For 15 years, my success was measured by things like attendance, budgets, and buildings.
If the auditorium was full, we were a success. If the giving exceeded the mortgage, we were faithful. If we raised the capital campaign for a new building, God had blessed us.
Hi, I’m an American church pastor.
Beneath the surface of these measurements however, I was dying a slow spiritual death.
At church, I watched as good-hearted people slept in the pews. I cringed as good-hearted preachers spoke to congregants with glazed and uninterested looks – sometimes because the sermons were… uninteresting. I trembled as the culture tectonically shifted around us and we buried our heads in the sand.
I saw lots of spectators and not enough disciples.
I saw people who loved Jesus but were chained to the programs of the church. I saw people’s hearts stirred by God to serve and love the world around them, only to be stifled because it didn’t fit within the existing structures. I attended bickering board meetings and witnessed the weighty shackles of our budget produce a beast who required constant feeding in order to keep the lights on – ironically only twice a week.
Most importantly, I looked at the New Testament and saw a chasm between the life of the early church and our (albeit well intended) weekend productions.
Then I looked even closer… and I noticed that same chasm in me.
This was not why I started following Jesus.
Abandoning Outcomes
This is the story of how I stopped trying to “grow the church” and started trying to release the priesthood of all believers. It wasn’t an overnight pivot – in many ways it was a slow, agonizing, and beautiful death of my own ego.
The hardest part of this journey wasn’t changing our structures; it wasn’t convincing people they should be disciples on mission with Jesus; and it wasn’t the length of time the transition has taken – it was (and is) changing my metrics of success.
In our culture, we are addicted to up and to the right – bigger is better. We want more people, more programs, and if we are honest, in our weaker moments, more recognition.
When we began the transition toward becoming a decentralized microchurch network, we quickly realized that we were going to be required to abandon outcomes. In a decentralized network, you lose control. Or more accurately, you more easily recognize the illusions of control you thought you had all along. We plant and water, and we aim do so diligently and with integrity – but it is ultimately God that makes anything grow (1 Cor 3:7).
I had to ask myself: Am I okay with a church that is small, but does meaningful Kingdom work? Abandoning outcomes meant trading the mega for the meaningful – putting our hands to the plow of meaningful work and leaving the outcomes to God. It meant realizing that a group of three people meeting in a basement to care for a widowed neighbor, or a family of five singing about Jesus at a hospice facility as people took their final breath, was more “successful” than 500 people telling me I had preached a “good word” at a Sunday service and then going home and doing nothing about it.
This is a critical starting point. Our ego’s must be checked at the door, and we must begin by abandoning the outcomes of our work to the Lord.
Jesus calls – we must follow.
Creating a Calling Culture
In a traditional or prevailing church model, the pastor is often the “professional Christian.” The congregation pays the pastor to do the ministry they feel too busy or ill-equipped to do. So we have inadvertently created a consumer church culture where the laity sit and the clergy perform.
But I am convinced that Jesus is calling the priesthood of all believers to join Him in the work of renewing, restoring, and reconciling all things (Col 1:19-20; Eph 2:10).
In our transition from a traditional church to a microchurch network, we had to deconstruct the hierarchal expectations of the Christians and create a calling culture. When people asked, “Pastor, what’s the plan? What’s your vision?” I would reply with, “What is Jesus calling you to do in the world and how can I help you do that?”
This meant we had to shift our language. We stopped saying, “How can you help the church run its programs?” and started asking, “Where is God already at work in your life and the world around you – and how can we support you there?” We wanted to view every member, and for them to see themselves, as everyday missionaries in their context and zip code.
When people realized we weren’t just wanting them to be volunteers in the programs of the church – but rather were being called by God to partner with him in his mission in the world – several stepped up to lead small and vibrant communities of faith. Some of these people had never led anything in a church context before.
We were no longer recruiting people to keep programs running; we were commissioning people into the Missio Dei.
