Dan Kimball, attractional church proponent, questions the effectiveness of missional churches in an open blog debate (in Christianity Today's - Out of UR blog). His basic conclusion, "where's the fruit"? Where attractional mega-churches pull in hundreds a year (perhaps thousands) of new 'converts', missional churches boast singles, and perhaps dozens of new folks. The missional church bloggers such as David Fitch and Alan Hirsch respond that the time for measurable 'fruit' is much longer because the missional churche exists in a post-Christendom environment. They'd also point out a key problem that the primary growth model for attractional church is via church transfers, folks moving from denomination/tradition to the cooler church in the 'burbs.

All this rhetoric is certainly interesting to read, but there's a sense the debate is comparing apples and oranges (missional v attractional). Both exist in different (although not entirely mutually exclusive, but close) spaces of time and paradigms so comparing the two may be unwarranted and perhaps unnecessary. Both exist, both have their successes in their respective paradigms, and as a result one is on the decline.

We can observe this decline in action in my opinion. I wish to assert that Kimball's entire argument against missional church does not apply in Canada for much the same reason why missional shake their head at the criticism--Canada exists in an age that's about 10-15 years ahead of most parts of the US when it comes to public existence in a post-Christendom world. (You can also capture a glimpse of the future for many US cities by watching the events in Canada.)

Firstly, Canada is largely devoid of the mega-church. Apart from a few huge ones in Toronto, even in Bible-belt Canada (Alberta where I live) the biggest church won't exceed a few thousand (spread out over multiple services and perhaps campuses too), and even those are are few. What we also know is that these big churches are struggling with growth--their programs or attractions aren't working.

Secondly, we are faced with a generation, the majority, who have never been to church, who's parents have never been to church, and who's parents parents have never been to church. A fly fishing expo in church with someone's fly fishing testimony won't get them in the building (since getting them in the door seems to be the point of attractional church.) And if it does, there's nothing next week to keep them around.

For those of you connected to Canada's brief history, in the last 40 years the separation of church and state has exploded (funny choice of words). Secularization emerges and the clout of the local church and denomination dwindles to nothing. (Which in fact supports a missional framework of church--returning to grassroots mentalities.) Couple this with Canada's political system and national identity that includes limited lobby groups and our quiet demeanor, and you're left with a country that doesn't care much about social agendas (so a very weak evangelical population) and churchgoers to apathetic to care about their lost social voice.

With this in mind, it's not surprising that 'mega' or medium sized churches need to rely even more on their programs since the possibility of connecting someone new to a 'greater social cause'--incentive to be a part of a big church declines. People therefore choose a church based on their offerings (nursery, kick arse music, charismatic preacher, youth programs, aesthetic appeal), much like a salad bar. Think about it, you condition the majority of Christians to shut up and listen in the pew, maybe give a few bucks, what else is going to keep them around other than bigger and better stuff?

The cycle doesn't stop here, since said church relies so heavily on their 'offer to consume' they typically take a gospel shape that will maximize consumption. For example, what's easier: changing the minds of 500 people that entering God's 'mission' to redeem humanity means joining God in mission for every aspect in their lives, or express God's mission as a mere subset of the overall church purpose (in the shape of the overseas missionaries you support)? Since big church is so afraid of losing the group they have (that's having a tough time replicating as it is) they will in the very least maintain status quo, and at the most adjust their programs.

In my observations Canadian churches seem to have an issue going against the status quo American brothers spit out. What's even more rare is to have a Canadian church (although this is the solution) LEAD in culture rather than respond to the greatest thing from Hybels or Warren (both great guys mind you.) Case in point, another difference that Canada lacks that many American attractional boxes boast is the adequate use of technology. The conservatives in blue jeans over at Mars Hill Seattle are doing an incredible job capturing a generation of otherwise uninterested beatniks because of their leadership in the area of technology--the language of their target generation. If Canadian churches could step outside of their template boxes they'd likely be capable of drawing a lost generation young adults (who were never connected into church to begin with or were lost after the youth program).

Denominational leaders are worried, the mortgage on factory-esque big box churches are new, attendance is dwindling, and the economy is tanking. To make matters worse communities are being lost; many of these mega attractional churches don't exist in communities, but rather light industrial areas that make owning an SUV necessary to attend during snowy months. The solution, however, is not to adopt what mainstream bible thumpers in mega-US-churches do. The solution isn't to 'get with it' when it comes to technology. Technology is crucial, yes, however, the nature of the message needs to fundamentally change because Canadians are moving beyond the sit and consume model of church. Regular well-balanced multi-cultural Canadians don't trust the sit and be served. They want to be wooed, they want to be enticed into a place they've only heard about, they want to participate in something they believe has a greater purpose than their individual selves.

Sure there are many who won't get out of the pew, but again, the point is Canadians are further left on the 'change bell curve' (and if you haven't connected the dots the solution for wandering churches isn't to adopt strategies from American counterparts who appeal to a completely different type of person.)

Unfortunately, the blind are leading the blind: attractional churches and denominations (which I'll connect as those with more modernist worldviews) measure new 'missional' (or post-modern) methods of 'church' with modernist lenses. Big box churches are failing to draw new people for said reasons above. On average my denomination which includes 'Missionary' in their name can't even baptize 2% of their total adherents a year, and generally have exceptionally poor ways to connect newcomers into solid discipleship. One can only hope dialogue can be created in a hurry, and change can be in implemented before the 'evangelicals' in Canada become yesterday's mainline denominations.

Kimball's critique on the missional church and 'no fruit' simply does not apply to Canada: attractional churches are not growing, they are dying, and thankfully some are beginning to notice the trend as well. Although we only exist at the advent of the missional church, it is one of the stronger responses to a post-modern, post-Christian, post-evangelical, post-church worldview. Which, by the way, simply means the "regular world out there where regular healthy people exist" less the quotations.