08/19/2026
NOT McDONALD’S
PART 6: WHEN DID THE CHURCH STOP LOOKING LIKE JESUS?
Remember WWJD, the acronym for “What Would Jesus Do”? One of the commenters in a previous article raised that exact question. He is right on target. I have been thinking about a question that may make some people uncomfortable: If Jesus walked into the average American church today, would He recognize what we have built in His name?
He would recognize the Bible. He would hear songs about Him and sermons preached from His words. He would see crosses on the walls and people gathering on Sunday mornings.
But would He recognize our priorities?
Would He find the poor being cared for? Would He find widows protected, sick people visited, lonely people welcomed and struggling families surrounded by help? Or would He find an institution that has become very good at attracting people to a building but not nearly as good at sharing life with them?
I am not suggesting that every church has lost its way. Many pastors and church members quietly serve people every day. They visit hospitals, provide meals, pay utility bills and stand beside families in crisis without seeking recognition. That work matters, and it should be honored.
But when we step back and look at the modern Church as a whole, it is hard to deny how far we have drifted from the simple, demanding example of Jesus and the early believers.
JESUS DID NOT SEPARATE THE
SPIRITUAL FROM THE PRACTICAL
Jesus preached repentance and eternal life, but He never treated people as souls without bodies.
He fed hungry people. He touched lepers. He healed the sick. He welcomed children. He restored people who had been rejected by polite society. He noticed grief, fear, loneliness and material need.
When thousands of people followed Him into a deserted place and became hungry, the disciples suggested sending them away to find food. Jesus gave them a very different answer: “You give them something to eat.”
That command still speaks to the Church.
Our usual response to need is often to send people somewhere else. We give them the number of a government agency, a paid staff member, a counselor, a nonprofit organization or a food pantry. Those resources can be valuable, and churches cannot solve every problem by themselves. But referring people elsewhere cannot become a substitute for caring about what happens to them.
JESUS DID NOT TELL HIS DISCIPLES TO FORM A COMMITTEE OR BUREACRACY TO STUDY HUNGER. HE TOLD THEM TO START WITH WHAT THEY HAD.
THE EARLY CHURCH TOOK CARE OF ITS OWN
The Church in Acts was not built around a weekly program. It was a community.The believers prayed together, ate together, learned together and carried one another’s burdens. People who had resources shared with people who did not. Some voluntarily sold property so that urgent needs could be met.
The Book of Acts says that there was not a needy person among them.
That does not mean poverty had disappeared from Jerusalem. It means the believers refused to watch a brother or sister suffer alone while others in the fellowship had the ability to help.
They did not simply give money to an organization and assume their responsibility had ended. They took responsibility for one another.
When some widows were being overlooked in the distribution of food, the apostles did not accuse them of complaining or creating division. They recognized the problem and changed the way the work was being handled.The complaints of overlooked people resulted in reform. It was not buried to protect the reputation of the leadership.
SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY,
THE INSTITUTION BECAME THE MISSION
Churches need organization. They need trustworthy leaders, budgets, buildings and plans. None of those things are wrong. A building can shelter important ministry, and a well-managed budget can support tremendous good.
The problem begins when the organization that was created to serve people starts using people to preserve itself.
A church can spend millions of dollars upgrading a campus while members struggle to pay rent. It can purchase new lighting and sound equipment while elderly members live in homes that need basic repairs. It can raise money for another building while families in the congregation face medical debt, eviction or hunger.
We can preach about emotional healing while offering no meaningful counseling. We can preach family values while exhausted single parents have no childcare or support. We can tell an unemployed person to trust God without helping that person write a résumé, learn a skill or meet someone who is hiring.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT REACHING THE WORLD WHILE FAILING TO NOTICE THE HURTING PERSON SITTING THREE ROWS AWAY.
At some point, we must ask whether the machinery of church has become more important than the people the machinery was supposed to serve.
