Neil Cole has a three part response to Dan Kimball’s Missional Misgivings. There is some lengthy exchange that covers very little distance in their multi-comment conversation; however, this gem emerged from Cole’s final post:
A global survey conducted by Christian Schwartz found that smaller churches consistently scored higher than large churches in seven out of eight qualitative characteristics of a healthy church. A more recent study of churches in America, conducted by Ed Stetzer and Life Way Ministries, revealed that churches of two hundred or less are four times more likely to plant a daughter church than churches of one thousand or more.
So churches of 200 plant more often than churches of a 1000, but they will have to plant 5xs as many churches to reach the one thousand of the megachurch. Methods, methods, methods. We are in the wrong debate. We don’t need to be debating mega vs. micro, attractional vs. organic/incarnational. This is a methods driven conversation, and if we have learned anything from the history of missions it is that God uses a variety of church models to bring in the lost sheep of his kingdom. For a moment, just stretch the conversation beyond America. House churches are immensely effective in China and mega churches incredibly effective in Korea. When it comes to methods, context is king, unless your contextualization of the gospel compromises the its theological integrity, in which case it is no longer contextualization but syncretism.
What we need to be debating is the strength of the gospel that is being preached, taught, shared, and shown in our churches. Are we incarnating and attracting people to a diluted gospel or a strong gospel? Are we incarnating kitsch gospel or kerygmatic gospel? In the end, what are we calling people to? Is our gospel both missional and communal or inward and individualistic? If the latter, then something is wrong with our gospel. Let’s stop debating methods and start debating gospel. Let’s refine the gospel seed we are sowing in America for the sake of our country, our future, and our Lord.
24 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 13, 2008 at 5:10 am
Missional vs. Attractional is the Wrong Debate « Creation Project
[...] | Tags: attractional, church growth, Gospel-centered Church, Missional, missional church | here. [...]
December 13, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Ryan Joy
I couldn’t agree more, I have been saying the same thing for months. I lean toward the missional model simply because I feel that my generation seeks something more authentic, organic, and community based. There are others that lean toward an attractional program based model, and that is fine to, so long as people are growing in faith.
For now there is a need to both attractional and missional.
December 13, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Dan Strong
Well said JD. As you point out, the methodological debate often not only distracts from but also replaces the gospel debate.
December 13, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Neil Cole
Dan, the thing is you have to think about the multiplication element. It is not just a single generation of church plants that we should be content with. The ten organic church plants that make up the 120 people that a single church plant out of a attractional church have, would even up in the same way as 2+2=4 and 2X2=4. It is as you go further down the process that the results become vastly different.
The ten organic churches will multiply far easier than the 120 member attractional church. And the third and fourth generation will pick up the momentum to another notch.
Like having to push a stalled car at the top of a hill, at first it takes a lot of muscle and only moves a few inches. As it starts to roll down hill gravity and momentum take over and the speed and distance pick up drastically. It is that way with a multiplicative movement. Slow and small at first…but far outdistances addition with multiple generations.
December 13, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Neil Cole
Oh, btw, I had a few more posts to the discussion, not just three.
December 14, 2008 at 3:26 am
Jonathan Dodson
I’ll be sure to check them out. I appreciate your thinking, Neil, and agree with you point about organic multiplication. Any thoughts on bringing the debate back to the gospel?
December 14, 2008 at 8:42 am
Jacob Vanhorn
Great post Jonathan. Not to debate with Cole on the methodology, but I have only seen the multiplication he is speaking of in smaller, organic churches in reasonably few circumstances. The math works, but the execution seems to be up for debate.
That brings me back to the gospel with you. Methodology should be diverse, but always shaped and characterized by the gospel.
December 14, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Neil Cole
I wholly agree that we need a discussion about the gospel, adn that more talk about models of church is a lower priority. Perhaps I will post some thoughts about that now on my blog at your prodding.
That said, just because we have not seen much multiplication yet doesn’t mean we should forget about it. Should we just resign to addition then? Let the lost world multiply while we fill our church halls with consumeristic Christians one hour a week? I don’t think so.
I believe we are seeing the beginning of a multiplication movement. And I, for one will not be content with less. Read my last entry on Misguided Misgivings.
