"De-Churching" Trends
Image
From Voice, May/June 2014. Used by permission.
One of the least obvious—and yet most tragic—changes that American Evangelicalism has experienced in the past fifty years is the diminishment of the centrality of the local church in the life of many Christians. The Lord’s Day, once considered a special day dedicated to the worship and service of God, is now treated like any other day by many professing believers. And local church life, once considered the center of indispensable relationships within our spiritual family whom we love, encourage, and to whom we remain accountable, is now treated like an extra-curricular activity rather than an essential ingredient of the Christian life.
The signs of the diminishing priority of the church are many. However, I will only mention the six trends that Kent Hughes highlights in his book Set Apart: Calling a Worldly Church to a Godly Life (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003).
Hitchhiker Christians
Hughes writes:
The hitchhiker’s thumb says, “You buy the car, pay for repairs and upkeep and insurance, fill the car with gas—and I’ll ride with you. But if you have an accident, you are on your own! And I’ll probably sue.” So it is with the credo of many of today’s church attendees: “You go to the meetings and serve on the boards and committees, you grapple with the issues and do the work of the church and pay the bills—and I’ll come along for the ride. But if things do not suit me, I’ll criticize and complain and probably bail out. My thumb is always out for a better ride.” (128)
The consumer mentality
Many of today’s Christians shop for a church like they build their supper at a cruise ship buffet. “Ecclesiastical shoppers attend one church for the preaching, send their children to a second church for its youth program, and go to a third church’s small group. Their motto is to ask, ‘What’s in it for me?’” (128). This has often been rightly called, Cafeteria Christianity.
Spectator Christianity
Spectator Christianity feeds on the delusion that virtue can come through viewing, much like the football fan who imagines that he ingests strength and daring while watching his favorite pro team. Spectator sports and spectator Christianity produce the same thing—fans who cheer the players on while they themselves are in desperate need of engagement and meaning. (129)
Drive-through Christians
The nice thing about drive-through restaurants is that you can get what you want in a minimum of time with no more effort than a turn of your power steering. The tragic result is a drive-through nation of overweight, unfit people with an addiction to fast foods. So it is with drive-through Christians, who get their “church fix” out of the way by attending a weeknight church service or early service on Sunday morning so the family can save the bulk of Sunday for the all-important soccer game or recreational trip. Of course, there is an unhappy price extracted over time in the habits and the arteries of a flabby soul—a family that is unfit for the battles of life and has no conception of being Christian soldiers in the great spiritual battle. (129)
Relationless Christianity
In light of the New Testament call to believers to be part of the life of a community of people, it is ironic “that there are actually churches that trade in anonymity, going so far as to abolish membership and the registry of guests. Some churches have even replaced a pastor-in-the-flesh for a video-projected preacher on the screen—a ‘virtual reality’ version of the church” (129).
Churchless “worshipers”
“The current myth is that a life of worship is possible, even better, apart from the church” (130). So, instead of faithfully participating in a church, there are self-professing Christians today who prefer to have their own private worship service at a local coffee shop, or down by the lake, or in their living room—pajamas and all!
Of course, none of this is a surprise to God. The Apostle Paul, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, predicted that in the last days men would be “lovers of self” rather than lovers of God (2 Timothy 3:2).
Hughes exposes two causes of what he calls “De-churching.” First, the popularity of “the invisible church,” which is an unbiblical misapplication of the doctrine of the universal body of Christ. And the second is
the historic individualism of evangelical Christianity and the grass-roots American impulse against authority. The natural inclination is to think that you need only an individual relationship with Christ and no other authority. Such thinking produces Christian Lone Rangers who demonstrate their authenticity by riding not to church but out to the badlands, reference Bible in hand, to do battle singlehandedly with the world. (131)
Yet the opposite is true. If you adopt this kind of individualistic mindset, you are sure to be one of the casualties of war. A soldier all alone is an open target and Satan knows it. And a lack of commitment will leave you stunted in your relationship with God and other believers. Because, as Hughes says:
The entire Christian life is about commitment—first and above all to Christ, but also to the church, to family, to marriage, to friendship, to ministry. None of these will ever flourish apart from commitment. Marriage, for example, can never produce the security, satisfaction, and growth that it promises unless there is commitment. On the most elementary level, you do not have to go to church to be a Christian. You do not have to go home to be married either. But in both cases if you do not, you will have a very poor relationship. Here is the point: It is my considered belief that those who do not have the local church at the very center of their lives are likely not to make it as Christians through the opening decades of the third millennium. (136)
More than ever before, we as believers need to understand the priority and function that God infused into His design of the local church. Let me encourage you to use the following outline of three biblical analogies of the church in your own personal Bible study or small group. Pray for the Holy Spirit to re-ignite your passion for the church.
