There's endless debate going on in the blogosphere about the missional church vs. the 'attractional' or conventional church. 'Missional' supporters bash modern attractional churches for their seeker sensitive 'sit, be served, and consume' approach to church. Conversely, attractional churches offer their rebuttal questioning the effectiveness of missional churches to extend the gospel.

Here's the question: in today's North America who's right and who's wrong? Is one (missional) just a fad? Is the other (conventional) on the decline with the advent of post-Christendom thus forcing us to change our models?

Whether we like it or not, there IS one thing we can agree: the world outside the church is carrying on pleasantly without us and are in no need to wait for us to catch up.

There is another change many of noticed. Attendance is dwindling and mounting expenses (like big building mortgages and salaries) aren't being paid. Something has changed even if you can't quite put your finger on it. No longer can a quick alter call or wicked band pad the numbers on any given Sunday.

Instead it now takes a TWO to SEVEN year journey with people as they battle through discipleship is an action that requires our profound attention. Building and re-building character is not an individual or spectator process.

So conventional churches can do two things: put on a better show with more 'relevant' attributes, or they can try to explore a different change.

But this isn't (shouldn't) be about bills and $$$. Ask yourself a simple question:

Is your church capable in its current model to address this need to enter into God's mission to redeem humanity and usher in his Kingdom?

If not are you OK with that? Or do you suppose your CHRISTianity could have greater impact? I would opt for the latter in a big BIG way.

In comes the 'missional' paradigm where something subtle yet monumental changes. No longer do we acknowledge mission as a small ministry but rather the primary lens we filter our purpose through.

Rather than assuming the pastors and the missionaries 'do mission' missional church affirms EVERYONE to exist for the sake of missio Dei. And this isn't an affirmation to join an outreach ministry our church program, but to leave on mission in the places you already exist: your neighborhood, your job, your run club, your kid's soccer team.

On one hand the change could be subtle, the existing infrastructure in conventional churches can support this neighborhood/missional model (they just call them small groups). The catch is the power remains in the building and the clergy who retain authority over congregation thus stymieing the emergence of an organic discipleship movement.

But there's more.

The top box is a modern perspective on how church postures itself to the world outside. There are no 'one-size fits all' church models, you can have a variety of different models, even attempts at missional church. Some are trying to catch up with the progressing culture, others seem to be reacting negatively to it (fundamentalism), but eventually you hit the end of your box and can't progress until you exit. Think of all the expressions as the same mannequin just different jeans.

The circle perspective represents a post-Christendom view of church community along with the world it leads. We can see everything that makes up culture is on the outside ('language'). You're not labeled a pagan if you don't go to church or say certain prayers. Rather we see that some are on a closer journey towards Christ (in the middle) compared to others.

Inside the circle is your city, culture, community, etc., and in one of the great and many paradoxes we live with everyday, we see the church community is NOT out of culture but leading it, yet not necessary a part of it. So not 'of' culture but simultaneously not 'out of' culture.

In my mind it's crucial for a church to adopt the posture in the circle because what you do when you gather (at church) has direct implications on how your community adopts mission. You can't affirm people to do 'outreach' in their communities when actions on Sunday's are the complete opposite (constantly creating a polemic against non-Christians and only having pastors as participants in service.)

[A timely blog post by Brad Brisco discusses how leadership changes when you change models in: transitioning from traditional to missional.]

It's safe to say that no single church is on the outside looking in. But that's the safe thing to say.

I firmly believe God can work within any paradigm, and he does. But I also know the church is mandated to be the place where we are serious about connecting into God's mission to redeem creation. The current church system in my mind is growing ineffective with this mandate.

With the advent of post-Christendom, the decline in discipleship and thus mature Christians in current systems, should force churches to think hard about whether the popular model that celebrates individualism and consumption propel the church to be leaders and catalysts in their communities as agents responsible to provide a glimpse of the 'what is to come' in God's unfolding Kingdom on earth.

There's more to be had in our faith and we need leaders to step up and risk it all for the sake of the Gospel.

Missional v. Conventional – Who’s in and Who’s Out? is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Technorati Tags: attractional church, emergent, evangelicals, mission, Missional, missional church, missionality, protestants

Others have questioned whether, within the missional paradigm, this move is the right one. (Dave Fitch: Do you trust an author of the church who leaves the their church?.

