It is worth noting that one place where evangelicals and prot. mainlines, Southern Baptists and Sojourners, evangelical fundamentalist' leaders(Dobson) and emergent village leaders (McLaren) converge is on our obligation to vote. They may not agree on whom to vote for, but they generally agree that voting is the Christian thing to do. In the midst of Shane Claiborne's Jesus for President, there are those who warn us against withdrawal. Where is the recognition that abstaining from voting (refusing to participate) can be an even more aggressive activist (dare I say Biblical) stance for justice? It had been my hope, that the emerging church, atune to post modern, post Christendom and even post-Marxist post structuralist critiques of capitalism and democracy, might become a place of new Christian discernment for this new aggressive social posture of resistance towards the State and its marriage to multi- national corporate interests. Dissappointedly, I don't think it has appeared yet. In the interest therefore, of promoting further conversation on this matter, I offer three issues to consider as you discern for yourself and your church as to whether to vote or not vote as act of Christian social justice. Please note that I am not saying it is always wrong to vote as a Christian. Rather I am asserting that voting is always an act of Christian discernment. Here are three issues to consider in discerning whether to vote or not.

1.) The State is an (Preserving) Order of Creation. If you're a Calvinist you see God at work in all things (Common Grace) and that includes government. We should therefore participate in that. If you're a Lutheran, you see that God is at work "preserving" creation in the State for the ongoing work of redemption until He comes, and therefore we should support that. Then there are some of us who follow Yoder (mostly Anabaptists) who consider that there are times when government is flat out evil and we should therefore not participate, indeed resist, or better yet (if you're under postmodern influence) seek out tactics to subvert. I must admit, after staunchly disagreeing with pres. Bush's approach to war and economy these last eight years, it might be incumbent on us all to vote for the preserving of the world from more American government induced violence and injustice.

2.) Voting is Violence Steve Knight recently posted on Hauerwas's comments in voting for Obama. Hauerwas makes the case that voting is violence. Voting in essence polarizes and sets one group over against another. Once the 51% wins, voting sets the majority over against the minority in an act of domination. The 51% tell the other 49 what to do (er where to go in GB's case). Should we Christians participate in that? Likewise, given the overt captivity of American government by territorializing powers of capital, should we encourage this process by legitimating it by our vote? Sometimes I think young thinkers, especially emerging church folk, cannot imagine what would happen if instead of evangelicals (or even better the voting block of the Christian church en toto) becoming a block of voters polarized over against the rest of the country by one issue, we simply refused to vote. What kind of subversive power for justice would be enacted? If every one refused to vote (and participate in the polarization), and the president of the United States was elected by 10,000 people, how much change would this evoke in the State? How much power would be stripped to wage war?

3.) "The Christian Nation" There is no question that some of the impulse to vote is to see justice take hold through the public sector. This is James Dobson, this is Jim Wallis. Yet I suggest that the organizing activity to vote (by Christians) may in fact distract Christians from the real work of justice in their own churches as communities of justice in the world. I believe just as the empty signifier (Zizek) "Christian Nation" distracts conservative evangelicals (in fact distances themselves from) from their own immediate participation in God's justice through Christ in a people, so the same thing is very prone to happen among protestant mainline and emerging types when they advocate voting for justice through Obama. We keep working for justice in this way (family sexual values for Focus of the Family - social justice values for Sojourners) in turn giving hope for a Christianized America (one side sees Christianized as a sexually moral family-safe society, the other sees Christianized as a socially just society) via government. Meanwhile we are passivized towards engaging in justice ourselves in our own local churches. Indeed this becomes an excuse to keep justice concerns a safe distance as we (think we) are accomplishing it through other means. See my arguments on this here.

As for me on these three issues, 1.) I lean towards a Lutheran vote for the preserving of some baseline order in order to prevent te continuation of the problematic policies of the Republican administrations. 2.) I recognize that the polarizing has lessened in this election versus the prior Bush campaigns. 3.) Having said all that, I have no hopes for Christian justice coming through the halls of US government. Neither do I have hopes that Obama will somehow avoid being absorbed by the existing Order of the State.

