Kimball's Missional Misgivings...

Dan Kimball, a fellow OutofUr contributer, has earned my respect in a number of ways. 

First, as the pastor of a successful "church within a church" he had the guts to admit that ultimately, it doesn't work. New wine in old wineskins never does. 

Second, I appreciate the balance he has brought to the emerging church conversation. Yeah- he's on the more conservative end of the spectrum, and let's be honest- it's a needed voice. (Who speaks prophetically to people more conservatively-minded? Liberals. And who speaks prophetically to people who are more liberally minded? Conservatives. See?)

And lastly, he always sends me comforting Facebook messages when I get myself into little brouhaha's, like over Tony Jones's recent comments on Beliefnet re gay marriage (a Facebook interaction that took place during my recent blog hiatus)

His recent post on Ur asks some good questions of the Missional Church movement. 

I'm all in favor of good questions. And furthermore, I think Dan is asking the right ones (e.g. are people meeting Jesus in "missional" churches).

A couple of thoughts in response, though. 

Dan writes:

"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."

I both agree and disagree with Dan here. 

When I was in the middle of conversations and thinking that eventually led to me leaving a megachurch and beginning this pub church experiment, I said (and still believe) this wonderful piece of obviousness: the megachurch is great at reaching the people it's reaching. And it's awful at reaching the people it's not. 

Deep, huh?

To me the question isn't "Is the megachurch done?" Clearly, it's not. 

To me, the question has always been, is something else needed to reach those the megachurch isn't (and can't), those the traditional, smaller evangelical church (like 1st Baptist or 2nd Methodist) can't?

And the answer for me then and now is an emphatic yes. 

I pastor a growing church (something like 60% this year) of people for whom the attractional, large-scale production church was a dead end. Many of them even attempted to be part of a large-scale missional church here in town (that rhymes with Montego Bay) and found that though they appreciated the missional emphasis (as do I- I think we have a lot to learn from them), the size and difficulty of getting "in" precluded their participation. 

Many of our folks are either coming back to Christianity, just starting out (yes, we have people meeting Jesus @ Evergreen), or are, not to put too fine a point on it, half-way out the door giving it one last shot with us. I've heard from people in ALL of those places on the continuum that the attractional, program driven church, or even large church in general just wasn't attractive to them.

And that's the key to this whole discussion. 

There's a group of people for whom the megachurch works just fine. I LOVE that there are churches where those folks can find community and find Jesus. But let's be honest, there are people for whom those communities don't make sense, and an alternative is needed. 

Here's my contention (and no, I can't prove it- we'll just have to wait and see)- The numbers of people for whom the megachurch "works" is probably going to shrink over the next couple of decades. Mega Churches will continue to grow and be used by God, but those who intentionally make themselves smaller through strategies like multi-site will grow the most. More and more people will seek out medium sized communities (bigger than the house church or small (≤40) church but not as large as big (≥400) or mega-churches), recognizing that what they long for is community and it's just easier (though never easy) to create in smaller churches. I think when they want to hear Driscoll or (shudder) Ed Young Jr, or others they'll just hit the pod/vodcast. When they want production, they'll throw on a Hillsong or Crowder CD. For worship, a couple of guitars and vocals will suffice. 

But not just smaller communities, these people will seek out communities that point to and hold up Jesus, that encourage, prepare and launch people out into missional living (so no, I'm not predicting the renaissance of the millions of corner churches that can't seem to crack that particular code). They'll want communities that run lean (so not many building programs), take care of the poor, and focus on relationship and relational health. 

So while I appreciate Dan's pushback, I think it's a bit more complicated than what he's both depicted as the "missional" mindset and the way he's answering it. 

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe Osteen and Young Jr are on to something. 

But I doubt it :)

Okay- your turn- what do you think? 

Comments

[Dan]

Hey Bob,

I posted a comment on the Out Of Ur blog that the article that was posted was edited down from the original, and also the title and sub-title was named by Out Of Ur. So the focus with the sub-title being about small churches which wasn't my point.

The full article was not about what size church is more missional than the other. But it was raising a question about some missional voices who are saying larger churches with preaching, music and all the things larger churches do well (attractional) do not see new disciples made. Which I would say is true for some, but not true for others. Just like a small church. Some small churches don't see new disciples made, and some small churches do.