WE MEASURE THE WRONG THINGS
Church leaders understandably pay attention to attendance, offerings, baptisms, membership and growth. Those numbers tell us something, but they do not tell us everything.
How many marriages were preserved?
How many people found work?
How many addictions were overcome?
How many elderly people received transportation or home repairs?
How many families avoided eviction?
How many people received affordable counseling?
How many abused women and children found safety?
How many young people found mentors before the streets found them?
Those numbers are harder to place on a presentation screen, but they may tell us far more about whether a church is healthy.
A SANCTUARY CAN BE FULL WHILE THE PEOPLE SITTING IN IT REMAIN LONELY.
A CHURCH BUDGET CAN GROW, WHILE SUFFERING INSIDE THE CONGREGATION GROWS WITH IT. AN ORGANIZATION CAN APPEAR SUCCESSFUL WHILE THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT IT ARE QUIETLY FALLING APART.
WE HAVE HIRED OTHER
PEOPLE TO CARE FOR US
Another change has taken place. Much of the work that once belonged to the whole body has been handed over to professionals.
Members give money. Staff members run programs. Outside organizations provide services. Everyone else attends the service and goes home.
That is not the picture of the Church Paul described. A body does not have a few working parts while everything else watches.
The abilities needed to change lives are already sitting in our pews.
The mechanic can help a struggling mother keep her car running. The contractor can repair a widow’s roof. The business owner can offer someone a job or an opportunity. The teacher can tutor a child. The nurse can help a family understand a medical diagnosis. The accountant can teach people how to manage money. The attorney can protect someone from being exploited.
The Church already possesses a tremendous storehouse of time, knowledge, tools, relationships and experience. We simply have not organized those resources around meeting the needs of people.
WE HAVE BECOME VERY GOOD AT ORGANIZING PEOPLE TO ATTEND AND TICKLE THEIR EARS. WE NEED TO LEARN AGAIN HOW TO ORGANIZE PEOPLE TO CARE.
FOLLOW THE MONEY
A church budget is more than a collection of numbers. It is a statement of priorities. If most of the money is spent on buildings, salaries, advertising, production and administration, while very little directly reaches people in need, the budget may be preaching a different message from the pulpit.
Pastors and church employees should be compensated fairly. Buildings must be maintained. Ministry costs money. The question is not whether churches should have expenses. The question is whether preserving and expanding the institution has become more important than serving the people for whom it exists.
Church and its overseeing institutional finances should also be open and understandable. Members should be able to see how much money is spent on administration, compensation, property, benevolence and direct ministry. Honest questions about money should not be treated as spiritual rebellion.
MONEY GIVEN IN THE NAME OF GOD SHOULD BE HANDLED WITH A LEVEL OF INTEGRITY THAT EXCEEDS WHAT WE EXPECT FROM ORDINARY BUSINESSES—NOT WITH LESS ACCOUNTABILITY BECAUSE THE ORGANIZATION IS RELIGIOUS.To drive the point home: could the Church of today survive intense scrutiny of the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) that regulates public companies and investments? I wonder.
WHAT REFORMATION COULD LOOK LIKE
It is easy to criticize the modern Church. The harder work is deciding what should take its place.
The answer is not to abandon the Church. It is to bring it back to its purpose.A reformed church would begin by knowing its people. Not just knowing their names or counting their attendance but understanding what is happening in their lives.
Who is about to lose a home? Who needs work? Who is caring for a sick parent and slowly burning out? Who cannot afford counseling? Who needs a ride to a medical appointment? Which single parent has not had a break in six months? Which elderly member has stopped attending because driving at night is no longer safe?Which family is supporting a loved one through mental illness and needs our patience and support?
A church that knows its people can begin to connect needs with resources.It could provide emergency help with rent, food, utilities and transportation. It could develop employment networks, vocational training and financial counseling. It could help elderly and disabled members with home maintenance. It could support caregivers, grieving families and people struggling with addiction.
