Most of the New Testament, after the Gospels, was written about the church life of the first several generations of Christians. What prompted them to come together? Roman cities offered many hundreds of clubs and mystery cults to join, not unlike American cities today. Easiest to understand are the Jews already accustomed to synagogue life who accepted Jesus as the Messiah and moved on to a Christian house church (Acts 18: 7). They acted on conviction.
But Luke tells us there were many non-Jewish God-fearers, too. What
motivated them? They probably had the same kind of mixed motives found among church-goers today. Most gathered out of conviction. Others were probably neighbors who liked the fellowship. A few knew they could get a meal. Others sought the protection of the influential leader and enjoyed the status that went with this patronage.
We do know that in the earliest years, they regularly shared a meal during which they usually also remembered the Lord’s last supper. We know they were expected to help each other out because Paul scolded the Corinthians for not taking care of the hungry in their midst.
I am offering these descriptions to illustrate motives within the categories of classic motivational psychology.
People are motivated into action by opportunities to satisfy needs they see as basic to a better life. Christian churches in America used to be seen as such: a way to a better life. Increasingly many are now being ignored. What changed? Look for a shift in needs that motivate behaviors, especially for newer generations.
In motivation theory the basic categories of needs are as follows: first, needs to satisfy bodily requirements (like food and shelter), and then (in ascending order) for security, affiliation, status, and self-actualization. Needs already satisfied do not motivate much new behavior. Over the centuries, Christian churches, at one time or another, proved effective in satisfying all those kinds of needs.
Meeting bodily needs, the first generations pooled their resources to feed the widows in their community. In more recent times, medical missions have been a basic form of outreach in poorly developed countries.
Church life that satisfies the need for security is most evident among immigrants, who seek out opportunities for community and security with others of like mind and language. The Apostle Peter addressed his first letter to aliens living in strange lands and encouraged them to find their new home in the fellowships of the Christian house churches that were emerging.
Churches have always served as social centers. For my farm-raised parents, their village churches were the only social center available. In the 1950s, migrants from center cities to the suburbs sought out congregations to fill their personal social needs, and new churches blossomed. Millennials today think they satisfy that need through the use of social media. Most of them see churches as irrelevant.
The human need to feel different from and superior to others should not be a factor in church life. But, it is, and seeking higher status can be powerful in selecting a church. Early in the 20th century, Pentecostals were looked at as low-class “holy rollers.” But as they became more middle-class, they toned down their exuberance and became more accessible. I can recall discussions with Lutherans who congratulated themselves on being different from (and superior to) Baptists.
The fifth need is for self-actualization. What that means is hard to define in business motivation, but it should be clear for churches. We can focus on helping participants grow in the fruit of the Spirit and become closer to God.
Only churches that appeal to the need for self-actualization will do well in American culture in the future. Raised on evolutionary theory, many in the newest generations no longer know who they are and why they are here. Their suicide rate is rising. But the biblical Gospel will have to be presented more directly and winsomely in ways that call for a response.
Traditional church cultures developed to address basic needs that are no longer compelling for most Americans. But the need for love, joy, peace and hope do remain, especially today. To be effective, churches will need to focus more on engaging participants in behaviors that reflect these basics.
What about the need to be saved and not go to hell? What are examples in Acts of needs that the church met to go along with your article? Aren’t we missing the greatest need, which is to be saved from the punishment for our sin, and of being separated from God?
Thanks,
Matt
Yes, the need for eternal salvation in heaven remains basic. In previous centuries of Christendom heaven and hell were basic concerns of ordinary people. I don’t think that is a good starting point anymore. Nor do I think stressing sinful behavior is a good starting point, since the label of “sinful” does not connect much (as seen in the LGBT issue) My focus would be on living with the results of sinfulness in life, that is, the loneliness, fear, anxiety, purposelessness, high suicide rate. That’s the connection point for today for young generations. God’s Gospel is the grace of eternal redemption through Christ but also the grace of the the fruit of love, joy, peace and hope the Spirit works in our lives now.
