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
Per my email to you….the attraction model depends heavily on the service of worship…making it entertaining enough, exciting enough, enjoyable enough, sense of God enough to bring people in and bring people back. It has to get better and better (at least not worse) all the time or people get bored. This contributes to worship becoming the main thing that eats up enormous amounts of time and money to produce.
David,
I am apart of a church on the west coast that has many direct connections to Redeemer , and is, for the most part, with our own uniqueness of course, carrying out the same church planting strategy. I think you are right about the attractional nature of Sunday worship services, and I think we do spend way too much time and resource here. That is, if we want to effectively reach the unchurched and unreached.
However, because this model can draw a critical mass of people and resources, if "successful", it seems to propel ministries outside of a Sunday gathering, that often can be very effective in reaching the unchurched and unreached. I think of Catholic mass, side by side, missionary orders. Think Ralph WInters Soldality/ Modality article…
I have watched people trickle into our worship service, which is more sensitive to their unchurchiness than most, because of these ministries outside the church walls. It is a very slow trickle…but a trickle none the less.
Dave, this is a great article that outlines much that I've also intuited as well as the sort of disctinction I usually have to make when asking how the approach of the church planting network I am a part of differs from an Acts 29 type.
I also have to say that I applaud the conciliatory tone that you have in applauding the good the neo-reformed planters have accomplished. I too often find myself falling into an us vs. them approach that is quite unhealthy.
I attend an Acts 29 networked church in Philly (1 of 6 in total) after graduating from an evangelical college in the Midwest. Mr. Hansen asks an important question, and given his expertise in America’s “young, restless, and reformed” world, it ‘gives me the impression’ that he doubts Mr. Fitch’s claim that inner-city reformed church pews are filled predominantly with WWJD generation kids who took jobs in the inner city. This surprises me, perhaps because it seems so obvious.
My congregation, which I dearly love despite my objections to certain parts (ok, most) of the neo-Calvinist world, is staffed with upwardly mobile evangelicals who grew up in suburbs or small towns. It is 95% white, predominantly Christian hipster, and relatively attractional in style. While there is tension with the neighborhoods older white ethnic community, there are promising connections, mostly through youth programs, with the poorer post-Christian or Catholic neighbors. My impression is that the other Acts 29 churches in Philly have a similar population: mostly Grove City, Messiah College, Philadelphia Biblical University and State U Campus Crusade expats. Everybody loves Tim Keller. This is obviously only anecdotal evidence, and I hope someone collects the data.
Near my church, there exists a more missional community connected with the MCC. It is even more Christian hipster than our community, yet, I fear it also is filled primarily–but not quite as much–with evangelical post-collegiates. After reading this blog for several years, I have been drawn towards a more post-Christendom community that Mr. Fitch advocates, but I have my doubts about whether those communities are as diverse or more freshly born-again if you will, than my Acts 29 community. If I ever make a switch it may be to a Catholic congregation.
Either way, it is a rare thing for recent college graduates to go to church, as Notre Dame Sociologist Christian Smith reminds us, so perhaps we should be grateful whenever 2 or more are gathered in his Name.
Ben,
Thanks for your comment. I think you are right on with your articulation of who is part of these congregations and the good and bad of this reality. Any church that is keeping our generation plugged in and engaged in the mission of God is to be congratulated. This is an accomplishment in and of itself. It is not necessarily indicative of an ability to reach the rest of our generation that is unchurched, but it is important.
Loved your thoughts. Well argued. Thanks.
I agree Dave, they can't guarantee that what works for them will work in more secularized locales. Not sure we have the alternative nutted out yet though. Even most missional churches are still plugged into the same machines.
Thank you for the post today. I love the way you dive into stuff, write with candor, but still listen well to others. Nice job. I hope it is ok to "re-blog."
Dave,
I pretty much agree with your thesis. I'm wondering about alternatives.
A couple of questions: Do you view the Alpha Course in the same way? It seems that community and discussion (and a shared meal) take some of the spotlight fromthe central charismatic male leader, and more so if the talks are done via teams. But is it still "attactional" in your view in the sense it pulls folks to a meeting where everything happens?
Secondly and relatedly, I'm wondering about, by way of comparison, AA's structures and practices and whether you would see them as more missional or attractional. Obviously, the various kinds of meetings are important for AAs, but they lack, by choice, any marketing machine or central charismatic figure. Relatedly, they are as diverse as the population itself.
I'll go on record saying that I don't think there is a better model in our culture than AA (and perhaps Crossfit) for producing grassroots communities of practice.
David,
I like how you handled the disagreement here. We have had good discussions about things like this (i.e. our megachurch video) and I am sure this will prompt some good discussion. I will watch and learn from the comments.
One thing about my own experience. Having planted incarnationally among the urban poor in Buffalo, NY and then planted again in Erie, PA, I can tell you it is different than planting here in Nashville. Context matters.
All need the gospel, and all need new churches, so I rejoice and don't disparage either place. Yet, they are different contexts that require different strategies and approaches.
Be sure to come by today as I post my next installment in attractional church planting, but be sure to read the posts about house churches, missional incarnational communities, and missiology. We celebrate a diversity of models, but I think we already had that conversation over twitter!
Be well, my friend. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
God bless,
Ed
This is really great, thanks for writing this. I'll be spreading it far and wide.
I agree with you and I think you can see this happening non-Reformed evangelical churches as well. We work on how to get people in our doors–what will attract them. Usually it's a change in the worship venue–the music, the setting of the room, etc. And you're right, there's nothing wrong with that. But there is a group of people that will not drive to our suburban locations for church. That is where missional efforts come into play. You go TO the people. As you interact with them, they'll become interested in you, your life, your witness and there lies the opportunity to present the gospel. They may or may not attend your church and this is where I find many people get hung up. I've seen parishioners actually get upset about our numbers not increasing by the people that we go out to minister to. They're missing the bigger picture of bringing people into the Kingdom regardless of whether they're at your local church or another one. To me, what people get upset about, shows where their real focus is–on THEIR kingdom and not God's.
Isn't there TREMENDOUS value for missional engagement in re-invigorating dormant Christians? Isn't the issue how those Christians are being re-invigorated?
Isn't there great value in ministry that re-invigorates dormant Christians into living lives that witness to the transforming power of Jesus, thereby establishing the cultural authority of the church again? Don't we strive to transform all of culture? Why would we simply write off as "diminishing" a Christianized foundation of city culture? Don't we believe that such a foundation is beneficial and a fulfillment of God's will to bring his Kingdom here on earth?
I feel like "Christendom" needs to be better defined, so we can sort the wheat from the chaff. I am not interested in a Church flexing its muscle to exert cultural and societal hegemony. I don't believe this is the Church's calling.
I think the problem with the attractional model is not that it is dependent on quasi-Christianized people, but that it can so easily lead to a commodification of the gospel, encouraging believers to trade self-dying for self-satisfying. That is, instead of calling dormant Christians to lay down their lives, the attractional model calls Christians to think first about how to meet their own spiritual/emotional/social needs, and leave the ministry to the professionals.
If the only truly missional ministry is one that does not seek to call dormant Christians into a deeper walk with God, it's going to be pretty lonely out there.
