I’ve been staying away from a lot of reading material regarding the church and leadership this year. It all began sounding the same and it was rehashing things I’ve already learned in previous books. However, an excerpt from Ed Stetzer‘s newest book Viral Churches: Helping Church Planters Become Movement Makers has gotten me excited.

In regards to multiplication of the missional church, here are some snippets from the post over at Foursquare News:

Finally, I’ll end with a quote from Stetzer’s book credited to Bill Easum: “Historically all movements have begun because of the charismatic efforts of one lone individual who touched a nerve among a host of people. Who will step up to be that person?”

See all the quotes in context from Foursquare news here: http://www.foursquare.org/articles/1382,1.html

I’ve been doing a lot of soul-searching lately in regards to my view on church. Some things I feel have been reinforced, yet some things have been re-shaped. As I posted last week here, I do believe that there is a division between the attractional church model vs missional communities. The basis for which they are founded are too distinct for it to be any other way:

Attractional Church- Focuses most of its energy and resources on the weekend worship services. The belief is that if people come to the service that they can come to know Christ through everyone singing worship songs, hearing teachings from the Bible and connecting with Christians in a safe, anonymous setting.

Missional Church: Is really outwardly focused in every sense. To be missional is to live out one’s faith every day and to do so in surroundings that aren’t necessarily comfortable. The resources of the church are aimed at connecting with people where they are--rather than attracting them to a service--and forming community with them regardless of whether they are Christians. The heartbeat is to serve others outside of the existing church.

There are a lot of unresolved (and some unrecognized) issues within the church whether it be attractional or missional. Rather than make it solely an issue of how we do church, I think it’s best if we look at how we can combine both aspects of these two church models  into one harmonious effort to reach people with the love and truth of Christ and how he desires to be known in our communities. Instead of trying to analyze why attractional churches are for baby boomer Christians and missional communities are the next wave of postmodern church, or why missional communities don’t honor God because they are too small and have questionable theology, we should be looking at how we can open our minds to a shift in the traditions of the contemporary church and reach across the aisle to find some common ground.

Most of this debate has actually been initiated by the Reveal study done by Willow Creek Church a few years ago. Bill Hybels looked at how effective Willow Creek was in discipling people rather than attracting an audience of Christians. It turns out they weren’t as effective as they thought after reviewing the results of a comprehensive survey they gave to their members. To them it was obvious that being fully attractional as a church led to shortcomings in the area of discipleship. However, megachurches such as Willow Creek can’t make a drastic shift in their philosophy and revamp as a new entity a week later. They need to chart a course and be purposeful in taking the people they want to disciple (rather than lose them to other churches that cater to their needs rather than commit to doing more). Therefore, the attractional church can look to be more missional, even though they may never be fully missional.

A (perceived) negative factor for missional churches is that being fully missional generally means being very small and uber organic. It lacks structure and is always in a state of transition. As the goal isn’t to convert people, but rather to share Christ’s love and believe that Christ will transform their lives at the appointed time even if it’s not while they are a part of the missional community, it’s hard to see steady growth within this model. Most missional communities do incorporate worship services of some sort, and we all know how difficult it can be to build momentum for our work in Christ when the gatherings are small.

In essence, as I look at both the attractional and missional church model I see room for improvement in both. I do not want to deny the great work done through both church models if they deem themselves successful being fully attractional or fully missional. However, regardless of how one wants to convey this idea, I do think in reality that the attractional church does lack in areas of discipleship and engagement. In contrast, I think that missional churches tend to look away from certain attractional elements that could help them build momentum and see change come about. In the end, should it be about what we think has worked well for us so far or should it be how can we work together for the sake of keeping the mission of Christ relevant to the eyes of the world and culture in a post-Christian, post-Church America? What worked for the past 20 years and seems to be working today may not be what the church will look like as soon as next year. There are shifts going on in the church--some due to economic influences, some due to cultural influences--that should cause us in church leadership to be open to changes in the future. We should be active rather than reactive. We should lead culture rather than be led by it. What we as the church do in the next 5-10 years will have a huge impact on how people live lives of faith and how they choose to express that faith.

