So one thing that I thought of was that you are assuming that missional churches are small, somewhere on the order of 10 to 100 I assume. So once these so called "missional churches" grow larger than that are you no longer calling them "missional"? I know of larger churches like Redeemer in NYC or The Well in Bucks County and maybe even Vintage that I would consider to be missional based on their focus of community outreach, serving others, meeting needs, missions focus and so on. I am part of a church with 6 families right now, are we attractional? Not really, because we cant afford several pastors or a sweet skatepark behind my house. But we feel like we have a unique missional focus here in our region of New York so we desire to see the birth of a missional church. In the end we see the gospel as something outwardly and not inwardly focused. We hope that our church can mirror that in ways like preferring to spend our money fixing someones toilet rather than saving so that someday we can install plasmas or a baptismal pool in some building somewhere. In the end we hope the only attraction is God, but maybe I'm just dreaming.

How about China? Not bad for a small, missional church movement. . .It's only the largest movement of God in modern history.

And really, haven't we gone past the either/or argument? Why can't it be both/and.

Unfortunantly the "missional" and "house" church you visited seems to have folded in on themselves rather than being the presence of Christ in the culture by making disciples.

A Case Study:

I visited a church, a friendly church - it said so in the bulletin - but no one bothered to talk to me.

I read about the missional church and decided that the church should be the presence of Jesus in its culture, but do not have time to serve others - especially my next door neighbor.

I beleive in the sovereignty of God and I am convinced that God is in control of everything that happens, but I am worried sick about my economic stiuation.

Often if we think we give ourselves a label, friendly, missional, reformed, etc. then that label accuratly describes who we are as a part of God’s church. However, the way we live demonstrates who we really are -and whose we really are - better than any label.

Following Jesus is a way of life and the biblical text address all of life and is not a collection of ungrounded ideas regarding spirituality. We can give ourselves whatever label we want - even Christian - but if our lives do not reflect what we claim to believe then you are not a friendly, missional, reformed, Christian.

As far as missional vs. attractional, it is a BOTH/AND rather than an EITHER/OR. Because even if you are making disciples by building relationship (missional) with those who do not follow Jesus, then they must be "attracted" to either your way of life or/and what is happening in a particular community of faith.

I appreciate that you are attempting to find qualitative ways to measure the impact of different theories and models of church, Dan. It’s important that we develop a discerning eye about how we do what we do, and how it affects – for better or for worse – people we hope to reach. However, I’m not sure you’re measuring the right things or in the best ways. In our attempts to discern trends, I’m concerned that anecdotal evidence about churches turns it back into a quantitative issue. If there are “successes” at various methodological models, are they the rule, or the exception? How can we know? And, actually, are there deeper things than “models” we should look at, and why?

I wish all who make generalizations would give us their specifics so we don’t get lost in talking about the theory of our theories, or this/that counter-example to someone else’s conjecture, as if this all proves our points. Otherwise, we’re just having “serial monologues” on the surface issues of emerging-missional-discipleship, and losing sight of dialogue on underlying paradigm issues.

I know your space here is limited, and perhaps you’ve shared elsewhere your detailed definitions and criteria for discerning “fruit” in churches, models, and movements. But anyone’s evaluation criteria are no more self-evident than anyone’s definitions of words like “emerging,” “missional,” or “discipleship.” Just because leaders talk about their emerging/missional/discipleship clothes does not mean they are wearing any …

Dan,
Might I suggest Life on the Vine in Chicago and any number of Fresh Expressions in the UK.

Might I also suggest that for many of us, the "missional conversation" is but a few years old so it may be a tad early to be judging the fruit.

Friends of mine who have been engaged in planting mission-shaped churches in Lincolnshire, UK for many years, are seeing significant fruit but they are also taking a long view of their work - not expecting McChurch results. In a post-Christian climate, (the UK, Europe, all of Canada and most of the Northern States) growing disciples is hard work.

I would also want to ask, in the cities where you cite these disciple-making megas, are you seeing evidence of the fruit of the Spirit permeating those cities? Or are you using different criteria to judge their apparent success?

I am in total agreement that the most important mark of a healthy church is the fruit it produces, but there is a larger conversation to be had here about what actually counts as fruit.

To say that, "the missional conversation often goes a step further by dismissing the 'attractional' model of church as ineffective," is superficial at best. Ecclesiology, especially for those interested in the missional conversation, is not a simple matter of pragmatics, but of faithfulness to the way of Jesus fleshed out in community (perhaps the most seemingly "ineffective" way of being).

Attractional churches may be effective at drawing a crowd, they may even be effective at making converts and multiplying church communities, but these things alone do not validate it as a model as they may be making converts who never become disciples, and multiplying churches who only perpetuate the capitulation of the Western church to American consumer identity. To this extent, they are doing much more harm than good.