David
I appreciate your well thought out argument to the definition of 'attractional' based church planting. I agree that in the near future, this type of church planting will not work beyond the confines of the Christian community- in many areas of our country. However, it is all within context. Like you mentioned, this type of church planting can still be quite viable in reaching those who do not have, and never have had, a relationship with Jesus when done in the culture context of an area that has a history of Christian thought and traditions. Often attracting Christians (or on the verge) to build a strong base, and then embedding themselves in their community to reach those who would not otherwise connect with the church world.
I am apart of a church plant that started in a home with a missional bent, but since 'launching' in a theater we have seen a few people encounter church and the life of Jesus for the first time, with multiple individuals recommitting to following Jesus who had given up on 'church'.
Thank you for your work of research and documentation. It helps give clarity.
Jason
Ed,
I read the post referenced here and it sounds like your conclusions come from broad church planting experience among many, not just your own current experience in Nashville. Perhaps I'm wrong to take it that way. Can you tell us how your approach among the urban poor in New York differed from the fundamentally attractional approach David is talking about in this post? Did you send out postcards? Did you have a launch service? Was it driven by something other than a "come to our preaching event" approach? And if so, what were the things that drove that plant?
Paul,
You can see Ed and Dave duke it out on this topic and others in this series of videos. Ed was a bit more of a heavy weight in those days.
Paul,
You are right. The current series is based on some qualitative research in the contemporary church planting community. See the first posts for info on the sample and how that influences the conclusions.
In regards to your questions, I think it would be better to talk through David's ideas rather than for me to do a Q&A in his space (and, to be honest, I need to respond to a bunch of questions on my blog first, as I was recently rebuked!).
I've written extensively about different models (and the necessity of such) in Viral Churches, though, if you would like more info. And, my thesis is that certain kinds of unchurched people will be reached by one kind of plant while others will be reached by other approaches– so I want to affirm (and provide research for) different kinds of biblically faithful churches seeking to live on mission.
OK, now back to my blog.
God bless,
Ed
Ed, I asked you this question the other day on Twitter, but I am still thinking about it. Is it possible to have widely divergent models all be biblical, like we seem to claim? It seems like that however people do church, it is fine, as long as it draws people. But, if the medium is the message, then at what point do the widely divergent media of church models begin to also alter the message? I'm just not buying that some of the contemporary attractional models of church produce the same types of disciples as other models (notice, I didn't make a value judgment one way or the other).
I think this relates to David's point, because if we assert that all models are equal (just different, based on preference) and that all models can equally be missional while also being attractional, then I think that we need to discuss that. I don't see how that is possible.
I think Alan raises a crucial question. I believe the practice of using plug-n-play methodological models and programs leads to dangerous outcomes based on the dubious assumptions that "they're all *biblical*" (whatever we think that means) and "it's all good" and "just focus on what it DOES do, not on what it doesn't."
Even when our search is motivated by sincere desires for positive Kingdom impact, the reality is that an organizational model such as Attractional can be used well or poorly. Maybe it can bring substantial and positive results – in a culturally appropriate context, as witnessed to some in this post and comments. But I’ve also seen it used as a be-all, end-all approach that informs, entertains, and pre-evangelizes the crowds, but actually crowds out discipleship. I’ve been in a church like that, and long enough to see the damage it caused.
Further, I don’t think Attractional or any other model is just a neutral tool. Every model is an operational system that naturally flows from an underlying paradigm. And every paradigm has at least some inherent deficiencies and excesses in relationship to biblical principles and to biblical priorities. So, if we want to assess the impact of a methodological model, we need to evaluate it within its entire system – epistemology, values, core theology, strategies and structures, the corporate culture it creates, and lifestyles it promotes. That’s how we see how *relatively* good it is, not just evaluate it in the abstract to see if it is either *absolutely* good or bad.
Here are some of the key questions I use for this kind of assessment of a model in its underlying paradigm:
How COMPREHENSIVE is it in theological principles and biblically required practices? For instance, how good can a system be if it excludes ecological stewardship, when the Bible has multiple indications this is important and when many cultural contexts now consider this essential?
How INTEGRATED is it as a system, in terms of what many consider to be our main mandate, which is to make disciples through baptizing them and teaching them to observe what Jesus taught – not simply to make converts? For instance, the Alpha Course has many positive aspects commending it as an entry-level intro to Christianity. But do we provide any follow-up to Alpha, and is anyone being discipled into the roles needed to lead it? Alpha without Beta will lead us to Nomega …
How does it mesh with the PRIORITIES given us in Scripture? For instance, I have to wonder if “seeker-sensitive” models actually over-prioritize evangelism to the point that the entire church worship service has been hijacked for that purpose. Evangelism is noble and necessary, but when seeker-drivenness becomes a barrier to finder-discipleship, isn't it out of balance with the multiple ministries the Scriptures tell us are required to bring followers of Jesus Christ to greater spiritual discernment and mature Christlike character?
When it comes to methodological models for doing/being church, I’m not against getting helpful tips and ideas for program how-to’s, or even searching for “best practices” on specific issues. But plug-n-play methods and models at the macro-level we’re talking about here negate the necessity for local culture studies and careful contextualization of communication and ministry. They remove the work (and fun!) of finding creative operational ways to plant meaningful local ministries. They may even block us from developing an emotional attachment to our local context because we’ve borrowed the work done in some other place. And could it possibly even remove us from learning how to be led by the Spirit in the unique locale in which we’ve been planted, because we can always rely on a program we’ve imported from elsewhere?
I think we definitely need to go deeper than methods and models, to the level of paradigm assessment and shift. I hope we will.
We should probably forsake the "magic bullet" approach to church planting or church growth (whatever that means). Maybe there are no experts, at least in the way that we understand experts. Maybe we are all missionaries who have to carve things out in our own context, following God's Spirit. We should listen to one another, no doubt. But, the voices that have the most wisdom might just be the voices that are hardest to hear because they aren't speaking with a megaphone.
Nate … "Isn't there TREMENDOUS value for missional engagement in re-invigorating dormant Christians? Isn't the issue how those Christians are being re-invigorated?" is a great question … maybe THE question … here's many ways to go at this … many ways of defining what it means to "re-invigorate" … church structures are an amazing part of this … In many ways, church structures inhibit the re-invigorating. I think missional communities and missional people in these communities are shaped/discipled by the ways we practice being church … if we keep training people to see church and its purpose/success in what we do on Sunday … we're fighting against our-selves …
To be just a little more provacative ..I sometimes wander if the mega churches of today … are not the holding tanks for seeding missional commuinities. Just as the apostle Paul went to synagogues, places where they knew the Story, to proclaim its fulfilment … and invite people into it … I sometimes wander if the mega churches aren't where the people are in modernity who are practicing a passivized Christianity yet know the story … they just need to be invited into entering the Mission and all the life of God therein … to find it fulfilled …
ED …
thanks for comin on to the blog … as always … friends and debate partners like you are a good thing in the Christian life…
David, I would love to think that mega's are missional holding tanks but I'm not so sure. I pastor a small missional community in Delaware and we had a family move from Atlanta to our area. They attended a large church in ATL (top 5 in the country in terms of attendance) and were going to be in our area for at least a year.
They looked at several churches in our area and decided to join up with us. What they loved about our church was the community. What they didn't like was the lack of a show, of a performance, in worship. They also questioned some of my preaching, that it was too much theology, because I did a series on the Trinity. The response was, "We would never get that at …". They wondered if people would be attracted to that.
We had to help them unlearn so much and when they eventually did leave and go back to ATL, they weren't sure they would go back to their previous church (though they eventually did).