Imagine the possibilities if instead of professing our alignment with guys like Bill Hybels or Rick Warren vs Dan Kimball or Alan Hirsch, we chose to profess our alignment with the mission of Christ in the 21st century. It’s easy to choose sides and engage in debate, but ultimately the case usually comes down to meeting somewhere in the middle; taking things from history and re-creating them to make them better today. This is where I will do my best to position myself moving forward--less divisive and more about building bridges. I sense that not many people will take this middle ground today as I do, but I do believe that 10 years from now we will be talking about churches that have elements of being attractional and missional as more normative rather than one model winning out over the other one.

If you’re part of an attractional church that is going through the process of trying to become more missional, please share your story. If you’re a missional community now looking at ways you can be more attractional and connect with people more in corporate worship, please share your story. Any thoughts on this are welcome.

This is a subject that causes me a lot of conflict. My lens of how I view the church is much different than most people that currently lead churches. My atheist background and desire to connect with other atheists/agnostics in the church causes this. I have serious issues with the attractional church, yet I see how people are transformed and ministered to by it. This is my conflict.

If you stop to think about it, when the first century churches were being established, were they attractional? Actually, they were quite the opposite. The early church was a collection of people looking for something powerful that brought them into harm’s way. It was not safe and comfortable. Most first century Christians faced persecution and death if they were caught gathering as a church or professing a faith in the Christ. However, today the church is a very comfortable and non-threatening place. Leaders within the church try to make it as welcoming and inviting as possible. The first century church was a call to action, not a call to grab a seat, sit back, and have your needs catered to for 60 minutes.

Before I go any further, let me first establish the foundation for the definition of the attractional and missional church. I think Tim Chester summarizes this well as:

Attractional church is a come-to-us mentality in which church revolves around the Sunday meeting. You often find that even people who talk of being more missional want to start by doing something with the Sunday meeting. A truly missional approach emphasises a missional lifestyle and mission in the context of ordinary life in locations where unbelievers feel at home.

In the context of what is considered an attractional church vs a missional church, it’s hard to see how one could be the other--they are just too distinct to operate in harmony with each other. I don’t know of any missional churches currently trying to be more attractional, yet I know many attractional churches trying to become more missional.

In my opinion, the better question to ask is: Can an attractional church become more missional? In response to this question, my answer is yes. This is where I believe the focus of the attractional church should be, yet there are still going to be some conflicts:

• If the attractional church is so focused on Sunday services, how can it then go on mission and reach people outside of the church? If the efforts and budget go to helping those outside of the church that will never become church members, how can the church then maintain it’s budget and staff?
• Many in the attractional church are coming for a reason. They are attracted to the great programs and the fact they can remain anonymous and comfortable. How long will these people keep coming on Sundays if they are asked to go serve others instead of coming to be served?
• When people in the attractional church feel their own needs aren’t being met, they will leave to go find another church that will. The attractional church attracts consumers.

Ed Stetzer & David Putnam give some good observational analysis to the contrast between the attractional church and the missional church in the book Breaking the Missional Code:

• From programs to processes
• From demographics to discernment
• From models to missions
• From attractional to incarnational
• From uniformity to diversity
• From professional to passionate
• From seating to sending
• From decisions to disciples
• From additional to exponential
• From monuments to movements

While my perspective and experience causes me to be aligned more with missional communities, there are some aspects of ministry that are compelling for the attractional church model. It’s heartbreaking at times to see this as a dividing line with no real solution other than taking a side and hoping your side prevails over the other. While I stand firm in the belief that the attractional church will never be missional in the true sense of the word, I wonder if somehow both sides can come together and seek some unifying means to be the church as Christ calls us to be. To care for our brothers and sisters in Christ, yet bear the burden of seeing others in the world come to know the love and grace that we have been showered with.

In my next post I will attempt to seek some middle ground and help unify the church to be on mission, yet doing so in different forms. For now, I’d be curious to know what your perspective and experience have to say in regards to an attractional church becoming missional.

