Comments on: The Attractional/Missional Debate Won’t Stop: Three Take-Aways

By: David Fitch

David Fitch — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:18:00 +0000

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 …
…

By: CZoe

CZoe — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:58:00 +0000

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.

By: Bill Kinnon

Bill Kinnon — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:05:00 +0000

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.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:28:00 +0000

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.

By: "T"

"T" — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:18:00 +0000

“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.

By: Beloved

Beloved — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:11:00 +0000

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).

By: Ron Short

Ron Short — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:13:00 +0000

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?

By: hurdler

hurdler — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:00:00 +0000

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?

By: Matthew

Matthew — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:04:00 +0000

This is a great discussion. I am very interested in this topic and have done some writing on it as well.

By: M. Leary

M. Leary — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:05:00 +0000

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)?