Thanks to Brother Maynard, I caught this vintage Mark Driscoll remark(as transcribed here.)

"And all the nonsense of emerging, and Emergent, and new monastic communities, and, you know, all of these various kinds of ridiculous conversations - I'll tell you as one on the inside, they don't have converts. The silly little myth, the naked emperor is this: they will tell you it's all about being in culture to reach lost people, and they're not."

I get this kind of remark often in places where I speak. It usually goes something like this: "We love the missional theology. But does it work? How many converts have you had in your missional church? Is it (like it's some kind of strategy) reaching the people you're talking about?" And so it goes, the modernist drive to measure success raises its ugly head. Yet this does not offend me because these are important questions. For I believe if we are not seeing people transformed by the gospel then "missional" in the end means very little.

So my response to Driscoll would go something like this:

1.) I agree. There is a stunning lack of sustainable communities in the movements addressed by Driscoll and I think this is disturbing. The reasons for this are different though depending on who you're talking about: emerging churches versus missional churches.
2.) Regarding missional churches, it is difficult to survive as a sustainable missional church (versus your standard Driscollesque mega church). Missional church ecclesiology is organic and incarnational. It does not fit easily with denominational expectations. This creates economic pressures for the missional leaders. I believe it takes 5- 10 years to nourish a missional community into a true functioning existence. This doesn't fit with established denominational models of church planting (especially evangelical). This creates added pressures and less support for missonal church plants. Missional church plants therefore generally start out with alot of energy but often die by the end of year three. The planters have big dreams but soon burn out when the financial pressures and the long time it takes to see the work established gets to them. This is why we need support systems and ways of preparing missional leaders for these extraordinary circumstances. Al Roxburgh and Mark Bibby are working on this with their organization (Allelon).
3.) Regarding emerging churches/Emergent Village, I don't believe they intend to plant church communities that would lead to converts. Instead at least Emergent, (and a lot of emerging folk depending on which stream you're talking about) promote conversations (cohorts?). They seek to foster critique and seek "reform" within Christianity. I am not denying that there are vibrant emerging churches out there in the many different streams (our church has been accused of being an emerging church). But this is not their thrust. I also don't see Emergent/emerging possessing a soteriology and church/culture commitments that would emphasize the idea of conversion (although I have heard Brian McLaren talk openly and freely about conversions within the belonging-believing conversation).
4.) Having said all this, the number of conversions for missional church communities could still match the mega churches on the basis of percentages (if we were counting). This is Brother Maynard's point. I think that the missional communities that do persist may have a higher conversion rate than the Drsicollesque mega church. Missional churches are so much smaller. 6 conversions from a group of 25 over ten years would match (or exceed) the percentage growth of a typical mega church. I think it would be interesting to measure how much dollars per conversion are spent in missional churches versus mega churches five to ten years from now when conversions start manifesting themselves in missional churches. I know I am not supposed to think this way, but I still smile when I think that indeed missional churches could be more cost effective when it comes to conversions because we resist spending money on buildings, programs and the show.
5.) We must also recognize that "missionary conversions" take longer than mega church conversions. They are also more difficult to measure for often "conversion" happens as a process within a community (I could give you several examples within our own church). I argue that a conversion of a post-Christendom "pagan," who has had little to no exposure to the language and story of Christ in Scripture, requires five years of relational immersion before a decision would even make sense. If you do not have this immersion/context, any decision that is made is prone to be a consumerist one. It in essence is a consumerist decision. It is made based on the perceived immediate benefit. It lasts as long as this perceived benefit remains important. It does not lead to discipleship.
I believe it takes five years to provide such a context for someone totally foreign to the gospel. I suggest therefore that true missionary conversions, which I suggest missional churches are after, take much longer periods of time than the kind of conversions that are most often generated through mega church. For I believe that the mega church is largely appealing their message to people who once grew up as a child in old forms of church and know the Story but quit going to church. These now "unchurched people" require the old messages to somehow be made more relevant. These unchurched need to be be "revived" or called back into a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. There's nothing wrong with this, it's just different and we should recognize that. We should also recognize there is less and less of these kind of unchurched people left to make church more relevant to.
The bottom line is then, if we would reach the lost souls of post Christendom, the church in N America must go missional, incarnational, organic. We must become intertwined with those we seek to reach. Yet this will take time and appear to be highly inefficient in the terms we have become used to in the church growth/mega church world.

