Here we go again. The blogosphere is questioning the fruit of the missional churches. As Brother Maynard reminds us: we’ve been here before. Several months ago these subjects were discussed in relation to Mark Driscoll’s rant on the subject (see that here and here). Two weeks ago I spent a day with (the prolific and unflappable) Ed Stetzer where, together with uber blogger/film producer Bill Kinnon (and wife Imbi), we filmed an interview at Trinity Evangelical hammering each other on this topic. He wrote a good piece which I debated him on here (can’t get into his blog right now for some reason). Now comes Dan Kimball who asks the same questions again on Out of Ur, asking “where’s the fruit?” in relation to smaller missional churches and “how can missional enthusiasts dismiss the attractional churches as ineffective?”
I respect and concur with Dan Kimball (and others) that missional advocates must be careful not to lose the significance of conversions. I have addressed it here. I agree that we should be asking where is the fruit? I have addressed that here. I agree we should recognize that mega churches have a vital ministry – especially among the backslidden of Christendom. I have addressed that here. Yet I have tried to articulate why mega church structures ARE NOT conducive to being missional as defined by the theology of Missio Dei articulated by missional authors. See that here. Somehow in spite of it all, it seems the two different types of practitioners – missional and attractional- keep talking past each other. To me, this suggests that the cultural and theological paradigms required to understand missional are not being recognized or communicated well. So instead of trying to explain my take on this all over again (and becoming numbingly repetitive), I offer three direct questions to the mega-attractional church practitioners who question the fruit of missional churches. I hope that these questions, if seriously answered lead to the patience required by missional church work, as well as enable attractional practitioners to recognize the paradigm shift involved in missional. I just ask the attractional practitioners to seriously look at their churches and answer these questions directly. Here goes:
1. HOW DO THE STRUCTURES OF YOUR ATTRACTIONAL CHURCH SHAPE (TRAIN) YOUR PEOPLE INTO CHRISTIAN DISCIPLESHIP AND MISSION?I’m not talking here about initiating people into four steps, or four bases, or four whatever. Rather, missional types see that the very ways people gather shapes them into what it means to be a Christian. The way we worship, the kinds of things we look at, the habits that are enforced, the way we sit, the structure of passivity, the anonymity, the filing in and out by the thousands at a specific time, the parking lot attendants rushing you out the maze: we see all of this as training the people into being in relation to God and each other in a certain way. Therefore, to attract large amounts of people into one room, and offer a directed performance of worship from the front, trains people to be passivized, observers and consumers of Christianity. And it counteracts everything of what it means to be the church for missional thinkers and practitioners.Missional types see the very life lived between three or more people as that which reveals Christ’s forgiveness, reconciliation and the gospel looks like. It is the social-linguistic context that makes possible the communication of the gospel to post Christendom people who have no context to understand the gospel at all. Attractional mega churches attract, appeal to a need, provide an attractive package and by their sheer numbers work against this kind of community that makes possible this kind of encountering of the gospel. Sure it is still possible to split people into smaller groups, but the sheer formative power of the large attractional gathering trains the habits of every believer into self selecting a comfortable community for other purposes other than mission. The sheer habit of coming to church for something and pouring untold energy and resources into this “event” removes people (who both serve and come) out of the orbit of being in the lives of non-Christian people.
2. WOULD YOU CAST A SIMILAR EYE OF SUSPICION TOWARDS THE RESULTS OF (OVERSEAS) MISSIONARIES WORKING AMIDST “UNREACHED PEOPLES’ GROUPS”?… say like in the 10/40 Window? Missionaries have pioneered Christ’s mission into cultures where there has been no witness of the gospel at all or in recent centuries. The work has been slow and painful. It has taken years. Do you have the same questions about their fruit?It takes time to tell the Story and provide the context for a complete stranger to the gospel, enculturated into other socialities. This must be done for these strangers to even know what it might mean to confess “Jesus Christ is Lord.” For many of us, this is the situation we find ourselves in” post Christendom. The mega churches have done a needed and important work in ministering to the de churched who had at one time a reference point in the church (even if it was only for their first seven years). But there are not many of those people left. And so as missional churches seek to incarnate Christ and enter neighborhoods with the gospel in word and deed among the places of post Christendom. The results here will take much longer. It is no different than the missionaries who pioneered missions into unreached places. It took years of patient toil. In my own denomination, the fruit only exploded after thirty forty years on fields like this. If we had the attitude of some of the questioners of missional fruit, there would be no gospel in these places many years later. Instead, we need to encourage our missional church planters to sow the seed wt patience, grace and perseverance.Attractional churches do well within Christendom. It’s a fact: people who have a previous knowledge and initiation into the faith in their earliest years, are better primed to receive a “more relevant” presentation of the gospel and to respond.In post Christendom, the social patterns for people coming to church have largely disappeared. This is now mission work. The idea of attractional church assumes that everyday people would want to come to church to hear about God, that they would see the church as authoritative. “Invite your friends to a service!” Yet I have no doubt that mega churches serve Christendom well. In Korea, where there is a large Reformed Presbyrterian remnant, it makes sense that mega churches would do well. Likewise in the Southern states they will flourish. Even in parts of Chicago, Seattle and Santa Clara, there will be remnants of Christendom. Where there are those who are looking to find a relevant Christianity that they knew in their childhood, mega churches will do well.But in the new cultures of post Christendom, these kinds of efforts will fall flat. How else do we explain the failure of mega churches to work in Europe, Ontario (versus Alberta where Christendom reigns), and the North Eastern United States on anywhere near the same scale they work in the Southern United States (Bible Belt) and Canadian Alberta? . For sure there are a few in these places, but they do not have the overwhelming success that they do in places dominated by Christendom. Compare Nashville to Toronto Canada.We should therefore evaluate the success of missional churches in the same way we have always evaluated missionary efforts where pioneer missionaries work in lands completely separated from the gospel. Here it took years (30-40-50) to produce significant fruit. But just as missional house church movements of various shapes and sizes took over large parts of communist China and Viet Nam where there could be no attractional church, we believe these missional efforts here in the Post Christendom enclaves of N America will bear fruit. But for now, missional communities must labor, as many missionaries in darkened fields of old, in daily tending, nurturing and planting of new communities that can relate to these places that have lost the gospel.
