What is Missional? - Can a Mega Church Be Missional?
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Below is my contribution to Rick Meigs' Synchroblog - Rick thanks alot for pulling us all together today on this important topic!
-----------------------------------------------
It is really striking, these past couple years, how much the word "Missional" has taken a flight all its own. At times, the word has taken on qualities of being another niche kind of church, another approach, technique or strategy for doing church. Indeed, it has been strangely noticeable how "missional" has been a category of ministry presented at more than one mega-church conference. This concerns many of us who have used the word to describe a theology of the church. In a recent post of mine over at Out of Ur, there were comments which revealed just how confused the use of this word has become. The conversation generated over there suggested that many simply equate missional with being evangelistic Christians. I think both of these developments are a shame.
For me, I use the word to describe a specific theology of the church. This theology specifically a.) Sees the church as Trinitarian extension of the Missio Dei (mission is not a program of the church, it is the church) b.) Sees the church as the people of God driven to inhabit contexts incarnationally (as opposed to producing evangelistic strategies to get people to come into the church), and c.) Views salvation as a holistic reconciliation of the entire cosmos with God (as opposed to merely the penal satisfaction of God's justice, although this is certainly part of it!) -Christ's work recapitulates the undoing of all sin (personal, social, political, psychic etc.) until He comes. I consider the Gospel and Our Culture Network as the founders, with names like Roxburgh, Van Gelder, Guder, Hunsberger building on the work of Bosch and Newbigin. I consider Alan Roxburgh (again), Frost and Hirsch, Ed Stetzer, Martin Robinson, Dwight Smith and others to be key practitioners contributing to the furtherance of this movement.
All of the above is kind of basic and probably repeated many times over across this Synchroblog. So allow me to fill out a little more of what I think is essential missional theology/ecclesiology/missiology by answering this provocative question: Can a mega church be missional? As more and more mega-churches seek to organize and market "missonal" efforts in their own church contexts, I'd like to offer four reasons why mega-churches cannot be missional in the ways most of us on this Synchro blog are defining it.
FOUR REASONS WHY MEGA-CHURCHES CANNOT BE MISSIONAL
1.) Attractional Church Works Against Being Missional/Incarnational in almost every way. To be attactional means to center the church organization on your weekly gathering. Most resources time and money is put into making this gathering the centerpiece of ministry and the measurement of success. The attractional impulse is so magnetic that it pulls everyone and everything into its orbit. The church ends up attracting huge amounts of people from other church backgrounds and unchurched people who previously had Christian initiation but have since wandered away. And although there are many outreach activities, the church itself simply cannot be incarnational in the ways talked about by the missional authors. To be incarnational is to spend most of one's time and ministry outside the four walls of a church building, inhabiting a neighborhood learning who they are, what they do and where the spiritual/holistic needs are. Its rhythm contradicts the rhythm of an attractional church. For to organize and sustain a ministry of 3000 or more (1,000 or more) simply requires huge resources, organization, volunteers to keep the machine going.Now I must be quick to say, I believe the work of the mega-churches is valid and has its place in the Kingdom: the ministry to the dormant unchurched of Christendom. But for reasons stated above, the whole impulse of missional ecclesiology is radically different than mega-church. Do you agree wit me? that mega church is by nature contrary to the notions of missional church? What other reasons are there for why megachurch cannot go missional in the ways we're all trying to hold onto in this synchroblog?
2.) Mega church is not reproducible. It was Alan Hirsch who said if it is not reproducible it cannot be missional, for to be missional is to multiply again and again and again. The resources both in money and people required to start a mega church at this level (thirty years into the mega church's cycle) are simply so huge no one can expect to compete (of course none of us want to "compete"). And so the solution for mega's is to open up a satellite church with the best programming money can buy. But such churches cannot hope to exponentially reproduce, because it costs too much money.
