On missional and attractional churches
I'd never heard of Julie Clawson until I was perusing Jonny Baker's blog for worship tricks that I can stockpile for Advent 2009. (I know it may come as a surprise that I would plan that far ahead, but it's sort of like buying Christmas presents ahead of time and forgetting where you hide them. I sometimes gather worship tricks only to forget where I have them.)
Jonny's headline on a post caught my eye: "when did christianity become a popularity contest?" Call it a post about a post, I guess. (There's probably a geek-word for those things.) I clicked over to Julie's post, "Missional effectiveness." Jump over and read it, if you get a chance.
I was hooked by the first few lines:
Why did those lines hook me? Well, I know about Kimball and some years ago read two of his books, "The Emergent Church" and "Emerging Worship." I mean, hey, I've long been up to date on discussions concerning emergent Christianity. But when I saw the words "missional vs. attractional church debate," I thought, "Uh-oh. My intense vocation at The Daily Times has put me behind the curve in this arena.
The more I read, the more I decided I was wrong.
I arrived at Green Meadow UMC in April 2002, having just closed the doors on a fairly young church, Pellissippi UMC, which had been in decline for some time. At the time, my home church was Middlebrook Pike UMC, which was a resource-heavy, program-intense church where I helped start an alternative worship experience in 1996. I was an evangelist for those sorts of worship experiences, and still believe they have a place in the church. But when I arrived at Green Meadow, something started changing in my spirit.
Green Meadow was a new-church startup in 1965. From what I can determine, it likely never grew beyond an average attendance of about 100 to 120. (I should probably check the books on that estimate.) Just before my arrival, the church split. So, I thought, "Well, here I am again at a struggling church. Wonder where this will lead ..." To my surprise, these were not defeated people, merely wounded travelers. And so, our journey began.
In the discovery process, we began by asking, "What is God's purpose for this church, in this time, and this place." "This place" was a big one, for we discovered that within a five-mile radius, "The Meadow" is surrounded by nine United Methodist churches alone -- including a new church startup, Sycamore Tree.
As we discussed the purpose and future of the community of faith who worshipped at The Meadow, I would often say, "Green Meadow is not likely to ever again be a 'program' church." In a world filled with options for consumer Christians, or those entering the faith with an eye toward consumer Christianity, Green Meadow is not one of those options.
The question became, "If we are not now, nor ever will be again, a 'program' church, then what are we?" Over the years, the focus has moved from trying to create programs that served the flock to missions that serve others. The community knows little about buzzwords such as "missional," but that is exactly what has developed: a missional community.
This is what is fascinating about the Clauson-Kimball debate: In 2004, I was asked by Dan Benedict at the General Board of Discipleship to provide a perspective on what was happening at Green Meadow in terms of emergent Christianity. In that discussion, I used the word "missional" in describing The Meadow, and "consumer-oriented program churches" in apparently describing what Clauson-Kimball would refer to as "attractional."
What bothers me is the "us vs. them" tone that these things tend to take. When I first read Kimball's books, it seemed as if he was offering an alternative to traditional Western Christianity, which might be attractive to those who are put off by the current state of the Western church. Likewise with Clauson and missional churches. The problem: bickering among the flock is what likely turns off the unchurched the most. (Believe me, I've got my own log to deal with in this arena ...)
One more thought: In terms of the "effectiveness" of missional vs. attractional churches, why not let God make that decision? Do what God is calling you to do, and do it faithfully.
Whether conversions are evident, or not, a missional church with a heart for God's people will lead people to Christ. A missional church without a heart for the people is nothing more than a civic club with a cross and candles.
As for "attractional," consumer Christian churches: You can forget about conversion scorecards, or counting the notches on your Gospel gun, because only God knows who is truly converted anyway.
In short, we've all got our cross to bear when it comes to living out the faith, at this time, and in this place. It's my prayer that in 2009, the world will look at the Church and say, "See how they love one another ...," not "Gee, wish they'd quit bickering and pointing fingers."