3. WOULD YOU TAKE THE FOLLOWING SURVEY OF YOUR CHURCH AND TELL US THE RESULTS?My final challenge to the skeptics (charitable as they are) of missional churches and the advocates of “attractional models” is to find out exactly what you’re doing. I know we all have our stories. I have no desire to deny the significance of each individual victory of Christ in a single person’s life. I ask however that all attractional advocates(and missioanl skeptics) to do a survey, not unlike Willowcreek did with its Reveal Survey, except do it much cheaper and less costly. This will not require a marketing guru. Take a survey of the people who come to your church Sunday after Sunday and ask these three questions.a.) How many of your church members have come from other churches? b.) How many of your church member conversions have had significant prior exposure to the Christian faith in their lives, via their parents, or upbringing? c.) If you are a young church, how many of your people have come from evangelical church upbringings and have been dissatisfied, they come seeking a more relevant cultural expression of the gospel they grew up with?I would like to know these hard facts. Not that it is not a noble calling to call those with prior exposure into a more personal faith. Not that it is not a noble calling to make the gospel relevant to newer generations of Christian when other churches are failing. But missional church leaders are called to something else. We are called to the lost of post-Christendom. This means the conversions will often come slow, and the training out of bad consumerist habits will be frustrating. But if we don’t do it, the statistics are that this church in North America will continue to shrink into oblivion. For even though we have mega churches, the statistics are that the church is not even holding its own as a percentage of the N American population. There has only been a migration from small churches to big, from one kind of church to another.Ironically, I think if missional churches would do this survey, they would probably have answers similar to the mega church. The difference is we are struggling to form communities to reach the post Christendom lost. Ironically, I think as the materialist excesses of our day come crumbling down, we might just see what Viet Nam and China have seen before us in a missional movement. At least that is what we pray for as both mega church practitioners and missional church practitioners seek to be faithful to our particular callings.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Great post, David. I see a role for both “attractional” and “missional” churches, and your questions apply to both.
Let’s not forget that a lot of attractional churches are anything but megachurches as well.
“At least that is what we pray for as both mega church practitioners and missional church practitioners seek to be faithful to our particular callings.” Bang on.
David,
I just read your response now. It coheres well I think with how I responded at Out of Ur with a post today.
Regarding your point number 3:
I encouraged churches to do their own survey exactly as you did!
Regarding your point number 2:
I also noted that statistically both missional and megachurch approaches are effective. People are wrong to rip into missional churches with no evidence to support it.
Regarding your point number 1:
Just for the sake of argument, I will hazard a guess at how an attractional person might respond. Attractional megachurch folk work very hard in their weekend service programming to present how the Christian faith integrates with everyday life. They use media, song, and compelling speakers to help people understand why Jesus matters. But you are right that having people sit in cushy seats and consume the worship service like they do a movie can unfortunately create the impression that Christianity is like being an audience member rather than a participant. But how great an effect the medium has is difficult to measure. Is it better to have a clear compelling message but receive it passively; or to have a mediocre presentation of who Jesus is and what he means but be able to participate more fully? We can probably only tell from sociological research and that seems to reflect that megachurch participants are as committed as the average small church attender (according to the research of Thumma and Travis and now Stark as well that I cite in my piece). Still, I think you and the megachurch people would agree, it would be best to have both! Missional and mega churches want to convey clearly who Jesus is and what he means and urge people to get involved with one another in trying it out!
I always like to hear from you. I am taking a course next semester with Stanley Hauerwas entitled “Happiness, the Life of Virtue, and Friendship” so maybe he will persuade me further about the perils of megachurch practice and habituation. I look forward to our paths crossing.
Warmly,
andy
Andy Rowell
Doctor of Theology (Th.D.) Student
Duke Divinity School
Durham, North Carolina
Blog: Church Leadership Conversations
Andy,
about the ” sociological research … that seems to reflect that megachurch participants are as committed as the average small church attender (according to the research of Thumma and Travis and now Stark as well that I cite in my piece).” I’d have to take a closer look obviously,but the research I have encountered by people – let’s just take Pritchard’s old research as well as Reveal, the indications are that the percentages are staggering low as far as participation in the mega-church’s life (other than on Sunday a.m.). Now I know my friend Ed Stetzer has research, and there is Stark’s research, that shows there is the same apathy in small churches. But what kind of small churches? In other words, going to Darryl’s point above, there are zillions of small churches who are attractional as well, and in the worst of ways. It does not then surprise me that the same level of passivity exists across size in America. Indeed, we struggle at Life on the Vine with this very issue as well. The question is, WHICH DIRECTION IS THE FORMATION GOING? Based on how we are organizing ourselves, shaping our corporate life via practices, are we going towards forming passive Christians or ones active in Mission? In addition, the fact that we are committed means little unless we ask serious questions about what we are committed to. I am sure people give big bucks to the mega church .. but for huge building extravaganzas? or the feeding of the poor? What motivations are we forming here?
