of the Cross, at least on some level. By having a better education—particularly one which emphasises the Gospel as their metanarrative, Christians are better-equipped to think critically about and interact with the world around them, enabling them to recognize, avoid, and work more effectively in tearing down the idols of 21st century society. 

Of course, the problem is that there are very few systems in place (at least that I am aware of) which achieve this type of Christ-centered, intellectual preparation. Based upon my personal experience (and that of many like me), Bible colleges across the nation generally leave graduates ill-equipped to make a difference in (or even think critically about) society. And while some programs at secular universities may offer a more rigorous academic environment, they most certainly fail to promote a Christian worldview, thus leaving the average Christian very few opportunities to receive an education which will significantly aid them in their life of faith and fulfillment of the Great Commission. 

I’m not sure what needs to happen, but it appears to be an issue which must be dealt with by the local church. I know I feel a need to read more and do what I can to sharpen my mind, yet I still long for some type of training or preparation in the church which would help guide me in this. Throughout the centuries, a solid education has proven quite helpful to so many believers—from Paul to Luther and Augustine to Schaeffer. And sure, the present day perhaps has its share of theologians and scholars. But wouldn’t it be haphazard to ignore the need for educated Christians in each and every local congregation?

Let’s begin with a generalization: most church planters are young, independent, critical thinkers who are disappointed with existing churches and—out of passion for the gospel, whether misguided or not—seek to establish new churches. This generalization helps us to direct our attention to the particular misfortune of many young church planters who, despite their utmost sincerity, have no idea what the hell they’re doing (I’d throw myself into this category as well).

As of late, I’ve been pondering a certain quote (thanks Michael) by one of the most influential English authors of the 20th century, G.K. Chesterton. It appears in an essay entitled “The Revolutions of the Young” in his Collected Works¹:

“The reformer… is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right.”

Chesterton, who converted to Catholicism toward the end of his life, was a brilliant man with an uncanny ability to be quite humorous and quite subversive at the same time. While his mention of “reformers” is not necessarily a reference to reformers of the Church—much less the Reformers, men like Luther and Calvin, with whom we in the Protestant tradition are so familiar— it most certainly does apply. Those who have a mind for reform can easily point out flaws in a given system; they know what is wrong, as Chesterton says, but they often lack the wisdom to demonstrate what is right. Great men like Luther and Calvin wrestled over such things for most of their lives. But certain reformers in today’s church—that is, church planters—often seem to expect things to change overnight, go exactly according to plan, and behave like clockwork. This is why Chesterton’s quote provides a very appropriate caution. We must be careful not to foolishly put our faith in our the assumption that because we, as church planters, know what is wrong with churches these days, we necessarily know what’s right as well.

Most often, church planters are good at recognizing problems in existing churches. However, being that most of us are young and immature, we often jump to conclusions and insist the only way to fix the problem is by starting a new church—one that does things right. There is a problem with this reasoning;  just because a man has the ability to recognize and diagnose a problem does not automatically qualify him as a leader or  justify planting another church. When your car breaks down, buying parts and building a completely new car is not usually the best solution, especially when you aren’t a skilled mechanic.

I am not saying that there are not situations in which church planting is justifiable. I think there is a need—a very great one—for communities that embody the gospel, preaching in both word and deed, and viewing all of life through the lens of the cross. Furthermore, I am not saying that church planters have bad intentions, nor that they are stupid. It takes an insightful and passionate man to point out some of the most detrimental problems in the contemporary church. However, most of us, being young and zealous,  must be very careful in what we do. So, I’ve come up with a few guiding principles which should help us avoid the most common mistakes and maybe, just maybe, get things right.

I am not saying that these ten tips provide a sure-fire way of succeeding, nor am I suggesting I have things “figured out.” These are only some of the conclusions I have reached; if there’s anything I left out, please, let me know. I would love to learn from you all, especially those of you who are more experienced than I. Ultimately, however, we must all recognize that we alone can’t get anything right, despite our most complex formulas and guidelines, and that’s why we find such hope in the gospel. Though we be helpless and blind, incapable of leading anything (much less the people of God) by our own ability, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, remains victorious. 

¹G.K. Chesterton, Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton (New York: Ignatius P, 1989) 475.

This is my plea for men to start acting like men; our failure to do so has significantly hurt the cause of the gospel.

We all know the guy. Maybe he’s a metro-sexual worship band leader who sings cute love songs to Jesus. Maybe he’s the “nice guy” neighbor whose excessive optimism and pep makes you feel awkward at times. Or maybe he’s the bohemian who comes across as ultra-humble because he’s unwilling to take a stand on anything (unless, of course, it happens to be something as non-controversial as recycling or fighting poverty). He’s often likeable, and even quite admirable; he’s not like those rigid, hard-hearted, moralistic conservatives. But unfortunately, this new and popular form of “piety,” what I like to refer to as “passivity and puppy love,” is really nothing more than Pharisaism revamped.

How is this so? After all, didn’t we already distinguish this from legalisism and fundamentalism—the very soul of Pharisaism in America today? 

Yes and no. Externally, this new piety seems quite different. It appears much more humble and accepting than the rigid, judgmental Pharisaism we’re so used to. However, on the inside, it’s very much the same. This new piety has become, to us, in contemporary Christian culture, the ultimate display of righteousness. We’ve come to take pride in our “humility,” to actively pursue passivity and flee any type of conflict, and to reduce our relationship with God to a purely emotional experience. It is the new Pharisaism because, while appearing righteous on the outside,  it seeks self-glorification on the inside. We want, like the Pharisees, an appearance of righteousness, simply so that we can feel good about ourselves and have others pat us on the back. 

True humility is a very good thing; so is the ability to “turn the other cheek.” And emotion is a God-given gift with which we are supposed to glorify him. However, most of the time, we’re phonies. All of these genuinely righteous lifestyles are simply faked and counterfeited so that we may deceive others into giving us glory. 

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their long, verbose prayers, which were a showy display of their religiosity. When spiritual leaders try to bolster their prayers with emotional words simply for dramatic effect, is this any different? Is praying in a soft, calm voice more spiritual than speaking to God as we would normally speak? Don’t get me wrong; if the emotion is genuine, this is perfectly acceptable. But how often have we tried to emotionalize our prayers simply for the sake of looking more spiritual to others?

And what of our ultra-passive, non-confrontational tendencies? To most people, this appears to be humility. Yet when we refuse to take a stand on significant issues or purposefully avoid preaching the gospel, we’re only being prideful. We don’t want our reputation to be hurt; we don’t want to come off as intolerant. We think that our public image is more important that the truth of God’s word. We take pride in being the “nice guy” and don’t want to cause ourselves discomfort; we hate conflict and avoid it at all costs. We tithe our mint, dill, and cumin while neglecting weightier matters.

Thus, it is unfortunate that so many men have fallen victim to this sort of effeminate,  fraudulent piety. As C.H. Spurgeon once said, “Men who are easy as an old shoe are generally of little worth.” We’ve detracted from the majesty and might of the one true God and turned him into a giant teddy bear among other stuffed animals in the American Pantheon. How could anyone take us seriously? My prayer is that the gospel would convict us and that the Holy Spirit would change our hearts, leading us to a more full-bodied and sincere faith, as well as a more biblical masculinity.