A Biblical Model for Church?
“Church as we know it is over. Here’s what’s next.”
This is the title of a recently published FoxNews opinion piece by self-defined “social media pastor” Dave Adamson. Of course, as a pastor, reading that the Church of Jesus Christ was “over” took me by surprise, especially since I had preached just 2 days ago at a gathering of God’s people!
Adamson is obviously not claiming that the “Church” capital “C” is over, that would mean the promise of Jesus to build a victorious, Satan-crushing, people until the end of the Age would have failed. It’s just the church “as we know it” that is over.
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matt 16:18 (ESV)
Unbiblical definitions lead to unbiblical arguments and conclusions. Thus, I would like to challenge Adamson’s definitions of the church, of authentic Christian community, and of models for pastoral ministry (including his use of data/trends from the secular marketplace) in order to call into question his conclusion: that the church must redefine itself to offer people the convenience of accessing “church” on their own terms, or the church will die out.
Defining “Church”
Adamson argues, “Every church you’ve ever attended, or that you drive by on your way to a Sunday sporting event, was built on a physical attendance model that is location-centric…But that way of doing church is dead.” The “location-centric model” for Adamson is a cultural expression of church, not one that is inherently biblical and therefore optional. He argues for a new “forward thinking” model he calls the “digital church.”
But is he right? What exactly was it that Jesus claimed to build in Matthew 16? He certainly did not mean he was building brick and mortar church locations. Agreed. Jesus rather is building a spiritual people engaged in an ongoing spiritual battle with the gates of Hell. By “church” Jesus means His redeemed people, members of His eternal Kingdom, those called by God, into relationship with God, for the glory of God.
But notice that the church is a corporate people. There is no such thing as a church of one. The word church, “ekklesia” means “congregation.” A congregation by definition congregates.
Christians are not just in an individual relationship with God, they are in relationships with one another. The Apostle Peter explains both dimensions in 1 Peter 2:4-5 “As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”
The writer to the Hebrews also encourages us, “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near” (Heb. 10:2, 24-25).
It is as if the Bible anticipated the temptation to create a decentralized, digital, individualistic model of the church! A church is not a pile of separate stones, but rather stones built together into a living temple.
This universal spiritual people finds expression in local contexts. So, Paul can write, “To the Church of God that is in Corinth…” (1 Cor. 1:2). So a gathered community of people (read “location-centric” model) is not a culturally optional model, but rather the biblical expectation and implication of the nature of the church of Jesus Christ.
Defining “Community”
Adamson argues for an “omni-channel” church. An omni-channel church enables people to consume the churches content from a variety of platforms, physical or digital, whenever they want. He writes, “This shifts the Church from a location-centric approach, to an audience-centric approach that allows people to connect and engage with churches both digitally AND physically.”
The biblical idea of community comes from the concept of koinonia, or fellowship. Biblical fellowship is both a spiritual reality and a practical commitment that requires genuine relationships. One needs only to consider the many “one another” commands in Scripture to drive this point home. Because Adamson misunderstands the biblical nature and purpose of the church, he also incorrectly defines authentic biblical community as “engaging and connecting with the church’s content.” For Adamson community is built around the content a church produces. The way Adamson writes about the church is like the way tech-bloggers write about Apple or Amazon.
The church is the people! We connect and engage with one another is genuine fellowship. The church is not a social media content provider and God’s people are not consumers of the products the church produces. Bad definitions lead to unbiblical practices.
Defining “Pastoral Ministry”
In the article Adamson briefly narrates the development of the church’s use of social media to provide access to sermons, schedules, events, and other useful information. Initially churches used social media to promote the physical gathering. “But the times have changed yet again,” claims Adamson. He says that churches must see online church as a viable alternative and addition to the traditional location-centric model for pastoral ministry. He bases his argument on how businesses are evolving. He writes,
The secular marketplace has known for years that customers connect with brands online AND offline seamlessly. Companies like Home Depot, Starbucks, Wal-Mart and Crate & Barrel have adopted “omni-channel” strategies that allow people to shop either online, through an app, or in-store. The result has been increased sales both online and at brick and mortar stores.
“Church as we know it is over,” FoxNews
So, his argument goes, since businesses are delivering more content to more people in this way, the church should follow their lead.
But this assumes that the church’s ministry is that of a business delivering content to consumers in the first place. Because Adamson has identified the church with a business, his advice to the church is misguided.
One cannot “…fully engage and connect with a church without the need to step inside a physical environment…” because real church, according to the Bible, is about real people, in real relationships and people gather in person in physical spaces.
Questioning the Conclusion
Finally, Adamson warns that if we don’t allow people to engage the church, when they want and how they want, then the church will not make an impact in the modern world.
I am for engaging the world in a variety of innovative ways that leverage technology to do so. The history of the church in general and of missions in particular, is replete with examples of the church utilizing “tech” to bring the Gospel to the world. However, the same Gospel that brings a person into a relationship with God, brings that person into relationships with other people! Where we are called to “…look not only to our own interests, but to prefer the interests of others above our own” (Phil. 2:4).
Adamson’s argument that only when we allow people to do church on their own terms we will have an impact in the modern world for Christ is simply wrong. For such an approach gives way to the self-centeredness we are called to crucify. Adamson naively claims that “…doing digital engagement will lead to increased physical attendance” because he underestimates the selfishness and laziness that is at the core of every individual.
But if we teach new Christians that listening to the church’s podcast and retweeting a catchy quote is “doing church,” that is all they will likely ever do.
When Jesus promised to build His church, He promised to create, sustain and redeem a new corporate people, His body, His family, a new community of reconciled sinners from every tribe on earth, loving each other and living together as an expression of God’s eternal plan to unite all things in Christ (Eph. 1:10). Jesus’ vision for church simply cannot be seen, expressed or experienced “digitally.”
– Pastor David Camera
