Thanks Alan - I especially appreciate that you point out that, "If we stick with the prevailing measures, we will miss the level of incarnational engagement with quantitative measures alone. How do we measure that?" I've long grown tired of only measure "success" with the traditional categories of numeric and financial growth. Incarnational ministry may not show up on the spreadsheets, but I believe it will make a different in a post-Christendom world.

Alan,

Thanks for this.

You say something that reminds me of the old line I've heard all my life that the world is getting worse and worse. Well, here's your statement: "I certainly don't believe that attractional is not working. What I have said is that it has appeal to a shrinking segment of the population, and that persistence with a church growth style, attractionalism, is in the long run a counsel of despair."

What I find is that church stats disprove this: the facts show that an increasing number of Christians are attending what you are calling "attractional" models of church.

The other side of the question is this: What evidence do you have that those who are attracted to attractional models are shrinking?

It leads to this point: if church numbers are going down, they are going down less with attractional models than they are with less-than-attractional models.

In essence, can you substantiate with concrete empirical evidence the word "shrinking" as you have used it?

well said, alan.

For me, I see both sides of the story. I see "attractional" churches doing great things for the Kingdom. I see "missional" churches doing great things for the Kingdom. However, I simply grow tired of all the labels...

Traditional, contemporary, modern, post-modern, emergent/emerging, missional, attractional...why not just be the church that God is calling us to be in our particular contexts and not get so caught up in all the labels?

I fear that all the time we take debating the labels takes away from actually doing the work of the Kingdom (I'm guilty of this too). People outside the Church see us arguing about our labels and whose approach is best and are left wondering if this is what being the church is all about.

In any case, I think both sides of the coin make some valid points. Hopefully it will inspire all of us to do our best to reach and disciple people in our communities.

I appreciate this discussion.

Alan's point about "shrinkage" (suppressing chuckle) wasn't about declining numbers of Christians flocking to the big box appeal. It was about a cultural shift that looks like it's going to leave us with Campus size mortgages and a culture that won't value what we've built or the resources it will take to heat them.

Alan's other points are well taken. As long as we evaluate "success" by the numbers we're using faulty metrics when it comes to the Kingdom. And we all know this deep down.

As most of the western world transitions to "leaderless" organizations we're still catching up with our own "Sam Walton" and Jack Welch"s.

Growing up, my church believed it was small because it was "more biblical". We boasted of how much we believed in missions...we actually did send out a higher than average number of people for the size of our church. As children, we were sent to evangelism camps to learn apologetics and get evangelism experiences.

Yet, it seemed we were not just apathetic towards our physical neighbors...it felt like we shifted between fear and disdain for our neighbors. It seemed, practically, our "witness" was not what God has done for us and how his grace and love has transformed us...it was "look how moral we are".

Reading Radical Reformission, it was the first time that the heart and location of ministry was questioned. It was RIGHT that the burden of ministry wasn't on the pastor team, however that is setup, but that the entire body is the ministers, the royal priesthood of God...we are all responsible for loving and serving our neighbors. It is right that we start to move the atrophied Western body of Christ to love and serve our neighbors, especially the lonely, the poor, the oppressed, and the rejected. This is the mission. From where I stand, if the local church is on this mission, if we feel that burden, we are missional.

Attractional/traditional...CHURCH...has for so long forgot to serve beyond the worship service...that is tragic. But it seems often that those who are prophets, calling the church towards a renewed heart will become so focused on the theory that they miss the heart of mission that is happening in many contexts. I pray that the missional conversation is less a movement of methods and church forms but a transformation of hearts...a revival...a renewed corporate exercise of the atrophied hands and feet of Christ.

I wonder if pragmatics is such a bad thing, even quantifiable measures. For church planters and ministers who bear the brunt of the discouragement and labor - is it practical to work 5 - 10 - 15 yrs to "reap" congregants of under 30 people? Speaking for myself, I would be devastated.

