Reclaiming the Mission » 2011

davidfitch on January 26 2011

On Why Reconciling Conflict is Ground Zero for the Inbreaking of the Kingdom

I was speaking at a Church Multiplication Training Event last week and I said (and tweeted ) these words: “Reconciling conflict is ground zero for the inbreaking of the Kingdom.” I feel like I need to explain more fully what I meant. So here goes:

Time and again over the past twenty five years I have been witness to church conflict in evangelical churches. I have seen time and again the pathetic response of infighting, division and the arbitration of who is right by a singular authority figure. It was only by intensely studying John Howard Yoder in the 90’s that I came to realize the absolute necessity of conflict in the church as the basis for a Christian social body’s presence in Mission. For in this moment of conflict, which always emerges out of either a.) the exposure of sin, or b.) a disagreement over something we’ve never confronted before, the new territory is engaged bringing Christ as Lord, new victories over sin death and evil are won. And a world is now invaded with the gospel in a way that was not possible before the conflict. I believe there is something dynamic going on when Jesus says “there am I in the midst.”(Matt 18:20)

Yet it is the church that lives under the habits of establishment that treats conflict as a contest over who is right or who wins. The habits of believing that everybody already agrees on the premises, already knows the language of “Jesus is Lord,” and that the experts are already in place to keep things on the right track … come from a church firmly ensconced in a position of power in society. But for us who have disavowed such illusions, we gather in the Holy Spirit extending the gospel, indeed the witness of Jesus Christ Himself into new territories. New evils are being overturned, sins we did not know we had are being uncovered and forgiven and rendered impotent over our lives and all those lives who would enter into His victory. Conflict, disagreement is at the very heart of this extension.

Conflict therefore should be welcomed. It’s a sign of the Kingdom when new sins are being uncovered in our body (sins we did not know we had – including in the pastor). Conflict is a sign of the Kingdom telling us we are engaging new territory we haven’t had to struggle with before (like the church’s conflict over same sex relations). Right here, in the conflict, whenever we gather to bring the issue for discernment, we must recognize we are submitting to Jesus as Lord. We are saying “may your Kingdom reign here.” And so when we submit to one another trusting the Spirit to speak, illumine, and guide, Jesus as Lord is present, the Kingdom breaks in, “what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, what is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven.” Matt 18:18. Out of this space of prayer, and the agreement that comes forth, we are able to ask ANYTHING in His name, and it shall be done Matt 18:19. Conflict is the unbelievable place of inbreaking power of the Kingdom. Yet we often ignore it or have not trained our people to enter into it. The moment passes. And often, I’m afraid, the church denies the Kingdom by our CEO actions in arbitrating conflict in the church.

As you nurture your communities into the Kingdom, do you welcome conflict? To help you welcome conflict into your church community as a sign of the inbreaking of the Kingdom here’s three tips for leaders of any type.

1.) Nurture mutual submission to Jesus as Lord. The work of the Kingdom only happens when we submit to the Lordship of Christ at work in this body. It all begins in the posture of submission first to Jesus Christ and then to each other. This principle is evident whereever Paul says “one to another.” It is in the principle of the gifts, ever subitting to the authority of the Spirit in the other’s gift. It is implicit wherever Paul or the other epistles call for nuturing gentleness, reverance (of for the reigning Lord), humility, forebearance. It is explicit in Eph 5:20. It means we come together always speaking truth, but then submitting it to the other for his/her examination. Non-coercive, humble and gentle mutual submission is the fundamental disposition of one in relation to his/her Lord. It is the fundamental mode of being in the biody of Christ that moves forward into mission

2.) Don’t manage conflict. Follow Matt 18:15ff. Let the disagreements and the sins emerge from below. When one appears, urge people to go first to their brother or sister. No agreement. Cool. Take a third party. No agreement. Cool. Go to shepherds elders. No agreement? Cool Then call the church – all those interested to discern the issue. If a disagreement or sin gets this far, it is a communal matter for the direction of the whole church in her self-understanding as a holy people moving into bringing the gospel into new territory where God is working. In this gathering, exalt Scripture and those recognized for interpreting. Exalt those with faith , those with discernment. Listen in humility and gentleness. Pastors don’t dictate. Let the Holy Spirt work. Lead out of observation and coalescence. “I see this,” “I suggest this,” “I think I heard this,” “let me summarize and submit to you” … . Let the Spirit work!