3.) Mega church is inherently built on Christendom. It packages a service to speak a message that they assume can make sense to anonymous guests. Missional assumes the opposite - that people have no language or history by which to understand the words "Jesus is Lord." Therefore we must incarnate/embody the gospel for it to make sense. A packaged entertaining speaker/program every Sunday simply cannot do the job of communicating the gospel in post Christendom.
4.) Mega church tries to organize community among its thousands. It must inevitably offer a smorgasbord of "kinds of community" for parishioners to choose according to what best fits their lives. It cannot help but turn community into another program. Community is at the heart of missional. Yet it is a community of people deeply committed to pursue mission together in the neighborhoods. Alan Hirsch calls this communitas. This kind of community cannot be organized out of large groups of people through organizational structures. It must start on the ground, be organic and have strong leadership. This is nigh impossible in a mega church setting. It is intensely missional.
Other bloggers blogging on this synchroblog:
Posted by David Fitch | 8:53 PM
COMMENTS:
I think this is a helpful contrast. Some have said to me that mega-churches are missionally contextualized to the suburban middle-class culture. This is why I had to include the element of "countercultural" in my post on missional, as missionality, byt it's nature, also stands against aspects of culture that run contrary to God's nature and purposes. I am not saying that mega-churches run contrary to God, but rather that there is a limit based on the points you made above.
Great post.
Peace,
jamie
9:00 AM
I think this is one of the best definitions that I have ever read. It also makes me wish we had you at Asbury last year when our Theta Phi lectures were on "Mega-Churches." Thanks David.
5:57 AM
Does this mean that mega churches cannot be missional in their ecclesiology? If you do believe they have a purpose (to reach the unchurched in Christendom) than aren't they missional to some extent. For instance, your second point, (mission inhabits contexts incarnationally) don't mega-churches inhabit their context quite well? They are Christendom churches for a Christendom people.
Mike
www.watchinggravity.blogspot.com
6:38 AM
This is so important for the broader discussion because like it or not the mega-churches are still enormously popular and have basically defined what it means to be a Christian in this era, much as the old cathedrals did in centuries past. Not only for the 1000s who attend. The pastors of these churches get book deals and speaking gigs and have enormous influence in the many, many small churches and local pastors who seek to emulate their approaches.
Can mega-churches be missional? I think you're exactly right they cannot. Both because of how they use finances and also because how these churches structure their leadership into a hierarchy.
I wonder, though, if rather than looking at the broader structure we can do something about helping those within mega-churches be missional. Meaning, it's not really all that important where a person goes on a Sunday morning. If, however, they structure their lives with a holistic community, could missional people exist within a mega-church system? Using the mega-church for what it is and then deploying from there?
I am wondering this because I think there's a danger in alienating other models. You note such churches do have an important reach. The trouble is they reach broad but not deep. Finding a partnership in depth and breadth seems crucial--if very difficult to pull off.
7:59 AM
I think all of these comments point to the sometimes confusing element in missional thought that says "missiology precedes ecclesiology." In other words we contextualize, contextualize in order to organize ... and therefore isn't that what mega churches are doing - therefore aren't they missional? To me this is the danger, a danger I've debated my friend Alan Hirsch on a little bit. For to contextualize into the consumerist culture of Americana is to in essence give up the gospel.
The way I see it ... missional theology pushes for an wholly different form of contextualization, better termed "incarnation." We in essence must inhabit a culture communally as a people, where we in essence resist and engage and adopt(redeem) certain parts of culture. We in essence are "continually converting" (Guder) ourselves into a gospel culture born out of our inhabitation. In this way, missiology is ecclesiology and vice versa as opposed to precedes ecclesiology.
All this to say, this is where the mega church fails. As a whole, I would say "missional church" calls evangelicalism into less "contextualization" of a detached conceptual message and more "incarnation" of an embodied gospel.
Paddy o. .. your question is important. I think the mega church faces an enormous uphill battle to become missional in the sense described by this synchroblog. But it can be done - I"ve seen it .. My experience is that the mega - pastors almost have to become subversve using tactics that subversively use the larger structure to carry out a mission which goes aganst the very machine they have created.
