To a hammer, everything is a nail. Anyone using a hammer should be clear on what its purpose is; it drives nails. If you use it for something else, you'll probably break something. The church has a purpose, and when it operates within its God-given purpose, things will go well. But if we try to use it for some other purpose, or if we get its purpose wrong, bad things happen. So, what is the purpose of the local church? What is it for? These questions determine what you think your church ought to be doing.
I would say that this question has not been adequately considered. Now, many churches use slogans and mission statements to great effect; it's not as though we aren't thinking about purpose at all. However, I am not sure we are thinking about this question well. In my experience, too much is simply assumed without question. For most of my life, I assumed the purpose of a church was primarily evangelistic. Churches exist to reach the lost. Most of the Christians that I grew up around would have said something similar. It was simply assumed that churches are there to evangelize. I no longer share that conviction because a few nagging questions made me rethink my assumptions.
First, what do we do with people who convert? If someone places their faith in Christ, then what? Well, if the purpose of the church is to evangelize, it isn't clear what comes next. Is all that matters that they likewise go and evangelize? While I have never doubted that all Christians should share the gospel, I couldn't help but feel like there should be more to my life in the church than just evangelism. Second, imagine a hypothetical situation in which every single person on earth converts to Christianity. If the purpose of the church was mainly to evangelize, would we even need churches anymore? Now, of course, that will never happen before Christ returns, but that's not the point of the thought experiment. The point is that it made me uncomfortable to think that the local church would be obsolete without someone to evangelize. If everyone on earth was a believer, I would still want to go to church. Finally, if the local church's mission is to evangelize the lost, shouldn't we be scattering instead of gathering? There are surely better ways for it to do that than to gather a bunch of believers together in one place.
Now, who could object to churches spreading the gospel? I certainly would not! We are commanded to take the gospel to our neighbors. But questions like the ones above made me uncomfortable with certain aspects of church as I knew it. Many of the church services I was a part of had their climax in the altar call; everything was designed to get people down the aisle. Further, it was sometimes explicitly said that the services were not for believers, but unbelievers. I occasionally felt as though the preaching I heard at church assumed I was not a believer, which I found strange since most people are at church because they are believers. This wasn't how I always experienced church growing up, but I do remember feeling this way at times. If the church is all about reaching the lost, then perhaps we should regard this as normal. However, I kept feeling like there should be something more.
To cut to the chase, this is what I want to argue: the church gathering is primarily for believers, not unbelievers. The primary purpose of the gathered church is not evangelistic. Now, before we go further, let me be clear on what I am not saying. I am not saying that we need to be less evangelistic. I am not saying that we should not welcome lost people into worship or invite them to believe in Christ during worship. I think we should invite lost people to church and invite them to believe in Christ. Further, I think that each Christian has been commissioned by Christ to share the gospel. We need more evangelistic fervor, not less. All that I wish to say is that the local church body and its worship services are primarily for believers.
What is a church?
If we want to ask, "What is a church for?" we should first ask, "What is a church?" From my upbringing, I knew that a church was a local body of believers. Regardless of mission, as long as there are Christians, there will be churches. When someone gets saved, they ought to join a church. Christians are supposed to gather with other Christians as a church. Even if no one was left to evangelize, we would still be under a command to gather.
Hebrews 10:24-25 is perhaps the most famous passage that commands us to gather. It says, "And let us consider one another in order to provoke love and good works, not neglecting to gather together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging each other, and all the more as you see the day approaching." There are two things worth considering. First, the book of Hebrews is addressed to believers, not unbelievers. Second, the reason given for gathering in these verses is to provoke love and good works in other believers and to encourage one another. In other words, the gathering is for believers.
So, what is a local church? As a Baptist, I believe that a local church is a visible group of believers. It is visible because only those who profess faith in Christ and are baptized can be members. Membership is voluntary. In other words, a believer must willingly enter membership; they are not born a member or assigned membership because no one is born a believer. But not every group of believers is a local church. After all, if I meet once a week with 10 believing friends to go bowling, that isn't a church; that's just believers bowling. Believers bowling gather to bowl and just happen to believe, but a church is a group of people who gather because they believe. Because they believe in the Lord Jesus, they wish to worship him according to his commands to be built up in love and good works, as Hebrews 10 tells us.