My verdict: I will vote for Obama, but not expect too much (yeah, there I go parroting Stanley Hauerwas again).

In the meantime, I urge a discussion of these three issues in the emerging church forums. I urge we read Romans chapter 13 in view of John Howard Yoder's discussion in ch. 10 of The Politics of Jesus. Whenever big politics starts sneaking into the church, let us push the discussion of what it means to refuse the rule of any other name but that of Christ as Lord. If you're part of the so-called Hauerwas mafia, bring up the Christian anarchist stance into the political conversation of the emerging church. Do all of this in order to make it harder for Christians to just assume we should all get in line and vote.

What do you think? on issues 1,2, and 3?

The pastors group at Life on the Vine spent this early morning talking about church planting, spawning communities of mission. We resolved that we would first seek to seed missional communities in places where a.) the gospel is sorely missing (either because churches have closed, left or not yet come), b.) we could live more affordably (so we could all live beneath our means), and c.) where we could live in closer proximity to one another.

Ironically the last two criteria would eliminate the very place Life on the Vine exists. Life on the Vine has faced significant challenges in the NW suburbs regarding the issues of affordability and proximity. We have had to be inventive. The struggle in each of these challenges has just begun. Yet the suburbs cannot be abandoned. We have seen smaller churches (300 and less) close up. The mega churches grow larger. And yet there is little left for those outside the gospel who would never consider darkening the doors of a mega church (which for me includes most post Christendom peoples).

Having said all this, I think we see ourselves as sending people off in groups of ten, as missional orders into places that a.) need the gospel, b.) more affordable, and c.) allow for proximal living. We want to send especially the people who cannot afford to live here.

This gets me to the point of this entire post. In several conversations I have had with missional church planters in the past three weeks, I have discussed what is happening in their towns. They all live in towns of 100,000 or so. In each of these towns the middle to upper classes economically have moved to the outer circle of these cities. Mega churches, in some cases huge mega churches, have sprung up on the outer edges of these towns (we'd call them suburbs in a big city like Chicago.) Meanwhile, from the middle of these little cities in, churches have shrunk, died, been whittled to nothing (many times by these mega churches) left and/or closed up. The outer circle of these towns has plenty of churches and money. Yet in all three of these contexts, "the middle in" is decidedly less middle-to upper class and lacks churches relative to the population. This "middle-in" is struggling with poverty, job loss, gangs, under-education and other things. Here in the "middle-in" parts of these towns are "the poor," the ones most ready and desperate for the gospel. Here lies fertile ground for the gospel.

All this to say, "the middle in" is also a.) very affordable, b.) allows for proximity, and c.) is in need of the gospel. These are the fertile places for the missional orders we are seeking to form at Life on the Vine. We seek to send groups of 10, gifted people for ministry who can get jobs and flourish in these new places for mission. I was stunned to visit one of these places this week and find many young professional Christians, who have good jobs, tired of mega church living, doing this kind of missional living. Wow, it blew my mind.

What do you think about the "middle in" hypothesis? Are you interested? Are you already doing this?

A couple weeks ago I posted on the "missional" synchroblog that the missional church needed to differentiated from the mega-church. In response, my friend Craig Carter ( blog) asks, in a comment to the post, whether we could not view mega-churches as cathedrals. He says:

My point, to be up front, is that the Church as a whole takes different forms in different situations. Overall, the Church must be missional, but can the Church include both cathedrals and also monastic orders? And can contemplative orders co-exist peacefully alongside missionary orders? Can all recognize themselves as part of God's one Church? I ask because in Roman Catholicism they do, while in Protestantism it is as if the Franciscans think the bishops and the parish structure are of the devil and the Jesuits think the cloistered orders are suspect as the genuineness of their faith. And as for the mystics, well they are just beyond the pale for everyone else. Shouldn't this discussion be conducted more along the lines of "calling" rather than which structures are "right" and which are "wrong?"