If mega's are the holding tanks for seeding missional communities, then I wonder if a whole lot of unlearning will have to take place. I would like to think it is and that unlearning can be done.
Dave,
I think there might be another kind of person coming out of the mega churches as well .. the one who is tired of the excess activity or gloss, the one desperate for community (like th folk you describe), the ones seeking community, and encounter with the living God. Some megachurches have programed in such a way that the forces (strangely) work against such a way of life… To these folk … who still know the story … seeking a life together in God's Mission … they are primed and reasy to go … I have found plenty of friends in this category … I agree nonetheless, many many more will need a deprograming sort of thing …
That's good to know, and I would anticipate that, but just haven't experienced it here. I am thankful for that observation, however! BTW…I forgot to say this earlier…great post!
Hi Everyone:
I have been here in NYC doing evangelism since the late 1980s. And the answer to the question here is a "both-and". We have grown both through incarnation and attraction.
From 1989 through the mid'-90s, Redeemer was not 'attractional' much because there was no evangelical church constituency to attract within the city. The city was losing population and there were no young adult evangelicals moving here. The NY metro area's evangelical-conservative population even in the suburbs does not have the size to support mega-churches as you see in Chicago, Atlanta, Texas, and southern California.
When we began we did absolutely no publicity of any kind, because we did not want to attact Christian commuters. We grew pretty rapidly from 1989 to about 1996 but almost all through friendship, service, relationships. We saw several hundred people become Christians and most of the new members came from un-churched backgrounds and hardly any from evangelical backgrounds.
Collin is right, however, that starting in the mid- to late 1990s things definitely changed in the big cities including NYC. Young adults began to pour back into center city areas as the cities regenerated and got safer. And along with them came a good percentage of young adults from the south and midwest with evangelical backgrounds. Starting in the late 1990s, I noticed for the first time "shoppers"–people moving here and beginning to look around for a church. That was a new phenomena.
After about 1998, for every one New Yorker/secular person who came to Christ, we saw 2-3 others join who were coming from other churches. Without that, we would be a quarter to a third the size we are now. We'd still be large (over 1,000) because we were at that level without any of the reliance on Christian migration. But we wouldn't be the same size we are now.
I would only add this. Today it is very possible to start an center city church simply by attracting people from evangelical backgrounds to live and serve in the city. You can gather a church without actually evangelizing the residents. I'm glad we started up before that possibility presented itself.
If by "attractional" you mean – a) recruiting Christians to your church by the quality of your programs, and b) evangelizing only more traditional-conservative people who consider it appropriate to attend church — then Redeemer was NOT attractional for its first 7-8 years. There was no one like that here to attract. Yet we did grow fairly large.
I see David thinks that non-Christians won't come to worship services unless they are pretty traditional and conservative already, but we have not found this to be the case. Manhattan is filled with singles who go to all kinds of public events. We have 10 full time opera companies, hundreds of theaters, galleries, clubs. Redeemer in the early days simply had friends bring single friends to church and afterwards non-believers usually said, "wow–that isn't the kind of Christianity I expected! This was compelling." That was because everything including the message connected to the baseline cultural narratives of New Yorkers. It is a mistake to think secular people–with no Christian background at all–won't come to church even if a good friend asks them. People recently turned off by a bad church experience–yes, they won't. But I've found that truly post-modern and secular won't have that same resistance.
Man we here in Denver couldn't agree more w/ that last statement. We're not "attractional" in the least in terms of overall strategy… and while we find that angry post-Christendomers won't come to church, we've found that a lot of people… since they're SO post-Christendom… don't have the church as a reference point at all… good or bad… and since they're used to going to public events to experience things/hear ideas, going to a church gathering makes a lot of sense… there are lots of onramps into life in Christ for people at Bloom… relationships with others… house churches… etc… and our public gathering is one of them b/c of the LACK of church a point of reference for some
I'll second your comment about Denver Andrew, with some qualifiers. We are definitely finding that some people without any church background are regularly coming to New Denver's Sunday gathering. This is almost completely due to relationships with people in our community who invite them. We still see the weekly gathering as a safe, predictable opportunity for people to introduce their unbelieving friends to our community, but it is not the only or even the best. I'd say we still have more active ongoing connections of influence with non-believers through people living intentional, missional lives in their neighborhoods and workplaces and through our small groups and our young adults mid-sized community than we do from our Sunday service. We recognize that it takes a lot of missional/relational work to get most truly unchurched people to a place that they have any interest in coming to a Sunday service.
I think our bigger concern, which is slightly outside the scope of this discussion (but not much), is how what we're doing forms people spiritually and what the effect of a fairly standard Sunday service (i.e. prayer, singing, teaching, sacraments, fellowship) specifically has on forming people for mission. I think you'd agree that if we're going to reach the unchurched people of Denver it will have to be by our community going out and engaging them. They're not going to come to us on their own. Which is I think Dave's main point in this post.
Great post Dave. We look forward to seeing you at the Ecclesia national gathering next month.
Agreed completely… can't wait for next month as well!
Good to hear your "voice" Stephen… we'll have to catch up soon
I planted City Church San Francisco in 1996, was wildly influenced by Redeemer NYC, and we have seen an almost identical pattern here that Tim describes, although Redeemer is at 5000 (?) and we are at 1500. When I moved here there was no large base of more traditional-conservative people who would want to attend church, and I had 3 contacts, 1 of which was not a Christian. He told me, "you have to start a venue to talk openly about what Christianity actually is to dispel stereotypes, etc…" I told him, "you mean a worship service?" He said, "whatever you want to call it, but my friends will definitely come." We never had an advertising budget, nor spent a dime on it. It was all word of mouth, and people did come. They were as post Christian as you can get too. For many it was the first worship service of any kind they had ever attended. That's the way it is in Northern CA… especially SF, Marin County, and Berkeley.
I also agree that you can come to places like NYC or SF today and plant a church and find today many more conversative/traditional/evangelical kids who have moved here for a season of their life and have a kind of "hot" start with quick growth. Our growth was slow and steady, around 100/year, and I think it's because contra advertisements/mailers, people just brought their friends to a safe place to process questions of faith, to overhear the gospel, and to be exposed to the worshipping church in a way that is comprehensible. Newbigin said it best: "A church without mission and an unchurchly mission are both a monstrosity" or something to that effect. The challenge I hear from planters I coach and strategize with today is that they know they are tapping into a segment that has moved here and were already Christianized… and their challenge is to get them to not create the church like they had back in Christendom. The challenges they are facing on start up are not the same ones I (or Tim it sounds like) faced. Great discussion…. I look forward to reading more.
Hi Tim
The early days of redemmer sound very exciting and promising indeed. There seems to be some moment or congregation God alows this to happen (your story reminded me some of some similar plant over hear in the uk like soul survivor Watford and others)
What sort of measure or tracking of these people do you do, again over here in the Uk I can think of many church plants that start of of with that initial impetus with evangelism but that within 5-10 years become congreations that don’t differ much from any other church in terms if percentage that come from a non- church background also more sadly many of those that did drift back out of these churches. Is this something you are aware of at Redemmer it would seem very sensible to carry out the sort of data collection that David suggest earlier to have a clear picture of the congregation.