I understand the dialogue, but I think there's a bigger question pertaining to the demand of missional (and related) books coming out from juggernaut US publishers. We know Americans purchase an incredible amount of Christian materials like books, CDs, etc. So when something new enters the playground every publisher clamours to release a multitude of titles (in this case around Emergent, Missional, or related topics).

What I'm worried about is the extent by which the leading missional writers are flooding the market with books and spending their time hawking their books and study manuals at all the biggest conferences and gatherings. I fear we're missing an opportunity here....

I don't have an issue with writing books. I don't want to tell someone how to spend their time, and I also value the contribution of the leading voices in the organic church movement.

What I'm having trouble understanding is how quickly some writers are being pushed to release book after book, usually containing similar material, complete with correlating study guide, for the consumption of the general mass.

It seems ironic, that the very same consumerist system that has stymied 4 generations of churchgoers into passive spectators is contributing to the development and perhaps survival of missional thinkers through the purchase of their products.

It's smart business sense I'm sure.

But at what point does an organic church movement slowly replace and morph into the very same system it's reacting against?

At a recent conference in Orlando missional church was the hot topic. Mega church America is slowly realising that their reach is dwindling and they're incapable of engaging culture with their current show. So all the popular missional voices arrived to share their piece. Along with their contribution came a gluttony of glossy books, fancy banner ads, study guides, DVDs, and more trinkets.

There's a balance that's missing here; a posture that needs to be reclaimed.

Badly needed resources for truly organic missional movements don't have resources to attend conferences, and certainly can't afford the hundreds for books and study manuals to train even a group of 12.

This IS about Kingdom extension isn't it?

Here are two suggestions to prevent missional from being just 'another' movement that falls by the wayside.

1) Conferences need to go online and need to be free; the talks and workshops should be available to download and should be free as well. Honestly, who's making money from selling public lectures by Michael Frost? Also, with the advent of live streaming (and the environmental factors of flying thousands of ppl to conferences along with the cost incurred by the sending church) conferences can be viewed and participated with online. I've seen a few like this already and encourage others to offer the same.

2) Open source materials. Open source implies two things: 1) Free; 2) Expanding resource with contributions from the wider community. I'm tired of paying through the nose for missional training manuals that were photocopied and coil-bound. Offer this stuff for free. It boggles my mind why fantastic content is sent to the publishers rather than to the masses online. The reach will be exponential.

I understand this does bring up implications of how does one receive compensation to create said manuals and materials. However, in all of church-dom there's gotta be a few folks willing to offer up significant contributions for free. Somebody out there can find financial backing to pay for their time so they can create a lasting resource for missional development for free.

Heck, if you have the cash, send it to me and I'll do it!

Change is needed because at this point we're one Chris Tomlin CD away from going mainstream....

How Ironic: Missional Writers Consumed by Free Market Engine is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Christendom Measurements for a Post-Christendom World

Wow, it's been a while since I've posted something new. I wanted to write something down quickly while it was still fresh in my mind. Here is the context for this post.

As the church I'm leading grows, albeit at a snails pace, I decided to check out some potential partnerships with church planting networks. I don't need to mention which one it was because most are the same, but I decided to do their quick 'survey' (100 questions) to see if I was up for the task of 'church planting.

For those who don't know my context I've launched a new missional network in Calgary. It's brand spanking new and mostly immersed in a post-Christendom environment. I took the test to see where I stood in line with other church planters (I guess there's an average of data out there.) Basically, most church planting assessments I've done conclude that I'm not really qualified.

Despite being an entrepreneur, theologically trained, and of course being acutely aware that I know very little about most things, I still fall short. In fact, most organizations would force me to jump through ADDITIONAL training beyond my years of church and masters studies to be adequately 'ready' according to their criteria.

Am I really inept, or is there an issue with the 'criteria'? Here's why I think the whole testing process is running amok.

Over half the questions in normal questionnaires assume Christendom. Questions like, "How many church services have you started from scratch", "How many people came to a new church event you started," "How many unbelievers came to a new church event you started? 5, 10, 100+?, "How many people have you invited to church in the past year?", "have you started an adult (youth, childrens) Sunday school class?" And my favorite, "how many people have you lead to Christ in the past year?".

I scored low because I couldn't answer these questions properly (in the way they were looking), because the questions are irrelevant to me due to the fact they deal with a culture outside anything I regularly participate in.