December 14, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Neil Cole
Jonathan, I meant to post one of your comments on my blog that would send more people over hear, but on my iPhone I hit the reject button instead of the accept button and it was lost in cyber space. Feel free to send it again.
December 14, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Neil Cole
While methodology can be diverse, if something is preventing the release of empowered followers and creating a bottleneck we should not continue to do that should we?
I am not just talking about models, by the way, it is mindsets that are killing us. It is the exaltation of clergy roles and superstar, celebrity pastors that is stunting our growth. It is the idea that church is only a once a week religious ceremony that is killing us. It is the principle that most have secular jobs just to make money to feed their family and give to the church rather than having a holy calling themselves to bring God’s kingdom (the Gospel) into their work place that is keeping the church sidelined in our society. These are important ideas and not just a discussion about methodology. And I do not agree that all methodology is alike. Certainly models are secondary to the Gospel, but not irrelevant.
You are right when you say that the only place you are seeing such multiplication is in smaller organic churches. The ONLY place you will ever find multiplication is in the smallest elements of a body. Your cells multiply. Your body parts do not, except that the cells that make up your body parts multiply. You body itself only multiplies at the cellular level.
Trying to multiply a body by cutting off an appendage and sticking it in new soil will not work. All life multiplies at the smallest unit possible, not the complex. Trying to multiply a church by starting a new worship service is like trying to give birth to a new baby without any conception, or invitro development first. We are not born fully complex creatures without first having developed from a single fertilized cell.
Pray for a true multiplication movement rather than disregard it as impossible in our culture. I am so sick of people saying it only works in China. I have never heard that from anyone other than people who are sold out to a model that will not multiply because it is too complex and preacher-centric.
The wine (Gospel) is most important, but the wineskins are necessary. Some are better than others.
December 15, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Jonathan Dodson
I look forward to your reflections on the Gospel debate in church planting. On the methods note, I agree that there are some methods that are better than others, both in missiology and theology, with respect to context and the Bible. However, all too often debate is concerned with church forms, not in the gospel formation of our disciples. I know you share that concern, and I look forward to reading your remarks.
December 15, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Jonathan Dodson
See this post for more on my response to ORganic methodology.
December 15, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Neil Cole on Organic Church « Church Planting Novice
[...] In an effort to extend church planting discussion beyond model-based debate, I wrote this Wrong Debate: Attractional vs. Missional. Neil Cole has weighed in consistently, offering some insight on Organic Church and hopes to post [...]
December 16, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Jacob Vanhorn
I am strongly committed to multiplication rather than addition as well, but my primary point concerning cells multiplying in a strictly cell model is that it does not seem to have the results in America that the math projects. As much as I do not want us to to advance the gospel by mere addition, I don’t think we should rely on multiplication models that are not multiplying. I think there are some who have fallen in love with the math.
You have said that we need to reconsider the mega-pastor model, as you know there are many ‘mega-pastors’ whose churches are growing and planting many churches. Do they promote an unsustainable model for mere average pastors? Yes, but only if the mega-model is an idol that is clung to.
I would advocate a spirit-led, gifts understood, contextually appropriate approach to determining the appropriate model.
The truth is that our context is where we find ourselves. We can’t just grab a Chinese model because it multiplies and claim it is the best, while in a similar region of the world the mega-church seems to be working in South Korea. Different contexts (persecution), giftings and spirit leadings.
That being said we do have many who lead churches in idolatry, who see other churches and young pastors as threats. That is their sin.
Neil, please keep writing and advocating (as you will) because it does put pressure on many of us to reconsider our methods. We have sought to consider our methods and we are fighting to build our local church on missional communities while understanding that the Sunday gathering and sermon has a place in our context and giftings.
Along with others, I grow weary of seeing models traded and grabbed onto by men who lack spirit-led, context sensitive, gifts aware discernment. I also grow weary of model/method addicts (cell church or Sunday based) advocating that our model is deficient because we have a Sunday gathering and a sermon when they don’t understand our model. For me it is akin to the young hypercalvinist that must convince everyone of his new doctrine.
May the gospel go forward through whichever manner it pleases Christ to do and the Holy Spirit to empower.
Thanks again so much for your writing and influence.
December 17, 2008 at 10:06 am
Mark CE
I don’t think Neil Cole is advocating the cell model as such.
