I’ve Changed my Stance on “Attractional”: How Mike Breen Converted Me

This post was originally supposed to be a review of Mike Breen and Alex Absalom’s field guide for leading missional communities entitled Launching Missional Communities. Instead, as a result of reading this book, I have an announcement to make: I’ve changed my stance on attractional. I’VE BEEN CONVERTED!! For years I’ve engaged in what I believe is a constructive critical stance towards attractional approaches to church for the post-Christendom Mission of God in the West. Yet, I keep getting asked, isn’t there something of value here in all these big-mega-huge-ginormous attractional churches? Isn’t God at work here to? To which I usually nod, bite my tongue, and say something like: somebody needs to take on the task of sustaining already existing habituated to traditional church Christians in the hectic capitalistic societies of affluence that the West has bred. But secretly, deep within the recesses of my soul, I ask isn’t there more here than this?

This is why I was interested when a thoroughly missional practitioner like Mike Breen defends “attractional” in Launching Missional Communities.  In this field guide, there’s a small chapter (ch 2.4) entitled Missional versus Attractional. Here Breen describes what the attractional does well versus the local missional community does well. Basically Breen says the attractional gathering is for celebration, inspiration, the creating of vision, and spurring on of momentum. Missional communities (groups of 20-50) on the other hand do community, local missional engagement, training and discipling well.  My pal JR Rozko gets all up in arms over this in his post over here and questions Breen’s historical analysis as well as the ability of the two orbits (missional and attractional) to live in sync with each other. For the most part I agree with Rozko. But then Mike Breen responds in a blog post here. He tries to distinguish the way he uses attractional versus say the way I and Alan Hirsch use it when we accuses “attractional” of some of the worst ills of institutionalized church (see my post here)  Although Mike makes some good points here, this is not what led to my conversion.

Where attractional started to make sense to me was in the chapter before 2.4 entitled “The Four Spaces.” Here Breen maps out the four social spaces: public (large attractional gathering), social (missional community 20-50), personal (small group) and intimate (1-2 people). He wonderfully describes the interplay of the four spaces and shows how they play off each other. What is clear from these pages is that the attractional gathering is limited by Breen to at most once every 4 weeks or once every six weeks. IT IS NOT THE CENTRAL ORGANIZING EVENT OF THE CHURCH. Indeed, the organic missional community in the local context is the local organizing force. The attractional event fulfills a unique role of celebration, inspiration, the creating of vision and spurring on that comes from the momentum. It plays its role and it is clearly subordinated to the missional community in the life of the church. Today, therefore, as a result of reading Breen’s field guide, I can finally say, with a clear conscience, I am converted to the value of the attractional gathering.

Here’s the kind of attractional gathering I see as viable for the upbuilding of mission. It is the attractional gathering does not become an end in itself. Its worst traits – it sucks up resources, it become addicting and thereby passivizing to Christians, it becomes a commodity to be sold over and over again, it malforms Christians into passive internal gaze – are mitigated by the fact it hardly ever happens! But when it does, it is hugely encouraging, motivating. For me then, for all our Missional communities sprouting about Chicagoland, I suggest we do this once a quarter. Tell me where I am wrong? have I gone batty?

Having now used up all my space in this blog post on my own conversion to attractional , I want to just put in a additional plug for Breen and Absalem’s book. It is an intense practical field guide. It delves deep into the ways of discipleship, leadership and mission. It spells out the key aspects of the four social spaces needed to be a people of mission in the world. It puts forth a program for discipleship that we at Life on the Vine are interacting with adopting many of its proven ideas. It deals with development and multiplication of leadership. It tells us how to do this all within the context of mission. It is one of the most intensely practical field guides you can find. But it is a field guide. It is nuts and bolts, finances, form of meetings, how you move from this form of organization to another one. Don’t expect much here in terms of theology – something I think the missional church movement is sorely in need of. But that’s not Breen’s job here.

All in all, I recommend this book. Its seminal ideas are having a profound effect on Life on the Vine and churches all over the country. And that’s the best recommendation I can give. And BTW you can buy this field guide here.