Blessings all .. what a great conversation.
8:52 AM
one of the great things about the emerging church is that it is a prophetic voice to the Universal Church. I think the fadification of the word missional reflects that at least some are listening and are being involved in the dialogue. Let's not tweak this word to make it mutually exclusive with "big-box" churches unless they are impossibly wrong. Actually the largest churches in thew world (not necessarily US) are missional by anyone's definition. Sure many will continue what they are doing and just throw the word around.
Can you be missional without being liturgical?
9:42 AM
Don't many mega-churches start satellite campuses and what are essentially franchises of the mother church? We may not like the manner in which they reproduce, but they do reproduce, the same way Walmarts and Subways do.
And though I'm not a fan of the megachurch ethos, aren't they in some way inhabiting the culture of American suburbia, which is filled with big box superstores with flashy signs and marketing gimmicks? How is this not in some way incarnational?
Let me say again, and more bluntly: I don't like megachurches. But can we really say that they CAN'T be missional?
8:28 PM
Nate...to/on your thoughts/questions...isn't that why Jamie Aprin-Ricci added "counter cultural" to his list? I mean...i'm not an expert...i'm just sayin'. And I can see why in that case Jamie would do that, too. I mean you can't incarnate into the Devil and be missional :) "Wal-mart is the Devil," to borrow from Billy Madison's mom (she was an excellent theologian, I know :))
4:36 AM
David, thank you for your thoughtful post. I think I can now safely say that I am not "missional" in the way you describe. I refuse to join this new tribe though I do fit within most of its basic descriptives. I believe strongly in incarnational ministry but see that it happens in so many ways, even in the mega churches.
Your first point forgets that many of the incarnational moments in the mega church do not concern pastors but the people who are sent out from those churches. It seems that when we look at the mega church from the perspective of a "missional" the obvious differences overwhelm us and we lose sight of some very important things. Most of the megas that I know have some very dynamic incarnational ministries, some of which the pastoral staff have little knowledge of or control over. And often these missional ministries are enhanced by the mega brand.
Second, the megas often can be reproducible, there are areas of the country, mostly in fast growing communities where the megas are reproducing quite rapidly, check out Phoenix for one. Yes, it is hard to reproduce mega in established communities but it does happen. My prayers are that instead of drawing battle lines with megas we can enter into the kind of dialogs and co-missions that will enhance all types and sizes of doctrinally sound churches that grow the kingdom of God. Picking fights with the megas and defining them out of missional by only allowing your definition to be used seems to be a way of limiting Kingdom of God growth.
Your third point is true, but we need both types of churches, maybe within the same building and possibly reach out incarnationally in multiple ways to the "post Christian" (a statement that I think is a bit overstated) world in America.
Your fourth point I think has already been dealt with in my post.
Finally, your statement, "I believe the work of the mega-churches is valid and has its place in the Kingdom: the ministry to the dormant unchurched of Christendom." seems a slight bit condescending to both the work of the megas and the dormant people that they are trying to reach.
So I sadly renounce my ethereal membership in the missional movement, you can read a simple statement concerning this on my anonymous and poorly read blog. I choose a much larger definition of missional than the narrow theological definition you have developed.
walking with Him,
"anicius"
10:05 AM
Dave,
I'm tempted to respond thoroughly to the issues you've raised, but if I did, I would be unloading an inordinately large amount of discourse on you, which would be inconsiderate of you and your readers. LOVE blogging, but this is a bigger issue than little blurb comments can handle. How about a roundtable at LOTV? I'd be there... and I'd be loaded with questions as well as observations from my own missional-incarnational endeavors as well as my mega church experience. Might even be able to rally some mega church leaders to attend. Email me if you'd be interested in doing something like this sometime this summer.
Grace,
Matt
5:24 PM
lol..."the mega brand".
and anicius...how would it be concievable or possible to have both kinds of churches in the same building? did you read the post?
and oh man i'd love to hear about such a "roundtable" discussion in the after-math :)
4:48 AM
Dave,
Thought provoking post. To play devils advocate though, are mini churches so much more reproducable? I think an argument could be made that many are not.