Thanks Tim,
Helpful clarifications. I'm anxious to hear what other people might think of that last comment – that it is a mistake to think secular people with no Christian background at all won't come to church …
I'm off to speak at a church multiplication gathering … I'll look forward to reading everybody's take on that and other parts of your comment.
Blessings
DF
A few points:
1) As long as there is what I'll call a father-void in our culture, people – christianized and secular – will be drawn/attracted by strong, personable, charismatic father-figures (pastors). It's a healthy impulse I think we are foolish to try to avoid.
2) In my observation, both christianized and secular people are drawn to church because of the quality of real relationships and real personal growth and healing they see and want to be a part of. Churches that reflect warm and authentic relational engagement in their services and the rest of what they do tend to grow, from both churched and unchurched growth.
3) I think the Mars Hill model and the Redeemer model are pretty dramatically different. Just saying.
living and ministering in the frozen, secular North, minus 35 degrees celsius right now outside, I can concur that the attractional model requires a familiarity with or an appreciation of the value or beauty of what we are being enticed/attracted to. In my neighbourhood a transformational model seems to be very effective, I once was dead and now I'm alive. It is important to remember that different models prioritize differently and this prioritization is interpreted as values of an organization by observers, if we are lucky enough to have any.
People respond differently being offered hope than to being attracted.
Hello all,
David, I am so thankful you are laboring to provide the distinction here. We had better know the distinction between attractional and missional forms of engagement or it will come back to bite us. Clarity in this arena is critical for the present and the future.
In regard to Tim Kellers remarks, I have done ministry in urban and suburban settings, and what I have experienced is that no matter what you do, once you develop an organizational culture in your church, it will consistently attract and retain people who fall within that particular cultural frame. Typically, this is more of an socio-economic frame. So while we may be able to attract non-Christians to our assemblies, the ones who typically come and stay, are ones who share the same socio-economic cultural frame that is embodied in that church. Don't get me wrong, there will always be a marginal group in a community that does not completely fit the dominant cultural frame of the organization, but they will not be the majority.
So attractional works on a select cultural frame, but not others depending on the existing cultural frame of the church doing the attracting. The questions we have to wrestle with is this: Seeing most of our churches have a middle-upper class (we could say white here, but that would be too narrow I think, but worthy of noting) cultural frame, do we really expect the ever increasing diversification of the American cultural landscape can be engaged and contained within our current cultural frames that characterize most churches in the West. I would venture to say, quite confidently, NO! So this raises the question of mission, and how we enter and engage, and form community among those who do not fit, and do not want to fit or be re-socialized, into our particular church culture.
David, I think you are a prophetic voice to the church in America on this issue. I applaud your courage to bring clarity and make distinctions at points we desperately need to see clearly on, particularly the missional-incarnational arena. Lets call things what they are. This does not mean calling people names, it just means lets be clear on our language and categories. We need all models, but I think we would all agree there is a deficit of models out there, and a deficit in people pioneering and experimenting with innovative models of missional-incarnational ministry to unreached cultural frames of people. These are critical conversations to our viability as a movement in the West. So thankful you are stoking the fire David.
David,
As usual your thoughts are insightful and astute. My own personal experience in urban Michigan bears out the reasoning you present here. In fact, my arguing what you're arguing here got me run out of an attractional, preacher-centered, Neo-Reformed church.
Like you, I see the value in what they are doing, but am saddened that they don't see the value in what missional churches seeking to reach the post-Christian culture are doing. I think that we are really at the leading edge of a cultural shift that will take even more than our lifetime to play out. But in 50 years, history will show you to be correct.
Re: whether or not "truly" postmodern people will come to church: I think Tim is right. I have found that secular folks will come to church if they have a relationship with someone who invites them. But now we're kind of splitting the middle on your question about "attraction." If someone comes to church because of an invitation from someone they know and trust, I don't consider that attractional. That's the fruit of incarnation.
To Jeremy —
I think you are right. If a non-believing person is part of a trusted relationship with a Christian, who is 'incarnating' the gospel contextually and winsomely (say, with ingenious integrity in the arts or in business), and coming to church is part of the progression of that friendship, how is that 'attractional'? The non-believer is not coming a) because they think they ought to attend church, or b) to consume the varied programs.
Hi Tim (great name!) Catchim —
In NYC we have a fair number of vital non-middle class churches, consisting of the poor and working class. But, as you say, they have just as much problem reaching out to and including people from other races and classes, just as middle class churches do. The Nigerian churches or Jamaican churches can broaden out a bit, into Pan-African churches or pan-Carribean churches, but that's about it.
I think that the problem is deeper than just 'developing an organizational culture.'
Tim,
Do you think that churches that exist across diverse socio-economic barriers are possible? I am trying to do that where I am in Montgomery, AL, but it exceedingly difficult. Race isn't the major issue as much as cultural and economic differences are. People want to go to church with people like themselves. How do you overcome that, and if you cannot, are you missional or attractional (just gathering people who are attracted to similar relationships). Really curious as to your experience on this.
Alan,
Not sure if you are referring to me or Keller, but I will weigh in. This is partly an echo of my response to Kellers reply to my comment. I dont think an organizational culture can be created that will overcome this issue of attracting people who resemble the soci-economic culture of the organization. Once a culture has been established, it tends to replicate itself and attract others who fit into the frames of that culture.
This is why church planting and a missional strategy is necessary to reach people who fall outside of the existing socio-economic culture of the organization (church). No organization can host within its organizational boundaries the diversity of cultures and subcultures creeping up into the American landscape. I guess this is even more so the case in NYC. So one church will reach one socio-economic/cultural frame, and another church will reach a different one. But those "other frames" will not be reached by the existing repertoire of conventional expressions. Hence, we need a missional…go to them on their turf…and an incarnational….on their terms approach. this will require us to fashion new expressions of ecclesia that afford the people inhabiting those cultural frames the same amount of freedom to contextualize their organizational forms and expressions as those who currently enjoy a contextualized expression of church in the more conventional forms and expressions…i.e. church as we know it.
So, like you observed, even if different races were to occupy the same space Sunday morning, nd begin to share life, if you looked more closely, most likely these people of different race share the same soci-economic frame. Acheiving racial diversity in a church is a significant accomplishment in Montgomery AL for sure. Few churches have acheived as far as I know. However, a truly-multi-cultural church is extremely hard to pull off in my experience. So multi-racial does not always translate into multi-cultural.
Instead of trying to host and contain multiple cultures in one organizational roof, I would suggest reaching different cultures on their turf and on their terms. Other wise, you end up making the different cultures do the work of managing the cross-cultural differences themselves. this is a complex topic with many variables and nuances, so I hesitate to keep writing. We all called to reach all elasticities with the gospel, so anyone trying to do that, I am for them. How you do it is where the debate lies. I would like to know of a church who has achieved a truly multi-cultural congregation. Then I would like to know how much those folks actually share life, or are they just occupying the same space a few hours a week. Then, I wold like to know how many of those people who are of diverse cultures were converted to Jesus by the ministry of that church. Assimilating mature Christians of diverse cultural backgrounds into a collective whole with some sort of shared collective identity is always possible. but I am not sure you are looking to assemble existing Christians from diverse backgrounds. If you are looking to do that, there is hope to have a truly multi-cultural church, but those folks who do end up buying in to that kind of church will typically already crave multi-cultural environments. Reaching multiple non-christian folks who are from diverse cultural backgrounds and integrating them into the same community is another story all together.