In missiology, "small organic congregations" would be considered 50/50 success/failure. Yes it's a success in the eyes of kingdom smallness and all that but it's a failure because a church that cannot grow means that it is precisely the opposite of what it claims to be: missional.

scot,
This whole approach here to growth is absurd, isn't it? For even if more and more Christians are going (attracted to) to mega churches (which is true) the rest of the Christian church is shrinking. I can verify this even in our own backyard (Chicago suburbs). The mega churches have siphoned off and closed astounding numbers of smaller more traditional type evangelical churches in the last twenty-five years. In addition,in the 70'-90's the mainline protestant and high church traditions have all shrunk, the majority going in some way to the mega churches. I am not even saying that is necessarily bad. It just speaks to the Christendom nature of attractional church ministry. These facts can be verified comparing Stark's data as well as others' who tell the story that the number of Christians in the US (indeed the number of evangelicals) has not increased one iota the last twenty five years, yet the mega churches have. The arithmetic from there is easy to figure out.
In addition, the mega churches are largely a failure in the places of post Christendom (let's just define these as places that for instance are pro-gay/pro abortion/anti-Christian establishment in public legislation suchas Northeast states or Ontario Canada). There may be one or two mega churches here, but not several like in Texas or the south.
Simple empirical observations like this reveal the Christendom nature of atractional mega church structure, which I have said is fine, let's just recognize it is a different ministry contextually.
Missional structures of church are decidedly aimed at post Christendom which suggests rethinking what we mean by success/fruit.
Peace ...
David Fitch

Scot, I see the vast majority of Christendom mode churches as being 'attractional'in approach, not just the 'church-growth' variety. Church growth has simply bolstered the inherited idea/mode of church and done a more attractive job at it. That puts the overwhelming majority of churches in this category (95%?). It IS the previaling mode of engagement and it is Constantinian in origin. And with that we can apply every statistic that we know of the church and find that we are in BIG trouble in every Western context. Pew report, Barna Group, etc. to name a few, are absolutely clear about this.

That said, clearly mega-churches are growing both in number and size (Leadership Network research), but from my understanding of the research in this regard, most of the growth comes from 'switchers' and not from conversion growth. Again the same research groups will back this up.

Scot you said: increasing number of Christians are attending what you are calling "attractional" models of church.

Certainly that is exactly the truth: an increasing number of Christians are attending attractional models. But the issue with missional v attractional has nothing to do with Church attendance habits of the redeemed but rather with the most effective way to reach the unredeemed. So your question as stated really has no bearing on the conversation unless you have statistics that show larger numbers of the unchurched are flocking to attractional models.

I have come alive inside since I read this issue of Leadership Journal. Alan, you are running the gauntlet for many of us out here with very small voices. In an area that focuses on bottom lines and how much you are able to front for marketing and media blitzes, it's hard to argue that the meatier the faith, the deeper the disciple.

I am so thankful for your articles bro! I am experiencing my own personal revival as I read these things. I LOVE THIS RESPONSE! And more than that, I love the respectful way both of the writers are responding to each other. This is the kind of Christianity I want to buy into.

"Missio Dei" I love it!

Keep up the great work. I am so thankful to learn from all of you!

I don't think I'm trying to justify megachurches or attractional models. Instead, I'm responding to Alan's comment that the culture is shrinking that attractional models appeal to. I don't think there is evidence that that is true.

We can debate missional vs. attractional all we want -- and I'm pretty sure the "missional" folks labeled the others as "attractional" and made it negative in the process (which is another issue) -- but that is not my point. I'm totally for missional approaches that are so Spirit-led and dynamic that they are attractive too. And I'm for attractional models that are missional too.

My point is that it is easy to say that the attractional model appeals to a culture that is shrinking; it is yet another to prove it. I want to see some evidence that the culture that the attractional model is appealing to is shrinking me. I tend to think that the attractional model is caught up in a culture that loves the attractional model, and maybe that is a problem. But to say it is shrinking is to appeal to apocalyptic demise, and I don't see it.

Fitch,

I'm not appealing to numbers except to push back against Alan's undemonstrated appeal to numbers. The word "shrinking" is what I'm talking about.

"Christendom nature" is an interpretation by a certain someone who sees "Christendom nature" as the bad thing.