Microchurches are Not Mini Traditional Churches
Early on in our transition, I remember going to a microchurch gathering that I was not leading and crying as we sang, prayed, read Scripture, and shared vulnerably from our hearts. On the way home I told my wife, “I can’t remember the last time I felt like that at church.”
I had witnessed the beauty of the body of Christ. I was able to see Jesus in other people. I was able to worship – and not just work.
All along we have tried to avoid the mistake of “Honey, I shrunk the church.” Many times I meet pastors who think a microchurch is just a small group with a trendier name. I have seen pastors take their 90-minute Sunday service and shrink it down to a living room with a mini sermon, mini worship set, and a mini communion. And usually with the same mini participation as big church. But more awkward.
Microchurches are not mini big churches. Microchurches are meant to be environments where everyone participates and each believer filled by the Spirit of God edifying the group (1 Cor. 14:26). A microchurch is the church, not simply a subsidiary of a larger one.
A microchurch doesn’t need a stage; it needs a table. It doesn’t need a professional orator; it needs a facilitator. In a big church, you can hide. In a microchurch, it’s way harder. We have tried to lean into the strengths of the small: participation, intimacy, accountability, and agility.
Pacing and Surrendering Timelines
If you try to rush the transition from a traditional church setting into a decentralized movement, it will likely implode. And the larger and older the traditional church is, likely the longer it will take, and the harder it will be. Even though we were a small church, it still took us far longer to make the transition that I had anticipated. Thankfully God surrounded me with other wise people that helped the pace of change be manageable for everyone.
Going through the transition slower than I wanted was a great challenge. Not only did I have to surrender my timelines, but I also had to acknowledge where my preconceived timelines were coming from – and why I was in a hurry in the first place.
I had a vision of a network of 25 microchurches in two years; God wanted us to spend two years learning how to pray together and listen to him. I had a vision to send out Christians as everyday missionaries; God wanted us to deconstruct decades of consumer Christianity and reenvision the very heart of the gospel.
That kind of heart work doesn’t necessarily happen on our schedules.
Going slow allowed us to embrace change at deep levels. It allowed people to feel part of the process and that they weren’t just getting yo-yoed with the latest church trend. Slow pacing has allowed us to fail small. If a microchurch or new pastors struggled, we could pivot and learn without the consequences of large structures collapsing.
During this season, I was invited to recognize the fact that Jesus wasn’t often in a rush in his ministry – and confronted with the fact that I often was.
Ecclesial Minimums and Redefining Church
To make this leap, we had to reexamine our theological foundations. While this is extremely difficult, it is a vital task for anyone that would endeavor in this way. We had to ask: What is Church? What is our ecclesial minimum? What are our non-negotiable convictions for something to be called church, and why?
Does it need a building? Does it need staff? Does it need to be a 501(c)3? Does it need a fog machine?
I pray not.
As a team we studied and wrestled with the Scriptures and concluded that wherever the people of God work together under the lordship of Jesus, mature more into His likeness, and accomplish part of the mission of God in the world, they are the church. This required a willingness to shift theologically. We had to follow the truth of the Scriptures wherever they led us, even if it was away from our previous understandings or traditions.
Everyone who ventures in this way will have to cross theological bridges like these for themselves.
Plurality and Making Decisions Together
In the traditional prevailing church model, I basically functioned as the church “CEO.” Decisions were often made at the top and trickled down. It can be efficient, but it is also very dangerous – and lonely.
Christians often expect the pastor to have a vision and tell them how they can help execute it, but we wanted to operate in a different way – making decisions together. This meant establishing a team built on mutuality, plurality, humility, and deference.
This kind of environment can help protect from the cult of personality. In our day and age, we are well aware of the dangers of celebrity pastor fallout and above-the-law style leadership. But when leadership is shared, wisdom is multiplied. When multiple gifts are functioning together clothed in humility, the body thrives (1 Cor. 12:12-31). We found that by listening and inviting diverse voices from our micro church pastors – stay-at-home moms, engineers, teachers, retirees – we made better decisions than I ever would have alone.