Dave is reflecting Maslow’s needs hierarchy here. And while an interesting one, it has been challenged in terms of its generalization across cultures. Is this the same hierarchy order in different regions of the United States or Canada and Mexico? Are these reliable needs indicators, or are there actually others unique to a particular culture? Other motivation theories bring added dimensions that local ecclesia volunteer and professional staff need to take into account:
1. What is the weight or value that a person places on a particular need? From my experience as an organizational psychologist and ecclesiologist practitioner, local professional and volunteer ministers of mainline spiritual communities have little working knowledge of the different weights individual ecclesia place on unfulfilled needs. As a result, local churches continue to use a shotgun approach that is programmatic rather than appealing to individual needs. Research that I have done, using The Spiritual Vitality Inventory, has revealed that individual members of ecclesia experience loneliness and isolation in a body of Christians, especially in their efforts to grow spiritually. Yet, this need to belong, which appears to be particularly salient for Millennials, seems not to be addressed as they stand outside spiritual communities looking in.
2. A second ingredient of more recent motivation models is the weight people place on both the reward itself and the likelihood of obtaining it. Here is a very dramatic paradox for local ecclesia, especially regarding the absent Millennials. Even though Millennials report craving close, intimate membership in a community, they report not experiencing it within the local ecclesia. More importantly, because they place a high value on the members of the local community practicing what they believe, they withdraw from local ecclesia membership because Millennials observe the hypocritical, bifurcated lives of Christians. They observe ritualistic and religious practices on Sundays or at least hear about them on Monday when they observe the local church-goer behave in ways inconsistent with their proclaimed faiths in Jesus Christ. And they conclude: I want no part of a community and cannot experience the intimacy with others who are unreliable and inconsistent.
The last 10 to 15 years of descriptive research about mainline denominations local ecclesia has clearly pointed to the membership decline among GEN X, Y, Z, and the Millennials. In general, once they leave the local ecclesia for jobs, marriage or school, they do not re-join their home spiritual community or any other. Have they lived as social isolates within a local ecclesia for years without ever being enfolded into a spiritual incubator of committed disciples who are on the way? Who touched them individually to learn their unique and weighted needs? Who, among the ecclesia consistently practiced what Luther called “being little Jesus” behavior with them as spiritual mentors and directors on Sundays as well as on Mondays?
Thanks for joining the discussion, Jon. I am well aware that motivational psychology has new emphases. My choice of Maslow is because his hierarchy is simple and easy to understand. For me its function is to introduce the question of why and the simple point that there are needs beyond seeking eternal salvation. I am trying to bridge the gap between academic insights and practical application to ordinary Christians. The simpler the language the better. I very much like the developmental psychology of James Fowler, but it has had almost zero impact of ministry. Its stages are in dense academic jargon. I am very thankful to Valparaiso theologican Tom Droege for translating that stages in practical terms. I touched on that in blog 14, Growing into a Freee, Cherful, Glad and Loving Heart.
In regards to your first point, 1. What is the weight or value that a person places on a particular need?…
I would like to learn more about this Spiritual Vitality Inventory. Google does not raise up those particular terms. I have spent a lot of time looking for such a self inventory. Some focus on behavior, like going to church. I would be more interested in attitudes and experience of love, joy, peace, patience etc–the fruit of the Spirit. I fully agree the need out there surfaces as loneliness and isolation.
In regards to your second point, 2. A second ingredient of more recent motivation models is the weight people place on both the reward itself and the likelihood of obtaining it…
I fully agree that local congregations typically do not do “community of faith” very well. and their behavior usually does not reflect well their beliefs and values. A good start would be to talk about a congregation as a fellowship of the Holy Spirit, as does Paul. My focus is church culture, and how we have to fine-tune them to promote behaviors in greater alignment with beliefs and values. I learned a new term last week through comments from Philip Meinzen. Some congregations have “luster.” I would apply that to congregations whose behavior reflects their beliefs.
Good word. Thank you! An excellent resource for the growth of the early church is The Patient Ferment of the Early Church, by Alan Kreider.
Thanks for the reference. I also thank Amazon that they will deliver the book to me tomorrow.
I wonder about the next great awakening in our country. I know that the Holy Spirit convinces (convicts) the world about sin, righteousness, and judgment. (Jn 14-16) And the Holy Spirit also dwells with and in us, teaches, guides us, like an advocate or counselor.
Of course, St. Paul experienced the gifts of the Spirit, and the fruits of the Spirit that congregations were witnessing in the early church. While some still believe the H.S. was for that time and place, I believe the Holy Spirit is alive and well, active today.
I believe every generation desires, deeply longs for a close relationship with the Creator.
How can we get in touch with this movement of God today in our churches? Will we even notice in the Lutheran church, or any mainline church?
I’ve baptized two people recently – one on her death bed, who wasn’t sure if she had been baptized, but now wanted to. The other expressed the same but as a young adult who had been dabbling in Pagan religion. It sounds like the early church as David L. speaks to in his message.