In closing, what say u? Is there a place for the large attractional gathering within the missional matrix? Can it work in the ways Breen puts forth?

33 Comments

Yoder’s Jeremian (dispersed missional) Ecclesiology: What Yoder got right according to Leithart

I’ve been reading Peter Leithart’s Defending Constantine lately. A lot has been said about Leithart’s bashing of John Howard Yoder. To me, it’s just not that big a deal. I think Yoder’s proposals for ecclesiology in post-Christendom are exactly right (I’m a “homer”). And since the new post Christendom cultures of N America is where I believed I’m called, I’ll follow Yoder. The squabbles over history and assessing Constantine’s Christianity are certainly interesting. But I don’t see it as much of an issue. The question is, how do we Christians be the people of God when we are not in power, or losing power, or indeed when we are in the missionary situation. I agree with Leithart that the question “what do we do when the emperor converts to Jesus as Lord?” is more complex than Yoder would have it.  And indeed there is something positive to be learned from Constantine about Christians “in power” in these ways. But we’re not there right now. And I don’t see the pursuit of the world’s power, the power of the sword, or the corporatist power that is polluted by all things Mammon, as the legitimate pursuit of Christians. So let’s get on to how we are to be Christians in the post-Constantinian cultural situation we find ourselves in (which is large parts of N. America).

And here is where Yoder got it right eh? Let me quote Leithart on Yoder’s description of how to be church. This is what Leithart describes as Yoder’s Jeremian ecclesiology based in Jer 29:1-7. Leithart says:

For Yoder, the Jeremian model of Jewish life and identity does more than simply provide a way of making sense of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels. It provides a model for the church in its relation to the powers …Yoder’s Jeremiah instructed the people to settle into the galuth, exile, not as a temporary “hiatus” before a new kingship and temple were established, nor simply as a punishment for their sins. Jews were to “seek the salvation of the culture” of Babylon by accepting their dispersion as a call to mission. They were to retain their separate identity by adherence to a peripatetic moral and liturgical life, … (they) established places of worship without priesthoods whenever ten households gathered, … (they) found the “ground floor of identity” in the common life, the walk, halakah,” and confounded kings and emperors “with the superior wisdom and power of one authentic God.”

Jeremiah’s vision for Israel in exile was neither an effort to “Hebraize” Babylon … nor a retreat from cultural engagement. Jews served “the entire ancient Near East world as expert translators, scribes, diplomats, sages, merchants, astronomers.” … Far from being a place of resignation and lament, “Babylon itself very soon became the cultural center of world Jewry.” … (according to Yoder) this is the cultural and political program that the church inherited from Judaism.” 294-295.

Leithart says that Yoder’s vision of Christian engagement is “invigorating and just right in many respects.” He disagrees with Yoder over whether such a vision is the permanent social strategy for Christians. There is the goal of history, Leithart says, to move back from Babylon to Jerusalem.” Leithart asks what happens when the emperor becomes Christian.

This is good stuff. I’ve enjoyed the book. But for right now, I want to emphasize two things that have become clearer after reading Leithart. 1.) Leithart’s critique aside, Yoder’s vision of the church is the one most apropos for the current cultural situation many of us are living in – i.e. N America’s New post Christendom cultures. It is compelling. 2.) We can learn from Constantine something similar to what we learned from Yoder – We should not seek power as dictated by “the world,” the power of the sword, or the corporatist power that is polluted by all things Mammon. This applies for in the church as well as outside. For whenever we do this, we doth separate ourselves from the gospel. We should not try to compete or win (for Jesus) against the existing people in governmental power on the world’s terms. That very second, the world has won, Jesus has been lost. Our witness absorbed into the ways of sin (Did not pres. George Bush lose his ability to rule as a Christian the moment he slung the sleaze and the mud at John McCain, nevermind Al Gore or later John Kerry.) We should never seek to exercise power in the world’s terms. Instead, the most subversive thing we can do to change the world is seek the salvation of the individuals in government, and ask them to renounce the world’s corruption at all costs. When one of these people, truly gets saved, happy days!! But as Hauerwas reminds “Yoder also encouraged Christians to believe that emperors could be Christians. He observed that if they tried to rule as Christian, it might result in an earlier death than they had anticipated- but, he observed, most emperors die early anyway.”

