The 4 People Affected by Every Church Decision

And how we inverted the order

Sometimes truths that are almost self-evident go unacknowledged and unpracticed until we stop and think about them. This usually happens because we are so caught up in getting through what’s right in front of us that we fail to look at the big picture and consider all angles.

I believe churches can make this kind of mistake when they decide how to shape their message or strategize ways to go about the Lord’s work. The obvious truth that gets missed in the shuffle is that each decision made to these ends is not self-contained, but will have ripple effects in multiple directions.

Every decision a church makes sends a message in 4 directions.

God

The first message sent in any decision is directly to God. We’re telling Him what we think about Him and His holiness by what we allow, disallow, encourage, and discourage.

(Notice I’m using “people” loosely in the title as God doesn’t exactly fit neatly into any descriptive box.)

Faithful members

Most Christians are good-hearted folks who want to live for God. What we call them to tells them what is expected of them, and what we tolerate tells them how important their commitment is.

Straying/weaker members

Some are pulled by sin and worldliness, some just don’t know better. But the preaching, teaching, and discipling of the church tells them whether their floundering is okay or something they must overcome.

The lost

Between visitors, passersby, and those who might just hear about us from members or see our posts online, the lost will have an opinion about our church. The way we operate will tell them what kind of church we are.

Here’s the problem

The list should work in the order above. In any decisions we make, words we speak, or actions we take, our #1 motivation should be to please God and honor His holiness. After Him, we should be feeding, caring for, encouraging, and equipping His sheep. Third, we should be considering the wayward and how to help them make a greater commitment. And fourth, we should be considering the lost.

However, coming off of the seeker-sensitive and missional eras, the order has been inverted. Because we want to reach the lost, and because we don’t want to lose those members on the fringes, we start with them in mind first.

We’ll avoid or water down certain teachings because if the lost heard us say that, they might not come back. But Jesus already told us that the world is going to hate us and the things we stand for (John 15:18). Letting them dictate what we believe and say out loud is putting their feelings above God.

As to the weaker members, I know of cases of members telling leadership to “choose between him or us” regarding the preacher touching on certain sensitive subjects. Sadly, in those instances the leadership capitulated.

These kinds of decisions might make sense if you frame it as “God doesn’t need us to defend Him,” and “the stronger members are going to be there either way.” But it’s not about defending God—it’s about treating Him as holy (Leviticus 10:3). And it’s about not taking stronger members for granted, but honoring their commitment and encouraging them to continue on.

If this all seems a bit abstract, consider a couple of common examples.

Modesty

Sadly, modesty is a common issue concerning which churches have to make decisions. Do we confront that young lady (and/or her parents) about what she’s wearing? It might embarrass or anger her. They might not come back. If they bristle at it and cause a scene as they leave, it might upset other members or it might even reach outsiders, who would then see our church as nosy legalists. And so, maybe we should have the preacher preach on it and hope everybody catches the hint.

Inverting the decision-making flowchart, we ask “What does God think?” And if He has a problem with it, we need to do something about it. This helps the stronger members, since they as good sheep want to know what God requires of them.

But oddly enough, this does not come at the expense of the erring young woman. The most loving thing that can be done for her is to be lovingly confronted. She might not see it that way, but that doesn’t change the reality of the situation. And, yeah, some outsiders might not like it. But “the lost” is not a monolith—some might hear about it and find it refreshing that a church would actually practice what they preach. Let God worry about what the soil does with the seed.

Spotty attendance

Inconsistent attendance is often treated with a shrug of the shoulders and a “what’re you gonna do, there are always members like that.”

But what message does it send to God when we let people come in once every 6 weeks and throw their leftovers on the altar? In Malachi 1:6-14, He begged somebody to shut the gates so they’d stop the offerings. They weren’t proclaiming His name as great among the nations, and He wasn’t having any of it. A God-first order of operations might get us to approach this issue differently.

And, once again, the downstream effects would also be positive. Faithful members would be reminded that their consistent attendance is a blessing and that God loves having them at His table. Weak members would know it’s time to put up or shut up, rather than limping their way to condemnation, semi-convinced of their salvation all the way. And, the lost who got wind of it would see God’s name proclaimed as great.

These are just a couple of common examples that can be reframed through a top-down decision making process rather than a bottom-up one. “Our witness” with the lost can drive everything we do if we’re not careful. Or, “squeaky wheel” members can have leadership doing whatever it takes to appease them and keep the peace in the congregation. But in the long run, this kind of decision-making damages the church.

In every case the message-sending is inevitable, so we had better think through what kind of message we’re sending in all four directions.

---

Notes

A brief note about subscriptions…

You may have noticed that, other than book giveaways, everything on this site is now FREE!

However, locking articles does drive more premium subscriptions, and the added income from those has been a tremendous boost to give my family a little more financial breathing room. In other words, giving everything away free does make it tougher to gain paying subscribers.

So, I want to thank all those who are premium subscribers for your invaluable support. And I want to encourage non-premium subscribers to consider upgrading. Having a steady growth of premium subscribers without using the paywall is a huge boost and helps me keep everything available free.

Thanks for subscribing, and for your consideration!