It could create confidential ways for people to ask for help without being shamed or turned into a public project.
THESE THINGS SHOULD NOT BE BURIED UNDER A TAB MARKED “BENEVOLENCE.” THEY SHOULD BE AT THE CENTER OF WHAT THE CHURCH UNDERSTANDS ITSELF TO BE.
WE NEED ECONOMIC FELLOWSHIP AGAIN
The early Church understood something we have largely forgotten: spiritual fellowship should create material responsibility.
Modern churches could develop voluntary networks where members share equipment, provide transportation, exchange services, offer temporary housing and help one another find employment.
Imagine what would happen if every church maintained a confidential directory of skills and available resources.
A family loses its income. Within days, someone helps with the résumé, someone provides groceries, someone introduces the parent to an employer, and someone makes sure the children have transportation.
A widow’s air conditioner fails in the middle of summer. Instead of waiting for the problem to become an emergency, church members with the right skills and contacts step in.
A young couple is drowning in debt. Rather than waiting until their marriage collapses, experienced members help them build a budget and negotiate a way forward.
That looks more like the Church in Acts than another expensive Sunday production.
REFORM ALSO REQUIRES ACCOUNTABILITY
The Church cannot claim to care about people while protecting leaders who harm them.
It cannot preach truth while concealing misconduct. It cannot demand submission from members while refusing accountability for pastors, boards, districts and denominations.
Jesus showed remarkable tenderness toward broken people, but He spoke forcefully to religious leaders who burdened and exploited others. He overturned tables when sacred things were being misused.
Some disagreements should be handled privately. Not every personal offense belongs on social media. But public, repeated or institutional wrongdoing cannot always be quietly taken “behind the woodshed.”
When secrecy allows the same harm to continue, secrecy is no longer peacemaking. It is protection for the system.
ACCOUNTABILITY IS NOT AN ATTACK ON THE CHURCH. IT IS ONE OF THE WAYS THE CHURCH IS PRESERVED.
WE DO NOT NEED BETTER PUBLIC RELATIONS
The modern Church does not need a new slogan. It does not need another branding campaign explaining why people should trust it.
It needs repentance.
Repentance means turning around. It means moving money away from needless excess and toward human need.It means measuring success by changed lives instead of impressive facilities. It means restoring pastors to the role of servants rather than celebrities. It means giving ordinary believers the opportunity and responsibility to care for one another.
We do not need to imitate every cultural practice of the first century. The early Church had problems, too. Acts itself records conflict, prejudice, hypocrisy and administrative failure.
But the early believers had a vision worth recovering. They believed the Holy Spirit was creating a family in which truth was taught, meals were shared, needs were met and no one was abandoned.
BACK TO JESUS
The future of the Church will not be secured by becoming more polished, powerful or commercially sophisticated.
It will be secured by becoming more like Jesus.
Jesus did not measure people by what they could contribute to an institution. He measured leadership by their willingness to serve.
He did not avoid the sick, poor, rejected or emotionally tormented. He moved toward them.
The Church must move toward them again.
It should be the first place people turn when life falls apart—not because Christians have every answer, but because Christians refuse to let people suffer alone.
The Gospel should not only be preached from our pulpits. It should be visible in repaired homes, stocked refrigerators, restored families, protected children, relieved burdens and people who have discovered that they truly belong to one another.
That is the kind of Church Jesus began.
It is the kind of Church we desperately need again.
So what is next, “What Could Be?” – “Is It Time For Radical Reformation”?
______
Edward Roush, Jr., Dallas, Texas
An AG Preacher’s Kid
www.edwardroush.com
THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD IS NOT McDONALDS’S
PART 5: WHEN IS IT TIME FOR A CHURCH TO LEAVE THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD?
Let me begin by saying something that should be obvious: leaving a denomination is a serious matter.