I am not trying to make excuses for apathy or the elevation of theological musings. I know of many missional church communities that are producing all sorts of fruit. No one is going to highlight their stories however, because we have a fetish for big and flashy and they are not.

One of the greatest gifts of the missional church conversation is the invitation for us to reconsider what passes for good fruit.

Many who are following attractional models have not grown either. There are many attractional type church plants that close every year. And others have not grown above 100-250.

Additionally, many of these attractional churches are not making converts, but are simply growing through transfers - people leaving smaller churches for something more "happening." It's consumer at it's best.

The church in China probably isn't a good comparison.. they did not have to contend with the culture of market consumerism, and I also doubt they were deeply infected with Cartesian individualism. But my question is this: given this western soil we are rooted in, are these large attractional churches producing disciples or adherents, communities or congregations? We all know that "decisions for Christ" can mean many things.

Great points Dan and commenters. One thing that I (as a "failed" missional church planter) value about the smaller shapes of church is that it doesn't take a lot of money to start missional churches; my good friend who planted a (now "failed") attractional model church now estimates that it would cost $500k to start a successful church in our exurb.

Church planting conditions here in the Seattle are shifting a lot, so nobody's got the right answer, but I'd rather try a variety of expressions that just cost time and energy, rather than a couple of expressions that require massive financial startup costs.

I think we should spend more time asking ourselves:

1) Are we being obedient to the commands of Scripture?

and

2) Are we preaching the gospel? (see #1)

and less time asking ourselves, "what method produces better results?"

I'm encouraged by your passion for whole mission in the church, Dan. Too often, missional is code for social. However, in my church and many, if not all, of the churches in Acts 29 are seeing steady conversion growth and life-transformation. Perhaps you just haven't been looking in the right places?

Was Jesus attractional? Not physically but He certainly did attractional things. Was He missional? Certainly. Ask the woman at the well. If we only are concerned with how our worship service attracts people we need to be servants in the community ministering where they are and to their needs. If we only are missionaries to the community and take no consideration of how attractional our service is, we need to listen to Paul who expected pagans to come and fall down and worship in said gatherings instead of thinking we are crazy. Although come to think of it, Jesus may not have been all that successful since He had a church of 120, and I'm not sure how big Paul's was.

"Therefore in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, attractional or missional, emergent or (I don't know, uh..) non-emergent, contemporary or traditional, mega or house, for we are all one in Christ Jesus."
-Paul
(I'm paraphrasing)

I'm not sure label-criticizing or the label-defending is going to get us anywhere. I don't find much help in Dan's critiques here. He's conflating size with ecclesiology (there are plenty of small attractional-minded churches, for example), and even though he says "I'm not a numbers person," it's clear he can't understand how a church could be fruitful without making converts.

I'm not interested in defending a model of doing church that doesn't win disciples for Christ, but I'm not interested in being part of a church that doesn't draw people into real relationships with one another. Put another way, Jesus reconciles us to God AND to one another.

What I can take from Dan's remarks here is a challenge: First, how can we be truly missional if we don't take seriously Jesus's command to "make disciples?" And second, how can we make our churches more effective to that end?

"Where are disciples actually being grown?" That's the key question Dan. Thanks for articulating the way many Pastors are feeling about the constant criticism they receive from theorists who haven't really achieved very much.

Instead of picking apart our models, we need to affirm what we're all doing. To say that missional models are not reaching lost people, that emergent models are heretical or that attractional models are not helping people grow only further divides us.

Instead, let's learn from each other, let's have conversations, let's serve together and let's accept one another. This is what the Kingdom of God is to be about.

A few thoughts:

1. The essence of missional church is not methodology but theology. It is a rethinking of our ecclesiology to view the church as missional in essence rather than simply in practice. So to be "missional" is more about holding to a certain ecclesiology...

2. The church lives out its missional nature contextually. Therefore, the method used must following the leading of the Spirit in a particular context. In some contexts attractional works. In others it does not. This is not an either/or discussion.

3. I agree with the comments above about anecdotal evidence. Two short stories does not a conclusion make!! I can find megachurches that are primarily composed of recycled saints, small churches that make a great impact, and everything in between.

4. The scorecard of numbers in the pews is insufficient. If God's mission is about redeeming the world, our church success scorecard must reflect that mission. Numbers may be a part of it, but they are only a small part.

I'm actually surprised at this post. I thoroughly enjoy Dan's books but this seems to go against his strong words against the seeker-sensitive, modern church in his The Emerging Church and more recent writings. Has something changed?

Yes Steve! Lets take particular note of scriptures which urge the church to make coverts and disciples, and verses which command us to be fruitful...and lets take particular note of the scriptures in Acts which deliberatly stated how many people came to know Christ...

