Resilient Churches

The Babylon Option

“So Zach, you’ve been coming to our church for a while now. Are there any areas of growth that you see?”

At 21 I would have jumped at this opportunity — a laundry list of opinions in tow.

I sat there for a minute and thought about it.

“I honestly can’t think of a single thing. My mind just hasn’t been in that space.”

My pastor was surprised to say the least, he knew the 21 year old with lots of opinions. (And after all that, he asked for my input anyway. A true testament to his humility and generosity of spirit.)

Yet today, I genuinely had no critique. No area of growth. No word of challenge.

I’d like to chalk it up to personal growth or something like that, but that might be a bit overly sentimental.

There are a couple of factors that contributed to my lack of an opinion.

Firstly, I’m no expert. Who am I to speak into what churches should or should not be doing? I’m a former youth pastor from a small town in Jersey. That’s it.

My opinions are just that — opinions. They aren’t sage nuggets of truth that people should respect.

Many who speak into what the church should or should not be doing are expressing preferences not principals. And I don't want to be that person.

Secondly, I find unsubstantiated generalizations help no one. It takes a lot of knowledge and data to truly see “what’s wrong” and even more competence in a given area to pose real solutions.

I am extremely skeptical of any statement regarding “American Christians” for this reason. While it is possible to recognize broad trends, to speak authoritatively on such a widespread topic is at best highly speculative. (And I prefer to reserve my speculation for weird theories about the Book of Revelation, not blanket judgments of other’s religious experience.)

I also find that the undercurrent behind such statements is one of pretense. The critic of “the American Church” is not saying the quiet part outloud: they are better than the average bear. They are somehow more spiritual, more insightful, or more virtuous than the normal religious adherent — making them worthy to cast aspersions.

It is extremely easy for otherwise good men to get caught up in the moment of spiritual pride and lose the plot of true exhortation.

Knowing that this is my perspective, you can understand why this article has taken me over two months to write.

I see the dangers of the spiritual pride that comes from criticizing or exhorting the church. I see the tall order of character required to truly lead positively in this domain. I also have had some growing to do in this area personally.

To top it all off: I don’t feel qualified to speak on the topic.

But at some point, we still have to find a way to talk about church, and that is exactly what I intend to do. (Hopefully without falling into the traps laid out above.)

For those of you who are new here, this article is a continuation of a series called “The Babylon Option.” If you haven’t read those pieces yet, I recommend you read them first, as they lay the groundwork for today’s discussion.

To recap, I am advocating for a new cultural vision for Evangelicals. One which focuses on long haul strategies, founded on meaningful and substantive spiritual formation, by means of participation in traditional institutions.

Why that last part?

Many of you will automatically see the appeal of long haul vision, or meaningful spiritual formation, but the institutional aspect may seem like a non-sequitur.

Here’s how it connects:

Spiritual formation, in order for it to be truly effective, is sacramental. By sacramental I mean a means by which one partakes of The Divine Nature, and so receives being in an act of grace.

To put it simply, sacramental living is based upon participation. It views identity not as an inward thing, but as something built through the rituals we consistently practice.

You become a musician by consistently practicing an instrument.

You become an author by consistently writing.

You become a parent through participating in the sacrament and covenant of marriage.

The great philosopher Bruce Wayne put it best “it’s not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you.”

Institutions matter for the future of formation because they operate on sacramental principles.

For an institution to be effective it must not be catering to the individual, rather the individual must be in service to the institution. (In that sense a classical understanding of institutions require a self-death and a kind of cruciform life. This is why I say that individualism is antithetical to institutional health.)

One of the few surviving modern institutions most embodies this reality: the Marines.

Photo by Mark Tegethoff on Unsplash

To be a Marine means something. If you are an American, just the word evokes an image of the kind of person a Marine is.

It is hard to imagine a world where the Marines change their mission to appease the new recruits.

“What’s that Billy? You don’t like how your Drill Sargent was talking to you?”

You know what follows that sentence and it certainly won’t be a change of policy.

