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.) Continue reading