We’re also seeking a lot of other wisdom from AA on this spectator issue in our meetings. AA groups provide much more venues for its people to “practice” their faith–to give and receive–compared to churches who prioritize a meeting in which most are pure spectators. We’re seeking to let our meetings be more places of practicing than places of watching. And we’re prioritizing the meetings (of two or three) where this practicing can happen the most.

At the risk of being hopelessly pessimistic, I’m not sure any church model actually turns a majority of its members into devout disciples. There are ecclesiastical, missiological, and (let’s not forget) theological paradigms which practically guarantee that members will neither become believers nor develop into disciples, but I’m afraid all our very best efforts—most strategically and theologically on target—come very short of our goals (shared with Jesus and the apostles) of seeing every Christian mature in Christ and vitally involved in His mission.

I’m curious what research you’ve done and/or compiled and analyzed that leads you to the conclusion you have about “gigantic so-called Bible preaching churches,” and how they compare in overall effectiveness at producing Christian disciples than others (“actual” Bible preaching churches?). In any and every church, there are going to be a fair number of tares mixed in with the wheat. The bottom line is, what churches are producing the greatest number of disciples per capita (since the Church’s part in the missio Dei is, after all, making disciples, period)? “Reveal” was the best attempt anyone has made recently at quantifying the data. What are your data, other than anecdotal?

I do indeed find the experience of the Table to be formative and renewing. (I happen to “enjoy” that, but hopefully not in the same way the aforementioned woman was enjoying her hashbrowns–but I digress.) I also find something meaningful in more “high-church” forms of worship.

But I can’t work out how these elements must be part of a gathering that forms people into incarnational witnesses of the Gospel. Why must missional Sunday morning gatherings have the Table as the “center” of their worship gathering?

And though I keep asking this question, I still don’t have a clear idea in my mind: what exactly is this “liturgical shape” that missional gatherings must take on?

Are we essentially talking about making our gatherings places of participation instead of spectating? In that case, does ANY participative element serve this purpose?

Very helpful and on-target post. What I find ironic is that many exponents of “excellent religious goods and services” echo your rebuke of “decaffeinated worshipers”/consumer Christians. Here are two surprising examples:

In my college years, I attended a conference with our church college ministry’s “worship team”. The level of excellence (in everything from the visual, musical and spoken worship, and the preaching and instruction, to the coordination of the event… or rather, events) was almost literally stunning—far beyond anything “religious” I had ever experienced. Awe-inspiring would be a good description. What made the biggest impact (and what is simultaneously ironic) was the intensity of the speakers’ indignation with “decaffeinated worship” and spiritual passivity. They sternly admonished us not to leave the conference wowed by the externals, nor fooled by thinking anything external could produce spiritually-authentic results. While the media through which they communicated certainly produced a temptation to this end, nevertheless I came away with the impression that excellence and grandiosity can serve in a ministerial rather than magisterial capacity to foster genuine Christian spirituality and discipleship.

My second experience is more recent, and in progress. I attend a Chicagoland megachurch which prides itself on being “seeker hostile” rather than attractional… or at least whose pastor insists that it is. Their/our concern is not that people walk away from our gatherings having enjoyed themselves, but rather having encountered and changed by the Living God. Our pastor’s preaching ethos is such that he does not shirk from the offense of the Gospel, but rather draws it out. And yet he and our church are intent on excellence in everything—we must, because we can. Anything less than our best is cavalier and unfit for the King of Kings.

The problem I have recognized, despite the best intentions of the leaders of the two above-mentioned groups, however, is that the excellence they are able to (and so do) produce is in such stark superiority (from a consumer perspective) that churches unable to “play the same game” are at a disadvantage, and so eventually atrophy. If there is any argument against pursuing excellence to our highest ability and opportunity, this is it. But is this a strong enough argument? Or is the disparity between these contemporarily sensible leaders and those constrained by historic cultural forms unavoidably predictive of the response of the fish swimming in present cultural water (and so justifiable)?