I agree with the general sense of what Craig says here. I have some theological/ecclesiological reservations about the shape of many mega churches, yet I hesitate to write them off. And so I argued in that same post (admittedly in a reserved fashion) that megachurches have their place within the landscape of N American Christianity. I said: "I believe the work of the mega churches is valid and has its place in the Kingdom: the ministry to the dormant unchurched of Christendom.." As Christendom wanes however, that work will become smaller and smaller.

It is for this reason that I like what Craig Carter is saying above. In some ways we might compare the place of mega-churches today with the place of cathedrals in medieval Europe. Cathedrals were at the center of Christendom. To this day, in each town in old Italy, you will see the vestiges of the town square in front of the Cathedral like church, the steeple being the highest point in the village, and all the roads leading to the church. In this pre-modern time, the church bells kept time, the daily office, and the festivals were all holy festivals that were conducted to and from the church. These Cathedrals represented a society where the language was Christian and the church was at the pinnacle of power in society. It made sense that cathedrals were "attractional." I believe many of the same conditions necessary for Cathedrals are indeed necessary for mega churches. I believe mega churches are dependent upon the sociological conditions of Christendom. Although Craig Carter's teacher, John Yoder, would wince at the integrity of such a structure for God's people, for these times and places, I want to grant at least some legitimacy to this historic way of being church.

Alongside these cathedrals however, monastic orders of various types arose. During particular times of church history when the church fell into decline, when society was taken over by "the barbarians, it was the missional orders that carried on the faith. Mission was best conducted by these missional orders and some of them were even commissioned by the Cathedral churches (Rome). These missional orders were not attractional. They almost always had flexibility and movability to their structure. Of course these orders often got in trouble with the Cathedral (Rome) church when they called the Cathedral church back to holiness and faithfulness.

Today, I can see the missional church movement as having this same kind of flexibility and movability necessary to do mission in North America whereas the mega church does not. I see the Cathedrals/mega churches as too often seduced by power. I claim it is inherent in the structure. I see that Cathedrals often fell into "servicing" a Christianity that was lowest common denominator. I see mega churches as prone to the same. I see Cathedrals/mega churches as prone to all the problems of institutionalization including inflexibility and immovability. The missional communities can do grass roots community like mega church/Cathedrals never could and never can. All of these weaknesses however do not delegitimate the Cathedral church's role in Christendom society, sometimes powerful in every way.

The question is, is Christendom good? And are we at that same point in the decline of the Cathedral Christendom church (evangelical mega church) where it needs to be called back to faithfulness? I think Christendom has its big problems. I think it's on the decline anyways. I also think today that many of the mega churches have fallen into the same bad habits as the Christendom Cathedrals of the past. I therefore see the missional church movement as being a renewal ecclesiological movement in relation to the mega church movement, much like the monastic orders were to the Cathedral church.

I love what Leonardo Boff, the Latin American theologian, says about the base communities of Latin America and their relationship to the Roman Catholic established church. I think a similar relationship can be seen in the missional communities/monastic orders relationship to the Cathedrals/mega churches. In Boff's words,

… the problem of church does not reside in the counterpoint of institution and community. These poles abide forever. The real problem resides in the manner in which both are lived, the one as well as the other: whether one pole seeks to absorb the other, cripple it, liquidate it, or each respects the other and opens itself to the other in constant willingness to be put to the question. p.7 Ecclesiogenesis

This post has been much too simplified. But thanks to Craig Carter for his idea so germane to the missional discussion. He knows much more about pre-Reformation history than I. And he knows John Howard Yoder better than I. So I'd be interested in his take on this analogy.

What do you think? In what ways do you see this analogy as fruitful for the missional church/mega church discussion? How do you see missional communities/ mega churches, emerging churches/denominations working together?

Below is my contribution to Rick Meigs' Synchroblog - Rick thanks alot for pulling us all together today on this important topic!

-----------------------------------------------

It is really striking, these past couple years, how much the word "Missional" has taken a flight all its own. At times, the word has taken on qualities of being another niche kind of church, another approach, technique or strategy for doing church. Indeed, it has been strangely noticeable how "missional" has been a category of ministry presented at more than one mega-church conference. This concerns many of us who have used the word to describe a theology of the church. In a recent post of mine over at Out of Ur, there were comments which revealed just how confused the use of this word has become. The conversation generated over there suggested that many simply equate missional with being evangelistic Christians. I think both of these developments are a shame.

