I've been engaged in an email conversation with Gavin Knight and Mike Brantley regarding Conventional (Attractional) vs. Missional (Incarnational) church styles. Mike posted our dialog on his blog. It's long and I would not expect anyone to read it all but it all started from a post that the Tall Skinny Kiwi posted on his blog titled Missional Church: Where is the Fruit? The debate is about measuring success and how do you do it? Conversions? Attendance? Offering? When you link back in this discussion through a few blogs it seems to be that Missional-Incarnational churches are being criticized because they do not have the number of conversions needed to justify themselves as a legitimate ministry.
One might dismiss this notion and say, "who cares?" But, I think this is an important discussion as we are clearly shifting into post-Christian culture in the West, and the reality is that more and more of our emerging post-modern generations are not going to church. They simply do not see church (let alone the Christian church) as a viable means to encountering God. So what do we do? Do we have to "change" the way we do church? Do we just have to get better at what we are doing and work harder? Or do we need to re-examine the way we define success?
Here is a related article by Andrew Hamilton: Incarnational vs. Attractional that I think is well written.
From my experience being in both the market place and in the professional church setting, I have seen some alarming parallels of our cultures economic structure and the Christian church (I am using this term as a whole and in no way represents all Christian churches). As we have observed the Wal-Mart, Costco, Sams-Club, Home Depot, Best Buy, Dicks Sporting Goods and Lowe's (just to name a few) of our culture spread to every market in our economic landscape you can see a subtle yet direct influence these companies have had on consumers mentality. These companies have set out to bring convenience to the consumer's buying habits, shape their expectations about service, price, product choice, and geographical location (there are 6 Home Depot's in 3 miles of my house). They do this all to gain market share, customer loyalty and economic growth.
In a parallel manner you can see a similar patterns in the church's approach to capture our cultures attention with bigger buildings, convenient locations (multi-site, Internet), marketing campaigns (direct mail), customer service (greeters), and product choice (programs). The church has catered to their target audience which is being trained to look for these things in everyday life. The Christian church has had a tendency of the last few decades to mirror the strategies of our economic landscape. Rick Warren isn't even shy about it as he describes "Our Target:Saddleback Sam" on page 170 of his book, The Purpose Driven Church.
These companies and churches have done a great job in their strategy - get more people to come to their building (or website) in order to convert them to members (Christians). But even the Attractional church model doesn't solely count conversions as their only measure of success. If they did, they would either have to fix it (their model), sell it (the business), or shut it down, because if you calculate the dollars spent for each individual conversion then most churches would not be getting their R.O.I. (Return On Investment). So let's not fool ourselves that conversions is the only way conventional churches measure success for themselves. My experience is that most don't.
To me the underlying common denominator that creates the parallel is the generation that drove this model both in our economic landscape and in our church. Most Christians or church attenders in the boomer generation were building the large scale economic & cultural landscape that they desired. The model worked, the graphs were going up, the revenue was coming in and therefore this must be right. They got what what they wanted - what they set out to do - they Grew! But is the kind of growth they wanted the kind of growth that the Christian church needed? The kind of growth that Jesus requires? I'm not even going to get into the political side of this history.
Can I say this is completely bad, that nothing good came out of it. No! A lot of good has. In fact I shop at these stores. I've attended and worked for these churches and for some people, it works. But for the majority of our population it doesn't. Not then, not now and not in the future. I'm talking about the marginalized people that have never gone to church and never will go to church no matter how hard a church tries to get them in their doors. They are simply out of reach of the Conventional-Attractional-Mission style church. These are the people that I believe are on the hearts of the Incarnational-Missional focused church.
But here is where I think the hard part for most Conventional churches (and Christians) to see Incarnational approach as a viable expression of a church. It is not concrete in it's measurements. Attendance is not taken, offering is not counted, boxes are not checked on the welcome card, cars are not counted in the parking lot, programs are not developed.
So how is it measured? Where is the fruit? In my experience it is found in the daily rhythm of following Jesus. In living amongst people in their community as a member of an interdependent, Christ centered community, loving them, serving them, sharing the good news of Jesus Christ through word and more importantly through deed. As communities are effected the growth then comes from the native communities embracing Christ, choosing to follow Him in similar modes. It's about multiplication, not addition, and as we all know multiplication starts out slower but in the end it is infinitely more effective. It's about seeing another person follow Jesus. But as we all know there is not a "sinners prayer" that can be uttered and one can magically be converted into a "conversion" - in either styles of church. It is the moment someone believes in God's redemptive gift of Jesus and the Holy Spirit enters them as their counselor. This is a long journey for some and it is not a quick R.O.I. and since they are not sitting in a building each Sunday it is hard to measure.
Brenda has been counseling, meeting with, praying with, praying for, answering endless questions, loving, serving, laughing, and hurting with a woman for 2 years now. This woman still is not sure about God let alone Jesus. She still has doubts. She still has not come to the moment she believes. I have journeyed in similar ways with her husband. But some would say that Brenda and I should move on. If she isn't going to become a Christian after two years and start attending church then she isn't going to. However, when we read scripture and see the heart of God, we see a constant pursuit of our hearts from God with no time limit. What should we model for success?
I also believe that "doing ministry" or "being a Christian" is not all about converting others as a measurement of success. I think there is a major component of growth that seems to be notably absent from these type of conversations. Our growth. Our salvation. We are told in Philippians to "work
out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." What does that mean? It might be as simple as this couple will never be converted to a Jesus follower, and that may never be the point. Maybe the point is growth for Brenda and I as Christians. Maybe this couple will follow Jesus someday but it will be someone else that God will use to reap the harvest he has begun in them - through us. Bottom line is we are called to be faithful and work out our own salvation in this relationship with this couple. We are working to do God's will and I believe he does find pleasure in that.
So again, it is a different approach. It is a different set of measurements. It is a new generation. It is a new kind of church. If you put the Incarnational Mission Model up against the Attractional Mission Measurements, it will fail every time. But if you look at the Incarnational Mission as New Wine in New Wine Skins then you will see that there is a great deal of success and whole new biblical way of measuring that success that will far out way the church-growth-style of addition.
In Prince Caspian, Lucy was the only one to see Aslan at first, when they returned to Narnia, simply because she wanted to see him, she looked for him. The others only saw him after they reluctantly began the journey of following Lucy, who was following a visible Aslan. And through their experience and out of need, they slowly began to see him too and to realize that he was always there. In a similar vein, success in this new form of church can be seen as well when someone choose to believe it exists and stop looking at it through the old lenses of success.
So bottom line, it is not Conventional vs. Missional. But rather I believe it is Conventional (Attractional Mission) AND Missional (Incarnational Mission). But that's just me, what do yo think?
