A few weeks ago, I wrote the first of what I anticipate to be several related entries on the nature of church.  I talked about two understandings of this word, one which is probably more common, and related to a specific, local entity called a church.  The other understanding is more nebulous - the Church is the body of all believers in Jesus Christ.  And I talked about how the purpose of any local Christian church is to facilitate and help it's members to membership in this latter, universal Church.

The problem, however, is that the very way that we conceive of a local entity called a church virtually ensures that the number one priority of that church will not be trying to increase or solidify membership in the church universal.  The church will say this is it's number one priority, and there will be many people (God willing!) who earnestly believe or desire this to be true.  But the brutal fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, the number one priority is that the church will be there the following day.  And the following week and month and year and decade. 

The number one priority of pretty much any church (I'm praying there are exceptions, and hoping you will point me to some!) is survival. 

There are some logical arguments about why this could be justified.  For example, if a local church weren't concerned about it's ongoing ministry, it could be argued it would be too insubstantial or ill-equipped to be sharing the Gospel effectively.  By ensuring that a church has staying power, it can be asserted that the church will continue to make an impact in people's lives.  Maybe that's a valid argument. 

But before we go into arguments about whether or not this is a good thing, we have to be honest enough to say that the primary preoccupation of a local church entity is self-preservation.  Once we admit this, we can move forward into thinking about what that means about how or what or why a church does what it does.  Some churches are well enough off that their survival is not necessarily the main issue on everyone's mind.  In many more churches, I suspect, this concern is near the top of everyone's mind who knows what's going on in the church.  We hate to say it.  We feel guilty saying it.  And yet there it is.  Whether you're planting a church or continuing a church, the number one issue to be dealt with is not the Gospel, but with self-preservation and that crucial critical mass of attendance figures or giving figures that reasonably cause you to assume that this church can continue operating for another set period of time.

Scripturally we are led to reasonably conclude that a church is going to have some staying power.  Paul spends a fair amount of time talking with people about how to do church.  1Corinthians 9-14 deals with many different issues related to how a church acts or what a church believes.  The second half of Galatians deals with how a church should act and believe, along with Ephesians 4-5 and the latter part of Colossians.  1Timothy 2-3 deals directly with church life.  And the very fact that Paul is able to write to groups of Christians in specific locations leads us to expect that a local church will have some permanence, some continuity of ministry.  And Scripture doesn't show us whether these first churches had self-preservation as their foremost goal or not.

I find it problematic that survival is the first goal of probably every church.  Does anyone else?