For me, I use the word to describe a specific theology of the church. This theology specifically a.) Sees the church as Trinitarian extension of the Missio Dei (mission is not a program of the church, it is the church) b.) Sees the church as the people of God driven to inhabit contexts incarnationally (as opposed to producing evangelistic strategies to get people to come into the church), and c.) Views salvation as a holistic reconciliation of the entire cosmos with God (as opposed to merely the penal satisfaction of God's justice, although this is certainly part of it!) -Christ's work recapitulates the undoing of all sin (personal, social, political, psychic etc.) until He comes. I consider the Gospel and Our Culture Network as the founders, with names like Roxburgh, Van Gelder, Guder, Hunsberger building on the work of Bosch and Newbigin. I consider Alan Roxburgh (again), Frost and Hirsch, Ed Stetzer, Martin Robinson, Dwight Smith and others to be key practitioners contributing to the furtherance of this movement.

All of the above is kind of basic and probably repeated many times over across this Synchroblog. So allow me to fill out a little more of what I think is essential missional theology/ecclesiology/missiology by answering this provocative question: Can a mega church be missional? As more and more mega-churches seek to organize and market "missonal" efforts in their own church contexts, I'd like to offer four reasons why mega-churches cannot be missional in the ways most of us on this Synchro blog are defining it.

FOUR REASONS WHY MEGA-CHURCHES CANNOT BE MISSIONAL

1.) Attractional Church Works Against Being Missional/Incarnational in almost every way. To be attactional means to center the church organization on your weekly gathering. Most resources time and money is put into making this gathering the centerpiece of ministry and the measurement of success. The attractional impulse is so magnetic that it pulls everyone and everything into its orbit. The church ends up attracting huge amounts of people from other church backgrounds and unchurched people who previously had Christian initiation but have since wandered away. And although there are many outreach activities, the church itself simply cannot be incarnational in the ways talked about by the missional authors. To be incarnational is to spend most of one's time and ministry outside the four walls of a church building, inhabiting a neighborhood learning who they are, what they do and where the spiritual/holistic needs are. Its rhythm contradicts the rhythm of an attractional church. For to organize and sustain a ministry of 3000 or more (1,000 or more) simply requires huge resources, organization, volunteers to keep the machine going.

2.) Mega church is not reproducible. It was Alan Hirsch who said if it is not reproducible it cannot be missional, for to be missional is to multiply again and again and again. The resources both in money and people required to start a mega church at this level (thirty years into the mega church's cycle) are simply so huge no one can expect to compete (of course none of us want to "compete"). And so the solution for mega's is to open up a satellite church with the best programming money can buy. But such churches cannot hope to exponentially reproduce, because it costs too much money.

3.) Mega church is inherently built on Christendom. It packages a service to speak a message that they assume can make sense to anonymous guests. Missional assumes the opposite - that people have no language or history by which to understand the words "Jesus is Lord." Therefore we must incarnate/embody the gospel for it to make sense. A packaged entertaining speaker/program every Sunday simply cannot do the job of communicating the gospel in post Christendom.

4.) Mega church tries to organize community among its thousands. It must inevitably offer a smorgasbord of "kinds of community" for parishioners to choose according to what best fits their lives. It cannot help but turn community into another program. Community is at the heart of missional. Yet it is a community of people deeply committed to pursue mission together in the neighborhoods. Alan Hirsch calls this communitas. This kind of community cannot be organized out of large groups of people through organizational structures. It must start on the ground, be organic and have strong leadership. This is nigh impossible in a mega church setting. It is intensely missional.

Now I must be quick to say, I believe the work of the mega-churches is valid and has its place in the Kingdom: the ministry to the dormant unchurched of Christendom. But for reasons stated above, the whole impulse of missional ecclesiology is radically different than mega-church. Do you agree wit me? that mega church is by nature contrary to the notions of missional church? What other reasons are there for why megachurch cannot go missional in the ways we're all trying to hold onto in this synchroblog?