The church is the family of God
The New Testament teaches that the church is the family of God. There are some observations that may be made regarding the church as the family of God in two passages in the First Epistle of John. There are four observations from 1 John 3:11-18:
- Love for the other members of our spiritual family is commanded by God, not optional.
- Love for the other members of our spiritual family is a window into the true state of our heart.
- True love is sacrificial.
- Love for the other members of our spiritual family results in meeting one another’s material needs.
There are two more observations that may be made regarding the church as the family of God in 1 John 4:7-12:
- Love for the other members of our spiritual family is a fruit of the gospel’s work in our hearts.
- Love for the other members of our spiritual family is an imitation of God.
The above two passages point toward one key application point. As the family of God, we belong to each other and we are called to love one another in the truth.
The church is the body of Christ
The New Testament teaches that the church is the body of Christ. There are five observations that may be made regarding the church as the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27:
- There is one body with many parts, designed according to the Spirit’s will.
- Inferiority hinders proper body function.
- Superiority hinders proper body function.
- The mature response in both cases is this: “I need the other members of the body just as much as they need me.”
- Humility promotes unity.
There is a key application point in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27. As the body of Christ, each and every one of us is necessary to its proper functioning. We are inter-dependent.
The church is the temple of God’s priests
The New Testament also teaches that the church is the temple of God’s priests. There are four observations from 1 Peter 2:4-10 that may be made regarding the church as the temple of God’s priests:
- Christ is the Living Stone.
- We are living stones, each a part of God’s building/temple.
- We are spiritual priests, each called to offer spiritual sacrifices.
- We are the people of God, called to proclaim the excellencies of Him.
There is a key application point in 1 Peter 2:4-10. As the temple of God, each and every one of us is a minister carrying out the sacrificial calling of God’s priesthood. Active involvement in the life of the local church is indispensable to healthy spiritual growth. We need the church!
Paul Tautges Bio
Dr. Paul Tautges served in pastoral ministry for twenty-two years. He is the husband of Karen and father of ten. Paul is also an adjunct professor of biblical counseling, conference speaker, and author of eight books including Counsel One Another, Comfort Those Who Grieve, Discipline of Mercy, and Brass Heavens. He also serves as the series editor for the HELP! discipleship counseling booklet series. Paul is also a teaching fellow with ACBC (formerly NANC).
- 15 views
Well said—though I must admit that if I wanted to put out a “Cliff’s Notes” version of this, I’d simply point to his points about the church being a family, and our current tendency is to be relationship-less. Even the point about being God’s priests really flows from that relationship and its purpose, no?
And then if we want to reverse the trend, we’ve got to think in terms of being a family and those relationships. It’s worth noting that a lot of false religions (Mormons, JWs, liberal mainline churches,etc..) survive in great part because they’ve got the family part down to a degree—it’s hard for people to walk away. We need to be sensitive to the cultural cues we leave at our churches that tell people that we are not a close family, and fix that, I think.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
This is not about my own church but about all of the churches I’ve been in over 45 years of my faith. My wife comes from an unsaved family - still has 4 living siblings - (1 deceased as are her parents). I have 2 siblings - both still alive. And 1 brother-in-law on my side deceased. I have 1 surviving parent
From an 2 unsaved families, and our view (and this is personal!) is that we’ve never been in a church family that even comes close to the way we are accepted and loved by unsaved family members.
The modern manifestation of “church” is:
- Corporate (trust me I know what corporate is … I work for a company with 330,000 employees)
- Political
- Cliquish and judgmental
- Also somewhat Machiavellian
- There is a clergy vs layman gap
It’s a harsh assessment but that’s where I see “the church” today
Why do people “shop” churches? Because churches have little more heart than a shopping mall.
I’ve been blessed to be involved with several churches that were not like that at all. Very much a family feel to them. But though I have appreciated that, the NT doesn’t really use a family metaphor for the church—beyond the ubiquitous use of “brethren.” So we should probably infer that being family-like is not necessarily the highest ideal.
What church should be like: flock (Acts 20:28, 1 Pet.5:2), body (Eph. 4, 1 Cor. 12), building (1 Pet. 2:5), temple (1 Cor. 3:17), bride (Eph.5:27).
No doubt, I’ve missed a few. The ideal church (which doesn’t exist…yet) is a mix of all these things.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] …the NT doesn’t really use a family metaphor for the church…Mark 10:29-30 seems like a communal extended family to me. extended family usually means you also have to deal with that weird uncle and the moocher cousin and all kinds of other problems.