A large part of the missional church movement is a call to action within our communities. There is an underlying core belief that we need to get out and let the world know we are disciples of Christ intent on sharing his love with others, rather than holed-up in a building on Sunday mornings with others that believe as we do.

I know the mission of the missional church clearly rubs some people the wrong way. Let me clearly state that I while I don’t feel called to lead a fellowship of people into becoming the next mega church or follow purpose driven principles, I applaud you for doing what you do and reaching people the way that you do. However, your calling is not my calling and God will use all sorts of people through all sorts of methods to see people come to know him through his Son Jesus the Christ.

A lot of us in pastoral ministry tend to take sides on evangelism. We all cite the Great Commission as something that needs to be taken seriously as disciples, yet we don’t all agree on what carrying the Great Commission looks like. For some it’s having an attractional church with lots of programs to meet the needs of families. By drawing them in with programs, they can be exposed to the gospel. Others send missionaries to various parts of the world and help support them. Many churches will do special events and ask congregants to take advantage of the opportunity to invite their friends and neighbors and co-workers for a chance to come in and be hooked by the gospel.

The one thing that I stand upon is that nothing about the gospel in Scripture is attractional. Throughout the entire New Testament, there is one clear, underlying theme to the gospel: repent and be baptized. Call upon the Lord for forgiveness of sins and profess his name and you will be saved. In so doing, the Lord will never leave you, nor forsake you. It’s pretty simple and blatantly clear.

To me, being attractional means living a life in celebration of Christ and taking seriously his commands. So, I guess in that sense I am attractional. Our vision for planting and launching Revolution Church Sacramento is based upon this through our vision statement: We want to be a gathering of transformed people that God uses to help transform the lives of others in the Sacramento area. I am a firm believer that our vision and mission are supported by Scripture in Acts 2:42-47:

42They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

If we live a life of faith praising God and give of ourselves for the sake of others that have need, God will add to our number daily those that are being saved. This is first and foremost they way we should evangelize. We cannot cause someone to know Christ, but through us and our living witness to the glory of Christ Jesus, God can use us to sow seeds that he will nurture and grow into fruitful service to the kingdom of heaven.

Father God, I pray that you will continue to speak to your servants and call them to be used by you for the sake of others coming to know you through your Son Jesus. Thank you for your call upon all of us as your ministers of the gospel to live a life that honors and glorifies you and being open to be at the right place at the right time, doing the right thing to impart thoughts of your love into the minds and hearts of those you are about to call into the kingdom of heaven. Thank you for using each of us individually to do your work for your people. That no greater love exists than your love for your people. A love so strong that you sent your Son to die for the forgiveness of all sin because we could not do not so by ourselves. Bless the work of your Church and the people in leadership to show love for all and to be burdened for others more than for themselves. Bring us to a place of peace and unity within your body so that we may be living witnesses that draw others to be added to our number daily those that are being saved. You are good and your mercy endures forever. I pray your anointing and favor on your people and those in pastoral ministry whom you have entrusted with your flock. In the name of Jesus, amen.

I’ve posted some of my thoughts on the missional church here on this blog. It’s something that I am very opinionated on and something that I believe God is placing upon the hearts of his people in various forms. It’s nothing new as it really has its roots in the Acts 2 church of the first century. It’s people gathering together to share in fellowship and to encourage each other, listen to teachings of the gospel, partake in a meal together, and give everything they have to those that have need. Through these actions, God adds to their number daily those that were being saved. It’s such a beautiful illustration of what the church was meant to be and I am so excited to see what God is doing through his church today!

Rather than try to explain more, let me point to you and unbelievably thorough and educational link that JR Woodward shared on his Dream Awakener blog:

http://jrwoodward.net/2008/11/a-primer-on-todays-missional-church/

Click it and prepare to be blessed.

In trying to study and learn a little more about Dave Gibbons‘ theories on Third Culture I was hit with his definition:

Third Culture is the mindset and will to love, learn, and serve in any culture. Even in the midst of pain and discomfort.