3.) Ask what Is God doing here/ and observe. Ever be asking “what is God saying?” here and testing it. In silence and prayer, reflecting on Scripture recognizing the ones gifted in this, seek a word from the Lord. This isn’t piety, this is reality. This kind of activity happens all the time in Acts and always moves the community in Acts further and further into God’s mission

In summary

All of the above is reason for why I continually find myself saying “Conflict is ground zero for the inbreaking of the Kingdom.” Too often I or our church have failed at this (this is why I have to write this stuff to remind everybody including me). I find this kind of cultivating the Kingdom to be almost impossible once you get above a certain number in your church (three hundred?). It is probably because of the tendency for churches to self organize into CEO leadership once their numbers dictate this is the only way to survive. I wonder, as a result, whether megachurches can experience God’s Kingdom in this way? Whay say u? I have become convinced that you do this kind of cultivating for five years with a group of twenty to thirty people and you will be amazed at that vibrant Kingdom life taking shape among you. Anyone have experiences that can validate this way of Kingdom life?

Filed under Uncategorized 23 Comments

davidfitch on January 19 2011

The Attractional Basis of Neo-Reformed Church Plants YES OR NO?: or Don’t try this at home if you live in the secularized North

In a recent post on this blog I made the statement:

“I have no doubt that the success of many of the New Reformed Missional churches in the cities is the result of the influx of twenty-something populations into the cities in the past fifteen-twenty years with little or no place to go to church.” Collin Hansen – author, editor at CT, and a contributor to the Gospel Coalition – asks 2 questions in response “Could you point me to research that led you to conclude (this?) Then he also added “I would also be interested to know more about your observation that Redeemer City to City and Acts 29 “depend largely on existing Christianized populations.”

On Collin’s questions – I don’t have statistical research that is irrefutable eh? (Is there such a thing?). I think we could get such statistics if mega churches and some of the more notable Neo-Reformed church plants (Mars Hill, Redeemer) would simply survey their regular attenders and ask their congregants the question “prior to this church, did you come from a previous church or Christian upbringing?” Again and again, every growing mega church I know has simply ignored, pushed to the side or outright refused to survey their burgeoning congregation by asking this question? And yet, I have NO PROBLEM with re-invigorating dormant Christians. I simply want it recognized that attractional strategies are a poor way to engage those truly outside the Christian faith with the gospel. They are not missional in that sense. They often get caught up in competition for existing Christians.

So, In response to Collin’s legitimate questions, I think I can answer his two questions with something better than statistics – the logic of the way the New Reformed church plants carry out their strategies. I offer these two insights:

1.) On Redeemer and Acts 29 and other Neo-Reformed Church Planting Strategies being dependent upon Christianized populations.

The Neo-Reformed church planting strategies, as represented in Mark Driscoll’s Confessions of a Reformissionary, Tim Keller’s Redeemer’s Church planting manual, as well as Ed Stetzer’s manifold publications are attractionally driven. They depend heavily on the “draw” of a charismatic male preacher. They all speak about the importance of the opening service. They speak about the importance of preaching being a culturally relevant communication. Preaching is the main thing. Preaching is the draw. All of this assumes people outside of the gospel will want to come to a place in order to hear a sermon preached. It depends upon a cultural orbit where people outside of Christ would naturally go to church to hear a sermon in order to come to Christ. THIS DYNAMIC IS CHRISTENDOM. Don’t get me wrong – I UNEQUIVOCABBLY BELIEVE PREACHING IS CENTRAL TO THE FORMATION OF GOD’S PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. It just is not the foundation of church planting in mission – which is engaging a community with the gospel. It is not the basis upon which a Missional church plant begins because by definition such a Neo-Reformed church plant seeks from the outset to draw in Christians or the Christianized into this place to hear a sermon. Missional church plants on the other hand seek to engage those outside the Christian faith with the gospel. Conclusion? These church planting strategies are dependent upon Christianized populations. Yes?

I say this not to disparage the many good works for Christ among my Neo-Reformed brothers (and sisters- wink wink). I applaud pastor Driscoll, Keller, Stetzer and all the others for their great work! There are many out there who are still culturally conditioned by Christendom. And there will always also be the occasional person totally outside Christ who likewise gets caught under these influences who will come to Christ. Praise be to God! Yet, I argue that there can be little doubt, that in post Christendom, those who number among the growing populations of the secularized, have little or no intention of ever going to go hear a sermon when they seek God. When they seek God they will go other places first (Oprah, a discussion group, a book club, the pub). Granted there will be exceptions, but as a strategy for mission, it relies on an orbit of a Christianized culture. To me this is irrefutable. What say you?