For example, in a post-Christendom world the point of church isn't to get people into the building. You can do little to attract people into a place where they have no memory of and know none of the stories about it. Thus it doesn't matter to me if I can start an adult Sunday school class, I'm more concerned about releasing adults to exist in their neighbourhoods offering previews to their neighbours of the Kingdom of God.

In a post-Christendom and missional perspective church isn't the hub of activity that one must center around week in and week out. It is certainly crucial to the community, but it's definitely not meant to be the focal point for new believers. In fact, it's quite the opposite, church gatherings are unashamedly un-attractional and make no sense to those in post-Christendom who visit right off the streets. (That's not to say that church can never be attractional, but that's a talk for another time.)

Church is a spiritually forming event, not an event to attract in newcomers. I got bad marks on those questions.

What also puts me on the outs with these assessments is my seeming inability to lead people to Christ. Fair enough, but I wish we'd measure effective church planters by life transformations (the New Testament church tried this no?), rather than the sinner's prayers. Sure, people coming to faith is a sign of a healthy church/person, but in a post-Christendom world that journey doesn't take place between the pew you sit in, the aisle you walk down, and the tent revival meeting you re-profess your faith in. The journey is LONGER in the least, and spiritually, mentally, and sometimes physically exhausting to the max.

The time we see professions of faith in post-Christendom culture is years upon years down the road--probably in the area of 7-10 years for those who start with zero religious/Christian memory.

So ask me in 10 years how many people.

Now I'm making a blanket observation here and I'm sure there are far more effective tools out there (as I haven't taken all, although probably I've taken most ).

Some questions that weren't included but should have been: "how many outreach programs have you started to meet a direct need in the community?" "describe how you have contributed to life transformations that happen in your community", "in what manner are you offering a foretaste of the Kingdom of God for those who have never been exposed to the gospel message?", "what aspects of social justice in your community are you actively participating in and what kind of injustices have you turned 'right'?" And so forth.

If we're interested in developing leaders who will be effective in capturing, understanding, and dialoguing over the needs of communities today then we need to stop using a rubric rooted in Christendom. If we don't adjust we'll just end up creating ineffective church leaders, we'll miss the most under-reached areas, and we'll be wasting resources, all while wondering aloud why we can't reach a new generation of 'unbelievers'....

Why Church Plant Assessments Miss the Mark is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Updated February 20th, 2010.

(**NOTE: For this post the terms preaching or sermon are distinctly referring to the act of one person talking at length about their perspective of a particular topic which is treated as the apex of the particular worship expression of a given church service.**)

If you're a serious churchgoer then perhaps you operate under an assumption that when it comes to preaching/sermon more is better.

Some evangelicals even think that the sign of a good church is the quality of the preaching. I'm not sure how this is measured between preacher to preacher, but I surmise it has a lot to do with individual relevance, captivation, and good feelings after the service.

I recall seeing this quote from a 'motivational' missional poster:

Is it true? Is preaching a form of violence to those who have to sit there and take it? Have you ever felt that way? If you’ve felt that way can you imagine what someone off the street might experience?

Many church traditions make preaching the central component of their gatherings (church) it can't be bad thing can it?

I remember being blasted by a number of conservative Christians after noting the tagline in the picture above on a Facebook status. These people lamented on the crucial importance of not only hearing a sermon, but the very action of preaching the 'Word' (treating the Bible and Christ as the same thing).

Dare I suggest that the very act of PREACHING (delivering an exposition, an expository sermon, teaching doctrine, etc.) can impede mission in the post-Christendom world?

You wouldn’t think it was an issue given the rhetoric coming out for major voices in the US. Vintage Church, a book by multi-site video preacher Mark Driscoll, outlines the necessity of preaching to be the foundational element of any ministry.

Jesus' ministry included feeding the hungry, healing the sick, loving the outcast, and befriending the sinner. But we must never forget that Jesus' ministry began with preaching. Thus, preaching is the first priority of ministry that leads God's mission, which is accompanied by various other ministries that support, supplement, and sustain the preaching of God's Word in truth with passion....

Because Jesus begins his ministry in Matthew 5 with the 'Sermon on the Mount' we conclude that the heart of our Triune and missional God consists of preaching? That's incredible boring and incredulous to think that Pastor Joe Blow posses any type of transformative power simply be speaking opinionated truths from the gospel.