Hello Tim Keller! Thanks for your reply.
I guess I did not communicate clearly. I dont think an organizatinal culture can be created that will overcome this issue of attracting people who resemble the soci-economic culture of the organization. Once a culture has been established, it tends to replicate itself and attract others who fit into the frames of that culture.
This is why church planting and a missional strategy is necessary to reach people who fall outside of the existing socio-economic culture of the organization (church). No organization can host within its organizational boundaries the diversity of cultures and subcultures creeping up into the American landscape. I guess this is even more so the case in NYC. So one church will reach one socio-economic/cultural frame, and another church will reach a different one. But those "other frames" will not be reached by the existing repertoire of conventional expressions. Hence, we need a missional…go to them on their turf…and an incarnational….on their terms approach. this will require us to fashion new expressions of ecclesia that afford the people inhabiting those cultural frames the same amount of freedom to contextualize their organizational forms and expressions as those who currently enjoy a contextualized expression of church in the more conventional forms and expressions…i.e. church as we know it.
To anyone whose comment might have got blocked for some reason – I hope I have the problem solved … please chime in again eh?
Tim Catchim said: "no matter what you do, once you develop an organizational culture in your church, it will consistently attract and retain people who fall within that particular cultural frame. Typically, this is more of an socio-economic frame. So while we may be able to attract non-Christians to our assemblies, the ones who typically come and stay, are ones who share the same socio-economic cultural frame that is embodied in that church."
In my observation, this is true way beyond the development of an organizational context. I actually think this is arguably the biggest challenge of missional churches (and the whole missional movement): "the ones who typically come and stay, are ones who share the same socio-economic cultural frame that is embodied in that church."
[...] 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 [...]
I found this as a very helpful and provocative article. It makes me wonder if in home Bible studies or "seeker forums" are the best way to be "attractional" to the truly un-churched. I also wonder how many neo-reformed church plants simply end up stealing sheep from less vibrant churches who are not Gospel-centered, which to me is mostly a good thing.
Here is something I have been thinking about in regards to this topic. I would love to hear your thoughts on it.
The Attractional Church model is the cultural norm for our society.
This being true how should we use this to disciple people into a missional mindset?
Attractional vs. Missional
Is this a fair way to set out the relationship between an attractional and missional way of being church?
Old TestamentNew Testament
ATTRACTIONAL/missional MISSIONAL/attractional
In the Old Testament Israel’s witness is focally attractional. This is due to YHWH’s gift to them of a land in which to live. By divine promise and prescription Israel’s life in that land was to radiate and reflect YHWH’s greatness and wisdom (Dt.4:5-8). The nations would see and come to her to discover and be instructed by YHWH himself (Isa.2:2-4). The nations would return to their lands and presumably shape life there to reflect the wisdom and goodness they encountered on Mt. Zion. This is part of the missional aspect to Israel’s mandate. Another part is unwanted and strictly speaking unnecessary. In exile and diaspora due to incorrigible idolatry and disobedience, Israel was still to maintain her identity and distinctiveness in foreign lands for the sake of her witness to YHWH and the welfare of those lands (Daniel 1-6; Jer.29:4ff.).
In the New Testament the dynamic is reversed. The New Israel’s witness is focally MISSIONAL. No longer is she tied one geographic locale or embodied in one geopolitical entity. Now the “world” is her land (Rom.4:13) by divine promise. She is multicultural and multi-national with a mandate to keep on expanding into “all the world”. As she goes, however, some of her number settle by choice (and of course divine direction) in those places and set up communities of faith, attractional communities of faith that will radiate and reflect God’s grace and wisdom in those localities.
The attractional approach seems to depend on having a place to which others may come to experience the benefits of knowing God. The missional approach seems to depend on going to a place to share the benefits of knowing God there. To that extent, then, the New Testament mandate keeps the attractional church perpetually in motion and prioritizes a centrifugal dynamic while repositioning the centripetal attractional dynamic within its outward movement. Within a Christendom setting where the attractional model has been the norm, that approach may continue to work though according to a law of diminishing returns as the vestiges of Christendom continue to die out. Normatively, though, the New Testament seems to authorize the missional dynamic even within the last gasps of Christendom and as the norm for being and doing church in a non-Christendom setting.
Responses?
Hi all,
Helpful posts by all.
In regards to Tim's earlier comment "It is a mistake to think secular people–with no Christian background at all–won't come to church even if a good friend asks them."
I would agree, and say that a good number of secular people would even rather come to a public church institutions gathered meeting to begin considering the gospel.
As Jeremy spoke this takes missionally incarnated believing friendships. "If someone comes to church because of an invitation from someone they know and trust, I don't consider that attractional. That's the fruit of incarnation."
I would have to say from a Canadian west coast context this is still the case. There remains for me a – both/and – necessity in our gospel mission. Some of my friends do not want to touch the discussion of the Biblical message in private. They would rather meet me at my church service to begin considering. Others wont touch the public gatherings and would rather discuss the Bible and gospel truths at coffee or dinner. And when they decide they would rather come to a service I think it needs to be clear and helpful out of love for them. -s
@ Tim Catchim
"I have experienced is that no matter what you do, once you develop an organizational culture in your church, it will consistently attract and retain people who fall within that particular cultural frame. Typically, this is more of an socio-economic frame."
"So this raises the question of mission, and how we enter and engage, and form community among those who do not fit, and do not want to fit or be re-socialized, into our particular church culture."
Tim, I don't think it is a question about mission as much as a question about Discipleship or the lack there of in most of our "middle income" churches. As Jesus followers we are called to be vastly different from the culture around us. The Western/American culture is one of a "American Dream" mentality and it has changed how Christians measure their growth by. If you have a good job (which means you are working 50 hrs a week), your children go to a Christian school (and play two sports, add 3 more hrs to your week and a big bill to keep you at your job), you go to church on Sunday(one hr out of your week) and volunteer at Family night (another 3 hrs per week), you are a well rounded American Christian.
This is not what I see Jesus calling us to. He doesn't put a limit on how much you can make but He does tell us what it is like to follow Him. If we would put more of a focus on God's agenda and less focus on our agenda, Christians in America would look different and so would our Church gatherings. We are called to be intentional with everything we do. If we decided where we are going to live based on trying to copy Jesus, we might live in smaller homes in under resourced communities making socio-economics a void issue. Our friends would be poor and rich. But that is not what most of our Churches are saying.
We make programs that attract specific people so even when we try to go "missional" our culture at the church only welcomes our target group keeping the people we are outreaching to, well out. I am a Community Impact Director at a good sized church. We say we are a missional church. All of our programming and worship, even our Wednesday family night is geared towards middle class white families. Our church is surrounded by low-income and middle income communities and the communities are of mixed races. We are known in the community for practicing community developments and our outreaches target the low income communities around us. My outreach teams have made wonderful relationships with the residents of these communities. Our outreaches are more fellowship then anything.
But none of our community friends attend our church. They have tried but our programs are not culturally friendly. Out of 1'500 people that attend my church about 15 of them make up our outreach team. Those 15 are starting to live life intentionally and even relocating to these neighborhoods to be with their new friends. But if only 15 out of 1'500 live intentional lives, I think we have a problem with discipleship. When the 15 do "mission" it works, so it can't be that.