Other bloggers blogging on this synchroblog:

Alan Hirsch

Alan Knox

Andrew Jones

Barb Peters

Bill Kinnon

Brad Brisco

Brad Grinnen

Brad Sargent

Brother Maynard

Bryan Riley

Chad Brooks

Chris Wignall

Cobus Van Wyngaard

Dave DeVries

David Best

David WierzbickiDoSi

Doug Jones

Duncan McFadzean

Erika Haub

Grace

Jamie Arpin-Ricci

Jeff McQuilkin

John Smulo

Jonathan Brink

JR Rozko

Kathy Escobar

Len Hjalmarson

Makeesha Fisher

Malcolm Lanham

Mark Berry

Mark Petersen

Mark Priddy

Michael Crane

Michael Stewart

Nick Loyd

Patrick Oden

Peggy Brown

Phil Wyman

Richard Pool

Rick Meigs

Rob Robinson

Ron Cole

Scott Marshall

Sonja Andrews

Stephen Shields

Steve Hayes

Tim Thompson

Thom Turner

One of our pastors read this post by Roger Mugs over at Opensource Theology and passed it on to all of us.

5 Reasons I would claim to leave the church

5. My pastor hasn't had a relationship with a non-believer in over 10 years

4. The leaders of my church are workaholics and I find it hard to believe they have a healthy relationship with the Lord when they don't have the time for their family

3. I'm sick of it being about one man. Be that the pastor, or the musician or whatever, I want to see them raising up other people and sending them out, content to have many small churches instead of one mega church

2. There are 1,000 people who attend my church. I know 50 and only care about 20 of them. I attend a small group to go deeper with those I care about, but I have no reason to remember the name of the guy whose hand I shake between worship and the sermon

1. There is no place to really do ministry, the leaders will not let go of control. I want to pray for people, bless people, watch out for people, be there for people. I want to be invited to do what the Lord has called me to do.
----------------------------------------

The sentiments in this post are worth reflection. They speak to concerns we've had at Life on the Vine. Not that we're a big church or anything. These are just things we have had to think about and resist. I see #3-#5 as problems inherent in the professionalization that is necessitated at a mega church. I see #1-#2 evaporating once the church orients herself to incarnational presense and mission. So in relation to each of the 5 reasons here's my 5 comments - in 3 sentences or less. What are yours?

5.) At the Vine, we intentionally ask our pastors to be bi-occupational having a job in the marketplace, often part-time. We are therefore forced to get to know people in whatever marketplace we are in. In this way we model mission. This is harder for me now since my "other" job became a full time seminary professor three years ago. I must find other ways.

4.) The professionalization of the church organization creates an ethos among staff where "the onus is on us" to produce. Thus pastors get busy, performance oriented. Disbursed multiple leadership assumes we are only responding to what God is already doing, our task is to merely be faithful in all the things God brings to us each day. We are not paid/hired to produce goals, we are paid an amount that enables/frees us to do more of what God is already doing. This keeps church as well as family in perspective

3.) At the Vine, we deliberately mute the one man syndrome. For it gravitates everyone towards this one man's leadership (senior pastor roles are rarely given to women), charisma and vision. It saps all power into the center instead of dispersing it and multiplying it among the people and into the neighborhoods. In this way the one man senior leader position kills all missionalness. At the Vine, we have multiple pastors. The musicians set up off to the side. We gather on Sundays in a circle around the alter - and the cross - not focused upon a pastor.

2.) I'd say that twenty people is the maximum number of people you can really know and journey life together with. The task is to get to know them and make commitments together and inhabit a context together for ministry. It's hard enough for smaller churches to guide people toward this. I don't know how mega structures could do this.

1.) We try different things to empower people into leadership among our community. We have a college of preachers/lirturgists that trains these kind of leaders in our midst. But most of the focus should be on channeling ministry out among the neighborhoods with people that one comes in contact with. Of course, you learn this, as a way of life, through leadrship, discipleship and smaller missional order type relationships. We're struggling to get this moving at our church.

