7 Comments

1. 

   Nathanael

   January 12, 2011

   To bring a NewFrontiers response to this… I think location is key to so many things, and especially this. In NewFrontiers we have church plants of just a few couples, we have smaller churches meeting in houses, we have churches of varying sizes to over 1000 members, and we have recently started some multi-site churches. There isn’t a ‘perfect model’, because, as the video stated, we are all different and different styles attract different people, I think ‘attraction’ is the main goal – to invite people to come and meet with God, and in whatever we do, as long as we are doing that, then how we do church matters less.

2. 

   Tracey Chang

   January 13, 2011

   My experience growing up in a medium sized church in the US (approx 250) was that it was easy to just show up and leave without anyone really taking notice. I found the experience of attending a smaller church of about 100 in the UK very different. (I was there for three years.) While I had as much freedom to easily come and go, I definitely felt it was more noticed in the smaller church. I began to build relationships there which resulted in me staying longer, led to stronger friendships, discipleship, and eventually the realization that I hadn’t ever followed Jesus, even though I’d always thought I was a Christian. I observed a real community and deeper fellowship there in that smaller church that I hadn’t seen before. In hindsight I think it was a picture of how the church is described in Acts.

   In Malcolm Gladwell’s book “The Tipping Point” he talks about the theory that “150 is a magic number” where he describes a social phenomenon seen across multiple types of communities (schools, workplaces, etc). I’m paraphrasing but basically the idea is that approximately 150 persons is the maximum number of people whom we can interact with without feeling that we don’t know how we relate to them. When workplaces rise above that number they have observed productivity levels come to a plateau even while adding additional workers. The idea is that above that number, people begin to feel like “numbers” and don’t think that what they do really matters or makes a difference. I felt that the missional church video above was spot-on in describing church members who don’t think they need to personally prepare themselves to share the gospel, and instead think that bringing someone to church and leaving it up to the pastor is “evangelism.” I think there can be a real danger in a large church where members can begin to depend on the pastors and elders to do the job that I think we are each called to do.

   I don’t know if the model of a big attractional church really “works” — I think the people inside the church probably think it’s an attractive model that works but I’m not sure that the people outside would think the same. As to being “attractive”, the apostle Paul talks about being all things to all men – but logically one large church can’t be all things to all men, really it can only be a few key things to only a certain type of people. I think it’s the reason why there tends to be a dominant homogenous group in a church, plus a few attenders in fringe groups. In thinking about how we should “do” church, I find it very helpful to think about Jesus’ model of discipling only 12 men over the course of three years with the goal of sending them out to be disciple makers in their own right. I think we see the same model followed by Paul as he trains up other men to plant churches. I find it helpful to remember the cliche that “God has no grandchildren.”

   I would love to see churches begin to plant when they get too large — I feel that this would encourage people who haven’t felt “needed” before to step up to the plate and reveal talents and gifts we haven’t seen before, or for previously dependent people to realize they too can be equipped to become leaders too. I also feel that large churches can make the mistake of depending on the strength of its people whereas perhaps small churches might by necessity be forced to depend on the One whose strength matters, to His glory!

3. 

   John

   January 13, 2011

   Hughbo, glad to see that someone was listening!
   I agree that missional vs attractional is a false separation. A community of God’s people living lives on God’s mission is profoundly attractive as people hear the gospel proclaimed and see the gospel demonstrated.
   However many churches rely on events, cool music etc to attract people rather than the gospel and my concern is that what you attract people with you attract them to.
   And so I disagree that large, attractional church is best. If success is defined as bums on seats then it works but I believe the church’s purpose is to make disciples who make disciples so that the whole earth is filled with the glory of God which should cause us to define and measure success differently. Which should lead us to be deeply dissatisfied with the common reality of church life of many members being converted to Christ but not to his mission.
   As to which model as long as we understand God’s purposes for His church and our ecclesiology comes out of that understanding then how we do church (i.e. which model of church we sign up for) doesn’t matter that much. Obviously I’m sold on the idea of a church formed of gospel communities (that still gathers as a family on Sunday) but this isn’t gospel.
   Enjoy grace, cheers John

   P.S. we weren’t at church on Sunday we were with the church

4. 

   Laura Haddow

   January 13, 2011

   haha…i told you it had got me started! infact the missional church philosophy/structure has been buzzing around in my head since Sunday morning, where i have been mulling it over!…i just wrote 700 words on this for my blog, triggered by John’s video (Hi John, i was listening too!). Once i’ve formulated this into making any sense and cut it by atleast 300 words, and stopped it sounding like a rant, but more of a structured intelligent argument i’ll post it up as a responce…
   Thanks for the thought process though guys…
   Laura

5. 

   Hugh

   January 13, 2011

   Interesting thoughts…

   @Nathanael
   Think you’re right, no perfect model… multi-site, now there’s a whole other question of ecclesiology!

   @Tracey
   Thanks for some thoughts from across the pond. I’d heard of the 150 theory, experientially it sounds fairly accurate too. Definitely getting people involved needs to be a priority of church, no matter what size it is.

   @John
   I hear ya, but how does one gain an audience for the gospel… attractional church gains an audience for the gospel by providing an event, a service, the kind of opportunity which would take years to build up purely through personal contact. Of course the message heard is endorsed and confirmed through the gospel community that is Christians living out their faith in their spheres of influence – home, work, sport team etc.
   I don’t really get it, you seem to be talking about a different way of doing church, but what I’m hearing is more like… attractional church on Sunday + Mission focused home groups, which I don’t see as any different from the traditional model (at least in ideal, maybe not in reality)… How does it differ?
   P.S. church = assembly – therefore ‘at’ or ‘in’ would be appropriate words to use

   @Laura
   We look forward to your rant.

6. 

   Tracey Chang

   January 14, 2011

   Thanks for the thought-provoking post. And please say hello to your lovely wife for me (the church I mentioned was Fairfield/Cornerstone!)

7. 

   John

   January 15, 2011

   The idea of the video was more to show what a missional church looks like for people who might not have heard of it as a concept than to critique other models of church (though obviously there are reasons positive and negative as to why I land where I do).
   As far as the “missional” v “attractional” discussion goes so long as we start with what the church is (and I believe that the church is a gathered and scattered people, hence why language of at and in is unhelpful I think)
   and what the purpose of the church is and then work out from that to what the church does then it doesn’t matter what model we end up with.

   As to what we’re planning to do the main difference to the traditional model is that we see the gathering as a celebration of God’s grace and a time for equipping the family.
   So we won’t advertise the gathering or invite not-yet-family (though they would be very welcome if they wanted to come or turned up).
   Instead we will invite them into the life of the family in the 6:22 of life (the other 6 days and 22 hours of the week).
   And so the gospel identities and rhythms I talked about are to help the family to live lives that are changed by the gospel, demonstrating and proclaiming to the gospel.
   So we intend to gain an audience for the gospel by going to those who aren’t yet family, getting involved in the lives and allowing them to be involved in our life as a community. And if it takes years I can’t see that as a being a problem.
   Enjoy grace.