This is why I believe that Mark Driscoll has missed the point. I think he speaks too boldly about the lack of conversions in missional and neo monastic communities. I think a helpful thing to do would be for Mark to take a survey of his own church and ask how many converts at Mars Hill heard about Jesus for the first time through Mars Hill? How many came from other church experiences? How many are ex Catholics who learned the entire Christian catechism and then walked away only to become Christians at Mars Hill. I know Seattle is considered post Christendom territory. I also know that Driscoll considers being Catholic the equivalent of being damned to hell. Could it then be that the majority of converts at Mars Hill are what remains of the Christendom generations: more like the mega church type of conversion I described above? Not to say this is not all valid work for the Kingdom. Yet it is different work. For, at least theoretically, these are people being converted from a different base than those we pursue in the missional church. Missional missiology is aimed at those lost in societies of post Christendom. And this kind of mission takes longer. To me Driscoll misses this point.

What do you think?

Recently, Matt, one of our pastors at "the Vine," told me "people don't want to be pastored anymore." He said that often, when he tries to reach out and minister to younger people who are hurting and struggling, he gets the unexpected rebuff. It's like they are saying "I feel like I'm a project to you." Interestingly, Matt reports that when he reaches out to the older group, he is welcomed.

There could be many reasons for this. Most obviously this could simply mean Matt's pastoral manner isn't very good. The older ones are just more polite. But I don't think so. I think this attitude reflects the further onset of the conditions of post Christendom. Here's three observations.

• Gone are the days when the pastor, with his/her credentials is assumed to have professional authority and expertise to speak into the spiritual/emotional problems of people. This trust must be earned relationally in community. Older folks are still used to the idea that a pastor should care for and shepherd the hurting during their struggles, whether they be financial or physical etc. The younger ones however now view it with suspicion?

• The newest generations want someone to be their friend, not their professional pastor.

• The post-mega-church generation simply cannot seem imagine that the pastor they see up front is someone who actually knows the people in the community. They see the pastor as a figurehead, a media figure, who leads through image and a hierarchical corporate position. They cannot fathom that this person would actually be in their home and talking about their real lives. This has hastened the end of the pastor as "pastoral care" professional.

If the above is true, then:

1. This hastens the day when the church must become an actual community, not a professionalized society. The church must be a community of friends, the pastor one among many, walking and mentoring and leading among, not above as some sort of professional. The dramatic shift into post Christendom pushes Christendom models of professional pastoring aside for a "leadership among" that can lead the struggling by walking alongside.
2. Relational pastoring necessitates de-centralized leadership in our churches. A pastor can know relationally at most twelve to twenty people. Our churches then either have to be this small so that everyone is the pastor's friend, or become more decentralized in leadership. Leaders must mentor leaders and give away pastoral authority. And we need places where the spiritual disciplines can be practiced in small groups, where confessing sin, penance, discernment takes place among friends.
3. The visiting of our sick becomes an exercise of the whole community not the professional domain of the pastor. I still advocate that all of our pastors must visit the sick in the hospitals. We must model it to others as well as engage in ministry to our friends. I also see the hospitals as places of incarnational ministry. The hospitals are the place where the poor(in spirit) and dying reside. There is nothing more incarnational than ministering Christ's presense in our austere business-like hospitals of the West.

What do you think? Is the era of the pastoral care professional over among the younger generations? What does this means for professional counseling?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Just to let those know who missed it, Andrew Jones and I are featured in this month's issue of Next-Wave.It's great to see that two people in McLaren's corner can still engage his work critically, yet charitably in a pro-emergent e-zine. Check it out!