I think the Jeremian vision for the church is the way of the gospel for the challenges the church faces in Mission in the West. What say you? I’m off to Ambrose University for a few days, but I’ll try to chime in when time and internet allows.

19 Comments

FYI The End of Evangelicalism?

To all friends of reclaimingthemission.com, please find below the announcement concerning the arrival of my book on The End of Evangelicalism. I’ve already summarized it here. Forthcoming, on this blog, I will have a free download of the book’s Introduction (entitled “Towards an Evangelical Missional Political Theology”) and will be offering a 40% discount on the book. I’ll also have available some copies for those willing to blog about it and put a review on Amazon.com. You know, all that book selling blah blah blah! So, to all those interested, give me about three weeks. Blessings, and thanks for all the interest out there on the book.

2 Comments

“God Used You to Destroy my World Today”: The Sign of a Good Sermon?

Last Sunday, over at my house, we had a large group over for the Super Bowl. I ended up sitting with a lot of people in the room where there was no TV. I think we talked all night. I didn’t see one play of the football game (the Hamilton Tiger Cats weren’t playing). I’m sitting with George (name changed to protect the innocent) and we started talking about preaching.

He says the difference with Life on the Vine preaching …

“When I’ve been at other churches, I walk away saying “that is something I need to work on for my Christian life … At the Vine, I am confronted with a reality that I see I am not quite there yet and I’m invited to enter. I feel the tension. I can’t go there yet. I’m not ready. Yet I have to respond.”

Then he said,  “ and when we have the communal response … it is so painful … because I know if I pray it out loud, if I respond and put it out there is words  … things have forever changed …”

All this was unprovoked and fascinating for me to listen to. To me this illustrates the difference between teaching and preaching. Teaching is informational. We are digging in to the backgrounds, the meanings of words, explaining what the text means in terms of its original context.  It is heavy with information. Preaching is proclamation. It declares the truth of God in Christ. It proclaims the reality of Jesus as Lord over us as we submit and what that means for our lives right here and right now. And then we are invited into that reality. And we have to respond to God, if we hear His voice. At the Vine, there is always a time after our preaching when we respond, most often in prayers of the people when we are given a liturgical prayer to fill in the blank for.  Being in the midst of those prayers is an oasis of the Spirit. It always reminds me of the words of Paul – if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” The “being saved” that is happening here is the whole entering into the salvation that God is working in the world. This is why preaching can be God’s instrument to transform the world.

There is always the awkward moment after the gathering when I have preached. People don’t really know what to say. But I confess, one of the things that makes me cringe is when some one says “I really enjoyed your sermon.” Ouch. I know what they mean. And they are being incredibly encouraging. But when they say this it reminds too much of Zizek’s dictum (I’ve read too much Zizek I know) that saying “I enjoy my religion” implies I don’t take it too seriously. We keep it at a distance so as to appear to be a Christian with all the comforts and accoutrements yet not requiring any great disruption to a comfortable way of life. This distance is subtle. It was what George was describing so skillfully above. I think (and here I go being provocative again) classical expository preaching in our times borderlines on providing this distance. I think that’s ironic because I think it was originally devised to keep the preaching as close to the Word of God as possible. In the process it informationalized preaching. Gave us an excuse to say “hmmm, that is something I have to work on in my Christian life.” And we never get to it.

For all these reasons, I much prefer telling the preacher after the gathering:  “Thank-you, God really used you to destroy my world today” (versus “I really enjoyed your sermon”). (BTW I only preach once a month). I find when someone would say that to me, it then gives me the moment to confess that I too have been destroyed and need to trust in Jesus as Lord to do His work in us. I confess I have had my world destroyed a few times this past 4 months at Life on the Vine gatherings, by the sermon or in worship. And it’s been good.

What do you think about all this? Too much? What would you prefer to say to the preacher (or have said to you after you’ve preached?) Is there something to be learned from George about the way we preach? How would you describe this experience? I’m speaking on “preaching as Spiritual Formation” at the Ecclesia National Gathering. If you’re coming, let’s dive into this issue.