God gave us a brain, doing what works is very important. How to do mission was something Paul was particularly interested in, as scriptures which talk of contextualisation would attest.

On this article, I believe that the most important evaluation of any ministry is...is it frutful, are non christians taking another step in their faith journey.
Dan is asking a valid question.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments Dan. You are touching on some very important themes.

I agree with those who suggest we need many types of churches today and we can learn from each other. I'm thankful for the newer "missional" churches and for the way they challenge our thinking of how we are to do and be the church today in our culture. We need this rigorous conversation as the church of Jesus Christ is on a trend of decline in both size and influence in our society today.

Dan, I've been spilling a lot of ink and spending a hot of hours interviewing missional pastors and churches for Leadership Network. They've published one of my pieces and are about to publish a second one. I believe that somehow we've got to be attractional and missional. I don't think it's an either/or. On the other hand, one of the things I deal with in my second paper is that a number of pastors are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the amount of resources we pour into the weekly show. One remembered the solos of the minimally gifted "Aunt Jane" who - nevertheless - was powerful in her musical ministry because of the power of *her life.* But there is now way she would be ever singing in any attactional megachurch service. An appreciation of her public worship only came because of an appreciation of her life of worship.

This is a great perspective, and it is an "industry" perspective. Dan is concerned about how many consumers get "grown, multiplied, or planted." He's right: that's how we'll grow this industry.

But don't confuse this perspective with the perspective of following Jesus. Jesus, as much as I can tell, doesn't seemed focused on sustaining the industry. He cares about the poor, the homeless, the outcast, the sinner. Not the multitudes, but the one.

Kimball's point is something to consider ... which is how I at least read it, as something he's been turning over in his head and presenting for larger discussion. If the church's mandate (at least in part) is to make disciples, then one thing to consider is whether or not we're multiplying. Those critical of the attractional model are often quick to point out that it doesn't reach the younger generation. But now, as he points out, we must ask if we've actually been doing a better job reaching our peers than the mega-church counterpart.

It's a valid question, I think. I agree that I see a lot in the attractional church that scares me. But at least the numbers can challenge me. This is not a call to sell out. It's a call to stay where I am and work harder. But I simply cannot assume that it's okay to just build community if that community dies off in 30 years because it hasen't multiplied disciples since 2003.

1. The essence of missional church is not methodology but theology. It is a rethinking of our ecclesiology to view the church as missional in essence rather than simply in practice. So to be "missional" is more about holding to a certain ecclesiology...

This is an excellent point, Brian. I wonder if in our attempts to demarcate (or name) that which is "missional" and that which is not we have created a dichotomy within the Body of Christ that was never meant to be there in the first place.

Being missional should not be optional but be the heart of what being a "co-laborer" with Christ is all about. Jesus was the first missionary. We, as the church (and I define "Church" here as that people who have believed the report of Israel that proclaimed the promises of God for all nations) are those who worship faithfully this God revealed to us in this Jewish Messiah. The question for the church should never be "are we missional or not?" but rather, "how well are we witnessing through our worship the reality that this Jesus is Lord of all?"

And in that, I think any number of contexts and looks can faithful worship to this Truth.

grace and peace,
Chad

To be missional isn't about church size. It is a principle in where we focus. Obviously a big church doesn't fit the grass foots feel of something missional but that doesn't mean it can't be.

Great post Dan, thanks.

As others have mentioned, I believe this is a both/and issue. With a quick study of the Great Commandment, the Great Commission, and the parable of sheep and goats, we see that the church has a great call to go out and share Jesus with the community is practical, tangible ways. Missional churches can make a huge impact on the lives of those in their community through their outreach. Attractional churches can make a huge impact on the lives of those in their community through their services/program.

Maybe the problem is having too narrow of a focus. We need to find ways to reach out, yet keep people wanting to come back for more. Finding ways to blend the missional and attractional models could be crucial for our churches.

To not disciple is a terrible thing, but to not be effective at reaching the lost is infinitely worse, given eternal hell. I appreciate Dan's biblical perspective here, and his willingness to criticize and evaluate all sides. We need this kind of leadership.

I'm surprised because this doesn't even sound like something Dan Kimball would post.
But I agree with some of the other fellas. Who is determining what 'fruit' is? And is anecdotal evidence and limited personal experience really enough to judge an entire ecclesiological shift?

I would also say that the missional model seems to already have been proven well by the 1st century church.