As I have traveled and led discussions on missional church, I usually get the most resistance when I talk about the liturgical gathering as a place of formation for mission. Often people will say, "What does liturgy have to do with incarnational forms of church." My contention is that missional people do not fall out of trees. They must be formed into relationship to God, the Story we are being invited to participate in, the Missio Dei which always precedes us, yet we must have our vision (imaginations) shaped in order to see it - i.e. God at work in the world. If we are ever to be missional, our desires, our vision, our very selves must be reordered out of the ways we have been trained in consumerist America into the Missio dei. To me, good liturgy does this! Liturgy that is Scriptural, historical, theological, accessible and organic (part of everyday life) does some of the work of forming people into Missio Dei.

Matt Tebbe, one of the pastors at the Vine wrote the article below (for a web-zine he didn't give me the link to) about the worship gathering at the Vine. Many ask me what our church looks at the Sunday morning gathering, and why? I think Matt captures some of what takes place as we gather. He didn't cover everything. The way we preach at the Vine is important. The way we gather at the beginning is unique. The way our community sends people out for mission every Sunday is huge. He didn't cover these things. He did not cover how we have spent hours discussing the problem of even this gathering becoming attractional. Sometimes, it seems liturgy has become the new hip cool way to meet my spiritual needs (and we leave it at that). I hope to blog about what we're doing in this regard in future posts. Having said all of that, I think Matt (in this article) catches the vision of what an organic simple liturgical worship gathering can do in the forming of people for mission. I offer it (with his permission) for those who are seeking an alternative to 'the pep rally" or the "lecture hall" worship services so many of us evangelicals are used to. I offer it for more suggestions and hearing what other missional folk do in their worship gathering. Both Matt and I are open for questions and suggestions on this post. Here goes

"Liturgy: The Frustrating and Fashioning of Worship" by Matt Tebbe

"It took me a few weeks to figure out why I was drawn to your church," said Cheryl. Her husband had come to our church only once; in a brief conversation, he revealed to me why "we weren't going to grow much bigger." "You could easily double in size," he said, "if you got rid of all that chanting." (He was referring to our call and response section in our liturgy). So when Cheryl kept coming to Life on the Vine without her husband, I was curious why. "I realized that your liturgy teaches me how to worship. I never really thought about it much before, but every week I am learning how to listen and respond to God."

Cheryl's comment has stuck with me - "your liturgy teaches me how to worship." Our church, Life on the Vine Christian Community, is a small, liturgical, missional church in the NW suburbs of Chicago. Over the last 3 years as my wife and I have been committed to the Body at Life on the Vine, I've come to see how each element of our liturgy has a dual function: a "frustrating" role of deconstructing and exposing the ways we've been formed by our world to worship and a "fashioning" role of reordering and teaching us how to worship as the Spirit-birthed community created for mission.

In the Round
We sit in a circle with a table at the center of the room. Worship is communal - the people of God responding to the Triune God - and our seating arrangement physically represents this truth. On the table in the center of our worship sits two candles representing the presence of the Holy Spirit, a Trinity candle, and the cross of Christ. After the fourth reading (the gospel), our Bible is set open on the table during the rest of our service. We believe that sitting in rows of chairs all facing the same direction, and elevating preachers and worship leaders above the congregation teaches and signifies what we honor and value in our worship. In contrast at LOV, the sermon is preached to the side of the altar (i.e. "from" the community, not "in front of" the community), musical worship is led by a band in the back of the room, as people speak or sing in worship they are centered on the table and aware of the body of Christ gathered. No one person ever assumes the center position in our worship space other than the Triune God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Sitting in the round is a discipline of worship that frustrates our individualistic, private relationship with the Triune God and orders us as a community around the Word of God, the cross of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit. We are fashioned into a Spirit-birthed community created for mission.

Silence
We begin our worship together with a short (1-2 sentences) reading from scripture or a meditation chosen for the particular theme of the day. It is read and then time is given in silence for our congregation to be open to the Spirit. Worship isn't our open mic time with God, but rather we learn to wait - to listen in silence to the voice of God. It's a clearing, an opening, a ceasing that brings our attention and focus to the God who would call us to worship. Silence is a discipline of worship that frustrates our busy, anxious, self-centered impulse to come before the Lord with a mouthful of words. We are fashioned into still, listening, responsive people to the beckoning voice of God.