I have just begun reading David Well's The Courage to Be Protestant. I hope to post on it from time to time in the immediate future. A quick perusal of the book however reveals that prof. Wells continues his attack against church marketing-mega-church business modeling of the church as well as the Emergent/emerging church where he takes his swipes against McLaren and postliberal theology. Ironically he sees the two as somewhat related, both contextualizing and thereby watering down the gospel. He surveys the stunning changes on the cultural landscape and sees these two movements as evangelicalism’s massive failure to respond. For Wells, both the church marketers and the emerging churches are abject failures of evangelicalism. He then proclaims the answer for such an evangelicalism in the midst of this crisis: a return to Reformation Orthodoxy, a courage to be protestant.

I am not prepared to offer a full analysis right now. Prof Wells deliberately writes this book in an unscholarly fashion (because, as he states, he is recapitulating his previous four books). To be fair then, I have to go back and read the other volumes. I don't know if I can do that right now. Yet I read this book with interest. I greatly respect David Wells, his work and his service to the evangelical church. I resonate with some of his rants against church-marketing and the loss of a place of honor for the church. Yet I will be offering a completely different reading of evangelicalism at AAR this fall (at the Christian Theological Research Fellowship). If the first chapters of Wells are any indication, I see things differently.

In short, I do not see church marketing (mega church-ease) and the emerging church as coming from the same impulse to contextualize. I do not see post liberal theology as a passing fad (as Wells states on page 16). Instead I see much of emerging church, missional church, neo-monasticism, the Evangelical Manifesto etc. etc. as a response to the inherent lacks that have been revealed in the evangelical theological system/social structure of the past fifteen -twenty years. I see post-liberal theology and all its variants as a fruitful direction for theological faithfulness (as opposed to prot. liberalism and evangelical fundamentalism).

Wells sees the answer to the current lacks in evangelicalism as a return to Classic Protestantism. I see most of the inherent lacks of evangelicalism as seeded in the very structure of Classical Protestantism. Evangelicalism, as I see it, is the outworking of the inherent contradictions latent in the Protestant reformation that allowed for the individualizing, interiorizing, privatizing of the Christian gospel that we have today. These ills then, that Wells so decries, are the outgrowth of the very solution he proposes. BTW many have seen that the seeds of modernity and all its ills also lie deep within the impulses of the Reformation. I would like Wells to consider (along with the Radical-Reformers), could it be that Classic Protestantism, along with its cousin Enlightenment modernity, is the real culprit that led us to the kind of sick Christianity so manifest in America and the West in general?

In contrast to the solution proposed by Wells, the emerging/missional/neo-monastic churches (the pieces that I applaud) seek to recover community, wholistic gospel, embodied incarnational presence in the world, corporate spiritual formation and the sense of cosmic Mission. Granted, I believe the neo-reformed people seek similar things in certain respects. Yet the call from Wells for a "return" to the Sola Scriptura, where the individual (or historical criticism) is in charge of interpretation, and the penal substitutionary view of the atonement, which has allowed the gospel to be packaged and transacted in the first place, hardly seems to further the church beyond the dilemmas of our day. These may be characterizations, yet these doctrines still seem prone toward these kind of errors. I think the New Reformed need to at least address the way these dictrines have led to this mess we are in. I still affirm both the inerrancy of Scripture and the penal view of the atonement. But we must go beyond. The authority of Scripture must be lifted up amidst the new contest of narratives. The atonement must be explicated in all its depth wonder and profundity. Its interpretation must be taken from the entire history of the God's work in Christ. In these ways, I see the emerging/missional movement as more promising than the “Radical Reformers,” the young, restless, Reformed.

In summary, as the atrophy of traditional evangelicalism spreads across N. America, I have my doubts as to whether the young, the restless, the Reformed, can lead us to a place of new faithfulness without eventually leading us to more of the same that got us here in the first place.