Wow, he’s preaching my language! Here is Dave sharing insight on Third Culture with Newsong Church:

And here is a link to a video of Pastor Gibbons sharing insight on Third Culture with Dallas Theological Seminary on 10/31/08:

http://www.dts.edu/media/play/?MediaItemID=c5e5bb9b-c3bb-4708-be61-3d75b2ce8f62

Here is a link to the Third Culture website:

http://3culture.tv/

Through one of my favorite blogs I found a link to a post from Ed Stetzer about the missional church vs. the simple church vs. the purpose-driven, seeker sensitive style church. Very interesting and thought-provoking. Take a peek here:

http://blogs.lifeway.com/blog/edstetzer/2008/10/simpy-missional-in-neue.html

As I’ve been thinking more and more about leading a missional community through Revolution Church Sacramento next year, I’ve also had thoughts about video preaching as part of what we do. Coinciding with these thoughts was a blog post by Perry Noble that reinforced his position that video teaching honors God and connects with people.

When we did our first month of preview services to share our vision with the members of our mother church, it was video preaching for 3 weeks, with me preaching 1 week. We participated in the One Prayer with LifeChurch.tv which many of you know about already. I was so totally blown away by the quality of the preaching from Perry Noble and Steven Furtick that I was hooked. I mean, I think I can be a pretty funny guy, but usually I evoke a laugh or two during a message while Noble just raised the roof and kept it up the whole 30 minutes. The guy seems like he isn’t even trying, yet he causes us to fire on several emotions in just one message. All this and he wasn’t even in the building! How can a guy in South Carolina talking about eating big, buttery biscuits and people believing or not believing in the power of Christ connect so well with us here in California? I don’t know how or why, but I just know what I saw and how people responded and it was amazing and incredible. Pastor Furtick is another one of those guys that doesn’t seem like he is trying, yet he can convey passion about watching an ice cube in such a way that you never thought possible all through the power of Christ in his life and his love for seeing people hear the gospel and come to know the saving grace of Christ. I was teary-eyed during the last half of his message and again, he wasn’t even in the building!

Can a guy like Noble or Furtick cause things to be stirred up here in Sacramento through video preaching? I think they could. As Revolution Church Sacramento takes shape and launches next year, we are looking to connect with a younger generation for Saturday and/or Sunday evening service. Mostly singles and young couples. However, could we partner with a great visionary preacher like a Pastor Noble or Pastor Furtick (or a Craig Groeschel or Ed Young, Jr. or…) and provide a gathering for families on Sunday mornings and see the kingdom grow even more? Could being missional and putting our faith into practice and sharing the love of Christ with the world be the glue that binds us together, even though we have two different worship styles, with two different meeting times, and two different demographics? I’m beginning to think we could. I’m feeling like the work that needs to be done here in Sacramento is far greater than what I could do even on my best days, and that partnering with another ministry with someone that can lead the way through their preaching and teaching while we work to connect people into service could honor God hugely. Who says that multiple services on a weekend must be the same exact message with the same exact preacher every time?

Maybe this is just another one of those dreams too big for the moment or my abilities. Could be that my mind is wandering and this isn’t what my thoughts should be on these days. However, I just can’t help but feel like this is worth some prayer and discussion and seeing what God would have me do here. My preaching doesn’t really translate well to video, but I’ve seen others with the gift for it and know that it’s being used to make a big impact on people in awesome ways. Just consider me more than a little intrigued at this point.

I invite your prayers and thoughts on this.

Are you excited? Outreach magazine just published their compilation of the top 100 largest churches in America. While I’m glad that people are still gathering in masses to worship the one true God, I find myself scratching my head at why anyone would want to glorify the church in this manner.

The sad fact of the matter is that there are pastors out there that will inflate their attendance numbers so that they can run with the big boys. They are immersed in the numbers game. They seek to grow numerically in order to confirm their status within the kingdom of heaven. In the minds of many senior pastors is the misconception that a growing church is a healthy church.

However, when polled most senior pastors will say that they are not interested in numbers, but instead they desire to see many to come to know Christ as their Lord and Savior. That’s a noble thing, but at the same time many encourage people that were previously baptized in a church already to come forward and be baptized in their church, thus inflating the numbers of salvations and diminishing the scripture in Romans 10:9 which clearly states:

That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

I guess contrary to the word, confessing once isn’t enough?

