I am thrown. I tried to do a rebuild several years ago in the United Methodist Church. It failed miserably. One of the main deal breakers was we had to compete with Sanctuary. Literally the air was sucked out of the neighborhood. We could not build when another ministry funded by many churches came in with members that were tithed to them putting them over 100 worshiping active members.

The UMC gave up and closed the church. I have come back to the UMC I grew up in and guess what we are having to face the same thing. Should I just assume death here as well and where does someone like me go? I don't fit in well the megachurch's in the Minneapolis Area. Most are very white and look at my neighborhood as a 'mission area'. The churches we have tried have failed to form my kids or minister to folks like me who are very mature in faith and need higher level learning and engagement.
The church I grew up does this very well but is always one year away from failing. What is a family to do? If this church fails we will probably homechurch our kids and find online resources to somehow build additional formation.

Ericpo, there is no doubt that this is difficult. Thumma and Travis address the question of whether megachurches are bad for a given area and they determine that it does not statistically seem to make that much of a difference but that small churches need to carve out a niche. This is easier said than done. The question of struggling "established churches" in a number of denominations is well documented in the Olson book. Stetzer and Dodson also try in their book Comeback Churches to give a number of ways churches have revived but everyone acknowledges that this is difficult. United Methodist Church Bishop Will Willimon's blog is an interesting place for reflection on turning around United Methodist Churches. See
A Peculiar Prophet
Also I think Pat Keifert and Craig Van Gelder's work at Luther Seminary there in the Minneapolis area is specifically focused on turning around struggling churches. Keifert's We Are Here Now: A New Missional Era (2007) describes how he does consulting with his consulting group Church Innovations. Again though, I think most readers here sympathize with the difficulty.

andy

Andy Rowell
Doctor of Theology (Th.D.) Student
Duke Divinity School
Durham, North Carolina
Blog: Church Leadership Conversations

"self-described missional"

Now there's the problem. Way to many people are using the term missional, including many churches, who don't understand the paradigm. They self-describe themselves as missional because it is the latest "cool" word, not because they are missional. Even you called it an approach.

Missional has nothing to do with an approach, model or method. It is about a way of life. A life where "the way of Jesus" informs and radically transforms our existence to one wholly focused on sacrificially living for him and others and where we adopt a missionary stance in relation to our culture. It speaks of the very nature of the Jesus follower.

Dan Kimball has now responded in the comments of the original article:
Comment 31

David Fitch, a missional advocate responded to Dan's original article at:
THREE QUESTIONS FOR THE ATTRACTIONAL PRACTICIONERS WHO QUESTION THE FRUIT OF MISSIONAL: A Response to Dan Kimball

Brother Maynard responded to Dan's article at:
Missional Misgivings, or Missional Misunderstandings?

Andy,

To what extend do you think the emergence of youth ministry over the past 30 years impact or feed into many of the mega churches we see today.

It seems it must be a contributing factor for change, and it seems that it also is a contributing factor into how the transaction and interaction between mega church leaders and their attendee differs from church 20 years ago.

Certainly it's not the only stream feeding this ocean, but it may be significant.

If you think it is. How do you think the growing changes in youth ministry will effect the future church?

its funny and sad at the same time when there is more meaning in the name we give ourselves than what comes from what we actually do.... i.e. the whole missional or seeker or ...whatever....who cares? the other Christians around us? certainly the world that doesn't know Jesus couldn't give a rip about what we call ourselves.

how about we shut up and live for Jesus and stop talking about structure? ...and the sad part is that this statement is considered radical...

There is an unspoken and likely fallacious premise to this post: more is better. Specifically more members. From what I've seen, this is not always the case. And from my megachurch experiences, I've seen people with deep commitment. Trouble is it's not always to the gospel. Last megachurch service I went to spend half the service telling people how to vote on a ballot initiative. That's not the gospel, and we didn't go back. Stick to preaching from the word and yielding to the text and people will grow. Get distracted and they won't. Seems pretty simple.

Good comments. Rick Meigs is correct that missional is not really someone's label to claim. Jesus says in John 20:21, "As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." Aren't all churches supposed to be missional? Of course. Most people that I find using the label are trying to root it in the idea of (a) seeing God as the first missionary (like John 20:21); and (b) trying to apply missiological principles to church practices. The foundational book in this regard is Darrell Guder's The Missional Church but it builds upon Lesslie Newbigin's work. Like I said, I think some of these folk are interested in church planting. Others like Alan Roxburgh and Pat Keifert are trying to revive existing churches with a better missional focus.

