Two Models of Church

In America today there is one dominant model for ‘doing church.’ Some call this the ‘Membership’ model, or the ‘homogeneous’ model. The idea goes something like this.

In order to create and sustain a ‘successful’ church, defined as a church that is growing in membership and financial stability, the church should ‘find its niche.’ The idea is based on the fact that clearly America is the land of choice. People have a variety of different tastes and preferences, whether we are talking about fast food or worship services. In order to grow a congregation, one needs to find out what people like, whether you are thinking of worship style, dress codes, or even theology, then provide that in a way that attracts. Of course, there are limits (at least in theory), but the bottom line is providing what people want in order to get them in and help them find what they need.

In a sense, this seems to be biblical. After all, Paul emphasized ‘meeting people where they are.’ In addition, it also seems effective. It has, at least in the short run, grown congregations, and provided a measure of stability. But there is a big downside to this approach as well. At its core, it is based on a consumer mentality. The end result is that people ‘shop for a church’ just as they would shop for a house, or shop for a coat. When they find one that fits, they put it on, and wear it until it doesn’t fit anymore, or goes out of style. This approach to churches feeds the rampant consumerism in America, not to mention that it divides us, one from another, each Sunday according to personal preference. This model of church unfortunately has the end result of promoting self segregation, which violates a core value of the church and sign of the kingdom, namely Unity of All Under the Cross.

There is a second, emerging model of church in America- one that I believe is more true to biblical theology and heritage. This is sometimes called the ‘Discipleship’ model, or the ‘Emerging Church,’ or even the ‘Acts 2’ church. This model begins with the assumption that each local congregation should be a reflection of the kingdom. It de-emphasizes numerical growth (though certainly expects it) and emphasizes life together, unity of all regardless of ethnicity and other differences, and maybe above all forming people into those who follow the way of Christ, wherever that way might lead. In short, it emphasizes true discipleship, which is more about growth in maturity of the community than growth in numbers.

Of course, the discipleship model can be a bit frightening, particularly in a country that is so caught up in consumerism. What happens when people who chose our church don’t like it anymore because it is changing? They may leave, reducing our numbers and leading to financial insecurity. Do we really want to risk all that we have built up to follow this sort of model?

I think that is a question that congregations will have to ask themselves. Obviously I have my opinion, and others will have theirs. But in the end, whatever congregations decide, one core value must remain- the church is not in the business of sustaining itself above all else. The church is first and foremost the community that lives in such a way that people see the love of God, and over time become disciples of Jesus Christ, living together and with neighbor out of love and grace.