Andy, I enjoy your thoughtful work … and say hello to prof. Hauerwas for me. He has had a huge impact on my life. And please try to connect when you’re in the Chicago area! Blessings …
Thanks, David.
andy
I found the Thumma and Travis study to be highly anecdotal and almost devoid of a coherent theological understanding of what the church is called to be. That is other than a collection of individiuals in a volunteer association. I find that Ed Stetzer is trapped in similar thinking. To be audacious, I think all this stems from the fals “evangelical” assumption that Jesus and the Gospel (if you can separate the two) have something to do with saving “souls.” If you are about “saving souls” whatever the hell that means then you don’t have a Jesus who is flesh and blood in the mud and therefore you don’t have a biblical soteriology. This leads to the notion that faithful churches can exist as collections of individuals, individually pursuing Jesus, be damned if they have to actually know anyone, especially anyone outside of their age group.
I am part of a church community in which as a single guy i teach story time in Godly Play time once a month, all of the children know me and basically everyone in our 60member community. We have meals at each others homes, we are increasingly localizing ourselves into our town, with almost 75% of the community living within a five mile radius of where we gather for worship (a UMC basement).
I can attest to Dave’s most important comments that this is the only way to experience a truly missional formation in which the Jesus narrative saturates one’s whole life. I grew up in a large Pentecostal church.
Andy, not sure if you have read Wuthnow’s after the baby boomers, he conjectures that the 35 and below group are not coming to churches in droves and posits that once them move into mature families they dont seem likely to return like their baby boomer parents did. That is precisely why the church is “in crisis.”
But I have a big problem with church leaders thinking it is their task to “save” the church (pun intended). It is our job to be certain parts of communities faithfully seeking to follow and become more like Jesus. And that may actually cause lots of people to be hemmoraged off of the contemporary structures we call church.
Hey Sam. I don’t think we’ve seen each other since the Moltmann conference at Duke. Good to hear from you. Great comments.
I would defend the Thumma and Travis book. It was pretty well done. They keep records of every megachurch in the country and then survey a large swath of them. Thumma is a first rate sociologist and I found the deductions they drew from the data to be judicious and warranted. They acknowledge potential problems with megachurches but don’t find that they have problematic data in almost any area compared with smaller churches. It is quite a good work but I think their summary posts online have been pretty flimsy but their book is substantial and worth looking at. Still, I think that Darryl and David are right that all of the sociological work just compares megachurches to small churches and there is no distinction between small churches that are trying to be “missional” in the Newbigin / Guder style.
I think what you are doing is great by the way.
I have tried to tease out “what is a church” in my papers on the missional ecclesiology of Rowan Williams and another one on John Howard Yoder .
The four practices I draw from Williams are these:
The (1) practice of moral discernment oriented by martyrdom, (2) participation in the sacraments, (3) the standing under the authority of Scripture, and (4) the practice of communicating the Good News.
Though less comprehensive, I think I would prefer to go to church where not only are the minimum requirements addressed–see also Miroslav Volf’s After Our Likeness for minimum requirement to qualify as a church–but where the church is firing on all cylinders. John Howard Yoder describes well the thriving church:
(1) Binding and Loosing
“The law of Christ” “the Regel Christi—the Rule of Christ,” “loving dialogue” “reconciling dialogue”
(2) Disciples Break Bread Together / Eucharist
(3) Baptism and the New Humanity / Baptism
(4) The Fullness of Christ / Multiplicity of gifts
(5) The Rule of Paul / Open meeting
See
I would also defend Stetzer as being a pretty good guy. He is the voice in the Southern Baptist Convention defending missional approaches. Admittedly, his Comeback Churches book uses exclusively reports on growth and baptisms as a measurement of how a church is doing (Cf. xii) but he recognizes that is an imperfect measurement at best and makes that clear in his chapter 0 (pp. 1-16). I’m not sure how he fared in debating David but I think we should see him as a good guy.
I’ve read Wuthnow’s book. I just don’t think there is evidence that young adults are rejecting megachurches. It seems to me that larger churches and newly planted churches are both doing well as I state in the Out of Ur article. There are also some denominations who are losing far more people than others (Cf. Chaves’s Congregations in America, or Olson’s The American Church in Crisis, or Stark’s What Americans Believe).
I agree with you that we do not need “church leaders” who think it is their task to “save” the church. Our friends Karl Barth, Darrell Guder, Lesslie Newbigin, Stanley Hauerwas, and John Howard Yoder would say we need to “let the church be the church”–we need to more fully live out who we are supposed to be as followers of Jesus! As leaders of the church, we are to equip the saints (Eph 4:12) to the best of our ability to do that. Now how are we best to equip the saints? This is what we are trying to figure out in these conversations!
Warmly,
andy
I’m not familiar enough with the differences between an attractional model and a missional to fully understand this post. Some definitions at the beginning would have helped me understand. – Marc
Marc,
The great google god should be able to come to your rescue.
Sam,
Lighten up on Ed a little, bro. He’s a good man who loves the church in all her myriad forms. I think you’ll enjoy the interaction in the forth coming video(s) of the conversations between Dave and Ed.
I do look forward to you sharing more of your stories of your missional church. There’s a new site coming that will be about missional grassroots stories – that would well answer Kimball’s questions. Expect something by Epiphany.
Dave,
As usual, my friend, you get to the heart of the matter.
Hello!