**For more reading on this subject check a Dave Fitch article on 'Can missional church be multisite?'**

It made sense during biblical times (and still is in many places) time to have open air and lengthy bouts of 'sermonizing' since this was the primary teaching method. Auditory learning was crucial for an illiterate audience. The gathering in the church building made sense because the qualified clergy who had the information were usually housed there.

We now exist in a time where everybody can read and prefer to test an experience rather than adopt somebody else's rule book.

I don't believe that preaching is always barbaric like the poster says, but seriously? Does the heart of the church community center around the preaching? Because 99% of the time that means it's centered around preacher and not the proclamation of the redemptive message (assuming the message is even communicated as such.)

Is that all we got? Is our post-Christendom culture really yearning to be stuffed into a building once a week to sit and listen to a lecture? The only aspects in our current culture that have people sit and consume the talking head are preachers and comedians.

Isn't there more to our community/church experience?

Preaching in its raw form takes place on whichever day (usually Sunday) when the community (commonly referred to as the church), gather together to worship God. What I question is why preaching (and subsequently preacher) are placed on a pedestal over and above every other single component of community.

The fact the people inside the church walls tolerate 30-45 minute sermons (that sometimes stretch into speeches) removes attention from a variety of participatory elements of our church services. Rather than being the community pointing our worship towards God the Father, we are the community sitting quietly listening to the anointed few (which makes us bad Protestants, FYI).

If your tradition truly believes in the priesthood of all believers (thus the creation of a horizontal organizational structure) then seek to break down the clergy laity difference. I'm beginning to notice that many churches glorify 'leadership development' but in actuality don't develop leaders nor create an environment for new leaders (many believe it's better to create buildings for thousands to see one and to multi site via video rather than build new leaders for smaller congregations).

In the consumer church model we've created a laity-clergy-missionary model that's made 90% of all Christians inert. Failure to create leaders to share God's redemption story with their community and having a non-participatory worship service will only exacerbate this problem.

Typically the only time the greater community gathers together the moments are spent sitting down, shutting up, facing the front, putting money in a bag, and listening to one man's perspectives on my life. My sense is the world outside the church walls are more interested in participating in a living community, not consuming a subpar spiritual product. Count me as part of that group.

Shouldn't we put our weight somewhere else? My sense is there's something deeper to be experienced, something that is truly worship AND can be understood by our current cultural context.

The solution isn't to exclude 'preaching'. However, we should look hard at how we treat preaching in the post-Christendom world. Moving away from exhortations towards formation is one method. Let's go back to Dave Fitch for some more insight:

I suggest this little snippet from Willard is essential to understanding the role of preaching in the Missional Church. For here in the missional church gathering preaching is not a.) for the purpose of distributing information and self help points on how to improve your Christian life, b.) not an inspirational talk done by a convincing and charismatic speaker. Neither is it c.)someone speaking as an expert from above – although the preacher will be gifted in teaching/preaching and have studied the Scriptures well.

Instead preaching for the missional church is a preaching among the church, out of the community, interpreting what God is doing among us and calling us living into the reality of that. It is a clarion call to live into the reality that “Jesus is Lord ” and all that that might mean for us in our lives and context. We preach like this relying on the Scriptures unfurling the reality of God at work in the world all under the work of the Holy Spirit. The preacher must speak authentically, he/she must be known in and among the congregation (by at least some people everyday in the congregation). He/she must be involved in the lives of people in everyday life. He /she must proclaim the gospel reality of Jesus Kingdom breaking in, the transforming power of God’s forgiveness, defeat of the powers and his working for the renewal of all things INTO THE SITUATIONS WE ARE LIVING. (I strongly suggest this can’t be done via a video screen).

This adjustment will impact our worship, but that's OK given that the apex of Christianity is not Bible, it is not preaching, it is CHRIST. Preaching is a component to bring a community into the reality of who Christ is, it takes the message of God's redemption plan for creation and translates it into the here and now.

How will this look? The community will celebrate surrounding their time with scripture, remembering sacrifice and celebrating intercession (redemption and hope made imminent). The apex of community celebration is communion (the sacraments). If the reality of your church service is centered around the Table and not the preacher you are forced to adjust your object of worship (from preacher or bible to Christ).

Celebrating the reality of Christ in our community today reaffirms and commissions us to exist in between the time of resurrection and eternal hope--to engage in God's mission to reach out and reclaim what's been broken and in turn redeem it.

Of course, we already know this. Doing it on the other hand....