Would our big churches still be big if we discipled our members to spend less, so that they could work less and have less debt so they could give more to others around them. By working less they could not send their kids to a expensive private Christian school, making the parents take responsibility for discipling their children. This would also put more Christian children in the public schools giving them a chance to live the gospel. Also by working less they spend more time with their family and their neighbors. The could love on others more. Mission would be a way of life, not a program.
So you see how we do mission is not the problem. How we disciple is the problem. Which brings us back to the issue at hand. Can attractional model churches bring in the never-churched? I say yes but only a small fraction. But what happens when they do. What are they teaching and how are they discipling them. It has been proven that large attractional churches are not doing a good job at discipling. I have to believe that a smaller christian community that live life different from the american dream, viewing life as mission and living intentional will have more opportunity to reach the never-churched. And when they do there will be a mixed community waiting eagerly to help them and disciple them in the way of Jesus.
Matt
Matt I agree that the strategic battle is waged at the discipling level, but strategy will enter the equation at some point. Not only this, but when discipling takes place, it awakens missional trajectories that are typically rooted and aligned with our gifting i.e. APEST in Ephesians 4. So how we do mission is just as critical actually doing, although I do believe once we get the ball rolling, it makes it a lot easier to innovate and improvise our contextual strategies.
So cool to hear about the 15
Sounds like a similar situation in the past where a guy worked with that kind of number and altered the course of the world. Have you ever checked in on 3D Ministries with Mike Breen? You would like it I think.
Thanks for the reply and engagement. I will check out 3D Ministries. Thanks for the suggestion.
Matt
[...] January 21, 2011David Fitch and Collin HansenFiled under: Church — scotmcknight @ 2:38 pmShareDavid Fitch sets the context of this little scuffle best:“I have no doubt that the success of many of the New [...]
I live in the northeast. This post speaks truth. I've been wondering why the A29 types haven't been making any noise around my parts. I was really excited about the prospect of that happening for awhile. But now I'm convinced no particular "model" will work for this culture. How do you interest the uninterested without entertainment and without manipulation? You don't. You serve them and pray and make friends and love people and do Gospel works and say Gospel things.
I second the thoughts of Matt and Sean.
Discipleship is a key.
Living with people is another one.
Discipleship has to do with our understanding of the gospel. I think it should not be about saved individuals (as much as this is the main aim). That is just a part of it and mostly a prerequisite for the real thing. The kingdom mission. Not our American dream or for my context German dream are to be the force in my life. But our community (with me as one part) being transformed into part-takers of the missio dei. Losing my life and gaining him.
The concept of living with the others has been reflected on and called "convivence" in German missiology (T.Sundermeier brought it up). It is a way of living for Christians who know their God is bigger. Then they are able to live with others and do not have to look for a Christian flatshare before moving to the city to study. Christians are able to go to the same school as their neighbors. Get out of the ghetto. Live real life with real people and real faith.
I find the dispute between missional and attractional very helpful for me to reflect on. The conflict for me is in the "go" vs. the "come" mindset. Missional is to be translated into "being sent". In that mode, we are sent not only to GO out of our ghettos and congregations but also out of our self/dream/comfort. To attract people to join programs equals calling out COME. It does not mean to allow discomfort for the visitor.
Knowing that most churches are ultimately still in some way blend of these modes, there seems to be not enough crisis, imperfection, challenge and discomfort in our churches which would lead people to be changed, transformed and renewed not only spiritualy but also in their every day life… and eventually change the uneven attractional-burdened church to a more missional-loaded one.
Mik
This has been a very instructive conversation. Thanks to David for the post and everyone else for such lively and edifying exchange. A few thoughts I would like to add to the mix.
1)As someone already observed the real issue at stake seems to have little to do with whether a church plant is Neo-Reformed or non-Neo-Reformed in its orientation. I know of many Reformed church plants that advocate the model that David does. This seems to be a bit of a red herring in the conversation. Perhaps the only exception to this is the central role that the proclaimed Word plays in Reformed understanding of the church and church growth—the church is a creature of the Word (Creatura verbi dei).
2)I wonder if we are making the incarnational-attractional distinction to shoulder more theological weight than it is able bear. As helpful as this distinction is, at one level it simply cannot account for the theological and contextual complexities we are struggling to understand. Jesus was attractional as well as being incarnational. Certainly Jesus went to the lost and sought them where they were at, but people were also drawn to him. If the church is truly the body of Christ, and the presence of Christ truly dwells in us, why wouldn’t people be attracted to us in the way that they were attracted to Jesus? Yes we must be incarnational, but all churches have a vested interesting in being attractional in the way that Jesus was. Let me also put some theological pressure on the appropriateness of the incarnational metaphor for understanding the contextualized nature of the gospel in the Bible. The pneumatological metaphor of Pentecost seems better suited—it is the special work of the Holy Spirit to overcoming the cultural and linguistic boundaries that keep people from the gospel.
3)And to be a bit more provocative—I believe that all churches have a vested interest in seeing the survival of Christendom. At least a certain aspect of it. Not the Christendom obsessed with worldly power, or the assumption that we are a Christian society, but the Christendom that is a transmitter of a distinctly Christian culture that all believers need in order to live the Christian life. Transforming grace requires a culture of transmission other wise grace is merely nominal and without effect. Thriving churches always spawn a kingdom-minded ecclesial culture draws people in and gives them a soil to grow the Christian life. Churches that do this well tend to become attractional to Christians, but this does not mean they must give up being incarnational. I am thankful for churches like Redeemer NYC because they have created a little pocket of Christendom like culture that thousands of smaller more incarnation communities have been nourished by.
"Jesus was attractional as well as being incarnational."
The Jesus Attractional Model
Jesus was born as a poor baby in a manger. He was homeless. He told his followers that they must hate their families to follow him, that the world will hate them, and to sell everything and give it to the poor. He called the religious leaders of the day children of the devil. And on top of it all, claimed to be God and was hung on a tree.
The Western Church Attractional Model
Multi-million dollar buildings. Coffee shop in the entry. Youth groups and Christian Schools. Multiple services for different taste in music. Requires one hour a week. Give 10% to us and then we will give some of it to the poor. Safe messages from the pastor. Programs, programs, programs, so you can pick a choose.
Yup, I think this is exactly what He was talking about and modeling.
Matt
I think we need to take a look at the definition of the "Church". Is the Church an it? A place, a company, organization, a building? Or are WE the Church? If we think in terms of God's people being the Church then there is no need for attractional methods and programming. People will be attracted to us because they will see Jesus in us. People were attracted to Jesus because people He created people. They saw something in Him that they were naturally drawn to. Jesus did not have programs or a killer youth program. It was Him that people wanted.
Before you dismiss this thought as being a lofty daydream we must remember that when God's people listened to Him big things happened. Also I relocated with my family and another family to a under resourced community. Most of my neighbors do not know Jesus and most of the children have either never heard of Him or view Him like they do say Santa Clause. I can tell you that I am the farthest thing from attractional (how I got a beautiful wife I will never understand). We just love on people. My friend is better at loving on people then I am but I am learning. Next Tuesday we are meeting with our new friends to talk about Jesus and eat together. This is an example incarnation.
This has happened despite how messed up I am. But Jesus still shines past all of the messed up me. I say this to press the point that when it is about Jesus and not about the church as an "it", you don't need cool church programs or a dynamic pastor or a cool multi million dollar church building.
When we use attraction based programs and glitzy service productions to get people in the door, are we telling them they need more then Jesus?