Plurality takes longer. It’s messier. It requires more humility.
But it’s more beautiful – and better reflects Jesus.
New Metrics and Learning to Be Faithful
Today, we don’t look like a church in the way I used to define it. We look more like pockets of light scattered across the darkness, and act more like patches of salt melting away coldness of heart in the world. We simply want to be faithful to the Kingdom work that Jesus has called us to. I encourage you to do the same.
Sure, I may be less famous than I used to be, but I am less busy with the wrong things. I am less stressed and more at peace. And yes, I struggle with doubt and can want to turn back to my well-worn paths of old success metrics.
But I think I may be closer to Jesus than ever. And that’s why I started following Jesus in the first place.
To be clear, microchurches are not for everyone. No single church model or method is able to provide the best environment for every person to thrive spiritually. That is the beauty of the diversity of the body of Christ.
I believe the church of Jesus, in all its forms, can be used for his glory and purposes in the world. But after several years of being on this journey as a microchurch network, our leadership team sometimes muses about what we miss about big church, and whether we would ever see ourselves going back to it. Obviously, we want to be sensitive and obey whatever the Lord might call us to do. But at this stage, it is hard for us to envision going back.
Now that we have tasted and seen just how good microchurches can be.
Are You Being Called?
Microchurches may seem new, shiny, and novel to many – even though the concept is quite ancient. But these are the wrong reasons to do it. Don’t do microchurches because they are trendy. Don’t call the small groups in your traditional church microchurches because it’s faddy jargon.
The only right reason to do microchurches is because you have prayerfully discerned in community that it is what Jesus is calling you to do.
The rest is simple; obey.
Microchurch Questionnaire:
This calling questionnaire is designed to help you and your team begin discussing if a decentralized model is the right path for your next season.
Note: It may not be best to try to answer all these questions in one sitting. Perhaps start with a few that resonate and spend time on those first.
Assessing the Why
- The Call: Why might you want to move toward a decentralized model of microchurches? Do you believe Jesus is calling you to it? Why or why not?
- The Success Metric: If your Sunday attendance stayed the same for the next three years, or even decreased, but your members increased in becoming more like Christ and deeply engaged the world around them for Kingdom purposes, would you feel like you were successful? Why or why not?
- The Scattered Priesthood of All Believers: If your building closed and all your ministry programs stopped, how many of your members would continue meaningful Kingdom work in their context?
- The Control Factor: Are you afraid of people “doing church wrong” without your supervision, afraid of people “not doing church at all” because they are dependent on you, or afraid that people will feel they “can’t do church” without your permission?
Assessing the How
- The Leadership Ceiling: Is your current structure designed to produce spectators who support a few leaders, or leaders who support sent people?
- The Ecclesial Minimum: What are the non-negotiables that make a “church”? For example, if a group of five people meets for dinner, prays, and serves a neighbor, are you comfortable calling that church? Why or why not?
- The Resource Shift: What percentage of your resources are spent on the gathering versus the sending? Are you willing to flip that ratio? What would it take to do that?
Assessing the Cost
- The Ego Check: Are you and the staff okay with becoming less visible and less needed as the central figures of the community? Are you willing for people to leave because they do not share the vision or believe it is the right fit for them? Why or why not?
- The Pacing Test: Are you willing to spend the time it takes to retrain, deconstruct, and de-program, even if it looks like you’ve stalled or gone backwards? Why or why not?
- The Decision Matrix: Will you need to move from a hierarchical “senior pastor makes the call” culture, to a plurality of elders/leaders who share authority in humility? Why or why not? If so, what hurdles would you face?
- The Kingdom Impact: Considering your context’s greatest needs (loneliness, poverty, homelessness, addiction, etc.), is your current model an effective way to reach those people, or would a decentralized network be more effective? Why or why not?