This is just a preamble to a more serious engagement with prof. Wells' twenty years of work on this subject. These are just my initial impressions. What do you think? Can neo-Reformed theology ala Driscoll, Piper, Carson, Wells et.al. lead us to a more faithful evangelicalism? Or will it lead us eventually to repeat the same mistakes of rampant individualism, the transactionalizing of the gospel, and an anemic sociality that leaves us impotent to live a socially embodied gospel in distinction from the world?

P.S. For an intelligent debate over some of relational issues between Emergent and Radical Reformed see Tony Jones interchange with Collin Hansen at Christianity Today.

I just got finished looking over at Out of Ur where my original post on Mark Driscoll (from a couple of weeks ago here at "reclaiming") was re-posted. You remember I tried to make the case that all converts are not necessarily the same in terms of time and context needed. (YES THEY ARE THE SAME IN GOD'S SIGHT!). I argued that emerging/emergent, neo-monastic communities and megachurches (yes I still believe Mars Hill is a megachurch) aim (intentionally or unintentionally) at different contexts, and in some cases for different purposes. Well, there were alot of comments over there. There were many that I think merit a response. I could not answer as many as I wanted to over there in a comment (because there's a limit of 1500 words) so I thought I'd respond in one post over here. So for what it's worth, here goes. The quote from the comments is listed first, and then a SHORT response is offered.

From Leonard: If missional churches are not lasting for more than three years then they need to be rethought as to how they are planted, who is planting them and exactly what their mission is. If churches are not making converts in this culture then we need to ask hard questions about boldness, about methods and about not being distracted from the truth that brings grace.

DF: Leonard, I think we agree. I think it is the expectations placed upon missional planters from exterior sources that inhibit their success. Too often missional church plants have expectations laid on them regarding numbers and finances that come off the church planting scripts of traditional churches in Christendom America. We need to prepare missional church plant leaders to set entirely different expectations (including being bi-occupational, indeed self supporting) See my post on this. Your second point reverts back to my suggestion that converts take more time in post Christendom.

From Mike h: 1) The author talks about how difficult it is to develop a missional community. But then the word "organic" is used in the same sentence. One of the beauties of the organic church is not how difficult it is, but simple. I don't see how developing a complex megachurch is easier than starting an organic missional community.

2) It also seems (from the same paragraph) that the difficulty is getting the missional community large enough to support the "planter". Is that the goal? If the goal is to get missional communities large enough to support a "planter" than I agree it's difficult. But if the goal is to incarnationally help a group of people live the gospel, does the require a paid leader?

3) The author states "The conversion of a post-Christendom "pagan," who has had little to no exposure to the language and story of Christ in Scripture, may require five years of relational immersion before a decision would even make sense."

I'm not sure where the 3-5 year time frame came from. But it would any less time for a megachurch to reach them, than a missional community?

DF: Mike, again I think we agree. If church is organic, and self-sustaining from the beginning, it should by definition be less difficult. Nonetheless, my experience with church planters is they continually have expectations placed upon them that they are not prepared to fend off. Most are not prepared for the financial and social pressures they will face doing church missionally.

In regard to your second question, I never said that the missional community needs to get big enough to support the "planter." Anyone who knows me knows that I argue for a sustainable missional pastorate whose support from the church comes only from necessity, as he/she must be released for more ministry at the call of the community.

In regard to your third question, I tried to outline in the post why I think mega church conversions are different. The dynamic of a large church of 2-3000 or more and the attractional reasons for being there (9 times out of 10) generate a person already familiar with the gospel. A pagan however who knows nothing (at least in an orthodox way) would (9 times out of 10) not be attracted to a large service and would inherently need a whole new level of immersion in the gospel story for a decision to be anything more than a consumerist one. These statistics have been borne out in places like C Pritchard's study of Seeker Services which you can get a Amazon.

From Willy: For goodness sake, this article clearly indicates one of the major problems with all these types of discussion on Emerging Church, namely that everyone seems to have a different definition of what it means to be "missional".
To my mind Mars Hill is a "missional" church in so far as they look at themselves as being missionaries to their locality.