6:11 AM
anicius ...
you and I disagree ... as to how generous and affirming we should be as Christians towards mega-church structure. and so ...
beloved ... I'm more than willing to have a conversation, dare I say a gracious debate over this question ... at LOTV ... although I can't organize it right now. So I invite you to e-mail me or give me your e-mail .. and let's talk ...
Blessings DF (fitchest@gmail.com).
10:22 AM
Yes David, I think we do disagree "as to how generous and affirming we should be as Christians towards mega-church structure." My sense is that we should be generous and affirming to any church that is truly growing the kingdom of God. I think that there are many mega churches that do that and don't fall into your four traps. I think there are also many missional and emergent churches that are as caught up in their appearances and programs just like the megas. They are into themselves and their identity as the megas. This was never quite so evident as when I attended the first combined Emergent and Pastor's Convention in San Diego quite a few years ago and heard Dallas Willard tell the Emergent group that if Emergent was all about being a movement and having its own forms of worship (programs) all they would have in 50 years was the First Emergent Church of Pasadena.
And Jason, I did read David's post, I wonder if you read mine. I actually do believe that missional movements can and do occur in the mega structures, often without the guidance and/or knowledge of the staffs of those churches. I did it for about 5 years, creating a very missional community within a very large church. And don't you think that there is as much "branding" going on in the missional and emergent movements as in the church growth and mega movements?
For me to reclaim the mission is to focus on growing the kingdom of God through true and significant relationships, with God and each other. The main focus should be on the kingdom of God and not a church or movement.
So I will be generous and affirming to your church which seems to offer a great model and vision from the missional side and generous and generous and affirming to Rock Creek Church in the Phoenix area which offers a great model for a mega.
4:47 PM
Yo, me again. Totally different question, but I'd like to challenge us all to think a bit more carefully about the term "missional." I think we all agree that being "missional" is only as good as it is biblical, i.e. as the Bible defines what it means to be missional. It's God's mission, so he defines it, hence our use of the term missio Dei. But I want to take us to task on that term, because it has been perverted as much as the missional term, and it is the foundation of what it means to be missional.
Too often we get sidetracked the second the Trinitarian nature of the missio Dei is introduced into the conversation. "The Trinity is all about relationships and community," we say. And we're partially right. But it's not all about community, which is where we go wrong. God sends Jesus; Jesus sends apostles; God sends the Spirit to the Church; God sends the Church to the nations. This, not "community" in some vague sense, is what missional means. Now, authentic community is one necessary means to the end of God's mission, as well as a fruit of the mission's success. But it's not, as our friend Pernell said a year or so ago at his visit to LOTV, "what it's all about."
7:54 PM
Beloved,
I agree with your question and point. We need to focus on what it truly is all about...
8:36 PM
anicius ...
I'm seriously not trying to get into a fight here .. but don't you think you by pass the issues I pinpoint by saying theer is exceptions ... and that my points are wrong. Condescending? What about when you say "we should be generous and affirming to any church that is truly growing the kingdom of God." Do you think that I or anyone folower of Christ would disagree with you?
Yet I have put out some careful criticisms as to why mega church structures thwart the kingdom. Indeed I have written extensively on it. Yet in amidst all of that, I too have said and know mega churhes that have somehow carried off missional-ness out of their churches. Yet they have done it in a way subversive to the very mega church they serve.
So what about the substance of what I was saying? What about the four issues I have pinpointed? Missional is about formation, which is why I appreciate Dallas Willard so much. How does the emergent criticism apply to the issues I am raising here. Since you've visited the bog here 3 times, I think I'd like to hear more from you focused on the actual substance of the post - not attacking me for "drawing lines."
Is this fair?
