I have been challenged and affirmed again in my belief that Missions is at the heart of what it means to be the church. Let me summerize the history of church planting in the last 50-60 years in America :
1) the 50’s t0 the 70’s (Building and Boom): This was a boom time in America. It was also the birth and boom of the suburbs, in which people fled the cities to populate new subdivisions. Of course, church planting mirrored culture. All these people and towns did not have churches. So church planting, more or less, became providing a service for those Christians moving out to the suburbs.
2) 70’s to the 90’s (Relevent and Attractional): In the race for the american dream (esp. the pursuit of money and worldly things), the influences of (pagan) society, and the advances of modernity- the church had a difficult time competing. For many, the church of their parents (Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, etc), became irrelevent, out of date, etc. Therefore, the churches of the 70’s and 80’s sought to become “relevent”. This then gave way to the mega-church phenomenon of the 90’s. As relevent became the goal, churches often times found themeselves mimicking buisness and entertainment. Hence, the emphais of church planting then (and now) in being relevant is to have the best music, programing, media, etc. The method was/is to attract people to church. Though geared towards “seekers”, this relevent style of church relied heavily upon churched people who grew frustrated with traditional upbringing.
Both of these past two models that we have inherited are based upon Christendom. In the 50’s and 60’s, church planting assumed that the church had a prominent and powerful role in society and that there were large crowds of Christians to draw upon, lead, organize, serve, etc. In the 80’s and 90’s, the modern mega-church assumed that there were still large populations of people that were raised in church and/or knew the language of church/the gospel. The focus then became in HOW we do church- communication, media/technology, the clothes we can wear, etc. Words like “new”, “relevant”, “fresh”, became why a person should attend that church. Advertising, rock bands, big screen TV’s, became very important. Though the “seeker” may have been the target- the attractional nature/method of church planting still assumed that the church had a prominent role in society, that most people knew the language of the gospel, and drew upon the millions of Americans that were raised in one form of church or another.
Church planting in post-Christendom: I am 26 and have spent the past 4 -8 years pretty in tune with youth and young adult culture. I am becoming more and more convinced that the assumptions of Christendom (and church methods built upon them) are not going to be effective in ministering to my generation. Let me be clear on two things:
1) Both these models/methods were great for their time and purpose. In no way do I want to put down these models of structuring church (this is the tendency of some missional/emergent- minded folks).
2) There are places and cultures where BOTH of these models are appropriate and vibrant. Christendom is still alive and well in large parts of America. Traditional and attractional church still make sense in a lot of cultures. Conversely, what I am about to suggest in regard to organic, missional church planting communities, will not make sense in certain parts of America (or parts of the world). (Traditional and attarctional methods of church still probably make sense in most parts of Indiana, Texas, and Holland, MI.)
That said, I really believe we need to be aware of where these methods and models do not make sense. We must be aware of the rapidly growing population of people who do not know the story, the language, church. We must begin to realize that no matter how great our band, or media, or building may be, these things are not effective in attarcting people (who don’t know the story, language, etc) to “church” in New York, Boston, Chicago, etc. In these places and in much of my generation, the mission cannot be to have the coolest church, best media, hippest music, or newest worship service. These things will become marginal, at best, to a generation that is broken and knows more about Brittney Spears than Jesus Christ.
Attractional, will and must, give way to missional. Missions will no longer be part of what the church does, it will be the church. Programs must decrease so that relationships/community increaces. Church structure and mission will not focus on novelty and communicating to/entertaining those who know the language, but ministering in organic and missional ways to the broken and sin-stained in their community.
Navigating culture today is tricky. Personally, I reckon I am situated in a culture that has one foot in Christendom and one foot in post-Christendom. The tensions of culture, generations, and church structure are great. And there is a danger in setting these things over and against each other. Yet it is so important that we continue to push forward, ask the questions, engage culture, rework assumptions, and be adimant about keeping the heart of God at the center of our church communities.
On that last note- about the heart of God being at the center of our church communities- I must again emphasize our need to wrestle with and take seriously the church as organic, missional communities. I worry that church leadership born out of the traditional and attractional methods, trust in their methods too much. Again, these models worked and still work today- but not for most of my generation. Sure, there are still boomers and kids of boomers raised in youth groups who know the language and can find refuge and strength in these churches. But our population is dwindling and I fear extinction is on the horizon.
But if you walk into a bar or high school somewhere in the city and strike up a conversation… I think we will begin to see that traditional and attractional must give way to missional.
Agree? Disagree?
January 25th, 2008 by 
Dan Hinz 
3 Comments »