We are taught not to envy or covet, yet we see statistics like this glorifying the local church and putting them on a pedestal because of the number of attendees they draw. When health and numerical size are used as factors to determine “success” in the church, how can a pastor not want to seek credibility for what God is doing in their church in the same fashion? It can cause us to see our numbers diminish within the smaller church because people are flocking to the mega-church because the music is so professional or they have more technology and staff in their children’s ministry and then believe that God is working in the mega-church, but abandoning us in the smaller churches.

I believe that God is working through the mega-church model to see people come to honest professions of faith in the Lord, with transformed lives making a difference in their community as the result. My criticism isn’t on the mega-church, but it’s on the glorification of the mega-church. Look closely at the image above or click here to see the whole list of the top 100 largest churches. It’s not just the top 100 churches listed, but they are ranked in order from largest to smallest and there is also the name and photo of the senior pastor and in addition to that, there is even a link to books that some of the pastors have authored. Sorry, but this just brings the kind of attention to the pastor that rewards him for obtaining such high status on lists like this. Somehow, it just doesn’t seem like such a godly thing for pastors to be recognized in this way or worse yet, to see them strive for such notoriety.

As I write this, I think the thing that gets me most is the notion that it’s all about attendance and not about transformations and loving others. As many of you know, I’m excited about the missional church movement. Not only the missional church ethos, but of the nature of the missional church to be more organic and empowering others to lead and disciple communities based on visions God gives them to be pastors and ministers of the gospel. What about the missional church that honors God through the Greatest Commandment and the Great Commission and sees itself being reproduced throughout the city or the world? If a mother church grows to 200 in attendance and then starts reproducing itself by sending missionaries/pastors out to lead others and disciple them in the ways of Christ, only to see this repeating itself time and time again, isn’t this the way of the first century church? The mother church may ebb and flow and never break the 200 barrier by intention, yet be responsible for seeing 20,000 come to know Christ and carry on his mission through daughter churches and other ministries. Should they be off the radar screen or not viewed in as high a regard as the mega-church of 10,000 members that lands on the list of top 100 churches? I don’t think so. Is having a congregation of 12,000 meeting in one building a better definition of outreach than having groups of 1,000 people meeting in 12 different buildings? Again, I don’t think so.

We should not be working to receive our rewards here on earth. Pastors can say that who am I to write about this when God is the one sending people to their church and they are just doing their best to shepherd his people. Okay, I’m with you on that. However, what about the inverse of this? How about when your mega-church of 10,000 people and 40 staff members sees its attendance drop to 5,000 in less than a year. Do you believe that God has his hand in moving the sheep to another shepherd, or do you go into panic mode and start cutting programs and laying off people and doing all you can to figure out how to get your attendance numbers back up to justify the big building and church campus?

Church attendance numbers in no way portray the effectiveness of outreach or seeing people come to know Christ for the first time. They do not accurately reflect the health of a church, nor the genuine nature of those that gather. A mega-church of 10,000 in attendance on Sundays, but 90% of the congregation is from church hoppers is not deserving of being more highly regarded than a church of 50 that live the mission of Christ everyday, drawing in people that may take years of living in a community of faith before they actually take the step of faith to put their trust in Christ eternally.

[At this point I feel a disclaimer is in order. I'm not envious of the mega-church or their pastors. I have not had any negative experience from serving or attending in mega-churches.

I have a great respect for the calling and vision of every pastor on the top 100 list of largest churches!

Those that know of my work in the ministry know that I speak highly of Pastor Craig Groeschel and participated with LifeChurch.tv in their One Prayer campaign last July. I have read and been blessed by several books authored by Andy Stanley of North Point. I'm amazed at what it took to see Bill Hybels ask for a raw and unfiltered assessment of Willow Creek through surveying their members and then responding in revolutionary ways to change the course and direction of their ministry in order to see true discipleship and transformation occur.

