Let's overturn these tables

Here’s a hypothetical. Imagine that Jesus had come to earth in the twenty-first century in the place where you live. He has just left us with his mission to make disciples.

What would we do?

Would we set up the church exactly as it is now? Would we do something completely different? Or would it be a little of both?

Let’s use this hypothetical as a way of assessing whether the twenty-first century western church is on the right track. (I’m aware there are some objections to this approach – see here for more on these.)

---

The mission Jesus left us

Jesus said God’s commands in the Jewish Law could be summed up as “Love God, love neighbour” (Matthew 22:36-40). He clearly meant his followers to make these two commands a priority. And in his teachings and actions he left us plenty of guidance on what this would look like:

• Placing our highest priority on seeking the kingdom of God (i.e. people accepting God’s rule – Matthew 6:33) and knowing God through prayer and obedience.
• Welcoming the marginalised. In his day that included women (Luke 7:36-50), lepers (Luke 17:11-19), the poor (Luke 21:1-3), prostitutes (Matthew 21:31), tax collectors (Matthew 9:10-13), gentiles (Luke 13:29).
• Caring for those in need (poor, sick, imprisoned, hungry, strangers – Matthew 25:31-46).
• Seeking God more than money (Matthew 6:24) or reputation (Matthew 23:5-7).
• Loving enemies, forgive and pray for them (Matthew 5:44, Luke 17:3).
• Non-violence (Matthew 5:39).

And the mission he left us was to make disciples – people who believe in Jesus and follow these teachings – so these values and the mission continue (Matthew 28:18-20).

So if we were starting the church again, we’d have the three-fold aim of helping people to …..:

1. Love God
2. Love neighbour
3. Make disciples.

---

The early church

The apostles knew Jesus (or knew someone who did), passed on his teachings and wrote the New Testament. So the early church can give us a guide on our hypothetical. Our cultural situation is very different, but hopefully the same principles will be relevant.

In the book of Acts, in the various letters, and in the history of the first few centuries, we can see how the church applied these commands (see list of sources at end). Of course, these early communities were far from perfect, as Paul’s letters show. But we can see a pattern of priorities that mostly look very different to today’s church (shown in italics).

1. They were well-known as a loving community that transcended barriers of race and class.
   (Today some churches follow these values, but the wider community rarely sees the church this way. The barriers, e.g. to women, LGBTQI, First Nations, refugees, the poor, etc, may be unspoken but they exist.)
2. They were generous in caring for the poor and suffering.
   (Some modern churches have effective caring programs, but expenditure on them is relatively small compared to salaries and facilities.)
3. They met in small unstructured communities led by local “lay” leaders, with everyone encouraged to be actively involved and use their gifts.
   (Today most churches have highly structured programs, professionalised clergy who were not local, and congregations can be passive consumers.)
4. There was a strong sense of the guidance and gifting of the Holy Spirit.
   (Many churches almost ignore the Spirit, and few experience the power evident in the early church.)
5. They were keen and committed to sharing the good news about Jesus and God’s kingdom on earth.
   (This remains the stated aim of most churches, but it seems that more time and money are devoted to maintaining the church than reaching out.)

This is a hypothetical

The main idea of a hypothetical is to challenge each of us to consider what we think the church should be.

I wonder what your thoughts are?

Here, for what it’s worth, are a few ideas that apply the New Testament principles I’ve outlined to the 21st century church.

Core principles

Culturally relevant.

Paul set us an example of adapting his approach to the culture around him (Acts 17:16-34, 1 Corinthians 9:22). The present church too often requires people to learn a church culture, but if we were starting afresh, we wouldn’t create such barriers.

Deep commitment to serving the community around us.

The modern western Protestant church has often been suspicious of community service as being “salvation by works”, but like the early church, a new church today would follow Jesus’ strong commands on caring for those who need care.

A people who show God’s character as a basis for evangelism.

Too often modern evangelism is based on words and preaching alone, but a community which shows God’s loving character will be attractive (Matthew 5:16), so people are more likely to take notice and listen.

Discipleship

Every believer using their gifts.

No-one, not even a megachurch Senior Pastor, has all the gifts. A new church would inspire and equip every member to contribute to the mission in some way (Ephesians 4:11-12).

Each Christian taking responsibility for their own discipleship.

The prophet Jeremiah foresaw a time when each believer could know God without needing an intermediary (Jeremiah 31:34). Ezekiel said God would put his Spirit in his people (Ezekiel 36:26). In fulfilment of these prophecies, Jesus promised the Spirit would guide us and empower us (John 14:17, 26, 15:26, 16:13, Acts 1:8). So we don’t need to depend on others to teach us (Matthew 23:8).

Therefore, while we can all benefit from mentoring, guided self-learning and helpful teaching, all believers are individually responsible to follow Jesus as his disciples. A new church would facilitate this, but leave people free to grow and mature rather than remain dependent on leaders.

Calling on the Holy Spirit and relying on him to guide and empower.

Too many churches take the Holy Spirit’s work for granted, but a new church would be led by the Spirit, and would offer opportunities for people to pray together for the Spirit to be active in each person’s life. As people open themselves to God’s Spirit, they and the church as a whole would be changed, empowered, guided and be made more effective.