To not disciple is a terrible thing, but to not be effective at reaching the lost is infinitely worse, given eternal hell.

given eternal hell, discipleship becomes completely irrelevant. as is working a job, eating dinner, sharing family time, going to ball games, christmas shopping, bathing, worrying about the presidential election, and bailing out the big three automakers.

in fact, it's about the only thing that would make even listening to jethro tull an incredibly thoughtless and selfish waste of precious time.

but most of you knew i was going to say that. still, you read my comment, and might even reply to it, something that - if there's an eternal hell - couldn't be more irrelevant.

which, i gather, is what the commentor really meant when he said "infinitely worse," right?

A question I have is why the focus of this discussion (fruit, discipleship, transformation) is almost always on individuals. With this as the focus, then church hopping-swapping-shopping that dominates my generation starts to seem like a great approach! Of course you should find the best "deal" on great preaching, worship, teaching, whatever: whatever it takes to build your spiritual resume, so to speak.

I loved the way on of my seminary professors framed the question differently when he told the story of a group at his church really digging into the Beatitudes and really having a hard time with figuring out what they meant for their lives. Then one day someone framed it this way: "What if, instead of asking what these passages mean for us, we instead asked: what kind of community would we have to become for these things to be true about us."

I too am a bit surprised that this was written by Dan Kimball. Is this what your new "missional" network is all about?

What bothers me the most here is the assumption that people gathering for the rituals of church - songs, sermons, children's ministry - define what the church is. Of course people flock to that and of course people don't gravitate to "I can't be invisible and am expected to sacrifice myself for others" missional/house churches. The numbers mean nothing - it is the theology of church and what it means to be a disciple that really matter.

Dan's essay and the comments seem irrelevantin my church life. What about those who will never, ever go to an "attractional" church? Even the "missional" church model is a stretch for them? They attend a small church and they are slow learners - but they ARE growing. We get maybe one convert a year, and that's hard won, maybe someone who attended for a couple of years and struggled a lot to get there. I'm getting the feeling neither attractional nor missional churches want 'em. So I guess the Lord gave 'em our church. I think He still counts us faithful.

Hello.... This is Dan and wanted to make a couple of comments about some of the comments.

When I wrote this article it was much longer and Out Of Ur understandably always edits things down for the size of the blog here. They correct my often incorrect grammar and edit it very well.

But I want to let you know that the title and sub-title especially used here on this blog "Small, indigenous churches are getting lots of attention, but where's the fruit?" was what Out of Ur sub-titled it with. I didn't write that sub-title as I was not trying to draw attention to the "small" church as what defines missional. Missional is a way of thinking and being the church, not a size.

In fact, at the end of the article I originally had written:

"But I would rather be in a Jesus-centered megachurch of several thousand with preaching, programs and the works or a church of a dozen or fifty people – as long as if people are coming to know Jesus as Savior."

I was trying to say that a church can be small or big - that doesn't matter - but if they are "missional", they should be seeing new disciples made over time. Unfortunately with the sub-title, the focus seemed to be about small vs. big and that wasn't the point. I do get a bit saddened with certain small churches or missional leaders pick on big churches saying they don't make disciples. Some don't, some do. But some small churches don't and some small churches do. What I was trying to communicate was that missional should mean new disciples and growth happening over time.

With the comment about China that Dave made, I actually mentioned that in the original article.

I wrote:

"But here’s my dilemma. When we actually stop to look for examples of missional fruit (not in China, but in the USA) and explore these examples over seasons and years. It seems that we may be talking a lot more theory at this point than we may want to admit."

I hear China being used for examples of missional churches and house churches, which is totally true. But that is a very different culture and situation than the USA. I have a friend who lives in China as a missionary there and he said that he feels when Christianity was to become free and all legal, that we may see the largest megachurches in the world happen there. I do hear a lot from missional leaders about China for examples and again, that is wonderful but I am asking about the USA, not China.

I am posting the original article on my blog if anyone is interested in reading the whole thing www.dankimball.com and I hope this clears up a little of confusion about why the small vs. large church focus seemed to be what was emphasized, but that was not the point at all in this.

Thanks for reading this!

Dan

WHERE DOES IMPACTING COMMUNITIES START?
Impacting our communities, or another way to put it, building God's Kingdom, isn't happening because we don't have the right approach to make it happen. We get the results we plan to get with our process.

Our process is to give people information through preaching and teaching and then expect them to go impact the community. We are feeding their "heads" and then expecting them to serve with their "hands." They will do this only temporarily and artificially. What we are missing is the "heart," filling it up with a deepening desire for Christ and Him alone, so that there is an overflow that must go where His heart is, to the least and lost all around us. As Dallas Willard said, we have changed the Great Commission to the Great Omission, make disciples to make Christians, because we don't know how to make disciples.