**I posted this on the Submersive blog too.
As I posted on the Out of Ur comments, the whole article wasn’t posted and it was an edited down one, plus they came up with the title and sub-title and put the “small church” focus in there, which was not the point.
My primary point was that I hear so much “missional” discussion and am asking about what is happening as a result of it. We use the word missional in our church and I also talked about the word missional and defined it as I know it back in 2003 in “The Emerging Church” book. So it isn’t a new phrase to me. But as I am often hearing from missional thinkers (not all, but a consistant amount) that do say that larger churches aren’t missional and they are attractional and don’t produce disciples but missional churches do – I am asking, what is that being based upon?
I began specifically asking those who have been leading “missional” churches even in large cities for years (not just months or a year or two) about their churches and I am finding that most are remaining small. Again, small is not bad! But is a church is missional it should be reproducing over time to some degree. So even if the church remains small, it launches other small churches or new house churches. I have not found that to be the case in at least the ones I have personally talked with. I do hear “in China! It is happening in China!. But I am asking about the USA, not China. It is an entirely different scenario and context in China.
I am not in a megachurch. I was on staff at a megachurch for 13 years, so I know that world and the pros and cons. But we planted a new church in 2004 so that is the world I am in of a church planter. So I am not defending the larger church, I am trying to raise questions. I guess it was because I have asked some missional leaders who make cases against larger churches about their own church, their years as a missional leader and quite honestly have been shocked hearing the lack of reproduction of new disciples in their “missional” churches. So then it raises my questions of why are some picking on larger attractional churches who are seeing new disciples made, when their own churches have remained pretty much the same group who started the church or hardly any growth of new disciples over many years. I know as a church planter, it takes time, it is not instant-church. But I can only hope and expect that we would see fruit of new disciples in “missional churches” over the years.
Now the question is what makes a “disciple” – and what I also feel that many large churches who get picked on don’t get fairly talked about. ,It is generally from an outside perspective what gets examined. The “show” so to speak of the weekend gathering is what is seen as what defines the church. But when I visit them, and then hear about all that happens during the week. And those attending classes who are growing. And those in mid-week community groups which function as healthy smaller “churches” etc. – and I hear the stories of non-Christians who have become disciples (not just conversions) that are happening. My heart had to repent for some of the attitudes I may have developed by agreeing with some of the missional talk about these larger churches. Of course you can have an unhealthy larger church. And you can have an unhealthy smaller church.
But my point in the Out of Ur blog was not about small vs. big. My point was asking if new disciples being made in missional churches?
I don’t think asking about numbers is a bad thing. I know we have abused numbers. But when you go to a doctor for a physical exam it is filled with numbers. But it is not just one thing. You don’t just get your weight and that says if you are healthy or not. There are skinny people who have high cholesterol and are very unhealthy. You have to look at blood pressure, heart, all types of things they check on you. So in a church, just being small or large doesn’t make one healthy. You need to look at if the fruits of the Spirit are being seen in the lives of the people. If they have servant hearts. If they are involved in the community as salt and light. If they are using their gifts in the body. If they are growing in their knowledge and worship of God through the Scriptures…. all types of things. But one thing that I believe is a reasonable question to ask, would be asking if we are seeing new disciples being made and growth from new Christians. That is all I was trying to ask about with missional churches.
I know larger churches have problems. Like Willow recognized about themselves. But at the same time, there are tens of thousands of people who know Jesus as a result of Willow. Perhaps some left as they didn’t have growth opportunities as they matured in their faith, as was discovered by Willow. But think of the tens of thousands that wouldn’t know Jesus if Willow didn’t do what they did. Now they recognize a weakness and are making corrections. The impact that a church like WiIlow had has been tremendous. What they do for the homeless and poor has been tremendous, in ways that a larger church can rally tens of thousands to do something in amazing ways of impact.
Anyway, i am off track and typing very fast so excuse the errors. But my point was not about small vs. large – it was about missional seeing new disciples made no matter what size. And i am talking about “disciples” not converts. I just think we do need to not be saying larger churches don’t produce disciples as some say.
I kind if think it is easier for larger churches to see new converts/disciples birthed but harder for them to generally mature Christians. I think that it is harder for smaller churches to make new converts/disciples made, but they do a good job of the maturing of already believers. So I am hoping we can learn from all sizes and types of churches. I also wish we would be joining together more instead as the times we are in, we should be celebrating larger churches, smaller churches, whoever is seeing new disciples of Jesus – where those who didn’t know Jesus before put saving faith and trust in Him.
Ultimately, if that isn’t happening, I don’t think we are missional, even if we use the word. Jesus said “Go fish for people”. He didn’t mean go get fish that were already caught. He meant new ones. He said “Go make disciples” (I know not just converts). But you see the pattern of the book of Acts and they were very aggressive of doing whatever it took to see new disciples who did not know who Jesus was before, become followers of Jesus and put faith in Him. So whether small, big, medium, large, missional, attractional – whatever, that we would be praying to see new disciples made. And learn from lessons about unhealth, and do what it takes for healthy growth. but again, if new disciples are being made, it means there will be growth. And I see it firsthand in churches across the country, so I know it is possible. But a lot of them are large! So I think it is possible in larger churches and hope people won’t knock larger churches in the same way larger churches shouldn’t knock smaller churches. The question for all churches, is are healthy disciples being made and new disciples being made?
OK, bye bye!
Dan
David,
Thanks for clearing some things up here. I live in the northeastern part of the US and I completely agree with your evaluation of post-Christendom in our context. I would just point out that its interesting to see on the flip side that attractional churches here don’t seem to be able to get it done in terms of growth. Its amazing to see churches continue to refresh their product convinced that they can bring in a new set of consumers. We will continue to drive forward with our missional community, although it can be harder, I think in the long run we will see the fruit. Thanks.