I think everything what I have said here is evident in places like Mark Driscoll’s Confessions book, Redeemer’s Church Planting Manual, or Ed Stetzer’s most recent set of posts on church planting. To offer just a few examples of literally hundreds:

a.)Almost the entire structure of Mark Driscoll’s church plant of Mars Hill in Seattle is attractional based on his accounts in Confessions of a Reformission Rev.. From the way they did a “launch” to the intense drive on measuring the attendance of the Sunday gatherings. It is common throughout the book for pastor Driscoll to talk about things like how they “survived the horrendous hip-hop and expanded to two Sunday services in time for the fall push, which is when we have our biggest attendance increase” (p. 93). This kind of emphasis is ubiquitous in the book. Attractional is adopted under the argument for being “attractive” (p.31). It is really disconcerting that pastor Mark does not recognize that the “3000” who were saved (Acts 2) on Pentecost were not gathered as a mega church (p.94). They were gathered from all over the Middle East at the Pentecost festival and were part of the Jewish dispersion. Upon being saved, THEY WERE DISPERSED back into their locales to form communities back home.

b.)Tim Keller’s Redeemer church planting manual has also many revelations about how deep the attractional strategy is here. In Redeemer’s manual, there are tremendous efforts to detail how the services at Redeemer were crafted to draw non-Christians into the services. Likewise, conversions are recounted of non-Christians (and we must discern carefully what this might mean). And yet we see again the assumption that must be talked about over and over to get at the issue I am targeting here. We are depending on attracting “non-Christians” to come to a gathering for the teaching of the Bible. Can we at least admit that the average secularized non-Christian does not naturally seek to attend a church service whose main purpose is “to teach” from the Bible even if that teaching and worship always “assumes the presence of non-Christians in it even before we knew if any were there (p.13).”

Tim Keller is one of the most culturally savvy, gospel centered, “restoration of the city” oriented pastors I know. Can I say this clearly I LOVE TIM KELLER! I cast no aspersion WHATSOEVER on the impact of his/Redeemer’s ministry. I’m just saying, it is attractionally driven and depends upon Christendom habits, habits that are in decline in many parts of our culture. I don’t know if his strategy is reproducible in the years to come. Eventually as what is left of the Christianized foundation of city culture diminishes, such church planting strategies will turn into competition for the Christianized peoples as opposed to mission. Redeemer is to be commended for not advertising where Tim Keller is preaching (of the many sites Redeemer has in NYC) because they recognize that attendance would go way up where he preaches, and way down every where else. Nonetheless, this reveals the attractional foundations that lie at the base of Redeemer’s beginnings.

c.)In Ed Stetzer’s recent post about his own church planting venture and his research, he reveals his proclivity toward attractional church planting. Again, Ed has taught me a lot. And I agree with a lot of what he puts out there. But read these words from his post here: “

“Think about the person who shows up on launch Sunday due to a postcard in the mail the week before. Your hope is that your first attendants will be made up of seekers and people open to the first-time consideration of the gospel. And, that means people who are asking questions and starting their spiritual journey– they are often not ready to be spiritual leaders since they are just considering things of faith. … This Sunday we had our first preview service at Grace Church, where I am serving as lead pastor … And, as in the couple hundred people we had come Sunday, we know it to be true that we often encounter a fair number of new, seeking, and sometimes hurting on that first Sunday.”

This is worthy labor for Christ! Yet the idea of having 200 people on an opening service reveals how much this approach assumes people want to come to an opening launch of a worship service. The idea of this happening even with flyers, advertising, a famous rock star musician, IS SIMPLY NOT REALITY FOR THOSE OF US MINISTERING INS SECULARIZED CULTURES. Granted, Ed is working with a church plant in Nashville, the bastion of Christendom in United States. His approach makes sense there. I applaud his work. All I’m saying is, please don’t try this at home! If home for you is post Christendom secularized cities.

2.) On Collin’s second part of his question, regarding my contention that the success of many of the New Reformed Missional churches in the cities is the result of the influx of twenty-something populations into the cities.