10:06 PM
anticius,
i giggled about your use of the phrase "mega brand". then you asked me if emergent churches don't do as much "branding" as the megas. i'm not sure if this was supposed to justify your use of the term "branding" in relation to a church or the actual branding that occurs in/of churches. either way, the way i understand language...it proclaims...it has power of life and destruction (to in a sense bring things into existence and take them out of existence)...i myself would avoid the use of the term almost entirely, unless i was trying to kill it. so i'm not sure what you were asking me but that's what i'm saying. i'd rather not harp on that too much, though, since its only indirectly related to the post.
and if you truly had something missional going on in a mega church for five years, then i guess maybe that was an example of one of the exceptions that fitch was talking about? that said...that's still different from having two different churches - one "missional" (in the fitch sense discussed here) and one mega - meeting in the same building...which whether i interpreted your first comment correctly or not, was the image i got from it.
lazer,
jason
10:53 AM
David, sorry to frustrate you. I have been reading your blog since last December or so and did post without a blogger name a couple of times until I set up my blog. I have truly appreciated much of what you have said and have learned a great deal and been encouraged. And no, the reason I wrote "we should be generous and affirming to any church that is truly growing the kingdom of God" was because I assumed that no follower of Christ would disagree. I didn't assume you would, sorry if it came across that way.
I do like to look at the exceptions when I look at churches in America because as I look around at churches it is the exceptions that are being exceptional, no matter the category. Your blog is helpful to me when it does point out the specific ways that your church is working to reach out to the community or encourage leaders to be missional in action and not simply in name. You do that quite often and quite well.
I simply get tired of church wars and one of my buttons is when people make statements as strong as "FOUR REASONS WHY MEGA-CHURCHES CANNOT BE MISSIONAL". That statement is probably the substance that I most disagree with. Yes you have some great points but I have seen many large organizations, whether Christian or secular, reach incarnationally into communities in incredible ways. Those larger organizations focus on personal relationships that their members or workers develop. I think that both types of churches have much to offer each other and am sad that so little is offered. Megas can and should be developing missional communities through church planting and within the context of the larger church and missional churches have much wisdom to offer as to how to do that. So I guess I just dislike the polarization.
Sorry if I have caused you frustration. I hope that I can continue to be part of the dialog, but if not, peace be with you.
1:33 PM
Dave,
I'm interested in your definition of missional since that word is used at LOV a lot. In your first point you say: "To be attactional means to center the church organization on your weekly gathering. Most resources time and money is put into making this gathering the centerpiece of ministry and the measurement of success." "To be incarnational is to spend most of one's time and ministry outside the four walls of a church building, inhabiting a neighborhood learning who they are, what they do and where the spiritual/holistic needs are. Its rhythm contradicts the rhythm of an attractional church." I gather attractional is not missional. If this is true, why do we have Sunday service? It seems as though most of the church's resources (time and money) are spent having a Sunday service. I don't understand how a Sunday service can be anything but attractional. Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by incarnational. Maybe you can point me to some reading material that uses an average person's vocabulary.
4:40 PM
Just as many people seem to have no language or framework for understanding the words "Jesus is Lord," I find that many in the missional/emergent side of the church seem to have no language or framework for understanding the words "abortion is murder": what other reason could they have for supporting for president a candidate who fervently believes and actively supports the murder of real, actual, innocent babies at the rate of over a million a year? Perhaps if abortionists used guns, some of these so-called "Christians" might actually begin to give a damn for once.
4:50 PM
Guess no one's interested in talking about what "missional" actually means...
5:12 PM
Whoops! That's my "dummy account", i.e. the one linked to my gmail account. Don't know why the heck I couldn't use my former blogger account for my new email address. I digress...
5:13 PM
Dave,
Would it be OK for me to comment on each of the four reasons separately?
Reason 1: Attractional works against missional.