Mark Riddle, I think you know more about youth ministry than I do. Tell me what you think! I think you are right that youth ministry has had a huge impact on today's church. Youth have learned positively that Christianity can be relevant to their lives. On the other hand, perhaps they have learned that it is something to do socially rather than something one has to sacrifice to be part of. I think of Christian Smith's moralistic therapeutic deism. I would think that youth ministry certainly forms how students later react to church. If they have positive experiences, they look for that. If they have had negative youth ministry experiences, they look for different models of church.

Scott, I understand your frustration. This stuff can seem awfully petty and devisive. It reminds me of 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 where Paul is ticked that there are divisions among them. Similarly, in Philippians 1:18 Paul says, "But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice." Still, this is a blog for church leaders, and as church leaders our job is to equip the saints for works of service (Eph 4:12) and it is worth dialoguing about the best way to do that.

John, you rightly point out that growth matters little if it is shallow. Making disciples (Matt 28:18-20) is our mission. We want quantity and quality disciples. You are right that I point out that both megachurches and church plants are growing in numbers. Is this quality growth?

Thumma and Traves were suspicious about the claim that bigger was better so they checked it out (as far as they could--who can know people's hearts?)
They explored some of the questions you mention:
Chapter 5 myth: "These churches are only concerned about themselves and the needs to their attendees."
Chapter 6 myth: "Megachurches water down the faith."
Chapter 8 myth: "These churches are full of people of the same race, class and political preferences."

They found that megachurches on average score slightly better on a variety of criteria than the average small church. Now, this does not tell us much except that we should be slow to assume growth in quantity necessarily deters quality.

The megachurch proponents should not dismiss the missional proponents and the missional folks should not dismiss the megachurch folks. That is what I was hoping to convey.

BTW,

For all of you debating the definition of "missional," you should check out the latest issue of Leadership (the one with the black suitcase on the cover). The entire theme is on defining "missional" and differentiating it from "attractional."

Url out.

Both Mega and Missional are doing well?
1. Is consuming 75 - 85% of the giving to buy services for the “givers” doing well? Both large and small churches that require hired experts and special buildings for crowd oriented gathering demand this sort of pooling instead of real giving where all the “giving” goes beyond the giver. This shift requires rediscovering the power of Paul’s teaching on “refusing the right to be paid”.
2. Is being perpetually dependent upon getting a professional driven Bible lecture in order to “grow up” a sign of doing well? A large percentage of men who have heard 500 or 1000 professional sermons do not perceive themselves as being able to reproduce what they have heard. Jesus teaching that “A student is not above his teacher but when he is fully trained he will be like him” is rendered meaningless. These men in no way consider themselves to be “like” their “teacher”. When “their teacher” leaves to go somewhere else, they need to hire another one to do exactly what he did. Nothing has been “entrusted” to them so they can “teach others also”. Perpetual dependency feels okay and brings in money but it is not “doing well”.

Is it “doing well” or “missional” when 3 times more money is funding delivering a professionally prepared Bible lecture to saints who have heard 500 or 1000 sermons already than to bring the gospel to those who have not even heard it once? Tradition is addicting specially when it brings in a pay check for some and brings a measure of passivity and outsourcing of responsibility to the rest. God’s grace can still save and build the saints, but when full obedience to what He has asked is ignored, then the wood, hay and stubble will be burned up. It is very easy to congratulate ourselves based on comparing ourselves with ourselves, rather than with God’s Word. I’m just a messenger promoting growing beyond what men masquerade as “doing well”.

Just a thought after reading Ericpo's initial comment.

I've NEVER heard of "homechurch" before. I assume this is supposed to be something like homeschooling but have no idea - theologically or practically - what that means.

His comments reveal a striking attitude I find in many parents, even the ones who describe themselves as "mature" in the faith. There's an expectation that the Church - i.e. Christians beyond myself - should rear my kids in faith. That may be a shared responsibility, but the primary responsibility lies with parents. So I guess "homechurch" is a somewhat accurate description of what parents should do..

Off topic but interesting...

I think we need to do both models to an extent--be missional by reaching out to those outside of our walls, while also reaching out to seekers within our own churches. At the same time, we need to remember that our ultimate goal isn't to bring people to church but to equip people to Be the Church wherever they are at, whether it's working at a daycare center or at a large company. Church is a place for us to reach out to those both inside and outside of the Church.

Andy - ...i totally agree, and as a pastor, first in a cell church, then of a traditional church, and now of a house church network...ALL the structures are absolutely valid, ...but the structures house the life, not create it. Anyone who either leans on a structure for success or uses it as an excuse as to why their walk with God and ministry aren’t working is missing it. If God can speak through a donkey, then I’m not sure that structure matters as much as we think. And to get caught on structure, from either the small-relational or large-production, and all things in between, does not serve the purpose of leading people to Jesus and equipping them to do the same.