Matt
You're right about this stuff, but it's all pretty obvious to people outside but conversant with the reformed and fundagelical bubbles. Also, I can tell you from that perspective, that you share the core problem with those you are criticizing: you speak the language of ideology. Rhetorically this type of blog functions in the same way as the odd Marxist-type blogs where those people also continue to use a crude mixture of 19th to 21st century terms. And it is all so much talk, and talking about–being stuck in "the alongside." It is deeply unattractive–as a pathological state of mind. The types of people who might be attracted to it ("attractionalized?") will simply increase the total pathology of churches that long ago ceased to have any discernible continuity with their past or the deep past.
Dan,
I don't think I know you, but would like to have a talk about ideology and how "pathology" is exposed within in it … I disagree that blogs cannot expose the iner contradictions within an ideology for the purpose of it's birthing faithfulness.
This is a great post, and the comments are amazing – thanks to all!
Two cents from a church planter in LA: both/and. Incarnational and attractional (in the best sense of the word) are both biblical and both necessary. In fact, I think the two approaches are strengthened and made healthier by the presence of the other.
In our experience we find three main entry points for new people coming in: worship gatherings, small groups, and compassion ministries. Our unchurched friends are at different places, and we try to be sensitive to that. The friend who is indifferent to or bitter toward the church we don't invite to a worship gathering, but they may very well want to serve the local poor with us. Another friend might be a little warmer toward Christianity and want to hear teaching on what it's all about, so the worship gathering or small group might be the best place for them. Another wants to discuss the faith and interact with others in community, so their friend brings them to a small group. Each of these entry points speaks to different needs and, often, to different points in one's journey toward Christ. To discard any one of these three would negatively impact our mission.
[...] was made aware of David Fitch’s post which (slightly) critiques what he calls the Neo-Reformed church plant movement (Tim Keller’s [...]
Here are my thoughts on this issue.
http://danielfwells.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/eval…
It seems there is a very large component missing from this discussion and that's the topic of DISCIPLESHIP.
After Tim Keller's comments (whom I adore), much of the conversation has centered on whether people will COME and/or ATTEND something that is attractional vs. something that is missional.
It seems that this is the wrong question altogether.
It is whether one or the other is inviting people into DISCIPLESHIP or not and spiritual forming them into that invitation. Our assignment in the Great Commission was to make disciples, not the church. If we make disciples, we'll always get the Church. The problem is that if our goal is to make the church, we rarely get disciples.
I think that's why Dallas Willard said that every church, fundamentally, needs to be able to answer two questions:
1) What's our plan for making disciples?
2) Does our plan work?
It doesn't seem that Jesus was terribly concerned with attendance or buildings or budgets…but he awfully concerned about making disciples.
The question should be: How is the way we are doing church helping us in our primary task which is making disciples who will then help bring Heaven to Earth?
I have appreciated the conversation going on here and am thankful for the desire to call our churches to more effective ministry to reach the lost in North America. I also want to express deep respect and thanks for Mark, Tim and Ed – I have learned much from all three of them and thank God for their work.
As one of the Vice Presidents of Acts 29, I want to clarify something. Acts 29 is made up of many different kinds of churches with many different approaches. So often, I hear people make blanket statements about our network based upon one or two key leaders.
In the case of this article, Acts 29 has been caricaturized by Mark Driscoll. Again, I respect Mark and am very thankful for the work God is doing through Mars Hill in our region and around the globe. However, Mars Hill is one church among hundreds of Acts 29 churches – different churches with a variety of approaches – this is one of things I love about our network we continue to learn from each other while we are approaching mission and incarnational ministry very differently.
I happen to be one of the pastors of Soma Communities (an Acts 29 Church). Our approach in reaching people and forming them to be missionaries was very different than what is being described here. We have been very committed to equipping every believer to be a full-time missionary and minister of the gospel in community. We were doing "missional communities" when it wasn't being talked about. It was a questionable activity when we started. God has been gracious and blessed our work (as he has also done with Mars Hill and many other churches in Acts 29 and beyond). We are one of many within Acts 29 who approached planting churches from a more incarnational, equipping and sending approach.
So, although I know it's easier to simplify a group of people into a caricature, I would suggest that in the future you do a better job getting to know the network you are critiquing.
With all of that said, I also have found that this conversation is so much more complex (as many have shown it to be by their comments). For instance, I have many non-Christians friends with no church background, history, experience, etc… (I live in the Pacific NW) who will not come to a home gathering (a party yes, but once it turns toward anything spiritual, they are intimidated or uncomfortable), however they will come to a gathering where they can remain more anonymous. I personally am convinced that the prime organizing principle of the church is a gospel community on mission (not just a Sunday event). However, some of my friends have come to faith in Jesus through our Sunday event. Like others have stated, it was the incarnational ministry of friendship, serving together, partying together, etc… that built trust, but they wouldn't engage in "Jesus" talk in a group setting (though we had plenty of one on one conversations). They came to our Sunday gathering and came to faith in Jesus through the preaching of the gospel.
At the same time, I've had many other non-Christians who would never attend a gathering and have come to faith in Jesus through our missional communities life and witness.
I have found that the journey of faith is not a one-size-fits-all path…people are coming to faith in Jesus through hundreds of different approaches and I thank God for all of his creativity in bringing people to himself.
One thing I can say must be true for all of us, regardless of which approach or method we choose – we all must be committed to equipping all the saints for the work of ministry and mission – let's recapture the doctrine of the priesthood of the saints and make sure whatever form we choose, we don't neglect our Ephesians 4 calling. It won't be our method or model ultimately that will bring people to faith in Jesus and maturity in that faith, it will be Jesus' people, filled with His Spirit, equipped for His ministry to live and proclaim His gospel together in all of life that will accomplish this.
Let's hold our models and methods loosely and the gospel tightly.
Jeff,
I'm glad you came onto the blog an d made these comments. A few questions if you have time.
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?
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?
c.) If so, I contend this hierarchical leadership approach, dependent upon preaching, is an effective strategy among Christianized populations… There are exceptions … and I tried to give reasons why this strategy even works in peculiarly in the cities in the last 15 -20 years …Everyone has stories … I know someone who got saved when two drunken parishioners were kicked out of the church and got drunker on the corner …they pointed soimeone to Christ (somehow) … but this does not mean this was an effective way to think about church ? or was it? QUESTION: Given the orbit Acts 29 churches on the whole establsih an orbit around the opreacher and the preaching service, wouldn't you agree it is a less missionally driven church planting practice? Most suited to work among Christianized populations?
peace bro … and I hope we meet along the way … because we're partners in the Kingdom …
I'm looking forward to Jeff Vandersteldt's reply. From my understanding of Soma Communities through what Vandersteldt and his [gasp] co-pastor Kalinowski espouse, their church and church life may, in fact, look very similar to LOV. Yeah, they're "reformed/missional/complementarian," which would definitely make them look different than LOV in some ways (maybe many?) but I think (I don't know) that they are a "missional church *of* small groups" and not "with." Hopefully I got something terribly wrong, that'll push Vandersteldt to reply again! (Part 1 of 2)
Disclaimer: my connection to Ecclesia Network and Acts29 is through the internet (and personally knowing a couple folks from each). In other words, I don't have a dog in this "fight." I do think that your statement that "Acts 29 has its espoused principles… Literally thousands of young pastors are influenced and directed by these 'ways'… " isn't entirely true. The known names in Acts29 *outside of Acts29* are Driscoll, Patrick, and Chandler, but I'd put Jonathan Dodson, Vandersteldt/Kalinowski, Brent Thomas, and Terra Nova (to name a few) in a different subset of Acts29. Sure they share some 'ways' but not all ways. (Part 2 of 2)
Cool … helpful
David,
Sorry for responding a day or so later – we are training about 35 men and women from around the country and world in gospel-centered, missional church through missional communities – we call it Soma School. So, I've been training and have a bit of a break to write now…
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 Fitch has some thoughts on the growth of neo-reformed churches in the vein of Mars Hill and Redeemer Presbyterian. His basic premise is that the models of these [...]