First, I would challenge your equation of missional with incarnational, in lieu of my earlier point re: the nature of "missionality". They're linked, but not synonymous. Aside from that point, it's important to note that Scripture itself uses the term ekklesia to refer primarily to the Body gathered, for corporate worship, that is. The "attraction" is not the mere outward expression, but the substance of what—that is, Who—is being worshipped. In other words, contrary to popular "missional" thinking, the central and defining character of a "church" is the weekly gathering. Not only should it be, it simply is. It's what 99% of people identify as church... because it's what church has always been, ever since Pentecost. No offense, but LOTV's worship service is its primary attraction. Granted, it's representative of a higher goal, i.e. genuine, individual and corporate, Christian formation. But it's still "the hook" that draws people in to hear your message. Maybe that's an inadvertent result (as in the case with my church which considers itself "seeker-hostile", yet continues to grow by leaps and bounds).
Have to go back to the issue of being missional. You criticized those who cast mission primarily in terms of evangelism, which is good. However, one cannot be missional and not evangelistic, i.e. obsessed with proclaiming the Good News to the lost (which is the biblical definition of evangelism... verbal proclamation). It is possible to be evangelistic and not missional? Yes, though not effective on the whole. But missional and not thoroughly evangelistic? No, not a bit. Redemption is the goal. Conversion is the starting line. Our job as missional disciples is to help get people to the starting line and then onto maturity and missionality.
5:43 PM
maria - you said: I don't understand how a Sunday service can be anything but attractional. Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by incarnational. Maybe you can point me to some reading material that uses an average person's vocabulary.
david fitch can most certainly help out with reading sources more than i...but let me see if i can fill in a small bit of background for you. i think if you start to compare the idea of what fitch has in mind for a sunday gathering of a missional church to the sunday gathering of what he is referring to as a more "attractional" model...in actual practice, then that would help. you probably already know what i'm talking about.
you know, the "attractional ones" send out neighborhood surveys, they acually spend a bunch of money on marketing campaigns to actually attract a certain "niche audience", the primary thrust of the service is that of a "show"...in fact that compared wtih the "niche audience" thing makes is much like a TV show...or worse a Modonna video. of course a certain age group wants to go to the "attractional" churches just as of course they want to see madonna half naked girating on stage. its the bells and whistles and flashing lights and loud blaring emotion producing sounds.
the idea of a sunday gathering that fitch has in mind specifically DOES NOT do those things listed above (and more), and specifically it DOES do other things in a much different way. but it doesn't arouse the same things in the "audience", and in fact is often meant, through liturgy, to be much more "participatory"...rather than a big spectacle, which by definition separates show from viewer...liturgy is "the work of the people." i suspect that the gathering of a more "missional" church, as fitch is using the term, would also be a bit quiter...not quite to the extreme of a Taize mass, probably, but think of that in comparison to the rock concert atmosphere of many churches and you get the point.
now also fitch made reference in his post to a particular theology...talk to him on that stuff. but i hope i was helpful in asnwering your question. thanks,
jason
7:55 PM
Thanks Jason.
Maybe I'm stuck on the vocabulary usage. The description of the "attractional churches" you give reminds me of manipulation. And I agree that when the focus is on numbers instead of maturity, the focus is misplaced. However, I don't see that focus as something that necessarily has to be a part of the megachurch paradigm. I was always of the impression that the way we are to live our lives in Christ was by its very nature attractional.
I'm very curious about the critique about this attractional vs. incarnational distinction particularly because it seems to me that so much of the leaderships' time at LOV revolves around the Sunday morning worship.
I'm not sure how that can be avoided. If you want to get a bunch of people together to worship God, it's going to take a lot of work by somebody. And the more people getting together, the more work is required.
Personally, I'd really like to see the pastors spending more time outside the four walls of church. Let people gifted with organization plan the worship, they might grow spiritually in the process.