Institutions ask something of you. Not because they are trying to take something, but because they stand for something greater than the individual. Institutions ask much of you, because they are more than the sum of their parts. You get to be a part of the institution, it is a privilege to participate.

Oxford is more than a collection of intellectuals in nice buildings. The Marines are more than a group of tough guys trained for war. There is something dignified, elevated, transcendent even about the mission and ethos of the institution.

Institutions are also antithetical to the cult of personality often seen in Evangelicalism.

Oxford is not about one man. It is a legacy of centuries of some of the greatest thinkers in human history. If a church wishes to be a meaningful institution, it has to be about more than the senior pastor. Instead the leaders must consider themselves as one of a line of many unknown saints who held the faith and served Christ’s church.

The institution asks much, and in exchange imbues a sense of being to the participant (this is what I mean by the sacramental nature of institutions.) There are new regiments imparted, values instilled, character traits created, a mindset cultivated, an ethos embodied in the individual.

Institutions help make us who we are.

It is no wonder that, in a time when visible American institutions are disappearing or waning, our youth are increasingly confused about who they are. They have less meaningful and transcendent stuff to participate in. Nothing to join which makes them feel wonderfully small yet grants a grand sense of importance.

This is where the church has a golden opportunity. In a consumeristic culture where “the customer is always right” the church can provide the one thing no corporation can: self-forgetfulness.

Our hearts are aching to forget ourselves, but we are searching in all of the wrong places.

Why do we spend all day scrolling on small glass boxes? Why do we stare into a computer screen for hours on end? We want to get lost in something, and if we can’t find something good, we will find something fascinating.

It seems that the invitation to “lose our life to find it” is a desire baked into the human heart. We wish to die to ourselves and live for something greater. Taking up our cross is an easy burden and a light yoke, by dying to self for the sake of Christ we become ourselves.

That is the path Christ offers, and it is what the church ought to represent.

So often, the attractional model offers the opposite. In accommodating to the consumer needs of the individual, it forfeits the Church’s sacramental nature.

Either the Church exists for Christ or it exists for the crowd, but it cannot exist for both. After all, it was the crowd that killed Christ — so a church in service to the same crowd is one which is crucifix-ally complicit.

So, if institutional integrity is so important, how do we make the switch in an individualistic age?

Here are 7 of my considerations on the topic:

1. Move from pragmatic to principled

What if, when making leadership choices, we stopped asking the question “will this work?” And started asking the question “is this obedient?”

Christ is the Shepherd of His church. And He has provided an abundance of instruction in His word. Leaders are entrusted under-shepherds who are to carry out His command.

To put it simply: Jesus is smarter than us. He’s a better Pastor. He has the wisest strategy, and obeying His commands is always better than our cleverest plans.

A while back, I said “no one has ever changed the world by taking a survey.”

And I meant it.

Going around and canvasing for the approval of felt needs of the community/congregation is a great business tactic, but it’s not how you build a ministry philosophy.

As stewards of the flock, under-shepherds are first to ask the Good Shepherd “how do you want us to feed your sheep?” Not ask the sheep how they would prefer to be fed.

Consensus building is the enemy of leadership. It’s this democratic and consumeristic instinct of American culture that runs contrary to the mindset of sacramental leadership.

We are to uphold the uncompromising truth of Christ, and point to Him in all matters. The more this is applied at a granular level, the thicker the institutional identity.

My pastor mentioned this in the conversation at the beginning of this article. He explained how his focus shifted from growth towards obedience, and when that happened, the church began to grow.

He said something to this extent, “I don’t have a comprehensive vision. I’m just doing my best to obey.”

Ironically, that is the best possible vision a minister can have. More than catchy statements, or neatly surmised values; a heart which obeys is the heart of wisdom.

Samuel once spoke to Saul “to obey is better than sacrifice.”

Saul, in his own wisdom, tried to do what he thought was best. He made a decision in a moment of crisis, and so offered a profane sacrifice. More concerned with accomplishing his goal, then obeying the word of God, Saul reflects the heart of the pragmatist.