Grace, peace and the love of Christ ...
Jonny's headline on a post caught my eye: "when did christianity become a popularity contest?" Call it a post about a post, I guess. (There's probably a geek-word for those things.) I clicked over to Julie's post, "Missional effectiveness." Jump over and read it, if you get a chance.
I was hooked by the first few lines:
"Foolishly entering the fray…
So the whole missional vs. attractional church debate has risen to the bloggy surface yet once again sparked by Dan Kimball’s recent post on the Out of Ur blog. ..."
Why did those lines hook me? Well, I know about Kimball and some years ago read two of his books, "The Emergent Church" and "Emerging Worship." I mean, hey, I've long been up to date on discussions concerning emergent Christianity. But when I saw the words "missional vs. attractional church debate," I thought, "Uh-oh. My intense vocation at The Daily Times has put me behind the curve in this arena.
The more I read, the more I decided I was wrong.
I arrived at Green Meadow UMC in April 2002, having just closed the doors on a fairly young church, Pellissippi UMC, which had been in decline for some time. At the time, my home church was Middlebrook Pike UMC, which was a resource-heavy, program-intense church where I helped start an alternative worship experience in 1996. I was an evangelist for those sorts of worship experiences, and still believe they have a place in the church. But when I arrived at Green Meadow, something started changing in my spirit.
Green Meadow was a new-church startup in 1965. From what I can determine, it likely never grew beyond an average attendance of about 100 to 120. (I should probably check the books on that estimate.) Just before my arrival, the church split. So, I thought, "Well, here I am again at a struggling church. Wonder where this will lead ..." To my surprise, these were not defeated people, merely wounded travelers. And so, our journey began.
In the discovery process, we began by asking, "What is God's purpose for this church, in this time, and this place." "This place" was a big one, for we discovered that within a five-mile radius, "The Meadow" is surrounded by nine United Methodist churches alone -- including a new church startup, Sycamore Tree.
As we discussed the purpose and future of the community of faith who worshipped at The Meadow, I would often say, "Green Meadow is not likely to ever again be a 'program' church." In a world filled with options for consumer Christians, or those entering the faith with an eye toward consumer Christianity, Green Meadow is not one of those options.
The question became, "If we are not now, nor ever will be again, a 'program' church, then what are we?" Over the years, the focus has moved from trying to create programs that served the flock to missions that serve others. The community knows little about buzzwords such as "missional," but that is exactly what has developed: a missional community.
This is what is fascinating about the Clauson-Kimball debate: In 2004, I was asked by Dan Benedict at the General Board of Discipleship to provide a perspective on what was happening at Green Meadow in terms of emergent Christianity. In that discussion, I used the word "missional" in describing The Meadow, and "consumer-oriented program churches" in apparently describing what Clauson-Kimball would refer to as "attractional."
What bothers me is the "us vs. them" tone that these things tend to take. When I first read Kimball's books, it seemed as if he was offering an alternative to traditional Western Christianity, which might be attractive to those who are put off by the current state of the Western church. Likewise with Clauson and missional churches. The problem: bickering among the flock is what likely turns off the unchurched the most. (Believe me, I've got my own log to deal with in this arena ...)
One more thought: In terms of the "effectiveness" of missional vs. attractional churches, why not let God make that decision? Do what God is calling you to do, and do it faithfully.
Whether conversions are evident, or not, a missional church with a heart for God's people will lead people to Christ. A missional church without a heart for the people is nothing more than a civic club with a cross and candles.
As for "attractional," consumer Christian churches: You can forget about conversion scorecards, or counting the notches on your Gospel gun, because only God knows who is truly converted anyway.
In short, we've all got our cross to bear when it comes to living out the faith, at this time, and in this place. It's my prayer that in 2009, the world will look at the Church and say, "See how they love one another ...," not "Gee, wish they'd quit bickering and pointing fingers."
Grace, peace and the love of Christ ...
posted by Pastor Buzz at 11:23 AM
0 comments