Dave,
Couple of thoughts:
1. You seem to place a high priority on conforming to the “theology of Missio Dei articulated by missional authors,” as if that is the ultimate criteria of what it means to be a biblical church. Even if their understanding of God’s mission accurately synthesizes the biblical teaching on the issue, it’s a bit coarse to argue from the criteria of conformity to contemporary missiology in general.
2. I don’t think, for the most part, missional and attractional leaders and thinkers “talking past each other” is what’s happening: they (you, we) are trying to belittle and change one another and bolster our own paradigms. We’re talking at and (granted) sometimes past, each other, instead of to each other.
3. I think you paint with too broad of a brush too often, as if all “attractional” churches are the same with regard to their fundamental convictions and structures (even if you admit the obvious size disparities). For one, you pose what I believe to be a false dichotomy between missional and attractional, as if attraction is not an effective tool for mission. You have stated that this is so, but I would like to challenge that perception: Very often, not least in my own life, people are deeply compelled by (or within) the “big” experience to become vitally engaged in God’s mission in their homes, schools, workplaces, neighborhoods, cul-de-sacs (!), and beyond.
As sexy as McLuhan is, he’s wrong: the medium may be an important message, and even confused at times with the message, but it is not necessarily the message. Tell me there is not something profoundly different between, e.g. Willow Creek and Harvest Bible Chapel, the two largest churches in Chicagoland,or between Mars Hill, Seattle and Oesteen’s Calvary Chapel. Unfortunately for many smaller, tunnel-visioned churches, many larger churches (including ours) feel, in my wife’s words “more alive” than most others. There is an energy when thousands are lifting up the name of Jesus Christ and hearing God’s word proclaimed boldly and effectively. There is a power knowing that this many people are on board with this Christianity thing: it’s a visible foreshadow of the consummated kingdom (gasp!).
All I’m saying is this: too much emphasis on medium (models) and not enough on message gets us in trouble. One of the most formative ministry experiences of my life has been my involvement (as a “passive observer”) in Passion Conferences in my college years, and just afterward, as a college leader. Talk about big-time. Several things impressed me, but the biggest one was this: their absolute, single-minded zeal for the exaltation of Jesus Christ by centering our soul’s gaze on him and throwing our lives into his mission. Louie Giglio, Erwin McManus, David Crowder, Matt Redman–God used those guys powerfully to shape my thinking on what it means to be a disciple and to propel me forward into discipleship.
The “big” experience can be a catalyst to mobilize massive numbers of people into missional living, if it is followed up properly. Perhaps that’s where the missional and attractional hearts and minds can meet and move the conversation forward, instead of back and forth.
Grace and peace,
Matt
Wander over and give Erika Haub’s response a read. It will be time well spent in terms of thiss conversation.
Good discussion. Just a lay person here, but seems to me that just like art, music, and language, every message is channeled through a medium, (or model as you say) and different mediums appeal to different folks, just like art and music. All are valuable, all are effective, if all for proclaiming Christ. Didn’t He say something like “if you are not for Me, you are against Me.”(Matthew 12:30) … In the same token, if God be for you, who can be against you? …hopefully not your brothers and sisters in Christ!!! This won’t work, she (the church) won’t stand. Its really important that believers don’t feel forced to take sides on something even as big as a church model or ramifications of such. The focus must be on THE greatest focal point; Christ.
Just a comment from the postmodern/Christendom world of a coworker who is openly disdainful of mega churches/evangelicals.
She has not accepted the love and mercy of God in her life yet. But, has admitted to being curious to the stories of wonder related to social justice and redemptive relationships relayed to her from our little community.
Also with the large number of people in the US now from ‘other than Christian cultures’ only a personal encounter with the incarnate Christ through community will be impactful, as the world in which they come from is all about community–large meetings with little personal contact will repel them and cause feeling of mistrust.
I am commenting on experience from living in these cultures both here and abroad.
Grace and Peace
From beloved,
You said “Very often, not least in my own life, people are deeply compelled by (or within) the “big” experience to become vitally engaged in God’s mission in their homes, schools, workplaces, neighborhoods, cul-de-sacs (!), and beyond” …I feel like this analysis misses what I am getting at. For it would be dumbfounding if we who attend (or have once attended) mega churches were not connected to people who were inspired by the biggness of “the show.” And dare I say, it would be dumbfounding if out of 10,000 people attending there would not be those inspired to do something in the neighborhoods. But there is something inherently spectral to being inspired by something “big” as you put it. And so what I want to push for is more on the macro level. It is the shaping practices of mega church which drive people and staff toward the “event,” and which inevitably passivize the majority of Christians and new believers who stay there long enough. Sorry, but the evidence continues to be overwhelming that this is what is going on – and sorry but the theological issue in these times is not that the medium is the message but the message is inextricably one with the medium. This is what is meant every time the word “witness” is used in the NT, this why the martyrs (greek word for witness)will proclaim the gospel in ways God uses to change the world.
For Sarah, it is important that somehow we engage in these conversations in a way that does not polarize the church into taking sides. This is tough to do in an already fragmented individualized church. As such, any attempt to engage in theological faithfulness over a blog tends to excite agonistic response. It’s unfortunate. Despite these risks, I suggest the pursuit of faithfulness in our ecclessiology is worth it. We all however must be willing to be trained into further humility and grace … this is what you show in your comment, this is where I have to continually repent towards, and indeed this is sometimes the best fruit of all:growth in Christian character that can bring unity to the body.
