Two Options for the Church's Future
Which will we choose?
For years I’ve been writing about the growing ideological divide between Christians and between churches.
And while there are numerous rifts forming along the lines of our broader cultural divisions, I believe there is one foundational difference in philosophy that is driving churches apart.
It comes down to a difference in purpose. We fundamentally disagree on what we as churches are to do, which subsequently means we disagree on how to do it.
So, what are these two purposes that are the dividing lines for the future of the church?
Every church is deciding to either:
Show the world how we’re like them (what we’ll call “Familiar Churches”), or
Show the world how we’re different (what we’ll call “Strange Churches”)
We’re either focusing on broad appeal or limited appeal. We’re either trying to be relatable to as many people as possible, or unrelatable in a peculiar, curiosity-raising way.
The most tangible manifestation of this divide is the Sunday assembly.
For some time now it has been viewed as an outreach tool, a chance to showcase ourselves to visitors. Sermons are watered down, with the real meat saved for Bible classes and/or the PM worship. More casual dress is encouraged, so visitors don’t feel out of place.
Sometimes you’ll even hear explanations of the elements of worship. Mountainous piles of books have been written by the church growth people on how to make the Sunday experience appealing to the outsider.
This is where consumer Christianity begins. “We are here for you! We hope you like us enough to come back!”
Instead, the message should be that this isn’t for you, and we don’t need you—it’s all for our Lord and Savior. And, if you want to join us in glorifying Him, we will welcome you with open arms if you’re willing to learn and conform.
But the feel walking in on a given Sunday should make them uncomfortable, in a good way. They should feel as though they’ve stepped outside the world of the familiar into something new.
Instead, we design our spaces and plan our activities around making sure it’s a perfectly smooth transition. But if we’re telling them we’re the exact same as everything else, why should they care? Exclusivity and elevation is the church’s appeal, because it is of Christ. He is different, and so are His people. “You’re more than welcome to come here and watch, but this isn’t for you” should be our message. “Come out from among them and be separate.”
(This drift away from Familiar Churches may even help explain the exodus we’re seeing to Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism. People want something they know and feel is different, and those groups, despite my many reservations, at least have that.)
Again, worship is but one example of many. Evangelism is another big one. Will we continue telling people we are “broken sinners with messy lives” just like them, or will we preach a loving yet firm message of repentance (Luke 24:46-47)? Start to think about it and you’ll see numerous ways in which this rift can and will manifest itself.
So, how have we come to this?
All of this is best understood under Aaron Renn’s 3 worlds model (essential reading for church leaders and anyone interested in the church’s witness). In short, the world used to hold a positive view of Christianity. Being a Christian was a benefit to anyone—good for business, electability, etc.
As we transitioned into the neutral world in the last 40-50 years, being a Christian was acceptable but no longer conferred benefits. Now we live in the negative world, where being a Bible-believing Christian means you will be largely viewed with skepticism, if not outright disgust.
The model of showing the world we’re like them, only with the benefits of Jesus, came out of the neutral world. With a world ambivalent toward Christians, the aim was to show them that we’re not the bad people some are painting us to be. What we have in common was the evangelistic emphasis, rather than what we didn’t.
And in that world, it “worked.” Tim Keller, Bill Hybels, and Rick Warren built humongous churches on this system.
Flash forward to today, in the negative world, and it doesn’t work anymore. “We’re just like you” hits a dead end when they find out you believe in biblical miracles rather than “science,” or that you’re a “homophobe.”
But here’s the thing: even when it worked, it was a terrible strategy. Truth inevitably leads to confrontation (h/t Francis Schaeffer), and if avoiding confrontation to begin with is your strategy, you’re inevitably going to start giving up ground on all of the most controversial truths (enter, once more, Andy Stanley and Rick Warren).
Weak churches full of worldly Christians are what result when we emphasize our sameness rather than our holiness. And without an emphasis on holiness, being “loving” is useless.
As time goes on and we drift further and further into the negative world, churches will lean in to one strategy or the other, or continue to try to straddle the chasm for as long as they can. But as the divide grows, they’re going to have to plant both feet on one or the other.
The fruit of this choice, and its indication of a need for change in approach, is only growing clearer. Familiar Churches have ruled the day for decades, but I believe we’re going to start seeing a steady rise of Strange Churches. Practices like Psalm singing, closed communion, and lengthier gathering times are just 3 of the many shifts we may see.
Each church will either dedicate itself to building a community of holy people, separating itself from the world, or it will dedicate itself to showing the world how we’re exactly like them, just with Jesus as the cherry on top.
If you couldn’t tell, on this site I’ll be advocating for the Strange approach. I believe the Familiar model has been built on a foundation of sand. It’s a great way to get a lot of people, but it makes it impossible to build a deeply-rooted, familial culture.
With Strange Church, everyone who’s there knows what they signed up for and is already committed. They know that venturing off the beaten path is part of the deal from day one.
But Strange Churches should be prepared to be called every name in the book —legalists, judgmental, Pharisees, holier-than-thou, and so on. They must be careful to not be any of these things, but they will be labeled as them regardless.
The test of time is undefeated, though. And the Familiar Church’s time is rapidly coming to an end. The sooner congregations firmly commit to being Strange, the quicker we can start rebuilding what has fallen.
Notes
Be sure to join the email list for FREE to get the latest posts! And, if you enjoy the content here, consider becoming a supporting subscriber.
I haven’t publicized them here at all, but we’re sharing my Scriptural Focus Q&A videos on the Focus Press YouTube channel. Here’s the latest upload on dressing up for worship.
I think your on to something here. The church must be set apart and strange to the culture outside.