I think it is irrefutable that masses of white (a lot of them evangelical) populations moved out of the American city in droves to the suburbs in 1960′s to 80’s. Starting in the nineties this reversed itself. There was a huge migration back into the city by yuppie, white twenty something populations. That wave hit peak in early nineties to 2000 (this wave was symbolically represented by the popular TV show Friends – a bunch of white twenty something’s who lived in the city). I was part of that wave and attended (and was a leader) in Park Community Church in Chicago in its early years. I often attended and knew people who went to Redeemer Presbyterian in Manhattan (where I often worked). These massive populations entered a city where the previous white evangelical churches had long since left, closed, or became minority churches. These new professionalized populations had no place to go to church. Maybe only 5% of these new professionalized city immigrants were Christians, but that still was a huge number and I firmly believe that places like Park Community Church and Redeemer became feeding grounds for these highly educated young professionalized Christian peoples.

I have NO DOUBT the ministries in question are vibrant and real. The question is, as these Christianized peoples find their churches, and there is less of that “market” left to be re-churched, what will become of mission to the secularized peoples. Shall we continue to plant churches on the Redeemer or Acts 29 model and fight over the Christianized?

In conclusion,

I applaud the work of the Neo-Reformed church planting movements. The work accomplished for Christ on many levels is irrefutable. Praise God! Seriously and sincerely! In this post, I am merely trying to point out that this strategy’s effectiveness is inherently built on attractional premises, which will become increasingly more difficult and competitive amidst the secularized cultures of the West. The remnant of Christianized populations will run out unless they are mobilized for mission among the lost cultures. For these challenges we need a new vision for church-planting. I’ve sketched in brief my ideas on this in this post? I think we need a discussion.

Am I valid in saying that Neo-Reformed church planting – in that it emphasizes the singularity of the culturally relevant preaching service as the means to form a gathering – attractional? Dependent upon culturally Christianized populations? And therefore less than missional in its vision for reaching a secularized post-Christendom culture? YES OR NO? and why? Blessings

Filed under Acts 29,Church Planting,Incarnational,Post-Attractional,Post-Christendom 83 Comments

davidfitch on January 17 2011

Remembering MLK

Teaching at a historically baptist seminary that has been a major educational institution for black pastors for almost hundred years, I regularly hear stories from black saints of how those in the African-American churches carried out a peaceful, nonviolent challenge to make things right during the 50′s and 60′s amidst a society that systemically institutionalized racial discrimination. I am inspired each time.

Of course, Dr Martin Luther King, the baptist churchman, made much of this possible with his extraordinary leadership during this time. His witness to the way of non-violence is stunning both in the courage that it took and the results it birthed. This conviction of non-violence is dependent (I believe) on our Christian conviction that Jesus is Lord and in control taking the world into reconciliation through peaceful witness. In other words, we believe “God is able” therefore we need not take the future into our own hands violently.

Yesterday in church, I read from one of King’s sermons “Our God is Able.” In January 1956, in Montgomery Alabama, when things seemed to be going nowhere in MLK’s early attempts to overcome racial disrimincation practices there, he preached this sermon. Yesterday I read this short snippet:

God’s control is never usurped. If at times we despair because of the relatively slow progress being made in ending racial discrimination, let us gain new heart in the fact that God is able. In our sometimes difficult and often lonesome walk up freedom’s road, we do not walk alone. God walks with us. God has placed within the very structures of the universe certain absolute moral laws. We can neither defy nor break them. If we disobey them, they will break us. The forces of evil may temporarily conquer truth, but truth will ultimately conquer its conqueror. Our God is able.

Let these words be a reminder on this day to us that it’s in the simple everyday nonviolent witness to resist forms of discrimination – the refusal to participate – that God continues to work. When we call each other into the good news of forgiveness and reconciliation in each situation – God works to further bring His Kingdom into the world until He comes. We keep living this way unsatisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream throughout our communities, our country, the world. (Amos 5:24).

Blessings everyone, on MLK day.

Filed under Uncategorized 5 Comments

davidfitch on January 14 2011

For All My Friends in Canada (especially Alberta)

For all my friends in Alberta, I’m coming to Calgary to present the Downey lectures at Ambrose University College as well as do some other stuff February 16, and 17. Why not come over and join in the discussion with me?

