Wayne Grudem Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine
Zack Eswine Preaching to a Post-Everything World: Crafting Biblical Sermons That Connect with Our Culture
The Leadership Pipeline: How to Build the Leadership Powered Company
Mark Driscoll On Church Leadership (Book You'll Actually Read)
« Visioneering - Andy Stanley | Home | Twitter Updates for 2008-06-11 »
David Fitch & Mark Driscoll Revisited
By jason | June 11, 2008
Out of Ur posted a helpful follow-up to their post last week from Fitch on Driscoll’s contention that emergent flavored churches are not seeing conversions actually taking place. (Here is my short interaction with the post.)
Fitch is back this week interacting with some questions raised in the comments of his initial article. I found it helpful as he clarified what he meant in many regards. For instance, on “missional:”
I am following the work of Darrell Guder, et al, Alan Roxburgh (Allelon), Alan Hirsch, and Michael Frost in my definition of “missional.” These authors emphasize incarnational forms of church over attractional; the church as Missio Dei over mission as program; organic forms of missionary living in neighborhoods over ministry set in a building; and many other notions they perceive as New Testament forms of church as a minority presence in society. When you describe missional in these terms, Mars Hill simply doesn’t fit. I’m not accusing of them of being apostate or lacking an ecclesiology. I just assume a church with systems and organization sufficient to funnel 7,000 people through their walls cannot operate in this missional fashion.
Whether or not you agree with his dichotomy (both/and is clearly not an option in his mind) it is helpful to know what he is trying to communicate.
But I found this problematic, especially since his reliance on “statistics” surfaced more than once.
Concerning your second question, the dynamic of a church of 2–3000 or more often attracts a person already familiar with the gospel. A pagan, however, who knows nothing about orthodox Christianity would likely not be attracted to a large service and would need a whole new level of immersion in the gospel for a decision to be anything more than a consumerist one. Statistics to this effect have been borne out in places like C. Pritchard’s study of seeker services
Again, whether or not one agrees with his conclusion is irrelevant. But notice he points to Pritchard’s study of Willow Creeks seeker services (Willow Creek Seeker Services). The problem I have with this is the book is from 1995, 13 years old. Does anyone else find that problematic?
I’ve read the book. And I’m not going to argue against the data he presents in the study. But even Willow has shifted its approach to reaching seekers since this book was introduced. They have shifted because they’re seeing a difference in seekers and how they approach spiritual matters. This is a shift that has been taking place for a good 5 years now. But the Hybels vid that was circulating last week summarizes the point, I think:
So what does this say about the conclusions that all those coming to faith through megachurches are from high-church backgrounds and have fallen away? (Not sure.) Fitch never says it’s inappropriate to reach these high-church people, so don’t misunderstand me. But aren’t there more recent studies that would make his point for him than a 13 year old book, filled with data that is even older than that, a study that is not passe because the very church in question has even shifted its strategy because of the changing spiritual landscape?
Again Fitch points to statistics:
My experience is that the majority of attractional church conversions are of the first kind. Statistics suggest that the majority of megachurches land sons and daughters of high-church traditions who left and went astray. There is nothing wrong with these conversions. The other kind of conversion just takes longer. Statistics and missionary histories that study pioneer missions in people groups who have no exposure to Christ all suggest that post-Christendom conversions are different, requiring more time and relationship investment. In other words, if we send a missionary team into a Muslim country, we should not expect a 6,000-member church in 6 years.
Okay, sure I can agree with his Muslim country example. But the last time I checked the average “pagan” in the US is not the same as a culturally and religiously Muslim individual. I mean isn’t that using the extreme to confirm he conclusion?
Again, I’m not even really arguing that he is wrong. It just seems the means to his conclusion is faulty. To say it differently, we can have a valid conclusion with invalid premises leading us there.
Finally, must a missional church be small to be incarnational? Must a missional church never attract? Are attraction and incarnation mutually exclusive? (This seems to be the contention Fitch makes. But why?) What do you think?