Preaching: An Impediment to the Missional Church? is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Technorati Tags: Missional, preaching, sermon

5. PREPARE FOR A SUSTAINABLE WAY OF LIFE OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. (as opposed to projected growth and financial sustainability after three years). EXPECT GROWTH TO BE SLOW, BUT OF MIRACULOUS VARIETY. YOU MAY START WITH 10-20 PEOPLE, EXPECT NO SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS. IT TAKES FIVE YEARS TO BUILD A MISSIOANL PRESENCE. BY THE FIFTH TO EIGHT YEAR, GROWTH WILL HAPPEN.

Full article here, and the missional church related articles at Pomotheo.

Key Component of Missional Churches — Prepare for the Long Haul is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Their list reads like a strategic checklist for launching a new corporation/business. Everything is about tactics and strategies. There are so many things wrong with trying to get vocationally trained ministers to act like entrepreneurs and CEOs that it's NO surprise 1000s fail every year.

Perhaps 50% of the article had some merit, but the other half was a reflection of the attractional church model that struggles to maintain cultural significance. It's time we adjust the way we approach church plants.

It's a bit disheartening when information like this list comes out on one of the most popular web site for pastors (and it's pretty much the norm for most church planting rhetoric out there):

Here are some to consider:

1. Vision is clear and communicated.
2. The staff team has been recruited.
3. The core group is in place.
4. Worship leader and team have been recruited.
5. The meeting place has been secured.
6. A marketing plan has been implemented.
7. Pre-school and children’s ministry plans have been made.
8. A small group and volunteer system is in place.
9. An assimilation strategy is in place.

Don't believe me? America is perhaps 10 years behind where Canada is with respect to cultural sensitivity to Christianity. Canada is post-Christendom, America is on the way. Here we cannot assume the 'build it and they will come' colonial attitude will work anymore. If fact, new churches that are building new buildings in hopes a new congregation will spring out of the suburbs to support the mortgage are finding themselves in a huge struggle to survive.

Why then would we get church planters to follow a model that a) requires HUGE resources to launch, and b) is prone to massive failure?

Put it this way, if you're going to play by corporate rules when building churches then it bears to keep in mind that: you cannot produce a (spiritual) product a declining and saturated market. No business person with any sense would open a new rental video franchise because the model is on the way out.

Same thing with 'build it and they will come' attractional church plants.

That's not to say that the list included above is necessarily bad. But I think when you pay attention to how the church needs to interact with our culture today, half of the list is either useless or out of touch.

For example, the only reason you need a worship leader, secured space, children's and youth pastors, staff team, and ?!?!the marketing plan implemented?!?!, is if you're building a programmatic based attractional church more interested in coming up with drive by marketing tactics to trick people to get into the church building rather than building lasting impressions in local communities. See above on how well these have (will) worked in the past (future).

The other common mistakes from the article include:

Underestimating the cost

Which again, is only an issue if the church plant is burdened by expenses and salaries even before day 1. What we tend to underestimate is time-frames and expectations . Time frames on how long it takes to create a new community in a post-Christendom world increase 5-10 fold. With that in mind expectations need to decrease from "build it, let them come, have an altar call after every service," to "redeeming our communities and neighbours through relationship.

Violating the Sabbath

I agree with them here.

Hanging on too long

Hanging on too long?!?! I wonder what 'too long' means? Probably less than 4 years but in the area of 2.5. Hanging on too long again, implies that the 'profit' is outweighed by the 'expenses' too long and thus the business needs to be shut down. However, with new time expectations (how long it takes to immerse into a community and build lasting relationships) too long may be just right.

Post-Christendom church plants should expect to be in an area at minimum 5 years before 'fruit' and may not see a third generation until after 10.

Not having a coach

Having a coach, I believe, is of great value.

Rather than critiquing non stop what are some solution? Well since this article came out focused towards a readership of attractional churches in the US let me offer a suggestion for that realm.

The way American culture is headed is a slow but sure erosion of a relevant church message/influence largely because the church community cannot speak a language that is understood by people outside of it (which is a growing number). My sense is that in churches who insist on building buildings and starting programs and services do so primarily to being in existing Christians who are merely transferring into something better (trade in the old car and get a new one).

In order to get away from discipling the discipled perhaps it's time to re-build into our own people so they in turn can go BACK into the places they ALREADY exist for the sake of mission.