It is the heart which seeks to obey, even when obedience doesn’t make immediate sense, that leads like David or Moses.

David, who shunned the pragmatic “shortcut” of slaying Saul. David, who rejected common sense to stand against a giant. Moses who stood against the most powerful man in the world, with nothing more than a shepherds staff.

A heart of obedience is a heart willing to endure inconvenience. It’s willing to wait for results. It’s willing to reject what seems logical, to accept the Lord’s wisdom.

A heart of obedience is more concerned with integrity than it is with growth.

It should be noted -- I am not opposed to effectiveness. I just think efficiency is a secondary priority to humility and taking Christ at His word.

In order to do this, we must reject hyper-spiritual notions which are not biblically commanded. The house church movement is emblematic of this, often adding excess spiritual baggage which scripture does not contain. Nowhere does scripture command assembly in homes. Nowhere does it even tell us this is preferable. Scripture is relatively silent on the matter of buildings.

That doesn’t mean there are no principles to be applied in this area, rather it means that those principles ought to be held more loosely and not imposed at the level of Biblical commands.

A question to consider:

Make a list of your church’s practices.

How many of the practices in your church can be rooted in clear biblical/theological principles? How many are rooted in pragmatic effectiveness? (“This just works.”)

2. Reclaiming the ancient

I am of the opinion that old things are old for a reason. We preserve and pass down things which matter to us. If you wish to be an institution with a sense of depth and staying power, it is best to incorporate things which have stuck around for centuries.

Perhaps you disagree with this assertion -- that is fine. But consider the command to “honor your father and mother,” and the proverb to “hear your father’s instruction, and forsake not your mother’s teaching.” Perhaps the generations gone by have more to teach us than we know, and wisdom would tell us to heed their counsel.

This is not a blanket endorsement of all tradition, as the error of the Pharisees was to trust in the traditions of men over the Word of God. Rather, this is an invitation to become “selective eclectics.”

By this I mean, using scripture as the primary lens through which we sift through tradition. This allows us to appreciate the fallible wisdom of our forebears by agreeing with them whenever they agree with Scripture.

Beyond looking throughout history, this also means evaluating Christian traditions which differ from your own through the lens of scripture. Perhaps they are seeing something you don’t, so read them generously and discern them scripturally.

It should also be noted that, this does not require you to be a stuffy church. I’m not saying to bust out the choir robes, or to dust off the organ. Rather I am suggesting an engagement with substantive practices, and translating them into your context.

Just as we translate the scripture into modern vernacular, so can we translate biblical and historic traditions into modern culture. (I hope to do an article on this in the future, but no promises.)

A question to consider:

How much does history and tradition inform your church’s Sunday practice? How many elements in your Sunday service are older than this century?

3. Generational missions before outreach.

Please hear me: I am not saying we neglect evangelism or global missions. I am saying we have neglected our children to reach our neighbor’s children, which is nonsensical.

Sending our kids to government indoctrination centers (public schools) as “missionaries” is a usurious treatment of children.

Turning youth groups into outreach and entertainment programs instead of discipleship and formation outlets neglects the spiritual needs of youth who are already members of the Body. (And are extremely impressionable at a young age. Reducing youth group as a growth medium is sure to form teenagers into disenfranchised adults.)

Reaching outsiders is first the adults’ responsibility, not the children’s. While they too can be a part of the mission, the responsibility for outreach and service should not be placed squarely on their shoulders, at the expense of their own discipleship.

Don’t get me wrong, youth group can be a safe place for unbelievers to find community and explore the faith — just like Sunday mornings. It’s also pivotal to invite youth into the mission of the church, but youth ministry should be exactly that: ministry not entertainment.

Focusing on thick spiritual formation for the next generation insures that tomorrow will be a better place. That the church of the future is stronger, more equipped, and more capable of carrying the mission forward.