Form follows function, but we aren’t functioning, so why talk about form? In fact, the on-going structure discussion/argument seems to be putting the cart before the horse, particularly when we plant churches and license pastors who can run a business but can't lead a person to Jesus outside the four walls of the church...simple evangelism and basic discipleship...and yet we talk about structure? Structure of the local church fails to matter if it doesn't house actual spiritual life. If there IS life that reproduces life, then you could meet in barn or a theater or have light production, or no stage, or a big stage, and it would be good...if there is no life, then you could produce and polish and meet in Madison Square Garden or meet in a pub or in a house with all the candles and potlucks and coffee you'd like and it wouldn't bring life.

again...just banter by a guy who can barely walk and chew gum, so i would seriously question most of what i write...

Tim is right that the subtitle of the piece "both are doing well" is problematic. Does any of us missional or mega think that we have nothing to improve? I should not have said it that way. Better would have been:
Mega or missional? The stats say that both megachurches and new church plants have growing attendance and seem to exhibit relatively strong quality based on poll results as compared to average smaller churches and longer established churches.

He is also right that church leaders are responsible to be good stewards of the resources that they have been given including funds. This is a sober calling. I think of Paul's comments in 2 Cor 8:20-21, "We want to avoid any criticism of the way we administer this liberal gift. For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of others."

I also think Tim is right in his zeal to see Christians truly following Jesus in the way they live their lives. He rightly points out that sermons are not enough to form people in Christ-like living.

Thus, Tim ably points out some of the most profound questions which dog every pastor I know:
(1) How do we leverage the resources both human and financial so that more and better disciples are formed; how do we best "equip the saints for works of ministry" Eph 4:12? It is wrong to waste people's time and to waste people's money, which is of course really God's.
(2) How do we facilitate the teaching, prophecy, preaching, dialogues, study and relationships of church for the effective development of more and better disciples of Jesus?

In the post I recommending churches do a survey to test whether we are being as effective as we hope to be. Ask some question you are curious about so that your church can continue to try to improve.

I don't mean to say that this is all human effort. Paul again, we "press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of" us (Philippians 3:12). God is already at work by his Spirit in our midst.

Again, the "missional" and "megachurch" leaders I know are daily focused on these questions because they feel called by God to do all they can to be good stewards and to develop more and better disciples of Jesus.

As far as the question of "Mega or missional" goes, the answer to me is "yes." Both are equally viable and effective and both ought to be able to coexist. And honestly, I would hazard a guess that most "mega" churches are just fine with "missional" churches, as long as they continue to preach the gospel and Scripture accurately.

The issue I see (and I'm only picking on Tim because his comment spurred mine) is that the majority of missional-types that I've come across have an attitude (consciously or subconsciously) that "missional is the only way to do church and we're out to tear down the megachurch because the megachurch is bad." They grouse about how megachurches focus on numbers and spending money, and they drop in their little bit of false humility to go with their snide comments.

My point being, if you're in a missional church and your faith is thriving and you're being an effective witness for Christ in your sphere of influence, praise God. But don't take this attitude that your way is the only way of creating disciples or doing church or expressing your faith. That attitude, I would posit, will do more to hamstring the Church in this generation than any of the windmills we will face in the coming years. God uses the Church in many ways, let's not limit Him to one.

Andy-
Thanks for not just the article, but the continued conversation. It's a great one.

Mark Riddle-
Good to see you here! Loved the YM connection.

Tim-
You kicked my butt with your post. It's good stuff, and something we can't (or shouldn't) avoid. By the grace of G_d, may we get some of this right.

Are y'all in a competition?

Andy,

Great write up. How do satellite churches fit into this conversation? Many are part of a megachurch and benefit from the support staff/initial finding to really take off. They even serve a purpose to revive a nearby community that needs a strong presence.

I've been attending a growing, soon-to-be megachurch. I grew up in a 200+ Lutheran church. I've seen both sides of the coin and its time ALL congregations focus on the basics of salvation:

Our identity as individuals is in Christ
The new covenant with a holy loving Father
Empowerment of the Holy Spirit to live in the world but not of it

When these 'concepts' become alive within us--as individuals--the church we attend is important but not defining. When church leadership does all they can to introduce non-believers to their Savior and grow their congregation into these truths, the style/structure of the church is practically irrelevant.

The person in the pew, whether mature or unsaved, could care less about the structure. The cry of their heart--even when they don't know it--is to be one with their Creator and live a life of significance.

When there's a fire, you don't need to advertise it. While I love debate, dissecting, critiquing, etc., the best way to spend our time is in maintaining the flame of our own intimacy/devotion to our Lord, fanning it in other believers and sparking it in non-believers.