I was trying to raise the question about the criticisms missional leaders often have about larger attractional churches - but then what fruit is being seen in their missional churches as an alternative? When a church says they are "missional" - it seems that over time and seasons there should be fruit of new disciples being made in missional churches. What was building in me which caused me to write the article, was hearing missional church leaders often taking jabs at attractional churches. But then I ask them about their own specific church and about growth over years and new disciples made or if it was a house church how many times it multiplied and created new house churches and I was shocked at most of the answers. It was the lack of new diciples and growth by those using missional terminology who over years of leading these churches, often in large cities, which then caused me to wonder about all this.

I follow your church and know well also from talking to someone who is part of your church that you have seen new disciples made and you are seeing growth over the years. To me, that is a healthy example of what a missional church would be. You aren't a megachurch - and I am not at a megachurch either. So this is not about size, it is about what makes one missional and when one is missional, do we then over seasons and years see missional fruit of new disciples being made.

When I hear people now using missional language and when I hear anti-large church talk, I now directly ask about the persons church they lead, or about the one they have led in the past. So the missional talk is not just theory, but I ask to hear stories of over time and years what actually happening in these missional churches. There are great things happening in so many churches! But I do find it ironic that in some who are very strong in using missional language don't see new disciples or house church multiplication etc. in their own churches. But criticize larger churches. That is what stirred me to write that, and because of the editing and title, it ended up feeling more like it was about big church vs. small church which wasn't the point at all. I will probably post the original article on my blog, but wanted to post on here as I respect your thoughts.

Dan

[bobhyatt]

Thanks Dan- I guess I should say then, I agree with you! And I didn't read this as you defending the megachurch, but maybe pushing back against those that say the attractional model is dead. As I say, it clearly isn't.
I think those who say "creating better programs, preaching, and worship services so people "come to us" isn't going to cut it anymore" are missing a big part of what's happening. I just think that while they are mostly wrong now, they might be increasingly right in the future...

[theycallmepastorbryan]

I certainly don't have the level of experience of either of you, having grown up in a small rural church. I know I can say what has drawn me into the missional conversation, as opposed to attractional is mostly something that I sense intuitively.

It seems that mainly when I hear about the programs that are being sponsored by large mega-churches the draw always seems to be towards people who are (for lack of a better word) church connoisseurs. The sharper program in my experience ends up drawing mostly people who are already a part of a church, but want the better production.

Certainly that isn't quite a fair shake, as I know that there are many attractionally minded folks who are seeing conversion growth, and I don't want to be against that. But once again what I feel intuitively (and I've been known to be wrong) is that we will continue to see a growth in mega-churches and missional churches as traditional denominational churches decline. I do certainly feel like that aligns with what you(Bob) are saying about how the attractional church "works" for many currently.

While I'm one of the "missional" guys, I certainly do not want to knock those that are doing good work, even if our models disagree. And I would definitely fall under the category of those who haven't seen much success in this whole missional thing yet.

Thanks for writing guys, I appreciate everything I read from both of you.

[Account Deleted]

Bob and Dan,
I am very glad to read Bob's thoughts and Dan's response. My initial reactions followed Bob's trajectory.

Our experience over the 15 years I have served with the same local church as pastor sets the matter in a different context. While Bob, you and Dan, serve in large metropolitan areas some would and have described as "post-Christian," ours is an ex-rural, intensely conservative small suburban-like community. The numbers of evangelical churches, not to mention the number of churches serving this smallish area from my own tribe (SBC) is staggering. That sets up a number of smaller mid-sized churches to "compete" for those disenchanted, "leaving" or moving out of the city. Not to mention the layered evangelistic moves of these varied congregations have left many inoculated against "attractional." So, missional language has been a great vehicle to introduce what some of us are calling "the church as missionary." This umbrella description applies to community ministry as well as regional and international cooperatives.

Early on the number of new disciples represented healthy percentages. Over the past few years things have changed. Our work at seeing new disciples takes much longer. Numb to the quick sells missional language has helped us think creatively about ways to engage our community while hoping to see new disciples.

The pressure to produce "large numbers" is often disconcerting when by percentage the larger number of churches do not hail from large metro areas but yet feel less than successful when they cannot replicate the "statistics" most often lauded.

There may be of necessity a continued triangulation between something that attracts found in missional engagement that produces a wide berth rather than something of a "this" is the new way.

Thanks for posting Bob. Thanks for replying Dan.

Blessings to you both.

