Attractional/Missional: From Pragmatics to Formation

Perhaps a case of talking past one another! We are shaving some things pretty thin. I am referring to discipleship as it is understood in the US, not how Jesus understood it, but even then, Jesus didn't tell the disciples to create schools around their own teachings, but communities around a resurrected messiah. Pretty awesome and here we agree. In my mind, being disciple-centric is played out in parachurch discipleship ministries that do not follow the whole commission out in baptizing people into missional community, i.e. the church. Good interacting. Merriest of Christmases!

Appreciate the exchange myself. Helpful to engage these ideas with someone else with a heart for church (or gospel) planting. Seems like there may just be too many presumptions we are coming to the table with to really be clear through a medium like this. Far from being a corrective, I actually think the missional conversation has been the champion of the centrality of spiritual formation precisely because it de-individualizes it and returns it to its proper place, the body of Christ (think Hauerwas, Willimon, and Yoder here). On discipleship and ecclesiology - here's the better conversation I was talking about. I would say that there is no such thing as churchless Christianity or individualistic discipleship - both (to my mind) stem from a flawed understanding of both Christianity and discipleship. Uh... the great commission (Go and make disciples) is not disciple-centric? I must be confused by what you mean here. Who has gospel commitments for church and mission but followers of Jesus (disciples)? I am all for a holistic ecclesiology, and yes Paul planted churches, but what is a church but a committed fellowship of disciples? Because of some of the confusion of terms and concepts nowadays, I might prefer to say that Paul sought to cultivate communities of Jesus followers capable of living out the good news of the Kingdom. Again, thanks for your contributions.

JR, I completely agree with you. You're definitely talking about the tension I've felt and wrestled with since doing my studies in spiritual formation. It was hard coming back to the South after that (particularly my previous church) and seeing that there just wasn't much place for it within the current structure and mission of our megachurch society and expectations. But in my limited viewpoint, I really didn't see the city being overly impressed with all of our efforts to be cool and relatable. We may have attracted a few people from other churches who thought we were cooler, but I don't think the locals thought we were as cool as we thought we were. (And there are actually very few churches I know of who are able to completely let go of this desire to appear cool and hip, whether it be for attractional reasons or just wanting to project a certain image...."missional" churches included. I'm really tired and annoyed at the main questions not being "what is the most formational for our souls?" and "How can we create a space to allow the Spirit to move?" Anyway, you said it way better than me, but I just wanted to offer a "here, here!!!" to everything, comments included.

Thanks for the irenic exchange, JR. I'm not with you on this formational stuff. Formation can be an idol just as easy as anything else, in fact, missional movement has been a great corrective to the overemphasis on spiritual formation. Spiritual formation and discipleship are typically individualistic, not church-focused, so I'm struggling with your language and emphasis. If you have a source or influence on this, I'm open to understanding your line of thinking more. I warmly disagree. Making disciples doesn't sum up good ecclesiology. The churchless Christianity movement and individualistic discipleship in the U.S. are both proof that disciple-centric approaches often do not lead to healthy churches. The Great Commission is not disciple-centric, but grows out of gospel commitments into church and mission focuses. Disciples that are made are to be taught to obey (apostolicity) baptized into the community of faith (community), making more disciples to the end of the age (reproducibilty). The confluence of Gospel (apostolicity), Community (Church), and Mission (reproducility), I believe, constitute a more holistic ecclesiology. After all, Paul planted churches not disciples. To be sure, he made disciples but he planted churches. His gospel was community-focused, not discipleship-focused.

All for turning to Scripture. Of course missional communities aren't prescribed, but love of God, love of neighbor, (Mt. 22) and making disciples (Mt. 28) are - things which require not will power, but formation. On top of this, it seems to me that everything Paul was about was the cultivation of communities that reflected the character of Jesus; again, a formational process. The church-as-convert-factory phenomenon which dominates our culture is a byproduct of the church's uncritical adoption of Enlightenment individualism and rationalism. This is why spiritual formation, as I understand it, is the fundamental criteria for evaluating church models. Lest they become our new idols, community, apostolicity, and reproducibility, are only valuable inasmuch as they serve to help people become more like Jesus. I wish I knew more about FGC. I am really seeking to limit my comments to Western culture and the distorted sense of success that the Westerization of the church has given yielded. Maybe it would be easier to say it this way: if you are making disciples you have a good ecclesiology; if you're not, you don't. Granted, this opens up the conversation of, "What does a disciple look like?" But man, that's a way better conversation in my opinion.

Thanks, JR. I'm not sure that formation alone should be the criteria whereby we evaluate the appropriateness of church forms. I would recommend that we use three related things for evaluating church forms---community (true body life), apostolicity (historic orthodoxy), and reproducibility (mission). Not all megachurches ask the wrong questions. The largest church in the world, The Full Gospel Church of Yongii Korea was doing spiritually formative cell groups long before missional communities came in vogue. Not all megachurches are created equal. Some have great cell or small group driven community, others do not. The pastor of FGC is very concerned about spiritual formation, and his little book on cell groups helped spark a movement. Perhaps you could elaborate on this "formative" criteria? Where are you getting that from? What does it mean? Again, I think we need to turn to Scripture on this matter. Where in Scripture are missional communities prescribed as the way to be and do church? It seems that Paul has plenty of room for various forms and expressions of the church, as did the early church fathers. House churches, city churches, synagogue churches, and so on.

Hey Jonathan, didn't mean to misrepresent your position, in fact, I meant to link to that other post which I thought was great. I am all for the flexibility of church forms, just suggesting that the fundamental criteria for their validity is formation, not cultural appropriateness. I write off megachurch as a model because it results from asking the wrong questions. If someone wants to make a case for a megachurch ecclesiology specifically because it is well suited for the spiritual formation of a people, I am all ears, but I have just never come across anyone who has tried to make this case, have you?

Hi JR, Thanks for trying to pull this all together. Unfortuantely, I think you've misunderstood my position by excerpting one post among many. I, in fact, agree that the debate around methods is misguided and that the gospel should, to an extent, determine our church forms. I wrote: 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. Our gospel determines, to some degree, our contextualization. However, church forms have been flexible throughout church history and throughout Scripture. There are no mandates for the church to meet in one form or preach in one specific way in the Bible. Therefore, it is important that we retain a level of ecclesiological flexibility in order to contextualize an inflexible gospel. Every model is open to critique, but should be done so through the lens of the gospel, not preferred methods. Some models are more theologically acceptable than others, but writing off a megachurch carte blanche is not acceptable.