Reading
We don't project scripture on screens. We don't even give a specific scripture address when we read the text. This aggravates some - people are flying through their Bibles trying to find where we're at. But it is intentional. In our culture where information is commodified, owned, possessed, and used for our purposes we intentionally take the Word out of our hands and submit our ears to listen to it read over our community. We submit our designs for possessing and controlling information and allow the Word to be read aloud in our community. Hearing is a discipline of worship that frustrates our tendency to commodify information. We are fashioned into a people owned, controlled, and possessed by the Word.

Liturgicon
This is how we describe our "liturgical icon" - a reflective, meditative engagement with art and music. This unique part of our liturgy is meant to be a window into God's goodness, or sometimes a mirror of reproach. After viewing the 2-3 minute moving picture (sometimes live-action video, sometimes ancient artwork, sometimes modern photography), we respond corporately in praise, affirmation of truth, confession, or thanksgiving. Seeing and responding is a discipline that frustrates our passive engagement with technology and overly-cognitive ways of processing reality. The liturgicon frustrates our tendencies to consume media passively and rely solely on hyper-active minds that seek to dissect and figure our way into submitted relationship with God. We are fashioned into a people who actively engage art as a window or mirror of truth, beauty, and God's reality for us in Christ.

Lord's Supper
The Word is read and proclaimed and we respond by breaking bread together in the Lord's Supper. The climax of our worship, the Lord's Supper is more than a mere object lesson, more than a memory tool; it is the very participation in the salvific work of Christ's death on the cross and resurrection life. As we eat and drink the bread and cup, we proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Eating the Lord's Supper weekly is a discipline that frustrates our consumeristic, self-centered tendencies to approach the crucified and resurrected Christ individually. We are fashioned into a re-membered Body by a meal that preaches, re-orders, and calls us into a fresh reception of the redeeming work of Christ's work on our behalf.

Liturgy teaches us how to worship. It calls us to recognize our sin, God's expectations, our need to confess, declares the promise and reality of forgiveness, and climaxes in the perfect celebration of the Gospel in the Lord's Supper. This celebration of Word and Table is no mere memory tool, but rehearses right worship and allows engagement with the Holy Spirit to be sent out in mission. Cheryl is correct: liturgy properly orders our worship of God and thereby teaches us how we ought to approach him in call and response. Using both ancient and modern liturgical disciplines, we seek to create space and opportunity to frustrate the ways our world has taught us to worship and be fashioned into proper worship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Liturgy both frustrates and fashions our worship.

Tony Jones recently posted a chapter on the Hauerwasian Mafia (HM) left out of his most recent book on the emergent church. He details his journey in and out of Hauerwas country. He highlights a conversation with one of our co-pastors at "Life on the Vine" - Geoff Holsclaw (boy Geoff, were you a wimp or what?) - where he asserts that Hauerwas would not approve of his chaplain role with the local police. Huh? I think this is a confusion. I think Tony's chaplaincy in service to his local police department provides an excellent example of how Hauerwas would say the church should engage the world (especially the 80's Hauerwas whom he seems to be characterizing). For it is here where we reveal the character of our Christian convictions as followers of Christ, laying down our lives to minister to the suffering. I don't think Tony should confuse his chaplain efforts with the kind of chaplaincy Hauerwas' rejects. Hauerwas rejects the American church's attempt to hold onto power in society through the maintaining of a chaplaincy relationship to the State. The error Hauerwas seeks to avoid is the one where the church, by maintaining its chaplaincy role to the State, aims to share in the State's power thereby becoming seduced into being the servant of the State and eventually finding itself compromised and subverted by the State. The result: the church finds itself supporting the Iraq War. I don't see how Tony's service as chaplain to the police would violate the Hauerwasian attempt to resist Constantianism. Unless of course Tony was tempted to take up arms, alongside the police force, and use his police weapon to coerce the Hindu to make a decision to covert to Christ, or arrest gay transgressors or pro-choice activists. Since I don't see Tony doing any of these things, I think Hauerwas would applaud and encourage Tony's ministry as a wonderful manifestation of the ministry of Christ's presense in society. I think he would approve of Tony's deft engagements of folk of other faiths ( see one of Hauerwas' earliest writings, Community of Character ch. 5).

