This attractional/missional debate just won’t stop! And I think we might be getting somewhere. Thanks to Dan Kimball and Out of Ur for starting this whole thing up again. Here are some highlights for me.
1.) This is a question about the right way of church in post-Christendom. Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Pres. NYC, in one of his comments on my last post, raises the issues of the Models of the Church. He says all of the various historical models of the church have different strengths, weaknesses, gift mixes, and are appropriate for certain times and contexts. We need them all. I agree! What I want to argue is post Christendom requires of us an Anabaptist missional ecclesiology. Indeed what I want to argue is that the attractional and consumerist driven ecclesiologies have not got the contextualization right, what Keller refers to as “not over-adapted or under-adapted.” I think prof. Keller’s approach to cultural engagement (in that comment) has some problems in it in that he uses the word “adapt.” But I know he wasn’t working out a theology of culture there. So I’ve got to give him the benefit of the doubt.
2.) Part of this talking past each other (Attractionals talking past Missionals) has to do with the assumptions that underlie Reformed versus Anabaptist (as well as Pragmatist) missional theorists and practitioners. On my comment (in my last blog post) to prof. Keller, I hinted that I thought some of the talking past each other (in this missional/attractional debate) was due to some assumptions that lie deeply embedded in the Reformed leanings that back some missional thinkers (I’d put in this camp Keller, Driscoll and my buddy Stetzer – depite his denials) and the assumptions that lie embedded in my own and others’ Anabaptist (postmodern cultural) leanings. I want to explore that in another upcoming post. Ironically Andy Rowell has mapped 60 theologians on the spectrum of high church-low church. I think he’s ranked me wrong. For in terms of strong ecclesiology I, like the theologian who has most influenced me (Hauerwas), find myself committed to a very Mennonite communal ecclesiology along with a very high church (Catholic) view of liturgical formation. Having said that, I’d like to see Andy rank the missional thinkers along the Catholic – Reformed – Anabaptist theological spectrum. I’m going to address this in a future post.
3.) In the end the attractional apologists must still answer the consumerist question! Bill Kinnon’s post today is a highlight. In response to Redeemer Pres. NYC pastor Tim Keller’s comment in my last post, the irrepressible Bill Kinnon says some things that must be responded to directly. It’s got to be one of the highlights of this entire blogalogue on missional versus attractional. I urge Dr Keller, Dr McKnight, Rev Kimball, and other missional thinkers to respond to Bill. I urge a response that does not by pass the issues he presents regarding consumerism. Yes it’s a tired critique. But answers like “no one can avoid being a consumer,” or “people are coming to Christ in these churches” or “different models work for different contexts” simply don’t cut it when a guy like Bill Kinnon speaks so forthrightly.I hope everyone else has learned as much as I have from this dialogue. What do you think about these proposals? Agree? Disagree?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
But David, we all consume anyways, so…
I appreciate how you keep the conversation moving forward. I find that so much of the differences of perspective here come from how one understands the role of consumerism (and also other notable “isms”) in relation to the church. Consumerism needs to be resisted as we embody the Kingdom as communities of jubilee, intimacy, and continual conversion. When one decides that these various issues of embodiment require us to mount resistance to things like consumerism, then it automatically limits the broad appeal of a community.
There is a reason why, for example, that Franciscan communities never get huge or why Anabaptist church are rarely mega-churches (I can really only think of a couple). Is it because that Franciscans and Anabaptists don’t do evangelism? Thousands may appreciate Shane Claiborn, but intentional communities are few and far between. Millions may adore Clare and Francis, but precious few embrace the blessings of Sister Poverty.
Brother Maynard weighed in on his own blog (and i agree) that post-Christendom has merely been inaugurated, more or less depending on the context. No such post-Christendom “American” or “Western” culture exists (i.e. has been ‘consummated’). Despite the melting pot myth, we are still very much a tossed salad. A vast culture gap exists even between Chicago proper and the north burbs, where you and I live, not to mention between Chicagoland in general, and southwest Missouri, the buckle of the Bible belt, where I previously ministered.
That’s why I think the missiological and ecclesiological conversations need to be more targeted, i.e. between those ministering in parallel contexts. Right now, much of the ‘talking past’ is happening between those ministering in differing cultural contexts.
Also, I would recommend being more consistently clear what you mean (and do not mean) by “attractional”, because often you seem to describe attractional church in terms that are neither inherent nor peculiar to the attractional model. E.g. you portray all ‘mega’ churches (and it seems also multi-siting churches) as attractional, when this is not necessarily true.
I do appreciate your recognition, however, the legitimacy of various models, as well as continually pushing against McWorld.
