Monday, February 16, 2009

Dan Kimball on the Missional/Emergent/Emerging Church

This is actually a two month old article, but I just recently read it and thought it brought up some good points.

In the last few years, my thinking about the church has changed quite a bit. I think that most of this change in thinking has been a reaction to the things I see wrong with an attractional style of church. Ironically, one of the books that really caused me to re-look at what it means to be "successful" as a church is a book by Dan Kimball called The Emerging Church.

However, this article struck a chord with me, because (1) every reaction in our lives is usually an overreaction, and as I started changing my thinking concerning attractional-minded churches and megachurches, I started painting with a large brush and started assuming that every church that uses attractional means to grow must be heading in the wrong direction; and (2) I can think of several churches that are large churches and are attracting people to their churches, people who have been "unchurched" or "dechurched" and who are being discipled rather effectively. You want some examples? Try this one. Or this one. Perhaps this one is a good example as well.

Here's the article.

-----


I hope I am wrong. For the past few years, I have been observing, listening, and asking questions about the missional movement. I have a suspicion that the missional model has not yet proven itself beyond the level of theory. Again, I hope I am wrong.

We all agree with the theory of being a community of God that defines and organizes itself around the purpose of being an agent of God's mission in the world. But the missional conversation often goes a step further by dismissing the "attractional" model of church as ineffective. Some say that creating better programs, preaching, and worship services so people "come to us" isn't going to cut it anymore. But here's my dilemma—I see no evidence to verify this claim.

Not long ago I was on a panel with other church leaders in a large city. One missional advocate in the group stated that younger people in the city will not be drawn to larger, attractional churches dominated by preaching and music. What this leader failed to recognize, however, was that young people were coming to an architecturally cool megachurch in the city—in droves. Its worship services drew thousands with pop/rock music and solid preaching. The church estimates half the young people were not Christians before attending.

Conversely, some from our staff recently visited a self-described missional church. It was 35 people. That alone is not a problem. But the church had been missional for ten years, and it hadn't grown, multiplied, or planted any other churches in a city of several million people. That was a problem.

Another outspoken advocate of the house church model sees it as more missional and congruent with the early church. But his church has the same problem. After fifteen years it hasn't multiplied. It's a wonderful community that serves the homeless, but there's no evidence of non-Christians beginning to follow Jesus. In the same city several megachurches are seeing conversions and disciples matured.

I realize missional evangelism takes a long time, and these churches are often working in difficult soil. We can't expect growth overnight.

But given their unproven track records, these missional churches should be slow to criticize the attractional churches that are making a measurable impact. No, I am not a numbers person. I am not enamored by how many come forward at an altar call. In fact, I am a bit skeptical. But I am passionate about Jesus-centered disciples being made. And surprisingly, I find in many large, attractional churches, they are.

Yes, people are attracted by the music, preaching, or children's programs, but there may be more to these large churches than simply the programming. There are also people being the body of Christ in their communities. When these disciples build relationships with non-Christians, the evidence of the Spirit in their lives is attractive. The existence of programs and buildings does not mean mature disciples are not a significant reason why these churches grow.

There are so many who don't understand the joy of Kingdom living here on earth and the future joy of eternal life. This joy motivates me missionally, but I also cannot forget the horrors of hell. This creates a sense of urgency in me that pushes me past missional theory to see what God is actually doing in churches—large and small, attractional and missional. Where are disciples actually being grown? What is actually working?

I hope there are examples of fruitful missional churches that I haven't encountered yet. I hope my perception based on my interaction with the missional movement is wrong. But for now, I would rather be part of a Christ-centered megachurch full of programs where people are coming to know Jesus as Savior, than part of a church of any size where they are not.

--------

2 comments:

Mike said...

Adam -
i got to spend some time with Alan Hirsch recently (by the way, he actually wrote a brief response to this article on his blog, if you haven't read it)

we actually spent a bit of time talking about Dan's article and also about the future of the mega-church.

one thing he said was that in retrospect, he wishes he never used the term "attractional" to describe the opposite of missional, but if he were to do it again, he would use the term "extractional" instead. an extractional church is where people are removing themselves from society and from interaction with people in their terms on their ground - so all your activities are at church, and you aren't invested outside of that - the church needing to have it's own coffee shop, sports leagues, etc. so, an extractional church tries to recreate everything that is in society, and have it at their church for the purpose of evangelism, but really you've extracted the christians from society.

that was helpful for me...to not pit missional against attractional, but instead against extractional.

also, he acknowledged that much of the house church movement in america isn't bearing fruit, and shouldn't just automatically be assumed as missional. so, house church doesn't automatically mean missional, and missional doesn't automatically mean house church.

i thought this before my time with him, but left thinking it even more...that it's entirely possible to have a missionally minded attractional church where people are being empowered to live as the priesthood of believers. and i think that's probably what Dan is doing at Vintage.

Rochelle said...

Extractional is a perfect word to use.
When I first started going to Apex from a smaller church I was very wary. I wasn't a fan of "megachurch" I do have to say though that some "megachurches" have been judged unfairly. They are missional. They aren't focused on numbers. They are focused on reaching lost and discipling them to go out and make disciples. Apex is described as a community of house churches. House church is where you share your lives and learn how to love and feel loved. You can't be missional without that. I think it can be challenging not to become "cliques" and to include that missional focus. It's a constant work in progress.