DF: I agree Willy. I didn't really define missional here. I didn't have the space. But let me say that all churches that are Christian in anyway would assume they are missional on your terms. I am following the work of Darrell Guder et al. (GOCN), Alan Roxburgh (Allelon), and Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost. These authors and churches emphasize incarnational forms of church versus attractional, the church as Missio Dei versus mission being a program, organic forms of missionary living in the neighborhoods versus ministry set in a building, and many other notions that they exegete NT forms of church as a minority presence in society. (For a better definition listen to Alan Hirsch at Out of Ur here)When you describe missional in these terms, I take it Mars Hill simply doesn't fit. I'm not accusing of them of being apostate or lacking in ecclesiology. I just assume a church with systems and organization sufficient to funnel 7,000 people through their walls cannot operate in this missional fashion. The point of my post is that conversions will look differently and be of a different kind between the two different contexts.

From Willy again: Oh, and another thing, when Jesus simply called the disciples with the words "follow me" he didn't seem to worried that they were making a "consumerist decision".

DF: Jesus asked them to "hate their families" and "pick up their cross" and follow him. Enough said. Luke 14:26-27

From Melody: "But missional missiology is aimed at those lost in societies of post-Christendom with no understanding of Christ whatsoever. And this kind of mission takes longer."

Jesus' ministry lasted for only three years before he ascended back into heaven and look at the number of converts in that time. He walked up to total strangers and said, "Come, follow Me", and they did! No building of relationship first. All of the relationships Jesus had with believers occurred after their conversions. In fact, according to Matthew 4:17, the first word out of Jesus mouth when he began his ministry was, "Repent..."

The apostles got right out there and preached the gospel to a culture that had NEVER heard any of it. People were converted on the spot. Wow!

DF: OK … but really, we are not given that much information in the gospels on Jesus' background relationships with the men that became his disciples. Some, who became his disciples after the ascension were indeed his very own brothers, James being among them. It is very likely he knew all the men he said "Come, follow me" to.
Even if he didn't know any of them, all of the disciples and the vast majority of converts, even into the Gentile territories, were Jews, well schooled in the history of Israel and the coming of the Messiah. They knew the entire story and what they were saying yes to!

From Dan Kimball: I was on staff at a megachurch for over 10 years and very familiar with the whole scene - and we planted a new church 4 years ago. I don't see the way it was described of the differences between megachurches and small churches in conversion. Whether a large or small church, when you listen to the stories of how the Spirit moved in the person life, each story is unique. The Spirit does the convicting and drawing someone to Jesus and uses all types of things, from music, to conversations, to altar calls, to Scripture etc. which happens in small churches, medium sized or megachurches.

DF: Dan, I think you know that I certainly agree that every conversion story is unique. I agree that the prevenient work of grace in the Spirit is what guides it all. What I am pointing to here is the difference between someone converted from a previous background in Christianity and someone who has had no knowledge or language to understand what following Jesus as Lord might even mean. When someone has known the whole Scripture story of God in Christ as taught say in a high church catechesis program but never made (or was asked) to make a decision, there remains sufficient background to understand who Jesus is, even if they have gone through a horrific life in between. When someone however, has no knowledge of Christ, except maybe from the Oprah show, the challenge to invite him or her into Christ is totally different.
My experience is, that the majority of attractional conversions are of the first kind. Other statistics exist that also prove that the majority of mega churches land sons and daughters of high church traditions who left and went astray. There is nothing wrong with these conversions. I am just contending that the other kind of conversion, where they know nothing, takes longer.
I have statistics on this. I have missionary histories that study pioneer missions in people groups who have no exposure to Christ ever. They all suggest that post-Christendom type conversions are different, requiring more time and relationality. In other words, if we send a missionary team into Muslim country, we should not expect a 6,000 member church in 6 years or else call it a failure. We should not expect 500 conversions in the first five years or cal it a failure.

Having said all of that, all conversions are good, and a glory to God. It is just when we say that emerging/missional churches do not have conversions, we should be able to make some of these finer discernments. eh? Continued Blessings on your ministry at Vintage Faith Church!

Peace to all, and thanks for the great conversation.
David Fitch