A church operating a cell model can be just as “attractional” in its philosophy as a so-called mega church – attractional because its growth methodology requires the members to “get people to come” (Inwardly Add) to the cells.
On the other hand a very large congregation can have a truly “missional” philospohy by using its huge Sunday gathering as a time of equipping members for a 24/7 out there growth methodology: not aiming to “get more people to the gathering” but allowing the gospel to spread (Outwardly Multiply) in a salt-and-yeast-like way… releasing growth completely outside the mega-pastor’s control!
On a separate point, I think that church models are more than wine skins. I think that a model is intimately connected with the gospel understanding behind it. Many of our ecclesiological models unintentionally place “the church: leadership and doctrine” between the so-called unbeliever and Christ. “Believe what We Believe, Do what We Do, Join Us – and you shall be Saved.” (in whatever order – the ‘belong-believe-behave’ mantra makes exactly the same We Own The Gospel statement in a different sequence).
December 18, 2008 at 1:56 pm
gospel and method. « lovebound
[...] our Lord. from a conversation that is sparked on jonathon dodson’s blog. read the whole thing here…. seriously… go do [...]
December 18, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Scott in Vegas
…great discussion that more people need to hear and read about, and consider…
… I linked it back to http://www.newchurchreport.com to share it with others – thanks!
December 19, 2008 at 12:59 am
D
I agree that the debate between “misional” vs. “attractional” is a distraction, and missing the point, but I think it has served it’s purpose as a smokescreen from some of the real underlying issues present regarding the institutional church.
Debating methods may be petty and divisive, but it is not merely a matter of debating method when it comes to the matter of how the majority of modern churches compell their congregants to pay into the system by twisting scriptures, reinstituting dead OT practices, and guilt-tripping people into putting money into the plate.
No, such a conversation is not a pointless debate about methods, but a very serious discussion on stealing. God may use all kinds of churches and sizes of gatherings to do His will, but fallen men also use God’s word towards their own aims.
If people are convinced that they need big buildings, and professional speakers, and a big staff, then that’s their choice. What is not a matter of preference is the matter of where the dollars come from. People all over the world, every Sunday, are told that they are not in God’s will if they are not giving money to a local 501c3, and that is just plain wrong…
If the Holy Spirit was so angry at Annanias and Saphira for lying about how much money they gave, I wonder how He feels about the millions of people being lied to from pulpits all around the world today about what God says about giving….
December 19, 2008 at 6:38 am
Church Planting on a 50/50 Gospel « Church Planting Novice
[...] theology, ecclesiology | Tags: american ecclesiology, michael horton, missional church In recent posts and comment interaction we have tried to expose a certain fruitlessness in the debate regarding [...]
December 22, 2008 at 6:49 pm
The 50/50 Gospel - II « Church Planting Novice
[...] church, Organic Church In an effort to recenter church methods debate back onto the gospel, I recently proposed that we should be debating teh strength of our gospel, not the effectivenss of our methods. There [...]
December 22, 2008 at 11:08 pm
50/50 or 100 Percent Gospel? « Creation Project
[...] an effort to recenter church methods debate back onto the gospel, I recently proposed that we should be debating the strength of our gospel, not the effectiveness of our methods. There [...]
December 24, 2008 at 5:42 pm
andrew
hate to be really pragmatic but when i was 21, i planted my first house church on the misson field. We had ZERO budget so an attractional based church – with a building/budget/salary/etc – was simply out of the question.
today, over 20 years later, mission teams that come overseas are in a similar situation – get the job done with available resources. which is close to none. but totally doable anyway, and the result is something that is SUSTAINABLE as it multiplies into many more churches.
but there will always be a place for attractional models, but usually not as the first wave of mission in a pioneer area.
December 24, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Jonathan Dodson
I’m with you on that, Andrew, as I’ve done a fair bit of cross-cultural missions and church planting related stuff in SE Asia. I’d be curious to hear what you think about the Gospel posts.
December 29, 2008 at 9:57 pm
on church-planting: 5 W’s (and 1 H)
[...] The how focus: Here is where the battle for ecclesiological models comes into play. The planter will generally begin to idolize their model over and against others and use every means possible to use biblical texts to justify their model/method as the prescribed one. Entering into this debate often leads us to seeking answers to the wrong questions! [...]