8:40 PM
Maria,
You're welcome...glad I could help a little with the vocabulary thing. I think what you are thinking of as "attractional" Fitch would think of as "salt and light" (but I'm not him, so I'm not sure). But...and again I'm guessing...I think the reason would be a qeustion of the source of our language...in postmodern lingo "what text are we reading/writing?" But I could be wrong on that one..."salt and light" has sort of become a bit cliche itself, lol.
shalom,
jason
4:52 AM
Jason,
You highlighted something enormously important, and pivotal to this discussion—the fact that, just as with so many other terms (e.g. missional), the term "attractional" is used variously by different people. The only place I've heard the term used prior to this blog post (I'm revealing my ignorance here) was a Shapevine interview of Darrin Patrick of Journey Church in St. Louis, and he's far from "seeker-driven". What you and Dave are describing—the target marketing approach to 'church growth'—is more aptly (and clearly) labeled "seeker driven." It's an old term now, but it still gets the job done. People like D. P. are using "attractional" to distance themselves from the seeker-driven/marketing scheme crowd, while emphasizing the primacy of the weekly gathering in the life of the local church. We all recognize the need to read the words of biblical authors in context (ok, the thinking among us do). We ought to give pastor-thinkers the same respect and go out of our way to avoid redefining terms (terms are redefined by usage, just as they are defined by usage... basic linguistics) and formulating broad generalizations (not accusing you of doing so).
So what I'm saying is... we should drop the term "attractional" as a byword for "seeker-driven" or "market-driven" or even "seeker-sensitive". We've jacked "missional" all up. Let's spare ourselves the anguished of butchering this one as well.
;-)
Grace,
matt
5:22 PM
David,
I was just wondering if you would view cathedrals as "mega-churches." Warning: this is a trick question!
My point, to be up front, is that the Church as a whole takes different forms in different situations. Overall, the Church must be missional, but can the Church include both cathedrals and also monastic orders? And can contemplative orders co-exist peacefully alongside missionary orders? Can all recognize themselves as part of God's one Church? I ask because in Roman Catholicism they do, while in Protestantism it is as if the Franciscans think the bishops and the parish structure are of the devil and the Jesuits think the cloistered orders are suspect as the the genuineness of their faith. And as for the mystics, well they are just beyond the pale for everyone else. Shouldn't this discussion be conducted more along the lines of "calling" rather than which structures are "right" and which are "wrong?"
9:14 AM
So maybe as the person on the outside I will ask again the question that "beloved" asked, David and the rest of you, "what is missional?" in your own words and experience.
7:21 PM
Are opinion and experience the stick by which we measure missionality? I'll be shocked if, after the holiday weekend passes, no one engages me in the conversation of what it means to be missional, biblically speaking... since that is ultimately (and literally) at the crux of this conversation.
5:23 PM
matt...gotcha on not accusing me of generaliing. as for not wanting to butcher "attractional"...well i'm not a fan of butchering words in general, lol...but i have no special kinship to "attractional"...sorry to say...other than when i find a woman attractive :) the reason for that is i don't see it grounded in scripture...or in anything else that has a real Ground...so to me...and i haven't heard the sermon to which you referred (so i'm open to changing my mind)...the word "attractional" sounds like not much more than an even trade off with "seeker-sensitive" (but again, i haven't heard that sermon...and i especially don't have an idea of what that guy MEANT by "attractional"...i may check it out later).
and craig...you addressed your comment to fitch...but the following touched a nerve:
My point, to be up front, is that the Church as a whole takes different forms in different situations. Overall, the Church must be missional, but can the Church include both cathedrals and also monastic orders? And can contemplative orders co-exist peacefully alongside missionary orders?
this touched a nerve for me becaus i'm an architect. comparing medieval cathedrals to the son et lumiere of the megachurches is like comparing marilyn monroe to bono. the men think monroe is sexy and the women think bono is handsome...but we're talking about two very very very different folks...to the point where no one would even really think to compare them :) i mean to the point where they are even two different geners! yes, the gothic cathedrals and the mega-church machinery are/were both expensive, but still, its just totally different. one is well ordered icon (well ordered physically and spiritually) meant to be a door into the worship of God, and one is just a chaotic sensory overload with the intention of leading you into worship but really just conjures up a bunch of hormones (unless your are just annoyed and bored, in which case it just does nothing at all, or even makes you angry).