Blessings
Dan (Kimball) …
Thanks for visiting the blog and clarifying. I am fine with what you say. And who can question your end goal … we are one in all these ways. There are some issues here however which still concern me, even in your post. For I too have attended, been positively affected by the mega church, in my younger days I have preached often in mega churches or mega wanna be’s… now I travel and listen to the stunning shrinkage in churches across the country, of small churches that simply do not know what to do in the cultures of their existence, the cultures of post Christendom. We’re closing up church after church. Stunningly, neighborhood after neighborhood is being disserted by the cultural proclivity to seek convenience and the “relevant” Jesus… I could show you place after place where the mega church has had the WalMart effect on the church’s witness… I could go on … but whenever we dare talk about the issues of “corporate church” we get the inevitable push back .. that good things are happening. There are isolated meg churches doing good things, I try to highlight them often … but the inherent structural problems of the large church in post Christendom must seriously get talked about … because community presense is being destroyed… and all those young pastors who see stars in their eyes after another mega church conference .. get destroyed .. and the church continues to shrink overall … year after year …and those outside the Christendom window are deserted
… So I feel we should talk about these things … theologically, and practically, … I feel it is the missional authors – Hirsh, Roxborough, Dwight Smith,van Gelder who talk frankly about these things …so I think a real conference on these issues bringing these folk together with folk like you, (my friend)Ed Stetzer and Scot McKnight would be extremely beneficial …
Blessings ..I hope we meet along the way.
Dave,
Thanks for pointing out a fourth option in the medium-message comparison. I would agree that there is a definite sense in which the Gospel message is linked to and affected by the media through which it is conveyed. However, in situations where the message of Gospel action and ‘incarnation’ (i.e. discipleship) is verbalized from the mouth of a herald to a large congregation, at worst the two messages conflict.
I think that you may have actually been right that ‘missional’ and ‘attractional’ proponents have been talking past one another… but in a different sense than you stated. Here is where I think we are missing one another: missiology versus ecclesiology. They are inextricably linked, but not identical. Most missional thinkers equate them (i.e. the church is mission), though it is more biblical to say that the church has a mission in which its identity is thoroughly bound up.
This is where the distinction comes to bear on the present conversation: the gathering of believers as ecclesia is not in itself a missional exercise. Its goal should be in some sense—perhaps a very prominent sense—to empower the gathered for mission, but how exactly that happens seems to be what is up for debate. Do the ‘sacraments’ empower us for mission? Or the proclaimed word? Or the sung and celebrated word? Or a combination—perhaps sum total—of these? Some ‘attractional’ proponents (again, it’s a gross overgeneralization to paint them in one broad stroke, unless you mean to equate them with ‘seeker-driven’, i.e. Willow Creek) place a high premium on the ecclesial gathering as a/the primary place/means of empowering the church for mission. Your emphasis seems to be on forming the church for mission, but it’s not scripturally clear that the ecclesial gathering is the primary context for this.
Yet I will concede that McWorld is a threat to genuine Christianity. The question is, does the size of a church automatically align it (or separate it) from McWorld? I don’t believe so. Is there a point at which a church simply becomes ‘too big’ to effectively accomplish the mission, and even to be a legitimate expression of the body of Christ? I think so, but this number will vary from context to context, particularly in relation to factors of mobility and population density. I.e. a mega church may not be inappropriate in a metro area of 9 million, but would definitely cross the line in a rural area due to factors of proximity.
Anyway, sorry for the lengthy comment, but thanks for the dialogue.
Hi all–
I pastored a small church in a small town for 10 years, a church in which everyone knew one another, lived within a few miles of each other, never moved out of the area. We ate together, spent lots of time in each others’ homes, and were deeply involved in the life of the community around the church. All the ministries were quite ‘organic’–there were few programs. Outreach, pastoral care, community service–all happened quite naturally through relationships. I’ve also pastored a very large church in Manhattan for 20 years, in which there is tremendous mobility, where people learn, are cared for, and minister mainly through large-scale programs. My conclusion is that –in the final analysis–neither approach to church is better at growing spiritual fruit, reaching non-believers, caring for people, and producing Christ-shaped lives. I said ‘in the final analysis’ because each approach to church–the smaller, organic, simple, incarnational church, and the larger, organizational, complex, attractional church–has vastly different strengths and weaknesses, limitations and capabilities. The two constants to effectiveness are: a) getting the gospel right (not moralistic or antinomian, not individualistic or collectivistic) and b) contextualizing the whole church to the culture around (not over-adapted or under-adapted.) To think that the key is in the methodology (organic/incarnational vs organizational/attractional) is a mistake that comes, I think, from a lack of experience. There are great and terrible examples of all these methods and models. All kinds are thriving and all kinds are failing.
Tim Keller, Redeemer NYC
Thanks, Dr. Keller! What you just articulated is a genuine, thorough example of what thinking missionally actually looks like: understanding your context and doing what you believe is best to translate the Gospel into that context.
I have made an index of the various comments on this post in the blogosphere.
Following Dan Kimball’s Missional vs. Megachurch conversation
Thanks Dave, for your thorough response to Dan’s article. I found your exchange with Dan in the comment section especially clarifying.