The two public lectures are largely based on my forthcoming book (it’s coming any day now!) The End of Evangelicalism? Discerning a New Faithfulness for Mission. In the first lecture I will show how traditional evangelical theology shapes the church for a hostile defensive presence in the culture . Our traditional evangelical theology made sense when we (in N America) were comfortably living in Christendom, but now these ways of articulating our beliefs have turned against us in the way they “shape us” as a people for Mission in the culture. So I’m critiquing evangelicalism in the 1st lecture. The 2nd lecture then addresses the reaction to evangelicalism in the last ten years via Emergent, Missional, McLaren, Hirsch, etc. Here I try to show how the instincts were good, and some right moves were made to take us in the right direction. Nonetheless some lurking dangers persist which stand to derail the whole post evangelical renewal taking shape out of these movements. In both lectures, I’m addressing evangelicalism’s drive for a “high view of Scripture,” a “conversionist soteriology” and an “activist evangelical engagement of culture,” affirming each of these emphases but asking how do we articulate them and practice them in a way that shapes us for participation in God’s Mission in a culture which we can no longer assume is Christianized.
I am asking does evangelicalism have a future in N America? and what can evangelicals learn from emergent/missional thinkers that can take us there. I’m looking forward to it! Hope to see you there!!

Filed under Uncategorized 7 Comments

davidfitch on January 12 2011

Death of a Church Plant – Some Reflections and Hope for the Future of Missional Church Planting

I don’t know Jason Coker (except through blogosphere), but I love reading Jason Coker. And what he has done in a recent series of posts is simply amazing. In these posts (here, here, here, here, and here), Jason reflects on the sorrows of closing down a church that he and his wife Jenell worked so hard to plant in San Diego. Jason is a good writer. Yet Jason does more than that, he is brutally honest. He gives us a window into the world of church planting. I think everyone who seeks to plant a church should read these posts.

After I read Jason’s posts I couldn’t get them out of my mind. I often find myself worrying about church planters who do the kind of church planting that Jason and Jenell were doing. Jason’s posts fed that angst. Jamie Arpin-ricci’s recent post poured more gas on the flames of that anxiety. So I started to write this post. This post is not meant to tell Jason or anyone else what they did wrong. I do not dare to suggest I know Jason or San Diego or anything else enough to be able to do such a thing. I admire Jason, Jenell and Jamie and a whole bunch more church planters of their ilk. I’m just reflecting on their experience out of my own experience. If it helps everybody, so be it.

Planting missional communities is a different animal from the prototype church planting that is so familiar in denominations and places like Acts 29 and Redeemer City to City. The attractional dynamics that often typifies these kinds of church planting depend largely on existing Christianized populations. The emphasis is on meeting the dynamic of the population group so as to present the gospel in a cultural savvy way. I have no doubt that the success of many of the New Reformed Missional churches in the cities is the result of the influx of twenty-something populations into the cities in the past fifteen-twenty years with little or no place to go to church. Of course this is worthy work, and it has its own costs – let me tell you. And just so every body hears me – even in missional communities – there is the coalescence of already existing Christians of some sort for the task of listening to God and living in mission in a neighborhood. But the task of missionary church planting is different. Can I say that one more time? MISSIONARY CHURCH PLANTING IS DIFFERENT and the demands require a “mental training” of a sort.

So I have just a few observations to offer from reading Jason’s posts. After all I need the therapy! And thinking through Jason’s posts are like good therapy for every church planter I know. Again, just to reiterate, I don’t know Jason and I have only visited San Diego so these comments aren’t really about him. I applaud the hard work and the journey. Church planters like Jason and Jenell are golden. I hesitate to comment because perhaps people will think I’m saying they did something wrong. NOT! I think they are extraordinary for their work. I offer up these reflections as fodder for the much needed conversation on the nature of church planting for our time. Feel free to go at me on these comments.

4 Observations of Jason Coker’s post-mortem reflections on the closing of a church plant.

1.)Church Planting in Post Christendom is hard. I really can’t tell if Jason/Jenell were intentionally engaging post Christendom contexts, but their emphasis on justice, culture, and various approaches to ministry articulated here suggest that that they were doing just that. They were avoiding the competition and negative orbits associated with attractional ministry. Going against this grain is hard.

Nurturing community with an external focus and vibrant missional life often goes against the cultural assumptions of denominations and support networks. Denominations/American business want to see (immediate) results. They think like business people. Jason never said the Vineyard people placed these expectations on them. But the pressure is there regardless. It’s an American church cultural thing. Yet has anyone ever doing missionary work in India ever been expected to produce a self-sustaining church in three years? Overcoming these cultural pressures is hard.