7:12 PM
reading Fitch's blog sometime back i found myself asking: "What is son et lumiere?" well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_et_lumi%C3%A8re_(show)
:)
7:14 PM
As the described newbie on the blog I have no problem with the concept of what is missional in the context of Christianity.
It is being part of the work of God to bring the Good News of Christ to people in ways that are eternally significant.
It is of course relational because God is personal.
It is of course incarnational because Christians are called to offer the truth of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit to people in ways that develop and grow deep.
It also is attached to the mystical truth that God is worshiped in spirit and in truth, none of us can get our definitions around it.
It is also an act of obedience to Christ who commanded that we live missional lives.
Now if we want to talk about the missional brand or emergent brand or seeker brand we will be talking about something quite different.
7:19 PM
I'm no fan of defending words for their own sake, but rather for what--or, should I say, who--they represent. My concern is with defending the integrity of Godward leaders who self-describe their churches as 'attractional', yet are far from the 'market-driven' mold.
8:14 PM
P.S. While the term 'attractional' is not found in Scripture, just like the term 'Trinity' is absent, it is present in descriptive form. God expresses concern that His people--be it the OT people of God or the NT Church--be a light to all peoples, that they be a 'city upon a hill.' By our love for one another the world will know we are His, and by our good works of faith the world will glorify Him--and these are His earnest desire.
So the issue becomes, What is it about "Church" that ought to be, and is, "attractional"? The obvious response ought to be: everything. That is, nothing should be "distractiional". And because different people are genuinely distracted by different things, culturally different churches are necessary--including those reflecting differing socio-economic cultures. Of course, without the absolute non-negotiables, like mutual love and good works (not to mention the proclamation of the whole, true Gospel!), none of the other "attractions" means a thing. And don't get me wrong--there are many churches who neglect the former and expend an inordinate amount of energy and resources on the latter. But their sin is not in pursuing "excellence", but rather in abandoning the Gospel and its implications. Our rebuke is out of place. Correct the real issues and the others will fall in line.
8:30 PM
Everyone,
I've been out of the loop here because of some writing and family obligations over the 4th of July holiday. Meanwhile this has been a lively debate which I have just finished reading and much of which I find compelling.
It seems that one thing to learn is just how vastly people are using the word "missional" and "attractional" for that matter. And I must admit not having the staying power to engage in these kind of debates although they most certainly are worthy. For now, with all apologies due, I have to maintain that the original synchroblog was over how the term missional could be saved from meaning everything to everyone. How we who work out of a theological defining of that term can hold on to it. How we can maintain the theological/ecclesiological girth as defined by the authors and the movement that follows in the traditions spurred by those authors.
In summary, the church of course should always be attractive ... but our methods as defined by the word "attractional" need to change if we would be missional in the sense as defined above.
Peace .. I want to specifically addess Craig Carter's question in my next post (hopefully today) -- thanks Craig and good to hear from you!
9:45 AM
This post has been removed by the author.
8:25 PM
in light of comments by beloved and maria, i'd like to give an idea of what i think missional means to those who started using the word (as opposed to the hodge-podge of people that use it now as it has become mainstreamed).
Missional refers to the primary interaction of Jesus-followers with not-yet-believers to take place where they (not-yet-believers) are. The word 'attractional' refers to the opposite: removing churchy barriers that turn people off like pews, organ music, and ties; or providing great programatic services like children's programs, youth groups, women's teas and so on, so that not-yet-believers come and find Jesus. [I guess a 3d group would be 'separational' characterized by a KJV only, suit-wearing, hard-preaching fundamentalist.]
Now my own 2 cents... the apparent difference to me is the purpose/structure/liturgy of the weekly meeting. One group says come and see, this is both for us and you. The other group says this weekly service is for the formation of believers, check it out if you want.
It's pretty rare for church leaders not to desire/expect/dream that their flock takes the gospel to the world, so that's why I pose my description of theoritically what should take place in 'secular' space, but practically what takes place on Sunday morning.
5:22 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home