How do we do this? Through true, transparent, relational, life-on-life discipleship, as Jesus did. But how do we do that? It's a slow, intentional process of one on a few, not done in 8 or 12 weeks, but over 2,3,5 years. We grow by evaluating experiences through intentional relationships . Who is doing this? A very few churches are working to get it right, and a few of us are trying to help churches learn how. Yes, we need good theology and we need to focus on community impact and ideally churches serving together in that. But until we figure out how to take the "long view" and long road to discipling our people, the heart will be missed, there will be no true transformation and no real kingdom building.

Transforming communities starts with preaching and teaching the Truth, but it must go to discipling the lives to true transformation, becoming missional and developing the leadership in us all, reproducing the life of Christ. That's how Jesus modeled it, how Peter and Paul did it, and the only way that truly works.

I hear what you're saying Dan. And even though young people may be coming in droves to a architecturally cool mega-church in a city and be "committing their lives to Christ", I wonder how deep those commitments really are?

Of course Americans are drawn to big churches. Middle-Class Consumerism runs rampant. Have you been to a Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Lowe's, Best Buy??? We are predisposed to think BIGGER IS BETTER!

So I wonder how many of these young people are REALLY counting the cost of becoming a disciple of Jesus? Or are they simply becoming another consumer of a cool, relevant, hip setting in which their felt needs are met? Not saying it isn't possible, but numbers don't mean anything at the end of the day.

Hi Mike,

In the original article I fleshed that out more. But in the churches I have visited and talked to people in the churches (not just the leaders) you do find a pretty radical committment to Jesus. These larger churches focus on building smaller "churches" within it, where relationships really do develop and committment and the cost of being a disciple is made. So unfortunately what happens is the Sunday gatherings are what is seen to "define" some of these larger churches from the outside, but when you explore them the real heart of the church is in the smaller meetings the church sets up that happen throughout the week. Not all of them of course! But the good news about some of them is seeing the incredible committment the younger people have to Jesus, but you can't observe that by only viewing their weekend larger gathering.

When I am writing all this, I am not defending larger churches because I am in one. I was on a magachurch staff for 13 years, but we planted a new church in 2004. So I am going into year 5 of that church and we are not a megachurch by any means. So this is simply reporting on observations and discussions with leaders and people in different churches.

Dan

I have seen several comments that discussed both/and, not either/or. I would have to concur with this thought.

In my ministry I use both models. I believe God has put both tools in my arsenal to accomplish His work.

For some the attractional free-standing church is the most effective way for me to have influence in their lives. For others, their perceptions of "church" create a barrier to that model and the house church works best.

In either case, the question comes down to penetration of the darkness around me. I have an urgency to reach, nurture, equip and send...by taking a both/and stance, I can utilize the approach that is most effective for my cultural context.

There are no bad Missional or Traditional (read: every other church other than missional) Churches, just bad leaders. Movements don’t just happen, they are led. And leadership is everything in the movement.

If you have a leader who is not focused on the Mission, then he/she will not lead the Church towards the purposes of Christ. So if you are a Traditional Church and you have a leader who is not focused on the Mission, then you will probably have a Traditional Church that fits the negative stereotype so often associated with Traditional Churches.

On the other hand, if you have a Traditional Church that has a Mission-focused leader, then you will see that church do great things for the Kingdom. In the same way, there are a lot of people who describe themselves as Missional leaders who aren’t advancing the Kingdom of God in this world. Which means that they aren’t Missional and they probably aren’t leaders. It all comes down to leadership - plain and simple.

One of the things I have learned over the years is that it takes all kinds of people to advance the Kingdom of God. Yes, we should be passionate about the specific way God has called us to advance His Kingdom. But we must be very careful in assuming that our way is the way.

Traditional Churches must succeed if we are going to reach traditional-minded people. And Emerging Churches must succeed if we are going to reach emerging-minded people. And Baptists and Catholics and Methodists and Presbyterians and Charismatics and Pentecostals must all do well and stay on Mission in order to reach as many people as we can for Christ.

One church cannot reach a city, but The Church can. So rather than disparaging everyone who doesn’t do ministry the way we do, we should celebrate the diversity in the Body of Christ and pray for those who are not like us to stay on point. We need each other if we are going to reach a diverse world for the Gospel. We must preserve at all costs the unity of the Body of Christ and we must always remember that our struggle is not against flesh and blood. We are all on the same Mission. We simply have different roles to play in accomplishing that mission.

Thanks Dan for your insights and your boldness to speak up.

Dan,
I appreciate your comments. It is important that we avoid this mind-set of self-abased Christianity. Yes, a congregation of 20 can be flourishing, yes, a community of 1200 can be dead, but in the end, neither model is innately holier than the other.