15 Comments

Three Compelling (Theological) Questions – for the Shaping of the Local Church into Mission.

Recently I was asked the question, how does theology shape the church? The implication was that theology is irrelevant to the life of a church. To which I responded “There’s a theology that drives every church. Theology is shaping every church whether we know it or not.” Next came the question: if you went into a church how would you begin to direct its theology so as to shape its missional presence in the neighborhood? I suggested there’s three questions that every pastor/equipper should be able to answer. They then should be capable of leading their churches in answering these questions in a way that shapes our practice of life with God together. For me, these are the questions that fund the social imaginary of a community by the Holy Spirit by which we enter into His life and mission. The three questions are the How, What and Where questions

1.)  How does God Reveal Himself?

2.)  What is the gospel?

3.)  Where is the Kingdom?

How we answer these questions as a people, how we are led into the answers through the discipling/preaching/teaching ministries of the church, shape a community’s disposition in the world.

The way we have answered these questions in the past within my own tradition (evangelicalism) has been largely

1.) The Inerrant Bible,

2.) The Decision for Christ, and

3.) The Christian Nation -in last thirty years – and dispensationalism in the thirty years prior to that (the kingdom is in the future).

Admittedly I need to fill out these ideas. Yet I’ve become convinced that these three answers have become problematic for today’s church not only because a.) they don’t really answer the cultural questions we face anymore, but more importantly, b.) these answers shape us as communities over against mission.  In other words, these ways of articulating these beliefs – and the practices that coincide – have shaped us as an arrogant, duplicitous, dispassionate social presence in the world.

In my forthcoming book (I hear it’s coming in 2 weeks – I’ll have a free sample on this site in about two weeks hopefully) The End of Evangelicalism?: Discerning a New Faithfulness for Mission (Cascade Books – Theopolitical Visions Series) I try to show how these three beliefs of evangelicalism were forged as a defense. They have shaped us in antagonistic ways. I argue they worked well in a former time to meet the cultural challenges evangelicals faced – as largely typified by the modernist-fundamentalist controversies. But now, many years later, they are working against us.

I contend we need new ways to uphold a high view of Scripture’s authority, to teach/ initiate conversion into life in Christ and to understand the church’s engagement with society for God’s salvation in the world.

Here’s how I pose the answers to these three questions in The End of Evangelicalism?

1.) From Inerrant Bible to: Our One and True Story of God for the whole world – infallible in and through Jesus Christ Our Lord.

2.) From the question “have you made the decision to receive Christ as your personal Savior?” to: have you entered into the salvation already begun in Jesus Christ that God is working for the sake of the whole world?

3.) From the church as Christ’s army dispersing individuals into the world to fight for the Christian Nation to: the church as the social body of His Lordship (His Reign) incarnating Christ into the world.

I contend these three ways of speaking about these beliefs (and then practicing them) shape us for a hospitable, authentic, compassionate witness to Christ in the world. For what it’s worth, I still subscribe to the Bible’s inerrancy (qualifications needed) and of course I still believe in the decision to receive Christ’s pardon and make Him Lord. (I haven’t quite been able to swallow the Christian Nation thing, although I’ve tried wink, wink). Each of these beliefs is enhanced and deepened through this new articulation and practice.  All of this is explored in significant depth in the upcoming book The End of Evangelicalism? And I’ll be pleased to be giving 2 lectures on these subjects at Ambrose University college in two weeks in Calgary, Alberta. The lectures are entitled “The Future of Evangelicalism in N. America’s Post Christendom: Forging a New Faithfulness. Lecture 1: Reshaping Our Doctrine and Practice For Mission. Lecture 2 The Dangers and Hopes of the Emergent/Missional Church Movement.

If you’re nearby, join me!! Eh?

In the meantime, how have you, your church, led you through these three questions?

16 Comments

Webfonts HTML & CSS provided by FontsForWeb.com - free fonts download. See this Wordpress fonts(webfonts) plugin here