A church shouldn’t leave because the pastor got mad at the superintendent, lost an argument or didn’t get invited to sit at the right table. It shouldn’t happen in secret, and it certainly shouldn’t be driven by one person’s ego.
There’s a lot of good in the Assemblies of God. Many were saved, baptized, called into ministry and taught the Bible in AG churches. The AG has built an impressive missions program and given pastors a place for fellowship, training and accountability. Those things matter.
I’m an AG pastor’s kid. This isn’t a denomination I know only from reading its bylaws. It’s part of my history.
But history isn’t ownership, and gratitude isn’t a lifetime contract.
A local church doesn’t exist to keep a denomination in business. It exists to preach the Gospel, make disciples, worship God, care for people and serve its community. Affiliation is valuable only as long as it helps the church do those things.
There can come a time when a church has to ask a hard question:
Is this relationship still helping us fulfill our calling, or are we now spending more time protecting the relationship than carrying out the mission?
STAYING SHOULD BE A CHOICE
The Assemblies of God describes its General Council affiliated churches as autonomous, self-governing and self-supporting.
Those words sound good, but they have to mean something in real life.
A church can’t be called autonomous simply because it pays its own bills. It isn’t meaningful autonomy if the congregation is independent while raising money, buying property and assuming debt, but suddenly subordinate when it makes a decision the district doesn’t like.
If the local church is truly self-governing, it must be free to examine whether AG affiliation is still right for it.
A church should stay because it believes in the relationship, benefits from it and wants to be part of it. It shouldn’t remain because its leaders are afraid of losing credentials, relationships or property.
If fear is the main thing holding the relationship together, something is already badly wrong.
WHAT IS THE CHURCH RECEIVING IN RETURN?
There’s nothing unspiritual about asking what value a denomination provides.
A local church gives the Assemblies of God more than its name on a report. It contributes money, missions support, statistics, attendance, credibility and participation. Its pastor places his or her credentials and ministry standing under district authority. The congregation accepts certain doctrinal and organizational requirements.
In return, the church may receive fellowship, training, credentials, missions administration, educational programs and help during pastoral transitions or times of crisis.
That can be a fair exchange.
But every church’s situation is different. A mature congregation may eventually find that most of its ministry relationships, training and accountability already exist outside the denomination. It may be carrying the full financial and operational burden of the church while receiving very little practical support from the district.
At some point, it’s fair to ask whether the relationship still makes sense.
A healthy denomination shouldn’t be offended by that question. It should be able to answer it by showing the church why the relationship remains valuable.
If the only answer is a warning about what the church will lose if it leaves, that tells us something.
ACCOUNTABILITY HAS TO WORK BOTH WAYS
One of the strongest arguments for denominational affiliation is accountability. No pastor should be allowed to build a private kingdom and answer to no one.
But accountability has to run in both directions.
A district can investigate a pastor, affect the pastor’s credentials and potentially damage the pastor’s livelihood and reputation. What happens when the district is the problem? Where does the pastor or local church go? Who conducts an independent investigation? Who reviews the conduct of district officials?
If the same people receive the complaint, investigate the complaint and decide whether the complaint has merit, that isn’t much of an appeal process.
Credentialing authority carries enormous power. A pastor who raises a legitimate concern may also be risking a career, retirement, friendships and the ability to continue ministering within the Fellowship.
That kind of power can encourage silence.
I’m not suggesting that every pastor facing discipline is being mistreated. Pastors fail. Some become dishonest, abusive or dictatorial. Churches need outside help when that happens.
But districts and denominational leaders can fail too. When they do, the people affected need more than a private meeting followed by an instruction to submit and remain quiet.
A system that holds pastors accountable but resists accountability for itself is not healthy.
PRIVATE MEETINGS DON’T ALWAYS FIX PUBLIC PROBLEMS
Whenever someone publicly challenges a religious institution, somebody will say the matter should have been handled privately.