Big church leaders are perhaps bad leaders because they either explicitly or implicitly build an ethos that ensure they retain leadership and power while subtly placing a glass ceiling for anyone else to emerge. If you cannot build a wealth of new leaders within your congregation perhaps you're implying to your congregation that the 'pastors' and off-shore missionaries do everything and the congregation sits, prays, and pays.

That model doesn't work in God's mission to redeem humanity.

If you believe that God is a sending God then all of us are sent. In fact, if you're a good Protestant then you will also believe in the 'priesthood of all believers'. If that's the case then it's time to start letting congregants exist in the places/networks they already exist for the SAKE of MISSION. It's time to affirm our own to be representatives of the church.

People aren't stupid, they don't need 'outreach' events or 'ministry' in order exist for mission in their communities--they are already connected. Releasing these people, affirming them in their networks--is to create small groups that eventually become mini church plants! (I'm not suggesting that you break down into a house church model, but that is a post for another time.)

For new church plants the expectation is to affirm the core group to exist for the sake of mission. Church isn't an attractional seeker sensitive event, thus, less resources can be placed on creating a weekly spectacle, and more resources can be placed on doing something simpler--being a good neighbour.

Lets' get away from showy Sunday services with all the bells and whistles. Stretch that money over a longer period of time and invest it into a select group of leaders who build other leaders. Leaders in their communities spread the gospel message through their redemptive actions and love. It's how the early church operated, it's how we should operate, and it's a great way to spread the gospel message in an increasingly de-Christianized culture.

If we don't make some adjustments then we'll continue to be disappointed 80% of the time when nobody seems interested in filling the seats of our new and ill-advised box church plants.

Reach out and join God in his work with your community. Don't building a box to house your own people within. That's just bad business sense.

Most Common Mistakes Church Planters Make….is Planting Corporations is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

I was debating on whether to toss out a response to some questionable comments made by an attractional/mega church pastor in the States. I don't know much about him nor his church, and simply be blogging gives the issue more attention, but the comments forced me to offer something brief.

On the topic of discipleship Micheal writes:

Some of the most selfish Christians in the world are sitting in living rooms they call missional communities, while the world around them spirals out of control.

Sounds like he's hanging around some cranky missional minded people.

(Note, in light of the Haiti catastrophe it's a shame we're stuck in a conversation about how to slam other church expressions rather than ways to engage their world 'spirals out of control'.)

Let's be absolutely clear, central element of the missional church movement (organic church, emerging church, whatever label you need to use), is to engage in God's plan to redeem humanity.. Joining God in his mission (the missio Dei) to rescue, redeem, and recapture humanity is foundational to any missional church. In fact, the reason why the missional church emerged from the church growth model is because conventional church was simply doing a bad job of it.

In fact, today, the weakest component of most churches is their small group/discipleship programs. Why you ask? Simply put, the way the conventional church operates, only a handful of individuals are regarded as leaders, and thus only a handful are equipped to train/disciple other people. Just think of it, if you only embrace the leadership of the few (the clergy), and either directly or indirectly encourage the laity to sit and consume 'church', then you will never have a critical mass of people to mobilize for the sake of mission (Great Commission).

It's a weird situation to exist in. To invest more into the laity means a) more time and resources, b) a loss of power for the existing charismatic CEO-style church leaders, c) a major adjustment in the way we do church. Leaders cannot on one hand exhort people to exist in small groups and disciple people (participating in the mission of God), if when they gather all they do is sit and consume, it's a contradiction.

That's one reason among many why small groups (and therefore discipleship) is the weakest link in attractional church models.

In comes missional church where fundamentally people exist for the sake of the missio Dei in the places they're already connected and God is already at work. Missional church RELEASES people to exist in their networks (neighborhoods). If you are not engaging then it's not missional. In a post-Christendom world this journey is one of the few methods to expose people to the gospel message in action.

To write this movement off as a mere the collection of 'selfish Christians' ignores the essential components that make 'missional' what it is.

And by the way, small groups meet in homes? So do missional church small groups. But what I consistently see in my experience are small groups that combine in larger communities to worship/celebrate together. Sounds to me like that's church. Some will argue it's not because there is no clear charismatics lead pastor, no steeple, no membership, no parking lot, no worship band, no organ, no pews, no old wooden cross, no announcements, no 45 minute sermon..... but I contest it looks and operates much like a church we read from Acts till about....oh say Revelation.