When I read the New Testament epistles, it is abundantly clear to me that the apostles assumed they were writing to believers. Now, it is also clear that they were aware that some in the churches were not true believers. Indeed, we see calls for such people to be removed and read reports of those who defected. However, I don't see any suggestion that the apostles assumed that the church members reading their letters included those who were not baptized believers. They assumed that the church was made up of baptized-believing members. Now, in 1 Corinthians 14:13-24, Paul mentions a hypothetical outsider in the church meeting and instructs the church to speak and worship in a way that the unbeliever can understand and be convicted by. However, this outsider is an exception that proves the rule. He is welcomed, but he is not a church member. While it is assumed that such people may join the meeting, it is clear that they do not make up the majority of the people present. Further, Paul is warning against disorderly worship in which everyone shouts over each other in tongues. He doesn't want the members to appear out of their minds to outsiders. He is not saying that the service must revolve only or primarily around winning that lost person, though he does want to win that person.
Now, believers do not cease to be in the church when they leave for Sunday lunch. We remain members of the visible church, and we are charged to take the gospel with us wherever we go. We should be sharing the gospel all week. But when we gather together on Sundays, we gather with believers because we believe. While it is true that you and I and all who believe are the church, it is also true that we have a command to gather with other believers and have a meeting that we usually call, "church." That congregation is made up of believers joining together to honor the Lord.
The "What is a church?" question is now starting to bleed into the "What is a church for?" question. If a church is a body of believers, and if Christ instituted this gathering to build them up, then it is the business of the local church to do that first and foremost. This is very different from how I previously thought about church. Consider this example. Think about how you might organize an evangelistic crusade compared to a Bible study in which everyone attending is a believer. For the crusade, you would do all you can to get unbelievers to attend, and the event would be formatted to make sense to those who do not yet believe. You would not use Christian jargon or dwell on deep doctrines because you would be trying to communicate the gospel clearly and simply to people who do not understand it. The climax of the event would be a call for a decision — an altar call, in other words. The aim of the event would be to get lost people to profess faith in Christ. The Bible study would look different. While you would still want to communicate simply, you would not shy away from some jargon or deep doctrines. In fact, you would want to build a better understanding of such things in the group. Further, you would certainly call for the group to better trust and obey Christ, but you probably would not give an invitation to profess faith in Christ since the members of the group are presumably already Christians. There would also be an important difference in group dynamics. While there could certainly be friendships formed at the evangelistic rally, the camaraderie at the Bible study should be much greater, given that all the members share something important in common: faith in Christ. As you can see, what you think the group is (primarily unbelievers or believers) affects what you think the group is for and therefore what you do in the group. While a church is more than just a Bible study, it has more in common with the Bible study than with the crusade, primarily because it is made up of believers. And yet, we very often act in ways that are more like the crusade. I don't think this is a good thing, not because crusades are bad, but because it confuses what the church is and what it is for.
Problems and Pragmatism
It is sometimes suggested that worship should be tailored to the lost. Our services should be crafted to suit the understanding of a non-believer because the point is to win the lost. The two biggest problems with this are that it is out of step with what the New Testament describes (and that should be enough) and it is out of touch with reality in that the majority of people present are almost certainly believers.
But there are two more problems with assuming that the church meeting is for unbelievers. First, it is extremely questionable whether making the service primarily evangelistic has actually enhanced evangelism. It seems unwise, to me, to count on church services to win the lost, since the people who go to church services tend to be believers. While I don't know anyone who would say that we should only count on church services to evangelize, I am afraid that we have unintentionally fostered that attitude in practice. I am also afraid that we can unintentionally communicate that evangelism is for the professionals (ie, the pastor), and all we need to do is bring lost people to hear the preacher. Now, I don't want to suggest that we should not invite people to church, nor do I want to suggest that churches should care less about evangelism. Churches need to care more about evangelism. However, we need to recognize that evangelism is the mission of the whole church, meaning all the members of the church and not just pastors. If we want to reach our neighbors with the gospel, then we need to take the gospel to them rather than expecting them to come to us. Every believer must adopt the mindset of a missionary as she spends their week outside of church.
Second, if everything at church is communicated for the lost who do not understand the gospel, we risk stunting the growth of believers in our churches. At some point, believers need to be spoken to as believers. They need to be told how to live as believers. Further, they are commanded to worship God together. Scriptures like Hebrews 10 give believers the responsibility and privilege to gather together to worship their savior and be built up in the process. Not doing this creates shallow believers who are ill-equipped to share the gospel, which again hinders evangelism.
