Category: Missional Church

In the News: Austin Church Planting and City Renewal

Posted on December 14, 2008

The Austin Statesman ran a piece on downtown churches that are committed to renewing the city. The cool thing is that Eileen connected it to other church planting efforts in our local network PlantR.org. Here’s an excerpt:

Some are part of a local church planting network that includes about 40 leaders who aim to spread the message of Jesus throughout the city — not just within the walls of already established churches — and to be a renewing presence both socially and spiritually. These churches are cropping up all over the Austin area, but for some leaders, downtown venues hold a particular appeal.

Similar efforts are happening in cities such as Minneapolis and Seattle where church leaders have established sanctuaries in downtown bars, coffeehouses and warehouses.

Jonathan Dodson, pastor of Austin City Life, said his congregation chooses to worship on “common cultural ground,” the idea being “the church goes to the city. The city does not go to the church.”

Oh, and Austin City Life is covered in about a third of the article. Read the rest here.

Wrong Debate: Missional vs. Attractional

Posted on December 13, 2008

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.

When is a Missional Community a Church?

Posted on December 12, 2008

This is an important question: “When is a missional community a church?” It gets at the root of our essential ecclesiology—what makes church, church. Some would emphasize the presence of elders, others would emphasize the presence of people, others the gospel and sacraments, still others a people on mission. Where do you fall? When are missional communities considered churches? When are missional core teams considered “a church”?

Check out the answers to this question here.