I am a Southern Baptist and I see our congregations losing focus on this all of the time. We talk about the number of baptisms we have and how that indicates lives changed, but then we get to the place we are now where the only age bracket that is seeing an increase in baptisms on a yearly basis is the under 5 years old group, which, needless to say, is not encouraging. However, when people see this and become cynical it seems they immediately run to "numbers don't matter," which is equally bologna.

To me, the kicker in all of this is that the larger a church, the more money it brings in. The more money it brings in, the more ministries it can perform. The more ministries it can perform, the more people it can reach. Yes, the percentage of false decisions it gets may be higher than a small missional community, but in sheer numbers it is almost impossible to imagine that reaching more people through more ministries does not equal more people making a true, saving profession of faith in Christ; which, of course, is our primary goal, since no one learns to live in a community of faith without first entering that community by faith.

OK, so I believe God in his wisdom choose 12 unschooled ordinary men and changed all of history. They spent three years leaning and growing, but when the time came they scattered. Yet 40 days later being filled with the Holy Spirit, these very ordinary men began the expansion of the kingdom of God! We are so quick to judge one another. Isn't the point the expansion of the kingdom, whatever it takes. Yes both and, yes to what the Lord through the Holy Spirit puts in your heart to do...do it! Enter in to your life with you eyes wide open and enter in to an abundant life. Discussion is a good thing, tweeking what we do and how we do it, yes, but in the end it's the hearing the voice of God and obeying, period. Success in God's eyes is very different from our own. We live in an upside down kingdom...

I think, like many others on here, Dan has a right to ask the question. The flip-side of it is "Whither success?"
How/by what criteria/should we even define it?

I think these things come, many times, from the desire to analyze the current situation of "the Church" or 'a church'. Though well-intended, they tend to go the way of most other things humans touch and become locked in the feedback loop of comparison and competition.

The "missional" church resents the money/resources/material success of the mega-church, so it says blithe things like "I bet Andy Stanley isn't setting up chairs at his church." Or "Joel Osteen doesn't come down from the TV screen to visit you in the hospital room."

Conversely, many mega-churches say "How can we keep it about the people? How can we nurture the inner-life and not just have an auditorium of spectators."

Ultimately, these sentiments represent genuine hurt and often a Spirit of lament that is not spoken of in "strategy planning" or "vision-casting" sessions.

I think at this point Kennon Callahan's stuff on "Small, Strong Congregations" might be more helpful than the broad brushes of success/failure, better discipling/poorer discipling, but that's just my own take on it.

And naturally, I think I'm right and that my missional little church has it down. But we don't. And I don't. Because all of humanity is our neighbor.

Carl Willis - I agree with you, brother. I believe Christ-centered, mission-minded leadership is key regardless of the form of the community.

And thank you, Dan, for the article, and for clarifying your points in your comments.

I've recently been struggling in my thinking about attractional vs. missional ecclesiological models (actually just made a post a few days ago about it over on BecomingMissional.org).

We must use our God given brains to reach as many people for Jesus as we can, and I'm afraid some are inadvertently throwing the baby out with the bathwater by choosing one model (missional or attractional) over the other instead of blending the two.

I have made an index of the various comments on this post in the blogosphere.

Following Dan Kimball's Missional vs. Megachurch conversation

Dan - Thanks for your response. I trust and believe that what you are describing based on your observations is really happening. I am not a against any group gathering (no matter the size) as long as that is not the means to the end. Sounds like you have observed this to be true.

I need to go back and read the OG article on your blog. Again, thanks for your additional insights bro.

Thanks Dan, this is great. I appreciate your words and your stance on this, I have read other things that you have written that seem to go against the missional, emergent church culture today, yet you stay close to them and love them as friends, brothers and sisters.

the question that emerges: is "making disciples" a true mark of God's favor and a church that's on the right track? does Jesus say, go and make converts [i.e. new Christians], or make disciples? and, is there a difference?

finally, do we really have to come up with ways to "measure" whether we are successful? i hear this said a lot in pastoral ministry. "we need ways to measure our effectiveness." why?

YES, precisely!

Thank you Dan Kimball for uttering what lurked on the corners of my mind, but was never able to articulate. Essentially the question: "Where is the fruit?" Lately I've bemoaned the polemical tone of the "organic ekklesia" punditry of which I am party to, and have even born the brunt of criticism as being "attractional". I don't get it. Why the hate? There seems to be more reacting than responding to the problems of church today.

In the end I feel like you're saying the same thing I've been blogging about as of late. What is success / quantifiable results in church planting? As a failed church planter of a so-called "missional church" (that never even got past 35 ppl in 2 yrs) I'm beginning to change some of my criticisms of the institution. And more and more I'm beginning to see it as not only necessary, but fruitful.

After all, isn't that the point?