Having said this, I propose the following three reasons why the Emergent church would be blessed by granting a sanctioned admission to a more vocal Hauerwasian Mafia in the Emergent conversation. Emergent would gain:

1. A wherewithal to resist the Constantinian seduction to opt out for the easier way towards accomplishing justice in the world. I think we too quickly (not always!) opt out to collaborate with State agencies to achieve Christian ends (justice). The Emergent voices could use a sober sense of the mistakes of protestant liberal social strategies of the past ( which is why we're in this mess in the first place)
2. The means to seriously consider the church as a social-political strategy (mirco-political) for justice in the world, as opposed to a Christian alumni association for the recruitment of individuals to talk about and engage in an ever elusive ethereal justice that never quite hits the ground.
3. An alternative engagement with continental philosophy that takes things beyond the deconstructive discussions of Derrida, Caputo, Kearney and friends.
   

Furthermore, if I can become even more bold, let me suggest three more advantages the Emergent church would receive by adopting the HM into the fold.

1. In Hauerwas, they would have someone who could teach Mark Driscoll a thing or two about inappropriate language.
2. Embracing the HM would allow Emergent to p_ss off the protestant liberal churches equally as well as they already p_ss of the evangelical fundamentalists
3. Lastly, the Emergent leaders, by embracing pacificism, could make their first definitive doctrinal position ever on anything, realizing that pacifism is not actually a doctrinal position but the epistemological (Christological) basis which makes possible an open never ending conversation in the first place.

OK, the last three were "tongue-in-cheek." Any other reasons out there why Hauerwas might be good (or bad) for the Emergent Conversation? Blessings to Tony Jones, the Emergent conversation, and may she keep on rolling.

I'm off to the Wheaton Theology Conference for the next few days. This conference will be on the revival of Trinitarian theology of the last fifty years (really since Barth). The Trinity is a central part of what drives the notion of missio Dei and missional ecclesiology. In the words of David Bosch:

It (missio Dei) was thus put into the context of the doctrine of the Trinity ... The classical doctrine on the missio dei as God the Father sending the Son, and God the Father and Son sending the Spiirt was expanded to include another "movement": Father, Son and Holy Spirit sending the church into the world.(p.390)

Because of this, the mission of God (the missio Dei) becomes something that forms the church, that the church is a part of, that the church participates in (as opposed to a self generated activity of the church). Of course this breeds all sorts of theological issues centered on the intersection between the Trinity and the church. I hope to glean much from this conference. Anyone else going? I'm open for some dinner if you're available. I'll probably post on this next Tuesday. I also have a post in the works on "America's housing crisis: the idol hath fallen" and what this means for mission in the suburbs. See y'all next week.

My friend Mark Van Steenwyck and the blog he runs, JesusManifesto.com, is doing a writing competition. It's called the "Stepping into the Wind: A Pentecost-Inspired Writing Competition". I mean where does this man's creativity end? I thought it looked so good that I wanted the readers here of ReclaimingtheMission to "get wind" of it. Blessings to Mark and everyone over at JesusManifesto for spurring the flames of creativity for the Kingdom. If you can contribute the details are as follows:

We want your words. Jesus Manifesto is inviting you to submit an original article exploring the theme of Pentecost. In particular we want you to explore the theme of Pentecost in light of the world’s struggles. In the so-called “first” world, Christendom is fading into memory. In the so-called “third” world, new religious realities are emerging as Pentecostalism, Catholicism, and Islam compete for souls. Meanwhile, our world is growing increasingly diverse as immigration patterns and globalization intensify both the interconnectedness and the fractured-ness of our world. Ours is a world where urban poor in US cities carry cell phones while urban poor in other cities live amidst disease and intractability.

How can Pentecost can provoke our imagination for the 21st Century? In 1000 words or less, we want you to stoke the embers of our imagination into flame.