Missional community also goes against the grain of already existing Christians who simply see the church as a place to sustain their own lifestyles/families in the Christian ethos. Leading people into a new imagination for the way God works in our lives and mission is painstaking. It is asking Christians to take discipleship to a new level. This – IMO – takes several years of cultivation. As such, many church plants have neither the patience, internal security or plain finances to be able to work that long on this kind of cultivation. Many get way-layed, pulverized by the turnover and the plain stubborn headedness of American Christians. All this makes church planting in Post-Christendom hard. Jason, Jenell should be commended for their true hearted commitment to work as missionaries … BECAUSE THIS KIND OF CHURCH PLANTING IS WHAT IS NEED IN A COUNRTY WHOSE ACTIVE CHRISTIAN POPULATIONS ARE SHRINKING.

2.) Finances are really important and often out of our control This is why I encourage those who plant a missionary church to have a minimum of a 5 year financial plan. You can raise these funds, but often, for many reasons, the work of this kind of fund raising CAN (ALTHOUGH NOT ALWAYS!) work against the very missional impulses your working to go with. I urge beginning church planters to get a job, especially if they’re in the twenties. Gaining a skill and experience in the workplace is monumental for your own personal development. It offers years of flexibility and freedom. I suggest church planters get a job where you can learn a skill and commit to getting good at. I urge church planters to only think about working 15 hours a week in their missional community pastoring. I urge every missional church plant to have three core leaders/couples who similarly have jobs who together can give 15 hours a week to the cultivating of this community. This is enough time for pastoring/cultivating (it’s actually the equivalent of one full time pastor). Since the community is very small (maybe only a few people to as many as thirty) you’re going to be ordering your life together in mission in the community. You aren’t going to be spending 50 hours producing an attractional service to compete and draw Christians from other places. 15 hours a week by three people is sufficient to lead and nurture the beginnings of such a community.

The job that these pastors get then provides the means to take all the pressure off and spend 5 years cultivating. It will also help each pastor gain a sense of identity and reality. This changes everything. It changes the way we look at ministry. Changes the dynamics of why we get paid and the pressures. And it provides the seeding ground so necessary in a missionary plant. It puts you out and about and alongside the community.

Jason had difficulty finding work. he got caught in the 2008 financial collapse vortex. It took a toll on him big time. For me, this issue of a job is perhaps the key part of navigating one’s entry into missional church planting. It’s a hurdle so many M Div’s can’t get past. Many M Div’s place their entire identity into getting a pastorate (this was definitely NOT THE CASE WITH JASON). They struggle to see tent-making as an identity marker that marks you as a revolutionary. Jason already was past this hurdle but couldn’t get that job for a long while. I suggest an alternative might be to raise funds with the plan for those funds to provide the time necessary to find a job.

Finances are probably the single number one debilitating factor in planting churches. I think it’s more psychical than it is material. For these reasons, as we plan a missional church plant, we must take the time to get firmly planted within a sustainable life financially that is also a walk of faith.

3) Finding at least two other strong mature leaders/couples that can join in with you and lead this communal imagination is essential. It is the APEPT principle – it takes an Apostle, Prophet (preacher), Evangelist, Pastor, and Teacher (organizer) to nurture a community into existence and flourishing (Eph 4). Until then you struggle. Jason certainly struggled to find the right partners. He struggled courageously. At the Vine, it took us four years to get our leadership together. We struggled awfully until God led us into the right partnership with the right leaders. I feel like I nearly died psychically several times as a single leader with others who did not understand the mission with me. But when God provided the right partners, life changed, it made sense, and things started to take on a life of its own, the life of the Spirit.

In Christendom, one guy(or woman), with some charisma, can rustle up a crowd of Christians using Facebook and attract them with some preach-tainment long enough to establish a base from which he/she then builds systems. Not in missionary situations. One charismatic person cannot carry the load, and if she/he does, it will primary be an internally focused mega-church servicing Christians of some variety. Nothing wrong with that (necessarily). But it won’t be a missional community like Jason and Jenell were seeking to cultivate.