I am encouraged when I see how the Reveal study that was done by Willow Creek is causing local churches to take a look at what they are doing and why they are doing it. When things like this surface not because of diminishing numbers, but because of lack of discipleship and mission it can only be a positive step that deserves recognition. Most of my friends within ministry are pastors of larger, non-denominational churches with seeker-sensitive services. I love and respect each of them and sometimes feel they are better-suited to ministry than I am because of the larger resources at their disposal and their big faith to serve and make a difference. Again, I'm not in opposition to the mega-church model. I just think we are flirting with danger and temptation when we in ministry and those in the media begin putting so much attention to only those with larger attendance numbers. Bottom line is that I love the church and I love God and I pray daily that the church will start working to be more unified and seeing the love of Christ personified in cities all over the world. I just believe that in our humility we should seek to have God get all the glory and for people to see Jesus and not be awestruck by the celebrity status that pastors are being encouraged to embrace. It's a dangerous thing and we've already seen the enemy take too many people out of their calling to see the gospel reach the ends of the earth.]

Church envy…is it godly?

I’ve posted previously about missional vs emergent and missional vs the mega church model. However, I don’t see how it would be possible to validate a missional vs. missional argument though. The reason being is that there is a basic, fundamental understanding of what it means to be a missional church, therefore there isn’t any relevant argument regarding that. Alan Hirsch, author of The Forgotten Ways defines the missional church as: “a church that defines itself, and organizes its life around, its real purpose as an agent of God’s mission to the world.”

Now, we could argue what the mission should like in a given community or whether advertising the mission through press releases in the local newspaper is relevant to the mission, but we can’t argue the foundation of being missional. It is this that gives momentum to the missional church and through transformations happening on the local level, missional churches will have global impact on the kingdom of heaven.

Before I continue, I want to make it clear that I am not in opposition to those with a vision to lead emergent or mega-churches. I think God can honor their work and that transformed lives could be the result. However, let me point out some observations I’ve made that lend themselves to momentum within the missional church:

• Overall, churches are shrinking in numerical size, therefore being positioned to be better able to mobilize behind a missional movement
• Budgets are being drastically cut as church members are giving less or not giving at all. Smaller budgets many times means smaller staff or fewer programs. This creates an environment conducive to change and reorganization, going away from past methods that are deemed not to work and seeking something new
• We’re in a post-Christian era where over 90% profess a belief in a god or gods or a higher power, yet oppose Christianity and discussion centering on Jesus. Missional church fulfills the Greatest Commandment and causes people to look at Jesus through love, not condemnation.
• Many Christians have left the traditional church and choose to worship God individually without being in fellowship with others. The missional church can help bring them back into fellowship through uniting them in a common cause that they feel is relevant.

There is a culture shift happening and it’s causing many church leaders to take notice. Some may see their budgets shrink and believe the answer is to waive their salary and take full-time, secular job. Some churches may see positions phased out and consolidation occur. Other churches may think a new focus from the pulpit on tithing may be in order. In reality, this is the kind of culture shift that should be leading people to see that God is moving in a different way. As we get closer to the day of Christ’s return, we need to get back to our roots. Things will go full circle and what was ancient may become modern again.

Our focus should really be on God and serving his people with the love of Christ. We must have ultimate faith in God and His Word for salvation and trust Christ to really be the head of His church. Instead of responding to what the market dictates by trying to give people what they want or tell them what they want to hear, we should respond in a way that reveals God in our midst. As we see numbers diminishing within the church here in America, it’s clear to see that the kingdom of heaven is growing exponentially in China. Under threat of persecution the church in China is for the most-part an underground movement. It is very reminiscent of the description of the first century church in Acts 2:44-47:

44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Where there is sincere love for God and love for others through giving as they have need, the kingdom of heaven will grow daily with those being saved. If the missional church stays on mission, salvation and growth will be fulfilled through God. People will care about other people and love others because God first loved them. Transformation will occur and the gospel will be preached to all nations and the end result will be glory to the King of kings as he returns for his bride.

As the church, I say we should look to return to the root of our existence--loving God and loving others--and repel those things which cause us to focus on worldly things like money, pride, control. If we trust in Jesus to deliver his saving grace upon the earth, God will add to our number those that are being saved and instill in them a passion for loving He that created them and all of whom He created.