m-i v. e-a
From the digram in the last post we can see the ‘sneeze-like’ nature of the missional impulse in the diagram. But the diagram also enables us to see how exactly it is that we have inhibited this outward flowing movement. The Christendom template tends to bolt down this missional impulse by substituting it with an attractional one. So while the local church does genuinely do forms of evangelism and outreach, because it measures effectiveness through numerical growth, better programming, and increase of plant and resources, it requires the attractional impulse to support it. The exchange is subtle but profound and the net effect is to unwittingly block the outward bound movement that is built-in to the gospel. Instead of being sown to the wind, the seeds are put into ecclesial storehouses thus effectively extinguishing the purpose they were made for. Or to go back to the sneeze metaphor…we suppress the ‘sneeze’ by holding back the impulse to sneeze in the first place. And because of this, it quite simply can never hope to impact the broader culture as Jesus movements are able to. This is an attempt to try portray the evangelistic attractional mode….
Forgotten Ways, The: Reactivating the Missional Church - Alan Hirsch
Forgotten Ways Handbook, The: A Practical Guide for Developing Missional Churches - Alan Hirsch, Darryn Altclass
ReJesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church - Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch
The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21 Century Church - Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch
I completely agree. The evangelistic-attractional impulse is an other-self impulse. There is a huge difference between reaching out to grow your church vs. reaching out because your heart breaks for those missing out on life with Christ.
The root issue is dying to self, both individually and corporately.
/\
II totally
In fact the E-A is almost un-biblical because it so easily becomes about self, success, influence and status.
If you truly love in a Christ like way you forsake anything for the sake of serving others therefore your own culture/needs/desires are not as important as those of others
Unfortunately I can’t help but think that the biggest blockage in the release of so many incarnational-missionaries currently trying to passionately follow Christ in the church is a love for/addiction to the forms of church that they we’re saved into/brought up in.
Almost ironically the practice of the giving up of ones own natural habitat/tendencies for the sake of reaching out to others is just so like Jesus
But guys, we must concede that for the most part, E-A churches are sincere and well-intentioned. Most senior leaders I know want to make a difference for the Lord. My point is that there is something in the ‘idea’ of church itself that locks up the missional-incarnational impulse and limits the churches reach to M0 - M1 (within the same cultural distance.
IMHO, there are at least two concerns that have severly limited our ability to follow the “sneeze” pattern and reach beyond M0-M1. The first is a concern with right theology. In many ways, we have come to misinterpret “discipleship” as being limited to or at least significantly tied to right theology. Therefore, we have to control and approve the theology of those who come to Christ.
Secondly, we have misunderstood the nature of the church or perhaps I should say church health. Many, many within denominational contexts speak of church health. Sadly, none of the indicators of church health have to do with this aspect of sending, they all relate to an attractional model.
Yes Nick! Too right.
You mean its not only me who thinks that we keep everything too tight, even while being sincere and well-intentioned. Yeah!!
Sorry Alan first time commenter, can you tell me if you discuss this in one of your books or is it to be found in a forthcoming release?
The parameters of church health I work with, (and for example some like the Baptist churches here are dealing with) are perfectly transferrable to organic and incarnational church, namely healthy self awareness, awareness of group dynamics, healthy communication, healthy decision making, handling disagreements well, clear role expectations, and covenanting for health. I would add into that looking at the missional stance of the church (sending out v. gathering in) and the whole package as being absolutely vital for the survival of new plants, and embedded in a foundation of relational holiness.
A-E church meant personal and relational holiness didn’t much matter for ordinary Christians, and leaders could use a coercive, win-lose style because the structures allowed and expected it. We’ve ended up with so many people hurt and alienated by bad behaviour in the church they are a measurable percentage of the population. For the church to start equipping, empowering and sending out ordinary believers, we first need to recover being able to imagine what holiness looks like and internalise the belief it is possible to get there, and it’s possible to make safe and genuinely reconciliation and peacemaking focussed gatherings in which Christ can be seen. That’s how I’m reading this. Am I off course?
DAvid, every now and again (and now is the again) we blog through selections the material in The Forgotten Ways. So, this is all there. Thanks for visiting.
Ok, I wrote this incredibly long and brilliant response and when I posted I got an error message
You’ll have to trust me on the brilliant part. Here is a long, but shorter-than-the-original version.
In a nutshell, the “idea of church” that results in locking up the missional-incarnational impulse has as its fundamental flaw a focus on self.
I think this is the core issue we face. Will we die to self? Will we deny ourselves(corporately as a body of believers), pick up our cross (an instrument of death that alone leads to life both for us and others), and follow him (into the mission field)?
I see constant decisions from the local church level to the denominational level that say, “no, we won’t.” In best cases, these decisions flow unconsciously out of a very narrow institutional understanding of church (how does this add members, increase income, etc. etc.). In worst cases, there is understanding of the missional call but such a path is rejected because it requires a dying to self.
