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
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
David,
Thank you for engaging this conversation. I have found you to be a constructive and corrective voice on many topics and have used "Great Giveaway" with my church leaders. In particular, I appreciate the emphasis you place on the distinctive culture of the church.
I am a Presbyterian church planter in Brooklyn, the leader of a multi-site church and part of the "Redeemer Network". Our congregations generally reflect our neighborhoods and mine is predominantly well-educated, middle-class, elite.
Having read your post and the many comments that follow, I'm not sure if I would describe our church as predominantly attractional or missional. That's not because we have found the golden mean, but because these categories obscure as much as they reveal and they assume something about our culture which, at least in NYC, I have not found to be true.
The rumor of Christendom's demise has been greatly exaggerated. I am not arguing again's Collin's assertion that many evangelicals have migrated to the city since the 1990's and continue to do so. The majority of our new members are transplants looking for a church. A small minority of our growth has come through conversions. We have only done about three dozen adult baptisms in the last 7 years.
Between those groups is a large minority of people who have returned to church after many years away. Here in the Northeast, many of those were baptized Roman Catholic or Episcopal and drifted away from the church. We may describe them as "unchurched" and they may be "un-believers" and "unsaved" but most denominations wouldn't think of re-baptizing these people because they aren't technically converts. Categorically, they are Christians. Even considering the large jewish and growing muslim population here in New York, most of the population is Christian. I'm assuming that's the case in most of the country. That presents a categorical challenge for those of us starting new congregations in neighborhoods where very few people attend church in the hope that many of these "nominal" Christians join our congregations. Are we being "attractional" or "missional"? Given the number of baptisms compared to new members, I'm guessing that very few church plants anywhere in North America could be described as "missional".
I'm not trying to play semantic games. Instead, I want to be careful that we aren't dividing ourselves unnecessarily between those who are "missional" and "get it" and those who are "attractional" and "don't get it." If the Gospel is the announcement that God is reconciling all things through Jesus Christ, then the mission of the church is to be the embodiment of reconciliation. As Newbigin argued, a local congregation is the hermeneutic of the Gospel. Therefore, every congregation is to be calling Christians, nominal Christians and non-Christians to participate in God's salvific work. Most congregations see more fruit from one of these groups than does another, but that doesn't disqualify their ministries.
Lastly, even though I'm arguing that most of our church planting in North America is "attractional" according to your categories, I'm not arguing that we should all just admit it and then try to put on the best show in town in order to attract the most people. That would be cynical and uncharitable at best and parasitic at worst. Church plants are not always a good thing. Sometimes they are like an Auto-Immune Disorder where a new congregation drains the life and vitality out of generally healthy local churches (usually under the assumption that these older congregation aren't preaching "the gospel"). That's probably a different discussion.
Thanks again for furthering the discussion,
Matt Brown
David's First Question to Jeff Vanderstelt:
a.) We agree that there are exception and complexities to every group. Acts 29, Redeemer City to City. There are willowcreek ass. churches who reject the idea of a seeker service etc. Nonetheless, there is an espoused way in each of these systems… redeemer has its church planting model, Acts 29 has its espoused principles… Literally thousands of young pastors are influenced and directed by these "ways"… So its helpful to analyze the cukltural assumptions that undergird them. Generalizations are thus needed. QUESTION:Wouldn't you agree such conversation is both legitimate and needed?
First of all, I would agree that this conversation is legitimate and needed. And by that I mean we all need to ask the question of what we are communicating "out there", what we are accomplishing in and through our respective churches and whether or not we are actually being faithful to the truth of the gospel and the purposes of the gospel. I share many of the same general concerns in this post, but not just about Acts 29 or City to City – I share these concerns regarding the church in North America. I am finding that the conversations happening within both Acts 29 and City to City (from what I've heard) actually reflect a growing commitment to equipping and sending missionaries for effective ministry to all peoples in all cultures. As Acts 29, we don't believe we've got it all figured out – we know we have much to learn and are constantly growing and changing as a result.
I also understand that generalizations can be helpful for critique and dialog. My concern is that you are actually critiquing Mars Hill and calling it Acts 29. If you want to generalize Mars Hill to create a helpful dialog you're free to, but Acts 29 is so diverse that I believe generalization are not helpful or truthful. As an aside, I would also encourage the readers and other critics of Mars Hill or Mark Driscoll to get some better information, as I know they are working very hard to equip and mobilize people on mission through their community groups – they did not start strong in this area, but are becoming much stronger than many churches that I run into that say they are all about mission and missional communities. I have found that many churches that critique Mars Hill or other big churches are really just anti-big church, pro-community or pro-social action with very little gospel proclamation, conversion, maturation and multiplication of disciples and churches.