PRIZES: We’re awarding one $50 prize for each of our categories (doxis, praxis, culture, aesthetics, and satire) with a $150 grand prize for the overall best general submission. That’s $400 total in prizes.

Winners will be announced on June 1. The winning submissions, along with the 2nd place submissions for each category, will be published in JM in June.

DEADLINE: Pentecost 2008 (May 11)

Enter the contest here.

Jamie, over on his blog, e-mailed me asking for advice on planting a church (I prefer to call this "seeding missional communities"). I responded with the following "advice" (in bold) and Jamie responded. My advice was simple and unoriginal. Yet it was advice I WISH I HAD TAKEN MUCH EARLIER in my church planting ventures. As I read it on his blog again, I thought others might find it helpful. And let's pray for Jamie and his wife Kim in this noble and blessed venture for Christ and His Kingdom.
For what its worth here's my church planting advice compacted into one paragraph and Jamie's interaction.

Church Planting Advice From David Fitch

DF: "DON'T DO IT ALONE. In today's post-Christendom, I believe you must have at least two other couples or single people to be ministry partners in this, equally committed to the leadership and development of this little community over a span of five years."

JAMIE : This is encouraging, as it was the first requirement Kim & I made when we started conversation about the plant. It does scare me that we won't find those others, but I have to hold on to hope. In fact, if any of you feel a tug in this direction, drop me a line.

DF: "HAVE A VERY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT MISSIONAL COMMUNITIES require several years to germinate, and so success will not be measured by numbers. That the real incredible stuff happens after fostering a life together of support, encouragement and discernment of where God is calling you to minister in the neighborhoods."

JAMIE: Having spent the last 6 years nurturing our little missional community in our ministry, this is a lesson we understand very well. As a YWAMer, I obviously believe there is a place for short term dynamics, but there are some areas (like this) where it isn't an option. I guess it was good I didn't know any better, because I expected it to take that long!

DF: "HAVE A SURVIVAL PLAN. Finances and visions of grandeur destroy church planters, their health, marriages and well being. Live simply, have a way to support yourself that is sustainable (bi-vocational maybe?). Plan so finances won't be a huge drain on you all the time."

JAMIE: Again, being YWAM missionaries has helped prepare us for this. Not only are we used to living and ministering for very little, simply living is a way of life in our mission. We have much to learn, though, especially as we move forward with those living outside the YWAM context.

DF: "LEAD THROUGH HUMILITY, GRACE AND MODELING SERVANTHOOD. Always be ready to minister prayer and the forgiveness of Christ. Don't be afraid to show anyone the way of dying to self that leads to life, even the poor."

JAMIE: One of our core values here is rooted in this truth. We have a long way to go in walk it out well, but our neighbours have been patient, yet rightfully demanding teachers. I am forever grateful to be knocked off my pedestal on a regular basis!

DF: "INVEST IN OTHER LEADERS walking with them, praying with them, guiding their imaginations towards God and His Mission. This multiplies ministry exponentially."

JAMIE: This is the area that I feel particularly challenged in. It is a combination of my own need to do it better and a seriously lack of self-confidence. I also know that leaders have hurt me in the past, so I am often gun-shy about repeating those same mistakes myself.

DF: "MAKE REGULAR TIMES OF PRAYER (that can last at least an hour - say on a long walk) out of which you struggle to give up your dreams and allow God to work in whatever small seeds you're planting that day. You'll look back in 5 -6 years and can't believe what God did."

JAMIE: Prayer is another area that I struggle. I am constantly talking to God through inner dialogue, but the discipline of prayer must extend far beyond that. I have tried many different ways to overcome this barrier, but it is something that will require more time, patience and discipline.

DF: "I believe everyone should plant a church at least once in their lives. For it is here where Pentecost can be most purely experienced in this lifetime. We really have no idea the amazing things God will do (often subtley) with our feeble offerings when placed under the Reign of Christ."

THANKS JAMIE FOR THE ASKING THE QUESTIONS AND BEING WILLING TO SERVE CHRIST IN THIS WAY.