[Todd Hiestand (the Other Todd)]

Bob, since the Real Todd (we've agreed i am the Other Todd) has already said what i was about to say all i have to say is that if the two Todd's agree with you, you can't be wrong. :)

[Elizabeth Chapin]

Bob, great thoughts here. I heard about you from The Blind Beggar when I asked for an example of someone doing missional work in Portland. I hope Dan posts the full article on his blog so we can hear more of his heart. I understand Dan's concerns about extremist criticisms and I appreciate your balanced comments about who the mega church is reaching. Sometimes, I think we need to hear extreme opinions in opposition to the status quo in order for things to change. The mega-church (Willow Creek and Saddleback for example) have become the model of choice for many churches both large and small in America and as Todd said there is a "pressure to produce large numbers" as a result. While I don't expect this is the point Dan was trying to make about numbers and fruit, is there a healthy expectation for all followers of Christ that we should be experiencing some sort of fruit?

I think there is a beautiful synergy that happens when missional people come together to form a missional community - whether large or small, urban, suburban or rural and we can expect those missional individuals and communities to be having some sort of impact on those around them.

Bob, I hope to meet you next time I am in Portland and hear more about the missional work you are doing there.

[zach]

i understand what the terms "missional" and "attractional" imply, but i think they are not very useful descriptors for what's really going on. all churches "attract" folks to their "mission", whatever that mission looks like. the better question would be- how does a church define their mission? how do they go about attracting folks to that mission? and what is their criteria for success in communicating or inviting others to become apart of said mission? i think that says a lot more about what kind of church you are than claiming a "missional" or "attractional" model.

[Tyler (Man of Depravity)]

I thought his talk about being "missional" but not growing was much needed. I see many people my age brag about being missional and that being the Godly model of a church, yet their church is always in flux. Never establishing growth. Sure they might be reaching people that mega churches are not. But to think that somehow calling yourself "missional" means you are doing things more Biblical seems off.

[zach]

tyler, is it possible for a community to grow in ways not measured by a numeric value? it will be nice when the word growth won't be a synonym for "more people."

[Dan]

Didn't all the terminology of even saying "attractional" start with Mike Frost and Alan Hirsch? Is that correct? That's where I at least first started hearing it.

I never have heard any megachurch use the term "attractional", and that is why this is more of an insiders term and comparison for those in the missional world.

That is where I keep hearing it at least used (missional vs. attractional) not in the average church, but those who use missional language.

[bobhyatt]

Zach- I'd say, it will be nice when once again "growth" includes *more* than numbers... but if it ever includes less, I'd say we'd gotten off track somewhere. Being truly missional results in more and more people following Jesus. That is and should always be a prime component of our understanding of the missio dei (from whence we get "missional")- God's redemptive movement in history, bringing more and more people from death to life, back into relationship with Him and His Son.

[zach]

Bob, I agree with you here, to a point. If Evergreen didn't grow numerically in a given period of time, let's say a year, would you then have to come to the conclusion that the community couldn't have become stronger, growing deeper in discipleship in that time?

I guess I believe growth can take place, even when numbers go down or stay the same. But I take your point that if your community continually dwindles down to no participants, it's difficult to say the community is growing. :-)

[Todd Littleton]

Dan,
Indeed, most of this is "insider baseball." The problem is the categories, which our friend Ed Stetzer suggests are necessary, often create oppositional thinking rather than collaborative possibilities. Add in the celebrity nature of who says what about a given category and watch the fun begin. So, if Frost and Hirsch "started it," your contribution may be construed as something of a "I am going to call the consequences I see out." Kind of thing. Now whether not that was the intent, and I do not believe that is the case, it gets lost in the current climate. Especially when someone takes editorial license with your words knowing what would be more provocative if left out.

That too is part of the insider game.

[Miracle]

The problem is that there aren't many good resources out there for churches who want to be missional.

We have 40+ years of research, information and literature for churches who want to pursue the attractional model. It is just a matter of trial and error while we gather the knowledge on how to be a good missional church.

[Daryl Wyszomirski]

Greetings: I'm an ex-member of The Twelve Tribes Communities-Commonwealth of Israel. I read that you might have an opinion of regarding them. My phone number 518-222-9442, Daryl Thanks for your consideration.

[Daryl Wyszomirski]

Greetings: I'm an ex-member of The Twelve Tribes Communities-Commonwealth of Israel. I read that you might have an opinion of regarding them. My phone number 518-222-9442, Daryl Thanks for your consideration.