Sometimes that’s true. Private conversations can resolve misunderstandings and repair relationships.
But a private process works only when the people involved are honest, reasonably equal in power and willing to correct the problem.
What happens when the problem is built into the institution itself?
A pastor goes into a private meeting alone. The district controls the room, the process, the records and the outcome. Nobody else knows what was said. Other pastors who may have experienced the same conduct remain isolated from one another.
The meeting ends, nothing changes, and everyone is told the matter has been “handled.”
That isn’t reconciliation. Sometimes it’s simply containment.
A church may reach a point where it has raised concerns respectfully, followed the proper channels and waited for a meaningful response, only to receive delay, dismissal or retaliation.
At that point, remaining may give credibility to a system the church no longer trusts.
THEN THERE’S THE PROPERTY
Property is where all the talk about autonomy gets tested.
The local congregation buys the land, signs the mortgage, raises the construction money, pays for repairs and creates the equity. Members give sacrificially because they want a church in their community.
Years later, the congregation may discover that a clause in its governing documents gives the district a claim to the property if the church leaves the AG.
That clause may have legal consequences. A church would be foolish to ignore it. But a clause can be legally significant and still raise serious questions about fairness.
If the district bought the land, guaranteed the debt or contributed substantial money under a clear agreement, then it has an investment to protect.
But if the district didn’t put money into the property, why should it receive the benefit of decades of local sacrifice?
Some say the clause protects donor intent. Maybe it does for a donor who expressly said, “This money is being given only for permanent Assemblies of God use.”
But did every donor say that? Did the grandmother who gave from her Social Security check intend to enrich a district office if her local congregation later changed affiliations? Or did she intend to help her church preach the Gospel and serve her neighbors?
We shouldn’t invent donor intent years after the gift was made.
If a denomination believes the local property ultimately belongs to the district, it should say so clearly before the first building-fund offering is collected. Every donor should understand the arrangement.
It shouldn’t take a threatened disaffiliation for the congregation to learn who supposedly owns the building.
SOMETIMES THE CHURCH HAS SIMPLY OUTGROWN THE RELATIONSHIP
Churches change. Communities change. What worked 30 years ago may not work today.
A congregation may now include people from many different church backgrounds. Its identity may no longer be primarily denominational. It may work closely with local ministries and churches outside the AG. Its training, outreach and accountability relationships may come from several places.
The church may still be listed as Assemblies of God mostly because it has always been Assemblies of God.
Tradition deserves respect, but “we’ve always done it this way” isn’t enough by itself.
A church needs to ask whether the AG label still honestly describes who it is, what it believes and where it’s going.
If it does, stay and strengthen the relationship.
If it doesn’t, an honest separation may be better than an affiliation that exists only on paper.
CONSCIENCE MATTERS
There may also come a point when church leaders can no longer defend the actions or policies of the denomination in good conscience.
The disagreement may involve doctrine, finances, disciplinary practices, governance, property or the treatment of pastors and congregations.
Not every disagreement is a reason to leave. Nobody gets complete agreement in any organization.
But there’s a difference between disagreeing with a policy and being asked to defend something you believe is wrong.
If continued affiliation requires leaders to remain silent about abuse, excuse unfair conduct or place institutional loyalty above truth, the church has a serious decision to make.
Christian unity doesn’t require pretending that everything is fine.
Sometimes leaving is less divisive than spending years living in a relationship built on distrust and fear.
LEAVING DOESN’T SOLVE EVERYTHING
A church should be honest about the risks of leaving.
Members may disagree. Some may leave the congregation. Longstanding friendships can be damaged. Missionaries may be affected. Pastors may face credentialing consequences. Staff benefits, insurance, loans and contracts may have to be replaced or renegotiated.
The church will also need a new accountability structure.
Becoming independent can sound appealing until the senior pastor realizes nobody has the authority to tell him no. A church should never leave denominational control only to become controlled by one personality.