Beloved,
If you’ve read me at all, I have consistently said, implied, detailed dissected how postChristendom and Christendom intersect, overlap and exist in various time zones. This of course is even why mega-church Mars Hill works in Seattle IMO. As for defining “attractional,” I a;ologize … but really and sincerely … I just don’t think I should take the time to define and redefine Attractional every time I post on it. As I see it, it is well defined already within this particular discussion. A primer if you need it would be Hirsch and Frost’s Shaping of Things to Come, pp. 41 ff. Thanks for your contribution to the blog …
Mark, as always, you speak well from the Anabaptist impulse…
The seeker will be broken
on the truth she’s bound to find,
With joy and sorrow
so closely intertwined,
No wonder that this way
is chosen by so few –
There’s a danger in loving You..
Tom Howard, 1981
The link to Kinnon’s post under point 3 is instructive in its brief commentary on the kind of branding that occurs in attractional churches. And as we see in his example, it happens in many missional contexts as well. Very few eccesiologies seem to have pedagogical systems in place by which our natural proclivity towards adhering to cults of personality short-circuits itself. This (as in Keller’s case) isn’t always an indication of some kind of commerical vision on the part of an attractional church leader – but often it is. The massive publishing industry that has grown up around the emergent/emerging church is a reflection of how ingrained consumerism is on both sides of the fence.
What would be at stake in seriously examining how much pastoral branding has infected our churchgoing? A lot of publishing, most of our seminary systems, and many of our churches depend on existing cults of personality to maintain certain levels of growth. This may be a cynical view, but I am very open for correction. Honestly, I have been grateful to see a guy like Keller wield his influence in ways that reflect his missiological passion for NYC. But this isn’t how it always plays out. I am not sure how to respond to this in a contemporary sense even though the NT record is pretty clear that even Paul’s tendency to stick and move guarded emphasis on sacrament and teaching as ways of keeping Christ at the center of the cultus. Toss in the plurality of eldership and lay-oriented leadership patterns that many restorationist ecclesiologies see in the NT, and we may have the beginnings of an antidote to the kind of pastoral branding so common today. How do we develop ecclesiologies that structurally oppose branding with charisma (“charisma” in its Pauline sense)?
This is a great discussion. I am very interested in this topic and have done some writing on it as well.
Does Reformed/Anabaptist refer to value of individual/community relationships? A little help please.
And I don’t think anybody is exempt from “the consumerist question”. How can the walmart shopper be a consumer, but the woman who goes to the farmer’s market not be a consumer?
Dr. Fitch,
Thanks for your posts. This is helpful.
I agree that ecclesiology is the issue. It has been my focus of study since seminary.
I’d be interested in your suggestions as to what to read as I think about ecclesiology. What books on the church have most shaped your understanding of the church and mission?
My point was that, since I’ve been reading you, you’ve given the impression that (1) post-Christendom is all but consummated in America, and (2) attractional = mega (despite the qualification that not all attractional churches are mega churches).
“How do we develop ecclesiologies that structurally oppose [pastoral] branding with charisma (“charisma” in its Pauline sense)?”
I mentioned this at Bill Kinnon’s site, so I’ll be brief here: Anyone seriously interested in this question should consider studying AA. Their structures won’t translate one for one to church, but can much more than we might think. “Anonymous” isn’t just about confidentiality at meetings, it’s also about how the cult of personality never develops so as to corrupt the person, chill service from the masses, and, ultimately, hinder the mission of AA–their only reason for organizing at all. While the Church is scratching its head wondering if mission can even be accomplished without a strong, central leader, AA has been doing it very effectively for decades–and the irony is that they did it by implementing principles from the NT.
I am not sure I follow this argument?
“What I want to argue is post Christendom requires of us an Anabaptist missional ecclesiology.”
As a first time poster, I understand you may cover this in your other writtings, but could you flesh this out a bit for me.
It seems to me that the argument is over structural ecclesiology versus a theological ecclesiology and the assumption that we are in a post christian culture.
Just a fast note that Dave’s Missional Order as Church Planting presentation from the 2007 Cultivate Gathering at The Freeway in Hamilton, ON is available (and can be embedded) here. It is a helpful addition to this conversation in my not humble, but accurate opinion.
I also have a question for you David. What kind of growth are you experiencing at your church? Is it sideways growth of Christians looking for something deeper or more real etc… or is it with card carrying pagans who are coming to know the Lord?
I am new to much of this discussion and the issues that you and others are raising. I am trying to see how it is all playing out in the local context as far as raising up disciples who make disciples among the lost.
C Zoe .. I can give anedotal stories … but I don’t have any statistics that would convi ce someone of our success… what we’ve grown from 35 to 150 in four years? … our conversions have been relatively small but dramatic … we’re prepping to seed more communities and have a team in place … yet I doubt these tiny pieces of evidence would even convince me that the missional appraoch to church in the suburbs is a SUCCESS … I’m asking people to think of success and conversions within a missionary paradym … this means even the way we ask the questions about growth …
…