While the article is on point as far as it goes, there are still some things missing…
ChrisC refers to it when he says:
Mark 10:29-30 seems like a communal extended family to me. extended family usually means you also have to deal with that weird uncle and the moocher cousin and all kinds of other problems.
I would submit that churches ought to be places that have a true sense of family because there are people there who have all kinds of other problems. The fact that most churches try to cover up problems and are not transparent and honest is what causes us not to have the sense of family. We’re afraid that’s not what visitors want when they pick a church, and that is often true. They want a family of shiny happy people and not one that has strengths and weaknesses they work on by the grace of God.
The other part of this article that is missing is that only the local church is given biblical authority structures and direction to provide accountability. This seems to be a little bit of a “soft sell” when the fact is that many Christians don’t want structure and/or accountability.
If church leadership tells their passengers “Shut up, I’m driving”, it shouldn’t be surprising if folks disengage.
Did church members act like consumers before churches became so driven by marketing the latest greatest programs and activities?
Are church services geared to create a sense of worship toward God, or are they performance-driven?
Do folks want fast food, or is that all the church is serving lately?
I agree that the church/family analogy is implied, but the local church is not compared 1:1 to family. But I think if a church wants to be treated a certain way by believers, then they have to make the first move and provide the environment and dynamic they desire. Those who want it will be there, and those who don’t, won’t. The problem is that we’ve been taught that we should drag people kicking and screaming into church. Which isn’t very helpful if the goal is a worshipful atmosphere and a sense of unity.
The family analogy for church is Biblical, but different than what we are used to in the 21st century. Paul uses the phrase “household of God” or “household of faith” to describe the familial aspect of the church. Eph. 2:19-22, Gal. 6:10, and I Tim. 3:15 all use this phrase as a synonym for the church. However as you probably know, one’s household in the first century not only included the nuclear family, but it also included people that were either slaves and/or employees to help the family. The family members, the employees, and the slaves all lived in the same house together. Therefore, when referring to the church as family using the word household, it would be wise to unpack this historical and cultural nugget so that people don’t automatically equate their modern, western 21st century idea of household/family with what family/household was like in the first century.
We hear “family” and we think “Father Knows Best”, Archie Bunker, “The Brady Bunch”… so a clarification in terms is helpful.
Excellent Joel. Jim, I am sorry that your churches have never felt like a family, but I know a lot of people who would say, their family never felt like a family and all they had was the church. We err when we try to make metaphors of any type fit perfectly and then extrapolate what the church ought to look like by looking at the current manifestations of the metaphors. But what if metaphors change? It has already been alluded to that the metaphor of family has changed in our 21st century.
What if Christians instead of worrying about what the church is supposed to be like comparing it to all these things and making judgments on a grading scale of how she measures up or doesn’t measure up simply love’s God and loves her neighbors? What if Christians simply obey responsibly the principles found all over in the New Testament especially? What if we simply concern ourselves with our obedience to the clear teachings of God’s Word and then trust God to make the imagery a reality? What if we like our Lord, love the church, give ourselves for her and trust God to build his church? I recommend Thom Rainer’s little book “I Am A Church Member” as he tells a brief story about two very different members in the same church and how they seem as if they are in two different churches…check it out, its good.
Usually analogies when given are meant to portray one main ideal (like parables). It seems to me that flock is meant to portray the church’s following of the good shepherd and hearing and obeying the voice of God (Word of God). Temple is meant to speak of the presence of God in the church through the person of the Holy Spirit who works, gifts, and equips us thus indicating that we are a holy place where God resides, so we must live in accordance to holiness. Household analogy (family) speaks of the relationship that we naturally have as adopted children and joint heirs with Christ, and thus we ought to live with the principle of love and peace and unity among one another as an ideal family should live, serving one another. Living stones analogy, we are part of something greater than ourselves though we live individually, we are not intended to live apart from one another. Rather than taking one analogy and thus determining all the various nuances of that analogy and implicating them back into what the church ought to be like, let us explore all the analogies with our assemblies and try to notice the main point of each analogy, we would probably be having healthier churches.
Just my two cents.
One of the themes of salvation is that God adopts us into His family (lots of scriptures teach). John repeatedly calls fellow-believers in churches his “little children”. One of the important functions of a local church is to “adopt” other believers and disciple, teach, and fellowship with them. What are we doing to help create the family atmosphere? Are we “adopting” the new believer, the young believer, and the needy and helping create that sense of family?
Discussion