The reality is that many of the methodologies that missional church thinkers critique and dream of changing still work well enough to keep attractional churches from making the changes, and many of us in the missional stream are still new enough that we don’t have the long list of proven and effective missional churches that middle and late adopters need to start making changes. In this transitional time, it’s important to remember that moving to something new doesn’t de facto condemn what is, or invalidate the good it has done and continues to do. Dan’s right: I ought to be more careful not to malign what is in talking about what could be. At the same time, what we’re talking about here is more than a change in praxis; it’s a renewed theological vision, which necessitates the occasional line be drawn in the sand.
Hey man, what’s with the christendom smack talk? We’ve got a couple of megachurches in Calgary, but Nashville we’re not.
Dr Keller,
Thanks for visiting the conversation.
I think it’s hard to argue with your statement. You say for instance, “The two constants to effectiveness are: a) getting the gospel right (not moralistic or antinomian, not individualistic or collectivistic) and b) contextualizing the whole church to the culture around (not over-adapted or under-adapted.) To think that the key is in the methodology (organic/incarnational vs organizational/attractional) is a mistake that comes, I think, from a lack of experience.” I know I agree. I think almost any Christian would, it is hard to argue against getting the gospel right. Of course now when we start talking about what “the right gospel” is, then the disagreements come among missional/attractional practicioners. I’ve read enough of your work to know that you and I share much in common on this question. When we start talking about contextualizing the whole gospel there are perhaps even more disagreements among those within this conversation. Again, I’ve read enough to know you and I share much in common on these questions as well. But everyone thinks they are getting the contextualation – the right adaptation – or at least that is what they are aiming for. It is when we get to statements like “To think the key is methodology…” is where I think we are really talking past one another. For to me this is not about methodology. In fact I have written much about modernity’s false confidence in technique. This is about ecclesiology. For some of us, it is important to get ecclesiology right. A statement like you make here would lead one to think getting one’s ecclesiology right is incidental to the gospel.I would suggest Reformed thinkers are more prone to this tendency than say Anabaptists and/or Catholics (where I lean). I think the orthodoxy of one’s ecclesiology eventually has a role to play in one’s orthodoxy regarding soteriology and say Christology. You don’t? I ecclesiology just not important – it certainly occupies untold pages in the NT.
The more I particpate and listen in this sttractional/missional debate the more I am convinced there is a divide between Reformed – Anabaptist – and just plain pragmatist thinking … but maybe this requires another post.
God’s continued blessings on your labors in NYC.
Dear David-
What a gracious response, thanks. Let me give you just two thoughts, and then I have to sign off. (My original post was a late-night reverie which, alas, cannot continue now in the light of day–and work!)
I don’t think you can say that the ‘attractional church’ is more Reformed and modern while the ‘incarnational model’ is more Anabaptist/Roman Catholic and adapted for post-modernity. Avery Cardinal Dulles’ great book ‘Models of the Church’ recognizes at least five models of church, each one grounded in Scripture and tradition, each one emphasizing one part of what the church is, each one existing within Catholic ecclesiology, and each one being appropriate for certain situations but not others. What people are calling ‘attractional’ bridges what Dulles calls ‘herald’ and ‘institutional’ while the ‘incarnational’ bridges what Dulles calls ‘fellowship’ and ‘servant.’ Dulles makes a strong case that each of these models each have strengths and weaknesses, but each one is valid, and each needs to be open to learning from the others in order to minimize its own shortfalls.
When you look at Dulles’ models, there’s a temptation to identify these with traditions. It is true that Catholics tend to stress the sacraments, Reformed churches the Word, and Anabaptists tend to stress community–but long ago the wisest theologians (Ed Clowney in the Reformed tradition, Dulles in the Roman Catholic) recognized that anyone’s Biblical doctrine of the church has to include all of these. Ed Clowney taught that the church was a) the people of God, b) the mystical Body of Christ, and c) the fellowship of the Spirit. Different church traditions have, indeed, tended to emphasize one or the other of these, but ultimately they are all true. But this then means that Biblical ecclesiology is so incredibly rich that no one congregation can really put equal emphasis on everything. Different leader gift-mixes and different cultural contexts will result in church models that emphasize some aspects of the church over others. That is fine. We need all kinds of churches for all kinds of cultures and places. What I am wary of is lifting up just one of the models as ‘the wave of the future’ as some in the missional church movement seem to be doing.
Thanks for your hospitality!
Tim Keller
First, a joke.
At first I was wondering whether Tim Keller’s comment was really him or an impersonator–you know Deutero-Keller. But then I pulled out my tools–used for determining whether Paul or one of his students Deutero-Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles–and you will be glad to know that by comparing word choice and theology with widely attested Keller writings, I was able to determine that indeed that it is highly plausible that Keller left the comment above.
Is the missional church incarnational, attractional, or extractional? Or maybe the question should be is the missional church incarnational, attractional, and extractional? We will explore the answer in a dialogue with Ritchie Miller the pastor of Avalon in Georgia on http://www.blogtalkradio.com on Thursday December 11 1000AM EST. Search missional and join the live discussion. The missional church in its very nature and purpose can be biblically balnced and be all three at once. Chime in Thursday.
Dr. Jim Millirons, Missiologist
http://www.themissionalgroup.com
jim@themissionalgroup.com
Tim,
Thanks again … just a note to say we agree again on your words, “We need all kinds of churches for all kinds of cultures and places. What I am wary of is lifting up just one of the models as ‘the wave of the future’ as some in the missional church movement seem to be doing.” In fact what I am arguing is that attractional models of church are dependent upon the Christendom context (not that there’s anything inherently wrong with that). Ths Missional approach (which I refuse to call a model) is inherently post Christendom for so many reasons … Blessings and on to the day’s work …
DF
Thanks to all who have participated in this excellent discussion. The community that reads/posts on this blog has been quite helpful for me as a young pastor of an urban Presbyterian church in Minneapolis (yeah, we’re not a mega-church).