Hopefully I'm not alone in my assessment, but the comments require more explanation then a blanket condemnation of the missional church movement. Maybe he was thinking of a house church movement instead?

When You Don’t Know What You Know is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Technorati Tags: Missional, oak leaf, organic church

Organic church. The term is fluid, but it contains at least three ingredients: Frustration with the-church-as-we-know-it, a focus on people (vs. programs) and mission (vs. institutional maintenance), and a vision to transform the world.

Organic (missional) church is kind of like high speed internet. When you get off your 48.8kbs you'll never go back. To many leaders and early adopters of the organic church movement, going back to the regimented, perhaps legalistic, and programmatic grind of the institutional church (be it evangelical or mainline), would be a tough pill to swallow (or koolaid to drink).

Imagine, you could be connected into a community that seeks to join God in the places he's already working, to redeem the places where you're already networked. To do that you'll have to spend time with neighbors over dinners, pray for people who are going through rough patches in their lives, have block parties, frequent the coffee shop/bar, and gather with like minded people on a regular basis to worship.

Or, you could go to a box every Sunday morning between 10-1130AM, listen to someone talk to you for 45 minutes, take in the latest Chris Tomlin CD, and boot it back home in time for the football game.

Sure, perhaps I don't shed positive light on the 'other' way, but for some this is the dichotomy posed.

It should not, therefore, come as a surprise if an organic church fails that the leadership would simply fade off into the distance given the alternative. My sense is the potential to loose proponents of the organic church network is high if the networks fail, and other related networks fail as well.

Although, as the article mentioned, the movement will inevitably fail, there are some key components that we should be mindful of moving forward that could potentially slow the emergence of cranky organic church participants.

1) Success is not measured in numbers. The old church growth models peg growth at X % for a new church plant and if you do'nt meet that requirement you fail. Failure is usually because you didn't have a good enough/charismatic leader.....or of course, because the money ran out.

Success in an organic movement is tracked by successful transformations in people. Not how many people said a prayer or attended service, but how many people in your life are being changed.

That means what used to take an altar call and a revival meeting, will now take 7 years to accomplish in a populous with no religious memory (post-Christendom society).

2) Timeframes change. As we measure success differently we have to be mindful that timeframes change. As noted above, it's now a 5-10 year investment into people, mini transformations as they embark on their spiritual quest and as God leads them towards himself. Longer timeframes will also mean greater longevity.
Under the old church model church planters went with 100% support from sending church. We're still trying to find out the magical number for this, and I'm not saying we shouldn't have church support in $$$. However, I am saying that when our expectations change from 1-5 year commitment to a 5-10 commitment and investment into your local neighbourhood, you start to consider alternatives to make that vision a reality.

(Neil Cole would extend this 5-10 year commitment to a 4th generation timeframe!)

3) Be bi-vocational. On a 10 year plan it's not feasible for a sending church to pay your 100% salary. In fact, reducing salary (largest expense of the church plant) by half only doubles the longevity of a plant. Some form of bi-vocational model to start is probably the best course to take.

4) Network yourself. If your network/community fails are you left alone? Although it IS a lonely place to step outside of the box and start a new movement, you are NOT the only person to come up with the organic model (or like it in the process). Find local communities that rival what you're doing. That will ensure if you do for some reason need to shut the metaphorical doors, in the least you'll have a place to connect into that represents your foundational ethos.

These are some expectations and thoughts that could extend longevity of the organic church, encourage others to launch into the movement, and cut the losses when things do go South.

There is much more to be said about how organic and attractional churches could work together rather than remaining mutually exclusive, but that would be another post.

How to Prevent the Emergence of Cranky Organic Church Leaders is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Technorati Tags: church, Missional, organic

Doug Koop – Christian Week Video is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Technorati Tags: christian week, church, doug koop, Missional

In the order they were shot:

Cam Roxburgh on Renov8 2009 from Ro N on Vimeo.

Does a Good Church = Great Worship & Teaching from the 'Word'? from Ro N on Vimeo.

How Does Missional Worship Differ From Conventional Church? from Ro N on Vimeo.

Why Are Canadian Churches Facing Change? from Ro N on Vimeo.

Characteristics of Missional Church from Ro N on Vimeo.

Next up will be a series featuring Joe Manafo.

Missional Church Videos with Cam Roxburgh is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Technorati Tags: Missional, roxburgh