One more thing, before I move on to your second question – If you do your research on Acts 29, you will find that the approach that Mars Hill has taken is the minority approach to our network. Though I know there are many "Mark Discoll wanna-be's" in our network, very few of our churches are trying to do what Mars Hill does. Mark is a gifted and unique leader who leads in accordance to the gifts and calling he has received from God. We strongly encourage each of our planters to not adopt the same methods or models. We do hold strongly to similar biblical, ecclesiological and missiological convictions, but we strongly encourage pastors to do the hard work of studying the culture they are sent to, contextualizing the gospel in language and forms suitable to the people and place of mission, while holding strongly to the essence of the gospel. Granted, not everyone does this equally well, leading to the adopting of similar strategies and forms, but each Acts 29 church has the freedom to form and lead the church they believe God is calling them to shepherd.
(the answer to your second question is in the next reply)
David's Second Question to Jeff Vanderstelt:
b.) Acts 29's way is .. what? QUESTION: would you agree it espouses the central importance of "Preaching" .. a strong male preacher in its founding as a church? Wouldn't you agree, that this preaching gathering is established as a cultural center from which to engage the locale and build a church mission engagment?
Jeff's Answer:
We do believe that preaching is important. Some in our network might say it is central. However, we would say Jesus is central and he and his word are the authority in our churches. We believe he is the senior pastor of our churches and we must teach the scriptures as inspired by God, having authority over our life and practice. We also do believe you don't have a church if you don't preach the gospel – it is through proclaiming the gospel that people hear the good news and become regenerate. The church is not just a group of people with no biblical authority, no gospel witness and no equipping and instruction from the Scriptures. We agree with Paul on this matter that we must preach the word in all seasons and people will not be saved unless they hear the gospel. Some of our churches put more emphasis on this preaching happening on Sunday, others are working hard to equip the whole body to be proclaimers of the gospel all week long (Soma would be the latter, while we also gather for gospel equipping weekly as well). However, in all of our churches we believe it is imperative that we regularly teach/preach the gospel and that all of our people are equipped to be gospel people – people how believe it, love it, live in light of it and can share it in the everyday. Granted, we all do this in different ways and to different degrees of success.
As far as the preaching gathering being "a cultural center from which to engage the locale and build a church mission engagement"…I think we would all say (you included) you will have to bring people together somewhere to establish them in the gospel and equip them for ministry (Paul did this in the hall of Tyrannus and in the synagogue as well as in households). The writer of/preach to the Hebrews commanded that they do this regularly to encourage one another and spur one another on toward love and good deeds. I would surmise that you would agree that you can't just have people disconnected "out there" doing effective ministry without taking time to establish them well in the gospel and equip them for ministry. Right? I think the question is: What form will you do this in? What is the most effective way to see the gifts given to the body fulfill their role of equipping the saints (Eph 4). Some believe it is through a Sunday gathering. Others believe it is in leadership meetings. Soma started off meeting in a home training people in the gospel and equipping them for mission (as do many Acts 29 churches). Whichever method you choose, you must equip the saints.
I have often been critical of those who think planting a church means "Launching a Service" – that's not a church, it's an event. I believe most of my Acts 29 brothers would agree with my statement. However, having a gathering to establish and equip is necessary for gospel effectiveness and movement (even if that gathering is 5-10 people in a home or 40-50 in a larger gathering).
So, the answer is: yes, we believe in preaching the word/gospel and we believe you must do it regularly. I believe all of our churches gather regularly in some form or another to be equipped through gifted teachers/preachers that God has give to the body.
Jeff …Your comment "We do believe that preaching is important. Some in our network might say it is central. However, we would say Jesus is central and he and his word are the authority in our churches." seems a bit disingenuous … surely you can anticipate that every Emergent church would say "Jesus is central" as well. Since I have trouble affirming much in the Emergent ways of living the gospel, I assume little is accomplished by such a statement. It doesn't get at our differences for the sake of dialogue.
I have no doubt from what I'm seeing on this post that you appear to NOT conform to the model of Acts 29 churches. Yet, I meet probably in the 100's of church planters over the past 5 years, the ones from Acts 29 either fall into the pattern I have described or have openly begun to question it for their cultural challenges. I remain open to knowing more. My research is limited to Acts 29 publishing, videos, and the various handbooks that are published by the respective parties, as well as my interaction with many church planters. Perhaps I need to do more research, or perhaps I at least can offer the alternative to those who have found the Neo-Reformed ways of church-planting ill formed for the cultural challenges of post Christendom post attractional society where they happen to find themselves. And just leave it at that. Is that Fair?
To see this alternative, I have a link in this post, but this blog is full of missives on what such church planting would look like.
And if I ever have the opportunity to chat, I'd enjoy learning more …
peace bro …
[...] Fitch takes some of the younger neo-Reformed church planters to task for calling themselves missional. Their churches are simply the result of city church kids. [...]
first time here and I just wanted to stop by to say hello all.
[...] blog, the MissionShift series will look at the past, present, and future of “mission.” On David Fitch’s blog, a recent post tackles whether specific ministry models are helpful and harmful, and this includes considering future consequences to how we do things in [...]
[...] charge has been laid that the self-professed Missionals in the Reformed community are actually behaving [...]
[...] David Fitch, a church planter, seminary professor and blogger has also noted this phenomena and writes that this has resulted in urban church plants full of a young, transient population who have moved [...]