I really appreciated Dan Kimball’s clarification. I think his point of measuring health by various criteria, not just numbers, is helpful. It seems Dr. Keller has basically echoed Dan’s viewpoint that different church models will have different strengths. But I’d like to comment on Dan’s statement that, “I think that it is harder for smaller churches to make new converts/disciples made, but they do a good job of the maturing of already believers.”
I question the implicit definition of “mature” in that statement. I can’t see how we can say these people in smaller churches are becoming mature if they aren’t also making disciples through conversion (even if this happens over Fitch’s hypothetical 5 year incubation period). This point can be made on both sides of the ecclesiological coin that Dan presents:
What kind of conversions are being made in large churches if they aren’t maturing?
What kind of maturity is achieved in smaller churches if it doesn’t lead to conversions?
It seems to me that both ways of speaking about conversion and maturity are flawed.
Matt …
hmmmmmmmmmmm … Amen … I agree on all counts … and convicted by the Spirit to be even more intentional on this issue… thanks
Great post Dave. Realy good.
Its hard to argue for a vision isn’t it? Our minds are captive to a certain way of thinking and we bend ourselves backwards in justifying it.
You know, I keep wondering whether none other than Niccolò Machiavelli is right when he says “Nothing is more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than achieving a new order of things.”
I hope not…but it does feel like it.
Tim Keller mentions Cardinal Avery Dulles’s classic book Models of the Church. Dulles died yesterday on December 12th.
Luther Seminary professor Christian Scharen notes it and gives the link to the NYT obituary:
In His Dying, Avery Dulles Teaches About the Good of Infirmity
Amy,
Your Deutero-Keller comment was the most fun I’ve had in days. Put me down for a color that indicates ‘highly likely’ as well…as well as ‘completely agree with said text.’
As one of those urban (New York City) post-modern, post-Christian types who was totally turned on to the gospel by a missional church, I could not agree more. It is a tough slog. The “religions” of pluralism and rationalism are completely entrenched. This is a long-term project. But if anyone is going to do it, it’s the missional churches with their appreciation for the city and their respect for the intelligence of non-believers.
I’m a student studying a degree in ministry in Melb, Australia. Now in my final year, I am getting more and more convinced / persuaded towards the missional model, and am getting a strong gut feeling that, in theory, it is a more Biblical model of church than any other. I don’t really want to add anything to this discussion as I am definitely not an expert at all, infact I really just came across this while trying to find out more about it. But I want to thank you for your post, David, and all those who commented.
Here’s a funny anecdote -
As I was reading the original post by David, I heard my phone go off, I had received an sms. Still sitting in front of the screen, I open my phone to see a new message from my Senior Pastor (I am part of a new satellite plant of a larger church). The message was a reminder of a key leader’s meeting that is being held tonight, where we will be discussing “Outreaches, how to attract new people to church…” LOL. If there was every any doubt in my mind that our church goes by an attractional model, it is now well and truly gone! I laughed as I read it… oh the irony.
While the timing was comical, it also challenged me. Through all of my reading on the missional church, I am struggling to reconcile my desire to be a part of this new way of thinking (or, movement), with my current situation. The last thing I want to do is jump ship on a whim. But how do I remain in a church that runs in the very way I am beginning to disagree with? Like many others, I am not saying the mega-chjurch model is entirely wrong. It definitely sees results. I just feel more and more pulled towards the missional model and feel that at some point God wants me to operate at this level.
So, what do I do? I am not on staff at my church, but quite involved, so I can’t just leave. And I don’t feel the Spirit telling me to do that either. I kind of feel like I’m in no-man’s land; I continue to serve and honour my leaders, but I continue to feel like I’m on a different page. Any advice? Don’t worry, I’m mature enough to just read it and not make any big decisions based on somebody’s opinion on the internet. But I would still appreciate your thoughts on this.
Thanks,
Jess
I Love the way you write…thanks for posting
Jess H,
I found this post while researching Tim Keller and his church. Our Bible study group has been studying his & Redeemer Presbyterian Church’s “Gospel Christianity” series, and I wanted to provide more of an introduction to the group, as some were having questions about whose teaching we were studying. As a whole, the study has been encouraging and enlightening for me, and I know several friends have been impacted by viewing the Gospel differently than before.
I just had one thought while reading your post (apart from appreciating your anecdote
Thanks for that– I always enjoy those “coincidental” moments) –and that is, it is wonderful that you are in a church that has supported your growth and development in ministry until now, to the point where you are actually thinking more about what is truly missional, what would work best, etc… I say praise God for that, and continue to seek Him for where to go next, and if indeed He would have you stay, I’m sure your diversity of thought/opinion would be necessary for the body where you’re at 
In Christ,
Kristen
Why is there has to be a dihotomy between attractional and missional? I sense that both are necessary. God worked for years with the nation of Israel before a few of these people would be ready to receive the messiah on God’s terms. God has worked in the lives of people whether you call it Christendom, the established church. attractional churches or missional churches.
Just a quick question, first off great post. Also, do you guys offer guest writing positions?
I do not believe we should choose between attraction-al and missional. The point is to do both. Jesus attracted crowds AND He experienced community in smaller groups of varying sizes. To have as the goal a larger Sunday morning event is short sighted and incomplete. To think that a large group is somehow less spiritual or inauthentic is ridiculous. It's about understanding the need for both within each church gathered.