So my question is, can we go back to the book of Acts, and read it so that the Holy Spirit will awaken and renew our hearts and minds to be the New People of God?
And, is there a good resource to help in that reading and discussion in the church today?
Praying for awakening and renewal, starting with me, a cynic about how such a movement and change can happen in our lives today.
I have fervently prayed for a fourth Great Awakening in my lifetime. I thought it was appearing in the Promise Keepers movement. It might still happen soon. I agree that people long for a close relationship with the biblical loving and grace-filled God we know. That is why I think developing closeness to God is a good target to offer. That happens only through the Spirit, so we need to get better at putting ourselves in the Spirit’s workplace–believers gathered around God’s word.
I prefer to concentrate on Paul’s understanding of the Spirit at work in his letters, as fully developed by Gordon Fee as God’s Empowering Presence. The best part of Acts is Luke’s focus on “being filled with the Holy Spirit” and a reflection of that in terms of boldness, or wisdom, or praise. We need to learn what to look for as evidence of the Spirit’s power today.
When I look back on my years as a middle school teacher this thing that we call “motivation” is a huge factor. If I could keep my students motivated teaching became incredibly easy. So the question is “how”? It doesn’t take long to figure out that if the student is convinced that his instructor really cares about him and considers him to be a lovable, capable, and valuable human, this student will try to apply himself and gain more recognition from this wonderful teacher.
It seems as if our churches have forgotten that Our God considers us to be lovable, capable, and valuable. And we, as members of the Body of Christ are guilty of failing to communicate this.
So my advice to promote church growth is quite simple. Do this. Be nice. Share what you have. If we keep trying to gain happiness we find that we are left empty and lonely. We may have gained some short term happiness but we do not have this thing called “satisfaction.” Satisfaction comes when the Holy Spirit convinces us that our God considers us lovable, capable, and valuable. This always remains when happiness fades away into nothingness. The early Christians lived lives that were just dripping with satisfaction and I am convinced that those around them said “I want some of this, I want a lot of this. I want to be lovable, capable and valuable.
Well said. The more I think about churches and consider responses, the more I think the basic topic is motivation for church life. In its New Testament form, it offers a quality of life simply not available without the loving God who sent his Son into this world. It is also revolved around the Spirit producing his fruit of love, joy faith, hope. peace.
A comment from David Wentz suggested the book The Patient Ferment of the Early Church by Alan Kreider, calling on the writings of Christians in the first several centuries. Those churches did not have evangelism campaigns. The relied on patient ferment, keywords for those writers. The ferment was the visible Spirit’s work among them. And they were long-suffering. Their quality of life attracted those who felt empty with normal life in the Roman Empire.
As Dr Jeff Kloha now at Museum of the Bible pointed out to us last week here in Colorado, we should also remember that the early Christians also faced doctrinal disputes, divisions, and external enemies to the faith as we do today. We are not alone in facing them, along with our own pride and sin, and should allow ourselves to be encouraged in the Holy Spirit as coworkers of theirs in the holy Gospel!
+ JD
Yes, Christian churches have always had their disputes, divisions and external enemies. But I think church history goes through cycles. Disputes fade into insignificance over several generations and defense against old heresies is no longer compelling. This is true especially in church bodies that don’t have a doctrinal reference point like the Lutheran Confessions. I recently read a Nazarene catechism that I could fully endorse. Even their sacrament of baptism included infants.
So, yes, “we should allow ourselves to be encouraged in the Holy Spirit as coworkers of theirs in the Holy Gospel!” I don’t know how that is going to work out, but it is happening through informal networks. I don’t see some formal organization emerging to work out a common confession. Congregations will find others of like mind about the Gospel and just network together in order to advance the Gospel.
I divide pastors in my denomination into Guardians and Missionaries. Guardians are necessary to keep focus on necessary truth. Of course, I am biased but I think Missionaries are more important for a denomination’s future. The boundaries around the necessary doctrinal substance can be drawn narrow or broad. I advocate narrow so we don’t confuse necessary truth with old church cultures.
David and others (Jon);
I think Dr. John has raised an important issue. “local churches continue to use a shotgun approach that is programmatic rather than appealing to individual needs.” As a gift planner and gift developer, I couldn’t agree more!
