Mars Hill is a leader in technology beyond any church I have seen, period. So please name the church that has more. I'm not referring to BIGGER tech but effective tech. Their presence online and through video (maybe mobile too) is a driving force behind their growth. They have understood the mandate to translate the gospel in a language that is understood by their culture and are reaping the reward.

There are few churches who comprehend the issue of contextualization as Mars Hill.

'Getting them in the door' IS in fact the point. Yes I am aware Warren and Hybels wouldn't opt for this general statement, however, I am making a very clear and disturbing statement on the state of attractional churches.

Just the other week one of the biggest churches in Calgary literally handed out chocolate bars and a business card to their congregants to hand out to their neighbors. Point? Get them in the door.

The fact is the upper echelon of attractional churches are doing very well at not only getting people in the door but life transformations as well.

The problem resides in the fact 90% of all other churches model after these mega churches, and they cannot for the life of them replicate the same success given, among other things, their leadership and money.

Not sure how this promotes the conversation as it is gross reductionism of the worst kind. Warren and Hybels would both say the above statement is at best incomplete and at worst a caricature of what they're doing.

You said: "The conservatives in blue jeans over at Mars Hill Seattle are doing a (sic) incredible job capturing a generation of otherwise uninterested beatniks because of their leadership in the area of technology--the language of their target generation." Seriously? You think THAT is what Driscoll is doing? Bells & whistles? If THAT is what is drawing them, then why haven't other churches with even mo' better technology surpassed him in the area? We're not be unnecessarily reductionist here, are we?

You also said: "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."

Talk about conflation of non-exclusive categories. First of all, the juxtaposition of missional versus attractional is unfortunate as "Church Growth(TM)" churches need to be On Mission and BE the church, not just DO church. At the same time, Emergent(TM) churches need to be reproducing their faith, which will in turn grow churches. For that matter, are Emergents UNattractional? I trust not. So if you're not going to be "unattractional" or "nonattractional" how can you position yourself in opposition to it?

So we'll have no churches in the future because denominations will shut down church planters because of the numbers game.

Solution? Stop relying on denominations for money. Bivocational just got a whole lot more important.