And in re: to the first comment about Redeemer in NYC which I am quite familiar with, I would argue that it is indeed missional in ethos but I would say it functions quite attractionally. And that aint a bad thing either... I know quite a few people who became Christians there (and were staunch athiests to begin with).

Dan, I appreciate your concern for God's mission. No church, however it perceives itself, can ignore that fact that we are called to be a blessing to all people and to make disciples.

I think its sad that so many have to look at change in the church as an either-or. The church-as-we-know-it does great work with many people in our communities. "Missional" churches also do good work with people not interested in the usual church offerings. It seems to me that it would be a good use of energy to encourage both in their work as part of God's plan.

As part of a small "missional" church I have seen conversions more of degree than in number. I have seen a guy who pretty much admits he doesn't believe wholly embrace feeding people and other community service, and start to engage the Bible through that lens. I have watched a number of this small group start to engage the faith instead of going through the motions of church. We've released people to serve their neighbors rather than just the church. It works for some people. It's not a better way than the attractional church, but it is a better way for those people.

Dan, as someone who comes out clearly for the missional reframing of church, I do share some concerns about reproduction (fruitfulness). Anyone concerned with Jesus' commission should be.

The comments so far are excellent and so I will just add a few more.

* I centainly 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. Are you suggesting that we simply stay with what we have got? Surely not bro?

* If we persist with our standard measurements for mission, we will miss the point. The issue is what idea of church is more faithful to the Scriptures. Genuine fruitfulness, surely, cannot simply be measured by numbers but by 'making disciples.' How does one measure that? By all accounts, current churches are made up largely of admirers of Jesus but few genuine disciples/followers--this is not a biblical idea of fruitfulness!

* Besides, the early church would not measure up to the current metrics!! If Rodney Stark is right, there was only 25,000 by year 100AD. Not exactly mind boggling church growth. Some attractional churches are larger.

* If we stick with the prevailing measures, we will miss the level of incarnational engagement with quantitative measures alone. How do we measure that? Incarnation takes time and loving presence (witness) among a people. Working with post-Christian folks ain't easy because we have lost our credibility and have to work darn hard to regain it. I think there is much work to do here.

The only other thing I will say is that we as believers, live by a vision of what can be...we cannot allow ourselves to be constrained by pragmatics alone. Vision precludes that and is driven by holy discontent to see a greater manifestation of the Kingdom.

With love and respect.
AH

"... I would rather be part of a Christ-centered megachurch full of programs where people are coming to know Jesus as Savior, than part of a church of any size where they are not."

I agree with you Dan! I like the words of Jesus recorded in John 15:5, "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man ramins in Me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from Me you can do nothing."

Dan,

I thought this post wonderfully expressed you passion for the lost and your desire to see the church multiply and have more people enter the Kingdom of Christ.

That being said, I want to offer a different perspective. I don't think this is an either/ or situation.

As someone who has closely watched the 'attractional' mega-church model it is very clear from the results of Willow Creek's Reveal studies that some of the most popular and influential 'attractional' churches are not doing and effective job of producing Christ-Centered disciples of Christ. They do a great job of attracting a high quantity of people but are not doing the best job at producing quality disciples.

Missional churches from what I have seen are much better at the quality aspect of discipleship but are less adept at attracting higher numbers. I think part of their struggle in attracting more people is that that are competing with Big Box mega-churches.

As someone that attends a smaller church (roughly 300 members) that has grown by almost 25% in the last 4 years (even without a cool building and lots of programs) , I think that there are ways for smaller 'missional' type churches to grow but it takes a conscious effort on the part of leaders and teachers in the church to cultivate an understanding that evangelism is a critical duty for mature disciples to engage in.

I think an uncompromised commitment to cultivating and growing quality Christ-Centered disciples who have an in-depth and gospel-centered understanding of the scriptures produces a duty and urgency in people to share their faith as well as equips them to effectively engage in evangelism.

Remember that the Christian Church grew like a weed for millennia without programs, relevant music and functional buildings. The reason for this is that man-made programs DO NOT grow the church. God is the one that grows His Church through the proclamation of the gospel of the forgiveness of sins won for us by Jesus on the cross. Focus on quality preaching and quality teaching that centers on the Gospel and God will produce disciples who will in turn bear fruit.

Hello Freinds,

I have written a few responses to Dan's editorial on my blog...

http://cole-slaw.blogspot.com

There are deeper implications than simply comparing the initial numbers.

Pressing on,

Neil Cole

I will continue to pray that the Church finds a way to bring people in and keep them on fire for the Lord. There is a church for everybody. Some need the mega-church offering to stay excited and connected... some, like me, attend a small home/missional church and take comfort in the great Christian friends and fellowship I partake in. Do I want my Church to grow? Yes. You can't support a church without numbers. But in the end... don't we rely on God to provide? If we do it correctly, for the glory of the Kingdom, won't God decide what works and what doesn't? He doesn't care about the model, because the model is mostly about what makes you feel good, what keeps you happy... instead of, what makes God happy.