The first church in Jerusalem was a megachurch, Alan. Thousands saved in one day! Was it Constantinian too? Right in the heart of the political center of Judaism. Right next to the Temple, too. The word "Constantinian" is too easy to use and very difficult to articulate with proper nuance. For one, it refers to the total wedding of Church and State and that is not the case here. (I'm an anabaptist, so I side with the general perception.)

So, let me say this another way: some of you love to swat churches with deconstructive, negative labels like "Christendom" and "Constantinian." Those terms work for folks who already like the critique; I'd prefer something analytic instead of a broad-brush swatting of your brothers and sisters in Christ.

David Drake,

Alan used the word "shrinking." That's where the numbers came from. I appealed to numbers to show that the culture that is supposedly shrinking seems to like the attractional model. (And that doesn't say it is right.)

I never thought I would see the day when a biblical scholar claims the early church (pentecost) in Jerusalem was a "mega-church." Now I do expect that from Bill Hybles or Joel Osteen, but not Scot McKnight. Certainly those, "thousands" saved scattered back to their villages and didn't meet there for extended periods of time. That is quite a hermeneutical leap is it not?

Scot, I wish I had the money to do the research that the cultural appeal of attractional church is on the wane. I don't. But I do believe that it squares with all the research (and the anecdotal evidence) across the West about the receding influence of the church and declining church attendance. Can you really dispute that? We are all heading Europe's way, and that's not a pretty picture. To my mind at least (sick or not) this is indisputable. To be honest, I get no joy from this at all. I am deeply committed to reversing that decline in my own little way.

About the use of the word 'Constantinian', once again, I have no doubt that the 'idea of church' that came from the Constantinian contract, remains deeply embedded to this day. I am sorry if you don't like it, but I think it is a necessary critique that we must engage in. It is an important missiological category.

And bro, it has nothing to do with size. The Jerusalem church was certainly not a Christendom church. If it was a 'mega-church' it is not that in the way we use the term. Not by any means. The ecclesiology is quite different.

Besides, I am all for lots of people coming to the Lord. And I am certainly not against Mega-churches! Don't read me this way. God bless them!! But for all those who can't pull the same approach off--we had better start searching for alternatives. We are going to have to find more ways to engage our contexts than relying on prevailing ideas of church.

I'm outta here--back to my writing. :-)

David F.

I think this is very needed dialogue here and I appreciate your comments. You mention to Scot's questions about your view that megachurches drained smaller churches. I believe that happens, but wouldn't you also say that organic churches and missional churches are comprised primarily from those who left the larger churches to leave there to join missional ones? I have found often in some of the more organic and house churches (and missional) that I talk to, they all met in the larger established church. Then their relational network dried up as their primary source of new people was from those in the larger church. This is from a few examples, I am not saying this is the norm.

So it seems to be a shifting of already Christians around from smaller churches to megachurches and from megachurches to missional churches - but my question still remains about new disciples/non-Christians and where we are seeing growth from them amidst all this? That is what stirred up my original post and I know the soil is difficult and it takes time of course.

Dan

I always find it helpful to introduce concrete data into discussions like this.

Following are some statistics from Australia on the Assemblies of God, the umbrella organization which most megachurches in this land sit under.

http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?sitemapid=213

You will note that most of their celebrated growth comes from denominational switching, not conversions, that is, its growth at the expense of other churches. Now if that wasn't sobering enough, look closer and you'll see the volume of switching is actually masking a far more scary reality. More people are DECONVERTING than converting through contact with this church. In kingdoms terms this is negative growth. The picture that is emerging in Australia is of churches canibalizing each other to shore up their numbers as their mission fails.

Now, I am not sure how this compares to America but my basic point is this: to compare apples with apples it needs to be recognized that 'missional' Christianity discounts the switching side of the equation, growth doesn't count unless its kingdom growth.

Scot,

I am referring though to the fact that I have as of yet seen any research to indicate that the unchurched like the attractional model in growing numbers...as i understand it the growth is coming from the redeemed.