Here is a random snippet from Keller on the topic that might be helpful to foster conversation.
Missional v Evangelistic:
So what do you think about the whole thing?
Topics: Church Planting, Missional Movements |
June 11th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
My biggest concern is with any data of this type and its interpretation. How do you measure (in a traditional statistics manner) whether one is a fruitful convert or “twice the son of hell” as the converter? Not saying we don’t pay attention to the numbers, but we need to be wary of the margin of error. It’s been too long since i’ve studied any statistics but it seems that the relative immeasurability of “true” conversion throws the confidence level of the results into the realm of questionable at best.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
It seems, however, that we have several markers of true disciples in the Scriptures. Surely we can have some indication of whether or not someone is truly a follower of Jesus, don’t you think?
June 11th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Certainly, but not easily measured in a “traditional statistics manner”- i don’t think we can count baptisms (as an example) and call it good. To gather samples large enough to be representative of these diverse groups and obtain a relatively accurate measurement of whether one is a legitimate convert is a huge undertaking. I wouldn’t trust anyone less than Barna (a lot of what they’ve already done could be used) and there are other factors beyond what i’ve mentioned that would have to be taken into account. And i would still be hesitant to draw much more than an inference.
But this was really just a side comment to the real issue at hand. As far as the central topic of your post(s) is concerned, i’m a both/and guy. To continue with the dichotomy we’ve been given, we need both approaches and both types of churches, as well as churches that encourage both approaches.
I like how you ended w/ the Tim Keller segment. He breaks things down very well in ways i assume aren’t possible with so few words until i hear him do it. Everyone should just read his article on the Gospel and then go out and preach/live it.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Speaking from personal experience, to apply statistics to a church or the Christians who attend it is among the most divisive and desultory actions imaginable.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:55 am
I imagine that a good chunk of the difficulty with such an article is the incredibly well-worn nature of the word “missional” in today’s contemporary Church. It is a phrase that is not new necessarily, but is new in its popular usage. And as it grew in popularity it has taken on several nuanced meanings. This is truly the importance of deconstructionism in a post-modern world. There are so many people in this world who speak English, each living in a unique context and with unique experiences. It’s hardly feasible to assume that any of us mean the same things with our common terms.
But I think at the issue of Fitch’s statements is not his understanding of missional as much as his view of incarnational theology. It’s entirely possible to be missional and attractive, if one operates under a theory of missional theology that allows it. However, incarnational and attractional are slightly more difficult to reconcile, to my understanding (but feel free to deconstruct my statements).
Incarnational ministry is based on the revelation of Christ that already exists in the lives of the people who constitute the community. It is the expression of God at work already in the midst of those who attend the church (or other meeting format). It’s focus on what God is doing in every aspect of the community’s parts with a more inward focus.
Attractional churches, in my understanding, are looking more outwardly. They direct their energy towards reaching out to people on the outside of the community and drawing them in. Their ministries tend to be opportunities to introduce new people to the community with the hope and the goal of drawing them in.
Does this mean that either model is less evangelistic? I don’t think so. Incarnational ministries (at least the ones I’ve encountered) do focus more inwardly, but they don’t close their doors. People join these communities regularly, eventually becoming so intertwined that the community itself changes its nature, and therefore, its self-expression is different. This necessarily requires more time and energy, and its obvious that these groups might be smaller, since it would take more time and energy on behalf of the outsider to join the community.
Attractional churches are obviously evangelistic in the simplest (and not in terms of intellectual complexity or worth, but in terms of effort required to enter the community) understanding. The church’s desire is to draw in new faces, so the process itself is made very smooth and “user-friendly.” The process to join such a community does not take long at all, in fact it is often “rushed” (again, not necessarily in a bad way, or in a way that implies manipulation or force). People are free to enter the community as rapidly as they like, though most churches do have a process to ensure that it is a good match.
Based on some of our previous conversations, I imagine you can see where I fall, but I do not believe that either of these methods is better than the other. Rather, they reflect the personal experiences and avenues for connecting to God.