4) 5 Years. I simply don’t believe cultivating such a community will even begin to take on sustainable way of life that breeds life in the Spirit for a minimum of 5 years. Many disagree but I just don’t see it. The cultivation work is too important. It takes long patience and sustaining of oneself financially. Jason and Jenell had to close the church after 2 to 3 years. Yet I don’t think they should see this as a failure. Certain contingencies worked (all of which I have no knowledge of) to prevent from continuing. But 2 years is too short to consider this community a failure. I don’t believe in missionary work you can expect to see vibrant transformational growth until the end of year five (this may even be too short). I realize there are exceptions – this is just my historical perspective. For some reason, many many times, the Holy Spirit requires cultivated ground, open minds, prayer that opens the minds and hearts of the world to His working. TO ME MISSIONAL CULTIVATORS MUST EXPECT TO CULTIVATE MANY YEARS before they see the kinds of numbers, conversions etc. that Christendom has gotten us so used to.

Missional Communities Aren’t Worth It!

Some may look above and read of the struggles of Jason, Jenel and Jamie and others and say “missional communities then are not worth it.” Uh, I think Jason, Jenell and Jamie would disagree (although maybe not today). It does however require a different imagination, a different set of expectations, seeing ministry as a way of life, dare I say a sense of identity as a revolutionary, a Jesus radical. The kind of pastor I tried to describe HERE. To me Jason, Jenell and Jamie ( to what degree I know them which is only through blog world) provide us some examples as to what such “radicals” might look like as we go forward as missionaries in N America. Way to go!! Jason, Jamie today and yesterday I have been praying for you guys. I don’t know you, but you inspire me and others. I pray for you as God leads you into the future of His Mission!!

Filed under Church Planting,Missional,Post-Attractional,Post-Christendom,Uncategorized 36 Comments

davidfitch on January 4 2011

Two New Books For 2011- For Those Thinking Through “Missional”

For those thinking through what “missional church” might mean, I recommend two new books coming out in the next few months by colleagues of mine. I’ve read them and learned much from these two books. This is not rehash. These two books really add to the conversation. The first one is:

Missional: Joining God in the Neighborhood by Alan Roxburgh.

I found this book to be a lucid unfolding of the confounding traps pastors fall into as they continually try to grow their church. As a result, we end up looking at church upside down and repeatedly end up working against participating in God’s Mission. In this book, Roxburgh helps us untangle these traps and helps us see what we are doing to ourselves! He has a wonderful exposition of Luke 10 that can be used to teach and expand the imaginations of our congregations for what God is calling us to be “in the neighborhoods.” I blurbed the book with the following:

“I’ve read Al Roxburgh over the years and, taking nothing away from his previous work, this is Roxburgh’s finest to date. His take on Luke 10 is compelling. Filled with stories and theological precision, this book takes us to new places for the future of Christ’s church in North America. It is sure to be a tour de force for the missional conversation. I am not being excessive when I say this book is brilliant.”

I wasn’t exagerating!

The second one is: The Missional Church in Perspective: Mapping Trends and Shaping the Conversation by Craig Van Gelder and Dwight Zscheile

This book’s title might not knock you over. Nonetheless this book will be really helpful for the theologically minded in deciphering the issues surrounding “missional church.” The book maps the various streams of “missional” that have developed in the last ten years since the publishing of Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America in 1998. We all know that “missional” has become a highly diverse and even confusing discussion. This book places some order in the confusion and makes some constructive proposals for the future. My blurb for the book was as follows:

“The missional conversation, which has experienced explosive growth over the last ten years, has been in sore need of a road map. The Missional Church in Perspective provides just that. In this scholarly and generous guide, Van Gelder and Zscheile clear away the confusion by providing a masterful, historical description of the various tracks of the missional church. Along the way, they tell the whole story of the movement, assessing its weaknesses and making counter proposals. In so doing, they have given us the book that can chart the course for the next era of the missional church, one of the most vital missionary movements in North America.”

I think doing theology is important for anyone who seeks to lead his/her church into God’s mission amidst the new post Christendom challenges of the West. These two books are important for that reason. They provide theological foundations that undergird and shape ministry and the disposition of leadership necessary for leading in the missional church. The two books are just another reason why I am so pleased to be working with both Alan and Craig in the Doctor of Ministry program at Northern Seminary in Missional Church leadership. We hope to provide a place for serious theological reflection as well as provide the tools to shape the future church of mission in N America. If you’re interested, check us out here or e-mail me at Northern.

Filed under Uncategorized 8 Comments