The shrinking Alan refers to is a shrinking of people in a M1 or M2 context who would have a natural disposition toward the church if it were seen as relevant to their lives. Even anecdotally we must acknowledge that this group is shrinking at least as fast as immigration is growing, as people from other cultures (and religions) are not going to be disposed to typical attractional type services. I suspect that it is also shrinking amongst the post-Christian culture as well...but have no numbers for that. Though if as I said if there are numbers to suggest that this group is best reached through an attractional model I would be very interested in seeing them.

D

Mega-churches engage in what is called "recycling of the saints" and call it "growth."

Sam, I think Scott used "megachurch" to describe size, not style or structure. In which case, he is hardly betraying his integrity as an NT scholar.

Btw, serving overseas in mission (which I've done for a number of years), most American 'missionaries' I meet seem to be sent by churches of around 200 people. Is this the neglected group in the discussion? Most people reading Out of Ur will be pastoring churches like that, and not megachurches (or minichurches!)...

David Drake,

Here's what Alan said:

"I certainly don't believe that attractional is not working. What I have said is that it has appeal to a shrinking segment of the population, and that persistence with a church growth style, attractionalism, is in the long run a counsel of despair."

The point I'm making is about "it has appeal to a shrinking segment of the population." That I dispute since attractional models are growing...

Now if you read that as "shrinking segment of the non-Christian population," then Alan should have said that more explicitly. That might be true, but I'm not sure any model today is any more appealing. 20-35s are not going to church; there is a demise here; I don't know they are attending any less at an attractional or missional model church. I'd like to see some numbers.

Alan, again: fine, we can "Constantinian" all we want. I don't know what you mean by it. It has as much meaning to me as Fitch's use of "consumerist." I think there is something to both; I think, however, that the terms are easy sledge hammers today that say much more than the actual terms can demonstrate. For me, Constantinian is the connection of State and Church.

Sam, good push back. I was measuring megachurch by numbers and the numbers are there in Acts. I'm not so sure anyone knows where all those folks dispersed to. Acts 2:41 says there were 3000 in one day. It says "they" then devoted themselves ... sounds like a big church to me. V. 47 almost gives the impression that they were an attractive lot! 5:12 suggests they all met at Solomon's Colonnade; that's a large meeting.

Dan,
I just saw your question. I quite agree, that many missional communities begin with thise dissatisfied with the impersonal mega church or the thin-ness of its church practice. I am just asking that mega churches not pretend to ve doing something they are not .. reaching more people for the gospel by building the larger and larger venues ... meanwhile, I see missional church as a deliberate effort to move beyond the Christendom populations into missionary work. This too is a subject for a larger post.Thanks Dan!!
DF

Scot,

I agree with you to a great extent...but would just add, that while it may not have been explicit that Alan was referring to the non-Christian population it should have been implicit considering that the discussion of Missional v attractional makes little sense outside of that context.

Your statement: "The point I'm making is about "it has appeal to a shrinking segment of the population." That I dispute since attractional models are growing..."

Still begs the question from where are they growing? Is the growth transfer? And even if it is not transfer it still seems to be of limited demographic (white, middle class or African American with a charismatic pre-disposition)... I support whatever works because those demographics need Jesus, but I would suggest that there are large segments of the population (especially in the cities and on the fringes) that will never be reached through just attractional models, and that number is growing.

Still I think it is dangerous to force this into an either/or when it should be a both/and (as Ron Mayers would say...)

D

I suspect (but could be wrong) what Alan refers to as Constantinian church is not just the "state church," but also shift from the general laity of the church being less and less involved in the ministry of the church, the people as spectators, the leaders providing the service and the people "consuming" it. In mainline churches with formal liturgy, even someone called pastor operates as if they are priest. In "megachurch" models, even if they completely buy into "priesthood of all believers" the tendency for people in "attractional" churches are to behave as if the worship service is "the church." Being a part of attractional churches much of my life, that's my experienc. I could be wrong, but I suspect what Alan is calling the Constantinian church entails many of these things.