I was taken with your comment "There are also people being the body of Christ in their communities." Much of the small missional church stuff I am involved with is about the changing definition of church. Your comment seems to suggest that the larger attractional models are not being the body of christ but that it is representative in the smaller local expressions or by people in the midst. Does this mean the fruit of the attractional contacts is not fruit? or for the small missional communities that have community contacts are not fruit? perhaps they are different manifesations of the same fruit. The definition of church is important here if you define church as the people being the "body of christ" (bounded, confessional, discipling set)then perhaps there is as little fruit in the attractional models as you suggest there may be in the missional? As a fan of the both/and models this as critism of neither but a question about how do we help both build kingdom?

It seems to me that there is a lack of consensus and clarity about what is "missional." Many use the word, but I find different meanings attached to it. From what I've read and heard, I don't think that being missional is throwing out everything traditional simply because it is “attractional.” According to missional theology, “programs” themselves are not wrong—in fact, missional writers that I read (Roxburgh, Van Gelder et. al.) say that organization, structure, programs and so on are actually necessary in order for a missional church to be effective. I think where the rub comes is when a church defines itself by those things, and puts all its identity eggs in the “programs” basket—primarily for the purpose of “providing religious goods and services” to its consumer members, and secondarily in hopes of perhaps “attracting” those outside the church. I would say that it is when these things don’t come out of the “mission” nature of the church that it’s a problem.

You write, “Yes, people are attracted by the music, preaching, or children's programs, but there may be more to these large churches than simply the programming. There are also people being the body of Christ in their communities. When these disciples build relationships with non-Christians, the evidence of the Spirit in their lives is attractive. The existence of programs and buildings does not mean mature disciples are not a significant reason why these churches grow.” Here’s the key: there’s more to these churches than simply the programming. That is precisely the missional difference. You recognize the fact that, “There are so many who don't understand the joy of Kingdom living here on earth and the future joy of eternal life.” I wonder, then, if the points you raise to defend programmatic ministry in these mega-churches arise from their missional nature? I would say that it is the apparent missional understanding of ministry that these churches have that make them successful in reaching the lost. It’s not just small churches that can be missional—I am convinced that any church can be missional, because being missional if first of all defining the essence of your church around the missional character and nature of God. You begin with “God is on a mission” and go from there. I would guess from what you say that the churches you use as examples of the success of an attractional approach to understand this.

The thing that strikes me about Dan's comments is that they seem to assume, like so many in the missional church conversation right now, that "missional" refers to a "style" of doing church over against other styles. In my opinion this is a serious category mistake. The missional conversation is about theology and starts with a rethinking of traditional Western conceptions of the God revealed in Jesus Christ. These traditional theological conceptions have been shaped by Christendom and are deeply imbedded in the intuitions of the North American church. Unless this challenge is addressed I fear that the missional church conversation will continue to be viewed as simply the latest fad among many in the desperate search for a pragmatic ecclesiology that will sustain the life of the church in North America.

i interact with a number of churches. they vary in size from small to mega and in theory from seeker to missional. in my experience so far mouths are not making for very good hands and feet.

Danny Guglielmucci spoke a fantastic message at our church about Sunday church and Monday church. Saying that it was OK to have a nice salt shaker (attractional church) on Sunday. But that the salt needed to be shaken out on Monday (missional). Spoke about the difference between attractional on Sunday and missional on Monday and how after many years of pastoring had only just started doing both well not just one or the other.

Hoping that the fine folks who have already weighed in on this still get responses forwarded, I have to say that the problem here may be one of a sterilised Gospel. for over 500 years the Gospel was laden down with non-essential (and even counterproductive) traditions, and for the past 500 years we have seen a trend of reducing the Gospel down to the barest "essentials" as if the healthiest and most viable seed is the one that consists only of the most essential part of the germ, with all the nutrients and protective husk removed. If we treated wheat like that, all the "seed" would do is rot. We're seeing a lot of rot in the Church today as well- especially where our Western Rationalism has done the most in shaving the seed. Today we criticise the Church of the Early Fathers as lacking the tools and insights we enjoy today, but then they had spread the Truth from India to Ireland in very short order, and arguably had seen half the population of Jerusalem radically converted while most of today's "churches" can't seem to show a postive growth over the last ten years, even counting our own children.

Regardless of the size of any congregration or amount of programs that they may or may not offer it is the spirit of God alone that draws people to any church congregation. God is drawing his creation to himself. The congregation, the programs are just resources/tools/vessels to accomplish his ultimate desire- the saving of a soul.