If a church leaves, it needs strong bylaws, an independent board, financial controls, procedures for investigating misconduct and a real plan for pastoral succession.
There has to be somebody outside the pastor’s immediate circle who can speak honestly and intervene when necessary.
Leaving should produce better accountability, not less.
DON’T LEAVE JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE ANGRY
Anger can alert us to a problem, but it can’t be the plan for what comes next.
Before voting to leave, the congregation should know what it is moving toward.
Will the church become independent? Join another fellowship? Build a network with like-minded churches? How will ministers be trained and evaluated? Who will handle complaints against the senior pastor? How will doctrine be protected during a future leadership change?
If the only vision is “we won’t be under the district anymore,” the church isn’t ready.
The decision also cannot belong to the pastor alone. The members paid for the building, supported the ministry and built the congregation. They deserve complete information, enough time to consider it and a genuine vote.
A pastor should present the facts, including the strongest arguments for staying. If the pastor is afraid to let the congregation hear both sides, that is a warning sign of its own.
BEFORE ANYONE ANNOUNCES ANYTHING, READ THE DOCUMENTS
A church should not begin this process with a Facebook post or an emotional announcement from the pulpit.
It should begin with the paperwork.
Before anybody talks publicly about leaving, the church needs independent legal advice. Not the district’s lawyer and not simply the pastor’s friend. It needs an attorney who represents the local church.
That attorney should review the articles of incorporation, bylaws, deeds, mortgages, loan documents, donor restrictions, employment agreements, benefit plans and insurance policies.
The church also needs to know its current classification. Is it General Council affiliated or district affiliated? What do the national and district bylaws require? What notice and vote are necessary? Must district officials be invited to the meeting? Is there a reversionary or asset-distribution clause? Could discussing disaffiliation trigger an effort to place the church under district supervision?
Those questions need answers before the district receives notice that the church is considering departure.
That isn’t being sneaky. It’s the same kind of preparation any responsible board should undertake before making a decision affecting the church’s ministry, employees and property.
LEAVING THE AG ISN’T LEAVING CHRIST
This may be the most important point.
The Assemblies of God is part of the Church, but it is not the whole Church. It was organized in 1914. Christianity did not begin in Hot Springs, Arkansas, and the Kingdom of God is not administered from Springfield, Missouri.
A church can leave the Assemblies of God without leaving Pentecostal faith, abandoning missions or turning its back on Christ.
It is ending an institutional relationship—not renouncing the Gospel.
For many congregations, remaining in the AG will be the right decision. They value the fellowship, share its doctrine and believe the relationship strengthens their ministry.
Other churches may conclude that the relationship no longer works. The district may exercise more control than the value it provides. Accountability may flow in only one direction. Property may be used as leverage. Leaders may no longer be able to remain in good conscience.
When those conditions exist, staying isn’t automatically faithful and leaving isn’t automatically rebellious.
A healthy denomination should want churches to remain because they are valued, supported and convinced—not because they are afraid of what will happen if they go.
In the end, the question isn’t whether leaving will upset the district. It isn’t whether the church has always carried the AG name.
The question is whether continued affiliation helps that particular church do what God has called it to do.
If the answer is yes, stay.
If the answer is no, and the church has prayed, studied the documents, counted the cost and involved its members honestly, then leaving may be the most responsible thing it can do.
It may even be the faithful thing.
Edward Roush, Jr.
Dallas, Texas
An AG PK
www.edwardroush.com
THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD IS NOT McDONALD’S
Catch up on the series:
PART ONE
The AG Wants the Control of an Owner Without Making the Investment of One
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18yyRL6JgB/
PART TWO
McDonald’s Is More Than a Franchisor
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/193CNPHo6R/
PART THREE
A Franchisor Cannot Pretend to Be the Landlord
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CMYjMRrSR/
PART FOUR
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EU2e7UtLG/
EPLAINER VIDEO:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BpW2uvGq5/