I think we should rethink and reevaluate our idea or understanding of church's growth, whether it is attractional or missional. The church certainly operates in both modes. Attractional churches mainly operate with "attractional" approaches to ministry and they are obviously more visible. Missional churches operate mainly in "missional" ways. They operate in much smaller units, could be considered hardly visible, mobile, focused and strategic. The most important question, however, "are the people being discipled?" What if we make the church growth projections according to its actual capacity to disciple the "newborns" into maturity, love and obedience to Christ. Just as a married couple decide and plan how many children they would like to raise base on their ability and commitment to love, provide and support, etc., why can't the church do the same with its growth plan? Charles Kraft contends that if our goal in any Christian communication is radical, solid, deep and lasting behavioral change, then, we should use the methodology that delivers it. This requires "life involvement" between the messenger and the receptor/s. Life involvement happens best among a group of few people at a time. (See: Charles H. Kraft, Communicate with Power,1991).

I am a part of a denominational group that has both "mega" churches, "mini-mega" and "whatever you call it" churches (you can call ours a "garage" church because we mainly use house garage). I've heard great, godly, spiritual and scholarly preachers that blessed and enriched so many lives. However, since I surrendered my life to the Lord, my observation has been many times confirmed: People are not discipled from the pulpit. "Life involvement" does not happen on that level. Unless the person behind the pulpit levels with the people on the pew, and unless both recognize it, can there be real empowerment of God's people. The priesthood of all believers will remain more of a theological ideal or abstraction than a practical reality in the life of the church. Honestly, if we are humble enough to admit it,the disproportionate attention, investment, training, architectural design, physical arrangement, etc., we give to "preaching" reveals our limited use of one communication method. Preaching is mainly monolog (large group), dialog is possible in small group and life involvement is best facilitated by a much smaller group.

We wonder why there are so many undiscipled newborns. We can pound on preaching "discipleship" until the pulpit breaks but people are not going to be discipled that way. The incarnational method of communication demands life involvement. People must be discipled and understand that gospel communication is much more broader than just preaching or proclaiming from the pulpit but in media, education, gov't., etc. We need gifted communicators to bring the light of the gospel to every sector of the society.

The empirical evidence for the ideas presented by Alan is in essence captured in the very teachings of the one we discuss. If we seek some sort of verification of these truths we need only measure them against what we find in the scripture and its predictions of the time we live in. A place of worship or a common ground for the uniting of those who have chosen the path Christ worked show hard to present to us was not meant to be a machine of bureaucracy such as the one we observe in the modern practice of Christianity. We cannot live our Christian lives vicariously through something of this nature. Of course there is evidence of shrinkage and of course there is evidence of the falling away from of what the prophets have shown us. We need only to commit ourselves to the true teachings of the prophets to know this. They themselves have predicted this outcome and it would be at best grandiose to exempt ourselves from it.

I wonder if you guys have heard much of Mike Breen's church that he pastors in Sheffield, England. It has grown tremendously numerically and it is a very organic model based on mid-sized midweek missional groups where the Ephesians 5 fold gifts of ministry are being carried out. Out of these midweek groups also there are Life groups that carry on traditional discipling activities. It seems to me to be a good combination of church growth based on an organic model that is lay-driven and horizontal in org structure not based on a personality althought there is certainly solid leadership from top down. There are those of us in the Lutheran looking to use this model here in the US.

i am lead pastor at lutheran church in orange county, ca

This is all good information and I agree that many believers are just admirers and true followers. But the problem has a main dilemma that has been getting worse in the church and that is preaching the gospel the way the Bible tells us to in the book of Acts chapter 2. Not a 15 minute alter call or worse yet head down raising of the hands, this is true biblical preaching that convicts and it hurts and puts the fear of God in you like it did for the first converts. We don't believe in the power of God's word anymore. We want gimmicks and the next new thing that will turn things around. I will give you one word, "regeneration" I believe we have a lot of goats mixed in with the sheep and the sheep want and desire the pure milk of the word, but what we are forced to have at times unfortunately is powdered milk!!! Watch the tenindictments.com video I think this will open up your eyes!