Hopefully, I have been clear that I am not suggesting that we need to be less evangelistic. We are not evangelistic enough. However, the answer to our evangelism problem is not crafting our worship services to cater to the lost. That is not what those services are for. I think that many well-meaning pastors and churches rightly want to reach the lost, but they have not thoroughly considered what the Bible says the church is and what God calls them to do in worship. If we think the Bible only cares that we are reaching the lost but not how we are reaching the lost nor how we spend Sunday morning, then we will find ourselves driven purely by pragmatic concerns. Whatever gets folks in the door and down the aisle is what we will be after.
We don't have to spend a long time on the internet to see churches putting on gaudy concerts or embarrassing skits and plays. All of that is born from good intentions. They want to reach people! However, regardless of intention, the result is that it makes the church a spectacle (and usually a cringe-worthy one at that) and it very often violates the biblical precepts for worship. Consider the many churches that have some form of a Hell House play. I've seen many of these dramas where various people die and are ushered into judgment and carried off into either Heaven or Hell. I've been in "Hell rooms" that had the heat cranked and the lights off for effect, while actors let out blood-curdling screams. In every one I've seen, Satan and his demons drag people to Hell and torture them, as though they rule Hell. Such a concept contradicts Scripture. Every pastor leading these churches ought to know that Hell is not Satan's throne, but his prison. He is not yet there but will be cast into it to be tormented for eternity. He and his demons are not in charge there and do not torment sinners. Further, where in the Scriptures do we see anything like these dramas used in evangelism? But, the reasoning goes, it gets people to Christ and that's what counts. But is that really so? Can we win people to Christ while we ignore his model and violate his precepts? Can we win people to the truth with lies? I don't doubt that some have been genuinely saved through these events. I thank God that he uses our flawed methods to save souls! However, I'd love to know how many of these so-called converts ever return to be baptized or join the church. I'd venture to say that the overwhelming majority are simply scared into saying a prayer in hopes of getting out of hell — not to follow Christ. These things should not be. I intend no judgment or ill will towards anyone who has been a part of these productions or the sorts of church services I have described. I think your intentions are great, and I applaud your heart win the lost. However, I am pleading with you to consider what Christ has called you to do, and whether your methods are consistent with his commands.
Doing Church by the Book
What is a better way forward? If we pay attention, the New Testament has much more to say about our gathering than we often give it credit for. If we read Acts 2:42, it says that the believers were devoted to the Apostle's teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer. Everywhere we see someone saved in Acts, they are quickly baptized. Throughout Acts and the letters, we see believers giving to support their pastors, missionaries, and needy members. Colossians 3:16 tells us to sing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Titus and 1 Timothy tell us that there are two officers in the church: pastors/elders and deacons. I could go on, but you get the idea. Some early Baptists put together a confession of faith called "An Orthodox Creed," and I like the way it describes the marks of a true church. A true church is where the Word of God is rightly preached, the sacraments administered according to Christ's commands, and where the church's discipline and government are rightly carried out by pastors appointed by God and elected by the church (Article XXX).
You may think these things are quite ordinary, and they are! That is good news! God does not need us to be spectacular! In fact, the growth of the church, in both numbers and depth, is not up to us anyway. He grants growth. And while we cannot make God do anything, God has promised to work through these ordinary things he has commanded. We should be focused on obedience. When we pray, sing, preach, give, baptize, and take communion, God is at work. Ordinary things become extraordinary in his hands when we do them by the book.
Back to the original question, what is a church for? The things I've described above are for believers. They keep us organized, worshipping in harmony, and growing in the Lord. Many of those things — like singing, feasting, and praying — will continue for eternity! For now, they are how God grows us. But this does not at all minimize Christ's command to take the gospel to the lost (Matt. 28:19-20). We need to be doing that! I am only suggesting that we don't limit our evangelism to one hour a week and that we honor what God says the gathering is and what it is for. I think that if we do that, we will become more effective in our evangelism. If churches begin to form more mature believers, those believers will be better motivated and equipped to take the gospel with them into their community. Further, when lost people do come to church, while they may not understand everything we say and do, they will see healthier bodies of believers and that God is at work among us.
It is ok to say that worship is for believers. That doesn't mean that unbelievers are unwelcome or that evangelism doesn't matter. We can and should invite lost people to believe at church! However, we should recognize that God has called his people to gather to form churches for worship. If we obey and remember to take the gospel with us where we go outside of church, our witness will not be lacking.
Comments