Jon’s notation, “The ‘Spiritual Vitality Inventory’ revealing that individual members experience loneliness and isolation especially in their efforts to grow spiritually, yet need to belong… seems not to be addressed as millennial people stand outside spiritual communities looking in,” seens obvious from demographic fading we experience. I too would like to see this Inventory if it can be shared. That, along with leadership who has stemmed the tide may really be an important dimension of the discussion.
Regarding the “weight people place on both the reward itself and the likelihood of obtaining it and the paradox it places on the church fellowships today” reminds me of what Mahatma Ghandi said about Christianity in his lifetime. As a young missionary kid in India I often wondered how could this be. An then I came to America and learned that the faith was not something that was on people’s frontlets routinely. Too much distraction in this world as David Lueke has aptley noted.
Our world has been influenced by an amalgamated worldviews made up of many religious and scientific influxes from the east and the west, from pagan, agnostic and atheistic perspectives where anemic Christianity has experienced subversion in the culture.
It seems to me, however, when people eat from the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ and succumb to the temptation to find ‘equality with God as something to be grasped,’ then each individual must either continue as God or come to a conviction that only the Law of God gives, that they can’t by their own merit or worthiness come to faith. When that occurs, then the Gospel will have its power to save. Satan’s dominion however, is ever prevalent in this realm.
A contextual question for both you is, “How can the body of believers increase the probability and propensity of the Spirit’s power recognized and experienced so they are perceived as the ‘Fellowship of the Spirit?”
You bring a special and necessary background to this discussion. I have corresponded with Jon Huegli, whom I know from years ago. As a church consultant, he emphasizes the authority of behavior scientists, which is helpful for some who don’t know its limits. But I learned from a Fuller colleague that if you want to change behavior you have to communicate with words people know. Otherwise, they will not engage with the message. For conservatives who accept the authority of Scriptures, communicating with biblical words is the best starting point.
I wrote to Jon that he is coming from the authority of behavioral science and I am coming from the authority of Scripture. I think we meet in the middle. The problem with the behavioral approach is that it describes the problem but does not propose a solution. I don’t think there is a solution other than tapping into the power of the Spirit. The supernatural Spirit does not compute for those who see only the natural world of human behavior.
An outstanding share! I’ve just forwarded
this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on this.
And he actually bought me dinner simply because I discovered
it for him… lol. So allow me to reword this….
Thank YOU for the meal!! But yeah, thanx for spending the time to
discuss this issue here on your site.
Thanks for the affirmation. Yes, we are dealing with serious issues that need recognition from church leaders today. Continue to spread the word.
I find myself late to this blog party but would like to contribute some thoughts based on experience.
Not to burst anybody’s bubble but church leadership has a tendency to speak too much. It matters little whether words are focused on behavioral sciences or biblical terminology. What’s easily discerned by most people attending (or not attending) church is whether their leaders are interested in knowing who they are as individuals who want to serve God more fully. Do leaders take the time to listen to those they lead? Have they built a relationship of trust, listening with an ear to understand their individual strengths and weaknesses enough to point them to Jesus?
Thirty years ago, while serving on staff at a large church, I met Jon Huegli. He was hired as a consultant to our growing congregation and met with individual staff members as part of that process. It was a critical turning point for me. I agree with David Lueke. Jon’s initial approach to gathering information regarding my job was focused on his considerable understanding of behavioral science. However, (this is where we apparently disagree) it also included a significant focus and challenge on the work of the Holy Spirit as I struggled to assess my role and future in ministry. Jon listened first, then recognizing the Word of God (using “biblical words”) as the ultimate authority, he used his knowledge of behavioral science and the work of the Holy Spirit, to move me in alignment with God’s Word. I still remember the significance of his prayer he shared with me on that day. God’s servant doing life-changing work.
Also David you are right about using words people know in hopes of changing behavior. I humbly admit to you, Jon had to dumb-down his extensive vocabulary to communicate with me. He adapted to my request with ease and a great sense of humor.
I agree. Words are limited in impact. Actions speak louder. It takes organizational skills to arrange relationships that impact others.
Glad to hear your affirmation of Jon Huegli. We knew each other years ago. After half a career of trying to apply behavioral insights and vocabulary to churches, I have concluded they have limited use in churches that have impact. I am glad that he talked about the Holy Spirit. The limit of behavior science is that it does not do with the supernatural interacting with humans. Organization behavior cannot come up with workable solutions for churches, beyond the obvious processes that apply to any social organization. I think there is a hunger “out there” for God and authority. I am impressed with how well community churches are reaching that need.