From The Shaping of Things to Come:
Right up front we want to confess our belief that the planting of new, culturally diverse, missional communities is the best way forward for the church that views itself in a missional context. The challenging context in which we live in the West requires that we adopt a fully missional stance. While some established churches can be revitalized, success seems to be rare from our experience and perspective. We believe that the strategic focus must now shift from revitalization to mission, i.e. from a focus on the "insiders" to the "outsiders"; and in so doing we believe the church will rediscover its true nature and purpose. Perhaps an established church can plant a missional congregation within its broader church structures. Others might sponsor and support the planting of new congregations on their doorstep to reach those not interested in the conventional church. But it does seem to us that the real hope lies with those courageous leaders who will foster the development of alternative, experimental, new communites of faith.
If Frost and Hirsch are right, where does that leave many of us who are currently trying to revitalize established churches?
Who says they are right? :)
I think they are partially right. I think they are right that a missional church is needed in the western world. I think they are right in seeing some of the differences in what a missional church can accomplish.
But, I think they are wrong if they think missional church should be the only paradigm.
We do not need one paradigm to rule them all. That's the very problem the church needs to recover from.
I think what they are saying is that the Christendom church has lost its missional edge and has become a pastoral situation. In that there is little hope for it. People focused on self wil rarely be missional. No - we don't need one paradigm to rule all, but we need churches that value mission much higher than they have done
Where does it leave you?...
Following God's call I believe. I would go back to an est church if God called me. It would be dificult but at the end of the day for me that's the only deal.
Wow! That is a loaded question. My current denomination has been attempting to revitalize from within. In the last three or four years, they have been providing resources to help bring about change. In fact, this year, Leonard Sweet was the keynote speaker at our annual meeting.
They have done some wonderful things for us, but it just don't seem to get down to the pew. Or, possible they are not listening.
I'm not sure that things can be changed within without a major awakening. I think they, for the most part, are going to be what they are and they are okay with that.
I disagree with them on this one. I think all efforts to be missional are valid and difficult to be successful.
When Mike and Alan say that in their experience established Churches rarely succeed in transitioning to missional is true BUT it is also true for new church plants in Australia.
Both are hard in my opinion and both rarely succeed.
I also think this - the skills of the church planter are not necessarily the same as those of the church "revitaliser". I think that it is to be expected that church planters believe that the future lies in church planting and that church revitalisers believe that the future lies in revitalising churches.
I also think that some of the skills and resources that go into church planting haven't been addressed to church revitalisation with the same energy. So maybe that is part of the answer too.
I agree with Phil & Dan that we need both - but where you stand seems to determine what you see.
As one planting a new church I am tempted to see this as the only way forward. My friends in existing churches are obviously there because they believe in what they are about so they see that as the key.
As usual its a probably both / and!
Just recently picked this book up. Obviously it will be provocative.
One thing I will say for now, I don't think there is anyone writing about the "missional church" thing who believes it is merely an alternative paradigm or another option. I think the main point is a shift in ecclesiology that says the Church IS missional by nature. That means there may be alternative ways of being missional (large vs. small, I vote small) but not whether or not you are missional.
Kevin I believe is on to the key when he wrote:
"We do not need one paradigm to rule them all. That's the very problem the church needs to recover from".
that is truly the very problem i think the new emerging churches face. the fact that the established will not come beside them and bless, equip and release them to "go into all the world" what i mean is that birthing new churches should be a part of the DNA of all churches. once again it's not "either or but both and" let's search for ways to equip and release each other in order that the world may know we are one.
Peace
Hi all
I stumbles upon this discussion so I thought I'd post a comment. What we are saying is not that revitalisation is not a valid option, but that it is not neccesarily the STRATEGIC one in this time in which we live. The vast majority of the churches total resource (dollars, buildings, training, denominational services, etc. are dedicated to doing precicely revitalization work. We wrote the book to validate the missing strategy...namely that of new faith communities built squarely on missional grounds. The question I want to ask is, why do people in existing churches get so upset if someone says something that seems to point in another direction? Existing churches have most of the resource already?! Why I think it is important to tip the balance in favour of the new is because it it is the new experiments that the church might well find models for the future revitalisation of the church.