Paradoxically, and tragically, when we refuse to die to self, we just die.
Don, I agree. In the tradition of the denomination I’m linked with, Wesleyan Holiness spirituality is valued. So people bang on about how we should all surrender to God , and through both crisis and process, become holy. But if you are a lay person in an attractional church, why bother? It isn’t as if you are actually going to be pointed to any meaningful service in the church. So why be holy? Holiness is for the minister. Along with that goes all the selfless commitment. Again, why go through the selfless commitment stuff and go out pioneering in some kind of ministry if as a lay person you are going to have to fight the established church for the privilege of doing it? This has huge implications for congregations that want to transition to m-i stance.
The other thing that has struck me heavily in the last few days is that can’t do incarnational ministry effectively unless we heal our image of GOd. We don’t have to become universalist or dispense with the basic understanding we are saved through Christ, but we do have to go out bearing within us a formed understanding of a God who is love. It is dawning on me that churches that have relied on and supported inappropriate coercive authority for a long time have generated believers who see God as judgemental and coercive. The picture of God that emerges if you scrape the surface is pretty nasty. You can get away with this in established a-e churches, and even thrive with it. But go out there missionally-incarnationally and you are bad news.
Eleanor, goooood insights. Part of the problem of the institutional church is that it underscores the clergy-laity divide. In fact it almost needs it to survive. And this in turn distorts our understanding of God, church, and mission.
Thanks Alan for tonite. Everything around me keeps confirming my intense desire to live missionally in whatever I do.
I’m holding you to that beer the next time you are around!
Dosen’t much of this come down to our desire for proof? As witnesses we look for evidence of God to lead us missionally. Collectively this evidence builds a case for Jesus and reveals Him in all things.
When Jesus was dying on the cross, it seems like some were gathered to see a manifestation. Trying to prolong His life in hopes He may perform, come down, an indicator, that would prove who He is.
Many of the things I see in the institutional church are a defensive mechanism to protect what only God can. It sounds like the testing regarding the missional movement has been about proof and authenticity. However, dosen’t defense many times lead us to question the intent of anothers heart? Maybe being defensive is one of the things that puts us in the spectator box. At least for myself I must plead guilty.
John 19:36
, I wonder is this is what Jesus meant.
Hey, speaking of defense, I didn’t know christians could drink beer?! I’ve been living on only a thimble full of wine!
Pen, its not the Christians can drink beer that is the issue, it’s that they should. We are way too uptight without it!
Amen Alan, Amen. A beer over talk of the Creator of the Universe. Nothing better.
A good prescription to slow down. My last post was suppose to be John 18:36
.
Maybe one of you can piece together a dilemma on this I’m going through… I’m a house church guy. It had been dream for years to start house churches, and finally I got the guts to try it. Our model was more attractional than I’d care to admit, yet nonetheless we were experience 80% of our growth via conversions/seeker participation.
One year in, and everything seemingly working well in terms of God’s purposes, God saw fit to remove me from that vocation (long story) and send me to a church that explicitly professes an attractional model. The greatest irony is that one of my roles is facility renovation/development. A number of occasions I’ve told God how dumb I think it is to work on attracting people through the doors of this building. He replied a few months ago through a random donation of $25,000 from outside our church, specifically designated for improving the facility.
It’s killing a house church guy like myself to invest in a building, but I’m trying to stay humble enough to learn how God intends it to be part of the mission. One idea I’m playing around with is a double use facility – community center by week, church by weekend. I’m looking for more ideas. I’m also looking for whether or not I’ve settle for and E-A copout.
Brian, all I can do is pray! Why not go search out churches that have blended both approaches and see how they work it out in practice? Will Alan Roxborough know of examples? He encourages leaders to turn around A-E churches rather than abandon them, and there are arguments to go in whatever direction God can work in. Can you work the resources to train church members who can do it to go out in M-I ministry turning to the ‘mother ship’ for training, encouraging, reflection, development?
Alan, I have to add the comment, glass in hand, attributed to Howard Peskett, recently retired (Vice Principal?) of a leading theological college here in the UK re lay ministry. ‘Clergy are like corks in a bottle needing to be popped.’ (grins)
Thanks for the ideas Eleanor. I’ll caps look into what I can find on Alan Roxborough.
Eleanor,
I think that you are spot about our view of God is broken in the church.Church people see an angry Father punishing The Son on a cruel cross just to appease his/her sense of Justice. Jesus seems like a good guy taking the punishment and the Father as an angry dicator.
Alot of times taught about structure changes but what the issue is the message that we practice and preach.
The problem with traditional churches is their message of Angry God that loves us. I am so sure that if the message changes to an loving Father so will the structures.