While tradition helps us find our place in relation with the past, generational missions insures we are ever looking toward the future.

Question to consider:

What is the focus of children and youth ministry? Entertainment or engaging them in the substance of the faith?

4. Becoming a cornerstone in the community

This point is almost derivative. If we truly focus on obedience, and doing the work Christ has commanded of the church, becoming an integral part of the community is almost inevitable.

This is because an obedient church will:

- Openly and publicly declare the gospel of Christ.

- Provide the sacrament of marriage to members of the community.

- Provide funerals for members of the community.

- Provide visitation and pastoral care services for members of the community.

- Provide financial support to families in need.

- Provide counseling for the grieving, suffering, and struggling members of the community.

- Gathering together in prayer.

- The administration of Word and Sacrament.

- Standing against evil in the community, through prophetic presence, and providing restorative solutions. (I mean resisting things such as: abortion clinics, the indoctrination of children with gender-confusion curriculum, hate groups and more.)

Just doing the simple work of the church faithfully and consistently over decades establishes the church as a meaningful institution — the glue of the community.

Thinking along these lines, more so than trend-chasing or attractional methods will go a long way.

Beyond all of this, merely being incarnationally present speaks volumes. If the community has an event, being present in some capacity consistently over time is far more effective than a few big outreaches a year.

Big outreaches are still very doable however, and your visibility in the community will significantly help with their effectiveness! Once again: I am not opposed to modern strategies. I am simply saying they must be done only after the requirements of biblical faithfulness have been fulfilled.

I don’t hate surveys. They have their place. I don’t hate strategic thought. It has its place. But I take issue with these things if they force us to forfeit who we are, and what the Lord has called us to do. I realize that is pretty subjective, but this is a starting place not a comprehensive formula.

5. Providing families their place.

The church itself is a family. And so families who are part of the church, are participating in an institution which provides each family its place.

The local church ought to provide:

- Resources for family discipleship and worship.

- Consistent instruction from the pulpit regarding family life as Christians (as modeled by Paul in his epistles.)

- Accountability for individual family units.

- Guidance for family crisis.

- Godly examples of fatherhood and motherhood as represented in the elders and their wives.

- A broad support network helping families in the church through loving one another.

Another way I think of the church is as a “thermonuclear family.” While the individual family is the primary engine for forming the next generation, the broader familial fabric of the local church undergirds each family.

6. New metrics

Finally, I would like to postulate that, in light of all of this, perhaps we should expand what we measure to judge ministry success.

I am all for measuring church attendance, giving, service, small group attendance, and whatever else you may be measuring (because that’s wise!)

But in order to incorporate the broader institutional/sacramental vision of church, perhaps we should also be measuring the following:

- How many babies were born to families in the church this year? How many were adopted?(An indication that familial life is healthy and vibrant.)

- How many funerals and weddings were performed for members? For non-attendees?

- How many of the families are pursuing Christian/home education? (This may not be a completely fair metric, as some may send their kids to public schools they know are reasonable for fair and valid reasons. Many families cannot afford this option as well. But I still think it gives a good indication of how much formation is being prioritized.)

- How many leaders has the church raised up in the past year? (or whatever period of time you feel is reasonable.)

- How many people in the past 5 years have reported promotions to roles of leadership at their workplace? How many have stepped into informal leadership roles in the broader community? (This is an indication of how deeply character formation has taken hold — if their faith positively affects their work and relationships.)

- How many families have we provided assistance for this year?

- How many times were the leaders forced to have a conflict/do something uncomfortable to uphold their principles in the past year? (While being cantankerous is foolish, these numbers should definitely be higher than 0)

- What can you implement that asks more of the average congregant which is both meaningful and non-arbitrary? (The more participation is required, the deeper the formation.)

I am sure there are more things which could be measured, and would love to hear your considerations on the matter.

We will continue discussing the Babylon Option in coming months, as well as articles on various other topics.

Thank you for reading, if you enjoyed this article please consider subscribing. It’s completely free, and means you won’t miss future articles.