Church is a Family Business

I have heard that two equally common complaints sum up the frustrations of most pastors and church board members. The first is that the church is run too much like a business. The second is that the church isn't run enough like a business.

This is the era of the mega-church. There are endless growth gurus and "pastorpreneurs" who will teach church leaders the marketing and business skills they need to become the next Willow Creek, Saddleback, or Lakewood. The mega-church boom caught the eye of The Economist last month, which published a fascinating article called Jesus, CEO. Many consider this Baby Boomer-led phenomenon to be the future of the church.

Then there is the other cutting-edge church of young adults starting innovative small congregations, often called Emerging Churches. Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger recently published an excellent book on the movement called Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures. They identify three defining traits that Emergent congregations have in common, and one is "Living as Community." They show that some prominent Emergents intentionally use the concept of family as a metaphor, and most are repelled by using business metaphors to describe the church. In his book Revolution, George Barna suggests that twenty million Americans exhibit greater Christian religiosity than the average church member but have opted out of the traditional structures to form informal networks with fellow disciples.

The truth is you don't need to visit cutting-edge churches to see this debate played out. The tug-of-war between business and family metaphors plays out in countless traditional congregations. For instance, most large Presbyterian Churches I know operate according to highly programmatic business-oriented thinking. Many other Presbyterians I meet say they would never join these large congregations because they enjoy their small congregation's warm, friendly family nature. Of course, almost every church I have seen close could have had as their epitaph, "We were a warm, friendly family church." So, who is right in this debate? I would say both…and neither.

The New Testament uses several metaphors to describe churches, but by far, the most prevalent imagery is that of family. Jesus said his "mother, brothers, and sisters" were those who do God's will. Paul frequently wrote "brothers and sisters" to address the various churches. One of Paul's most powerful metaphors was the "household of God." "Aha!" says one faction in this debate. "See. We are supposed to be a family." But not so fast.

Until about 1885 in the United States, the average American household grew and manufactured more than 80% of what it consumed. The percentage of household production was this high or higher for most households in most places throughout history until the Twentieth Century. The forces of industrialization moved production out of the home to separate locations, and by 1915, American households produced less than 20% of what they consumed. I suspect that number is considerably lower now.

Households throughout most of history have been residences and places of business. This was true of the Roman household Paul uses as an image for the church. These households were sometimes large villas run by a paterfamilias, the head of the family. Adult children and their families might live there with free workers, servants, slaves, and their respective kin. Households were businesses that employed and united the whole household in a common enterprise.

The version of the family that developed in the Twentieth Century has become a unit of consumption, not production. Family has become the place we go to retreat from work and focus on each other. It is a place where we "fellowship" with each other apart from a chaotic world. This is not the family or household of which Paul wrote.

Robert Banks writes in his book Paul's Idea of Community: The Early Churches in Their Cultural Setting,

Though not a family designation, koinonia, frequently translated “fellowship,” occupies a large place in many popular discussions of Paul’s understanding of community. Paul uses the related adjectival noun koinonos a few times in the sense of partner in joint activity [34] and the verb koinoneo five times with the meaning either “having a share” in some external activity [35] or of “making a contribution” in a financial or other way  (Rom 12:13, Gal 6:6). Koinonia itself occurs some thirteen times but, as with these related terms, the sense is of participation in some common object or activity, e.g., participation in the Spirit, in someone’s faith, in Christ and his sufferings, in work of the gospel, in financial contribution [36] – not of the sharing of people concerned directly with each other. [37] (p. 57)

Certainly Christians do associate with one another in these activities and experiences, but in his use of koinonia, Paul’s emphasis is upon their participation alongside one another in such things, not in one another as the term fellowship suggests. Paul does talk about fellowship with one another in this more personal and intensive sense, but uses words other than koinonia to express it – as we are about to see.

[34] 1 Cor 10:18ff.; 2 Cor 1:7; 8:23; Phlm 17.
[35] Rom 15:27; Phil 4:15; Eph 5:11.
[36] Phil 2:1; 2 Cor 13:13; Phlm 6; Phil 3:10; 1 Cor 1:9; Phil 1:5; Gal 2:9; Rom 15:26.
[37] 1 Cor 10:14ff. (3 Times); 2 Cor 6:14; 8:4; 9:13.

A church is a family devoted to a business (or mission.) Lose either the family or business aspects, and you significantly distort Paul's metaphor for church.

Many large congregations seem to me to be in the business of offering religious products to consumers of religiosity. Some cater to a crowd drawn to an ornate worship atmosphere with exceptional classical music or masterful preaching. Some cater to people wanting a folksier environment with gospel and contemporary music. These churches usually have endless varieties of programs for consumers to choose from. Some programs are quite good and have a positive impact on the community. I see the mega-church phenomena as more of the same on steroids. I confess I am suspicious of the large church phenomena because, despite best efforts, current models create a consumer-oriented religiosity rather than creating a family business. It is conceivable that a large church could become a network of family businesses, but to date, that is rarely the case.

Many small dying mainline congregations I have worked with are deeply rooted in the family metaphor, but it is the family model of the Twentieth Century, not Paul's New Testament household. I was invited to speak to a declining church about growth a while back. I began my time by asking why they wanted to grow. After a long silence, a man remarked, "If we don't grow, our congregation will die." I politely responded, "Yes. You are probably right. But people die, and congregations die. What difference would it make?" There was an uncomfortably long silence before a woman remarked, "Well, we are such a friendly family, and we want to share with others." To which I responded, "But if you bring new people in aren't they going to have their preferences and problems to bring into the mix? Isn't that just going to mess up your cozy family environment? Why would you want to mess that up?" There was a long silence after that. Like so many others, this congregation had no vision of being anything other than a mutual support group and only wanted new people to keep their inward-focused support group alive.

Curiously, I hear some (by no means all) in Emergent circles articulate a vision that is about being a family/community without a mission. They are just going to "hang together" and focus on being a community with each other, and that will be so compelling that others will want to join in. It sounds like a postmodern version of the community navel gazing I see in the dying modernist traditional churches. I fear some in the movement are simply rebelling against the reviled corporation mentality of mega-churches without going back to the Word to ask what God revealed about the mission of the Church. Their answer too often becomes whatever the Mega-Churches aren't.

My understanding of the New Testament vision for the church is a family business. Koinonia comes from a band of people united in mission. Participation in that mission is what fosters and deepens relational connections, and that, in turn, drives us ever deeper into mission. Relationship and mission are completely intertwined. So, if you ask me whether the church is to be a business or a family, my answer would have to be, "Yes!"

Comments

[Denis Hancock]

As a "tax and spend 'liberal'" on the Mission Committee who is constantly having to deal with the "fiscal conservatives" on the Finance Committee, I appreciate your thoughts here.

It still sets my teeth on edge to hear "We simply HAVE to run this church like a business"

[Michael Kruse]

Hehehe! Been there. Done that. Got the T-Shirt. (A whole closet full as a matter of fact.)