The following is the September 2009 "Background Data for Mission" article distributed by the General Board of Global Ministries Research Office and is reprinted by permission.
Many experienced congregational developers who are starting new churches, or working to bring new life and vitality to existing churches, may be sensing that this work does not come as easily as it used to. Of course, unless one was extraordinarily gifted and well supported in a ripe mission field, it was never really easy. Yet these are different times and the trend seems to be that the times will only get more challenging in the foreseeable future. Even those not involved in congregational development may sense that there have been changes afoot in our culture that impact the church’s presence in that culture, though perhaps they are not able to articulate what those changes are. There are indeed changes and those who are serious about impacting the mission field around them may have to reevaluate their mission plans.
For years most congregational development has in some fashion or another been done within the broad rubric of the attractional model. This model tries to get folks to come to the church, initially either to worship or to participate in a program of some kind. All manner of approaches have been used to get the word out to those in the community to come and see. Most of what folks have been invited to participate in has happened in church buildings or on church grounds. For the most part most people responding have some kind of church background and are at least somewhat inclined to participate in church activities. Much of the growth from this model has been transfer growth. Some churches have had success in attracting the unchurched. This model is becoming increasingly less effective due to the culture changes.
Eddie Gibbs, in his book “ChurchMorph,” has identified at least five changes, or megatrends, as he calls them, happening in our culture at present. They are the shifts from modernity to postmodernity, from the industrial age to the information age, from Christendom to post-Christendom, from production to consumerism, and from religious identity to spiritual exploration. Books have been written on each of these. The amazing aspect of them is that they are
converging in our time, causing seismic shifts in our culture which require paradigm shifts in our thinking. In this environment, “church as we have always done it” will find increasingly fewer participants. Just as financial advisors are needing to modify basic principles they have used for years in this new economic scenario, so will those doing church development need to consider new ways to impact their mission fields.
Of course, the church will be slow to respond. The classic bell curve used to show acceptance of innovation applies here. Since the church is not feeling immediate drastic consequences of the cultural changes, most church folk, including leaders, will be glacial in accepting the need for change. Ample evidence abounds indicating that even when change is clearly needed, change is very difficult to implement. Furthermore, the sort of change needed is not just tweaking what we are doing now. Doing church in new ways at first blush is often interpreted as adding new programs or adding a worship service with
different music and liturgy. This is not it. A few cosmetic changes to existing church amounts to little more than trying new approaches to the old attractional model. It is still the attractional model.
Although no definitive alternative to what we are doing now has been established, the main area which seems to have traction is the missional approach to being church. (Being versus just doing, is a significant characteristic of missional church.) Emerging church and house church are also garnering some attention. While both of these are distinctive, they overlap each other and both reflect a missional component, sometimes as a core part of who they are. Missional church is not new, of course, but it seems to be showing momentum in a fresh way, suggesting God is up to something here.
Gaining understanding into missional church can be elusive. Definitions abound. Those who have been moving in this direction for years find they are just now seeing the light come on. Yet some of the core concepts are really pretty simple. Churches which are really living into being missional find that they genuinely care about those neighbors who are part of the mission field of the church. They can articulate what their mission field is. They have ceased to act like a country club where they formerly thought that church is there for them and was to meet their needs and little else. The focus is outward. As
they look out they have grown to understand that the goal is not just to get those in the mission field into the building and plugged into existing programs. They are willing to take ministry to the mission field they serve and minister there. In some cases this means doing church in fresh “out of the box” manner which may never involve those out there actually coming or connecting to the church in traditional ways.
Missional churches do not necessarily revolve around real estate, buildings, and programs. They often do not focus on staff driven ministries. A criticism of many religious folks not reached by attractional methods is a view of traditional church where they feel too much money is spent on staff and buildings and not enough reaching out to those in need. Missional is not a program to add to existing church. It is not a category of ministry to add to other categories within the church. Missional is an ethos which permeates every aspect of what church is, such that all ministries of the church are outward looking and more about the mission field than the existing congregation. There is no simple threshold which determines if an existing church has arrived at being missional. It is an ongoing process, sort of like going on to perfection. However when a church is getting there they can tell the difference and celebrate the progress.
Being missional is an additional challenge to congregational development. Since finding new life, vitality and mission in existing churches is tough enough as it is, adding even more depth to the change required will not be easy. Converting from the attractional model is another level of difficulty, but some churches are doing it. Likewise most new starts have a strong sense of mission in their early days, but still do so within an attractional framework. Doing church out there and having much of it stay out there requires a thorough paradigm shift. To not do so will leave us with ever diminishing returns with the attractional model and a corresponding ongoing denominational decline.
Comments