Answer to David's third question…
The last question: The assumption is wrong – Not all Acts 29 churches establish an orbit around the preacher and preaching service. Some do. Some don't.
For example, Soma has a shared leadership model (by the way Acts 29 holds to a plurality of leaders/elders conviction and not to a one-man leadership model) where we submit to one another in light of what gift we bring and what gift is needed for each situation. We have a shared preaching model (presently we have 12 qualified teacher/preachers who share the responsibility of teaching/preaching between three different gathering locations). And, the majority of our training, pastoring,evangelism and discipleship takes place in our missional communities. So, we have a very de-centralized model of church. And we are not the only ones in the network who have structured in this way.
Now, I do think there is an appropriate critique to be made, but make it around the practice of doing this and not as a general assumption about Acts 29 on the whole. I join in you in the critique of all churches whose main practice is to build everything around the preacher and the preaching center. It may bring about the birth of many babies, but those babies will not grow up to start their own families someday if they aren't equipped and sent out. And, when that preacher dies, the church is in trouble. The church does need to have sending mindset. However, we do need to be gathering in some form in order to send prepared people – you can't send out equipped missionaries if you don't gather them together in some form for equipping (be that large or small).
And the critique that it is most suited to work among Christianized populations has threads of truth. But we shouldn't be ignorant here: there are still many non-Christians with no church background who will go to a church gathering – it happens all the time in even the most secularized cities. Some do because of their cultural preferences. Some because of their desire to remain anonymous. And some based upon a preferred style of learning (there are many more reasons as well).
As an addendum, I have agreed more strongly in the past that a service is a less missionally driven church planting practice in the city. However, I find that that belief was ignorant of reality. You will likely need many different approaches in a city to be effective missionaries. Like Paul, I think we should employ every kind of missionary strategy necessary to reach with and establish and equip people in the gospel. If you are in an inner city context you will find that many gather regularly for celebration as part of their culture (I have found this to be especially true of the African-American culture – even more so than Caucasians). If you are going to reach them, you will have to have a celebratory gathering. Others come together to learn in a more formal setting, so you may need a lecture. Some cultures are into performing arts and you may want to see the performing arts as a platform for gospel engagement and mission (Definitely parts of New York, Chicago and L.A.). Others prefer having a conversation over a good brew (coffee or beer – both if you're in the NW…we need something to get us through the rainy season) and so you will need to spend time in the pubs and coffee houses. Others see art as a prime communicator of truth and beauty, so you will need to equip artists as missionaries. Some cultures have multiply families living together, so you many need to see shared-living as a key missionary method. While others come to know and believe truth through daily needs being met, so serving in social services may become one of your primary missionary methods. Because cities by nature are multi-cultural, you will have to engage in a multiplicity of forms to be effective missionaries – the gather is just one form that is affective with a certain culture, and therefore should be critiqued if it is seen as the primary or singular form, but it should not be thrown out altogether since God is using it to reach a certain culture.
I hope this helps further clarify both the diversity within Acts 29 as well as our convictions for freedom and diversity in methodology.
Answer to David's third question…
The last question: The assumption is wrong – Not all Acts 29 churches establish an orbit around the preacher and preaching service. Some do. Some don't.
For example, Soma has a shared leadership model (by the way Acts 29 holds to a plurality of leaders/elders conviction and not to a one-man leadership model) where we submit to one another in light of what gift we bring and what gift is needed for each situation. We have a shared preaching model (presently we have 12 qualified teacher/preachers who share the responsibility of teaching/preaching between three different gathering locations). And, the majority of our training, pastoring,evangelism and discipleship takes place in our missional communities. So, we have a very de-centralized model of church. And we are not the only ones in the network who have structured in this way.
Now, I do think there is an appropriate critique to be made, but make it around the practice of doing this and not as a general assumption about Acts 29 on the whole. I join in you in the critique of all churches whose main practice is to build everything around the preacher and the preaching center. It may bring about the birth of many babies, but those babies will not grow up to start their own families someday if they aren't equipped and sent out. And, when that preacher dies, the church is in trouble. The church does need to have sending mindset. However, we do need to be gathering in some form in order to send prepared people – you can't send out equipped missionaries if you don't gather them together in some form for equipping (be that large or small).
And the critique that it is most suited to work among Christianized populations has threads of truth. But we shouldn't be ignorant here: there are still many non-Christians with no church background who will go to a church gathering – it happens all the time in even the most secularized cities. Some do because of their cultural preferences. Some because of their desire to remain anonymous. And some based upon a preferred style of learning (there are many more reasons as well).
As an addendum, I have agreed more strongly in the past that a service is a less missionally driven church planting practice in the city. However, I find that that belief was ignorant of reality. You will likely need many different approaches in a city to be effective missionaries. Like Paul, I think we should employ every kind of missionary strategy necessary to reach with and establish and equip people in the gospel. If you are in an inner city context you will find that many gather regularly for celebration as part of their culture (I have found this to be especially true of the African-American culture – even more so than Caucasians). If you are going to reach them, you will have to have a celebratory gathering. Others come together to learn in a more formal setting, so you may need a lecture. Some cultures are into performing arts and you may want to see the performing arts as a platform for gospel engagement and mission (Definitely parts of New York, Chicago and L.A.). Others prefer having a conversation over a good brew (coffee or beer – both if you're in the NW…we need something to get us through the rainy season) and so you will need to spend time in the pubs and coffee houses. Others see art as a prime communicator of truth and beauty, so you will need to equip artists as missionaries. Some cultures have multiply families living together, so you many need to see shared-living as a key missionary method. While others come to know and believe truth through daily needs being met, so serving in social services may become one of your primary missionary methods. Because cities by nature are multi-cultural, you will have to engage in a multiplicity of forms to be effective missionaries – the gather is just one form that is affective with a certain culture, and therefore should be critiqued if it is seen as the primary or singular form, but it should not be thrown out altogether since God is using it to reach a certain culture.
I hope this helps further clarify both the diversity within Acts 29 as well as our convictions for freedom and diversity in methodology.
Fascinating conversation. I have enjoyed reading the perspectives from all of you. Among our faith community we see the importance of a flattened style of leadership. That an elder lead model allows for better equipping and points towards successful mission. As Jeff pointed out, there is not one way of doing mission. Making disciples is as diverse of a process, as the people you are trying to reach.
While I don't agree with Acts 29 on a host of issues, I will say that Soma Communities is the most Missional church I have been to and I have tried a lot of them. Soma is doing some great things and are honestly equipping and sending people. I love the non-hierarchy structure and that is the #1 reason we are stepping a foot in the door. They have a love and freedom there that isn't found in most places. Now if they were just egalitarian, they would be perfect!