Leadership

Servant leadership

Jesus modelled servant-hearted leadership (John 13:1-17) and was very clear he wanted his followers to do the same (Luke 22:25-27). The world tends to the opporite – what we may call “presidential” leadership, where the focus is on one person at the top with all the power. Churches and denominations often look more like the world than like Jesus, but if we were starting again, I hope things would be different.

A servant leader takes an interest in others, develops other people’s gifts, doesn’t hog the limelight, doesn’t need to build their self esteem through their leadership, is willing to get their hands dirty and sets an example of unselfish commitment. A servant leader doesn’t need to dress in fancy robes that sets him apart from the rest of us and doesn’t stifle criticism or alternative viewpoints.

Collective leadership

The proverb says there is wisdom in group decision-making (Proverbs 11:14), and in the early church Paul appointed elders, not just a senior pastor (Acts 14:23). If we followed the New Testament teaching and example, churches would be led by leadership teams of people with different gifts, and in today’s world, would include both men and women. In this way, there would be no clergy-laity division, but rather differences of gift and function that work together for the good of all.

Structure

A more organic church

Jesus gave us little teaching on what the church should look like – he seemed more interested in how each one of us lives. But like most first century Jews, Jesus’ religious practices would likely have included regular attendance at the local synagogue (in a small town like Nazareth, this would probably have been held in a home) plus rare visits to the temple in Jerusalem.

After the temple was destroyed, the early Jewish Christians followed the synagogue model and also met in homes. Without hierarchical structures or special purpose buildings, the church was more “organic”, closer to the ordinary people, and more spontaneous and Spirit-led. There were no priests, no sacrifices and it probably took a while to develop rituals.

If we were starting again, we may take some of these values on board, as outlined below.

Denominations and unity

Paul speaks strongly against forming factions, and both he and Jesus stress the need for unity (John 17:22, 1 Corinthians 1:10-13). So rancorous doctrinal arguments and competition between churches would not be a feature of a new church. (Of course bad stuff happens, but if we were starting again, we’d be on our guard and deal with differences in a different way.)

This doesn’t mean there’d be no denominations. Churches may have different emphases or different missional aims. But a sense of unity should take precedence over glorying in difference and disagreement. Churches in an area would work together, with tolerance and acceptancewhile preserving core beliefs (Romans 14).

Careful about the need for buildings

Buildings consume money and time and may stifle change by fixing in place a location and style of meeting. House-based churches have lots of advantages. Renting buildings for larger gatherings may be more economic than owning if the facilities aren’t in consistent use.

Nevertheless, the new church would still likely need some larger buildings for locations where larger gatherings are preferable, for social work (aged care, welfare, etc) and perhaps for regional meetings where house-based churches come together. Multi-purpose buildings (e.g. school during the week, church at nights and weekends) may be a good way forward. But larger buildings would be utilitarian – it is hard to justify ornate buildings when people are going hungry and missions need more funding.

What would gatherings look like?

We can see some features of the way the early church gathered, but much of that may be what was appropriate in that time and may not be so appropriate in ours. But in 1 Corinthains 14 Paul does give a few principles:

• Everthing done must aim at building up the believers in faith (v12).
• Different people make contributions (a hymn, a teaching, a revelation, etc) according to the gifts they are given (v26-31).
• Everything must be orderly and appropriate (v40).

If we were starting again, we should surely take more notice of Paul here. Our regular gatherings (whether large church on Sunday or simple church in the home) wouldn’t be a performance, but more of a loving and orderly sharing between brothers and sisters. The Holy Spirit would be invited to speak to or through people, with appropriate discernment by elders.

The new church would be wary of sermonising. It is clear that long monologue talks are a very poor way of teaching and an even less effective means of spiritual transformation. Our brains are not structured to take in large slabs of information. Worse, sermons can become show-pieces and ways for keeping control.

In the new church, teaching would be much more by active self-learning, sharing, mentoring, discussion and short (10-15 minutes maximum) talks. Training and motivating members in self-learning allows the Holy Spirit to work in people’s lives so they mature rather than remain dependent on clergy to teach them.

I have a feeling that if we were starting again, our meetings would be less structured and sacred, more of a buzz.

What do you think?

I hope these ideas lead and assist you in thinking through the issues yourself. Read more at The church of the future?

I’d be very interested to hear any responses.

---

Weaknesses in the hypothetical

Like any hypothetical, this one is just a way to challenge ourselves to think afresh. I find it helpful, but it has its weaknesses.

• If we were truly starting again, there wouldn’t be a history of church abuses and hypocrasies. But in the real world, those things are major barriers to some people. In making strategies for the contemporary church, we cannot ignore that history.
• Many people, especially older ones, find it difficult to change things they are familiar with and are important to them. We cannot ignore these people’s needs, so making change would be more difficult than if we were starting for the first time.

Nevertheless, I hope this hypothetical has provoked useful reflection,

References

Sources of distinctives of the early church:

• 5 Features That Made the Early Church Unique. Tim Keller.
• Four Ways the Modern Church Looks Nothing Like the Early Church. Relevant.
• Lessons For Today’s Church From The Life Of The Early Church. J Warner Wallace.
• Church structures – historical influences. Catholic Identity.

Graphic: produced using NightCafe AI creator.

---

You may find these pages relevant