I think there is some tangible references out there that address’s this very question it’s called the Reveal Survey.. I took it .. and it’s right on..

http://ht.salemweb.net/oneplace/mp3/2819232/wi20081207.mp3?siteid=Podcast

1) This is a great question. I know that Pastor B has a very comprehensive sense of “church health” (these are real people, BTW) which would include, the growth members spiritually into the image of Christ, the reproduction of leadership, a positive social impact on the neediest populations of the surrounding city, multiplication of church plants, a growing sense of ethnic and socio-economic diversity reflected in the church membership, a hospitable environment for visitors, and, of course, numerical growth. I think most of the commenters here would embrace a similarly holistic definition – even if we disagreed on certain points.

2) I’m so glad you shared this perspective because your story is important, and your point is as well. I hope I’ve written in such a way here as to reflect my profound respect for Pastor B’s church, because, although I do think there are serious problems inherent with an attractional model, I by no means want to disregard the amazing ministry provided by the best of those kinds of churches.

3) That is the million-dollar missional-leadership question as far as I’m concerned : )

I wholeheartedly agree with you that everyone needs the opportunity to fully express their gifts. However, gifts are given and received in a dynamic reciprocity that helps negotiate relationships between people. In such a relational economy it’s vital that we are free to both give and receive. If one person does all the giving (or receiving) then there isn’t really equality. One person may be a great teacher, but if they do all the talking in a class or small group they’ve created a system of dominance by being the most “generous giver.” Most of us have been in groups where this happened.

So…in the interests of transparency I’ll just admit that I’m currently caught in the tension of two beliefs: a) That some gifts really are more important than others (a recent and reluctant conclusion), and b) That gifts can (and usually do) become a means of oppression when they’re allowed to dominate.

I think what Pastor A is trying to do is establish a relational economy of relative equality among the core group before fully expressing those gifts which might otherwise tend to dominate – particularly because they’re the kind of gifts which play upon the passive-consumer tastes of Americans.

Wonderful comments Candyce.I hope you contribute more in the future!

As I read, I’d like to throw a couple of questions out there.

1) When we say, “healthy church,” whose health are we talking about? Are we talking about what’s healthiest for leaders? Healthiest for people who are invested but maybe not in a “leadership” role? Healthiest for people who aren’t yet following Jesus but checking things out (realizing this is a very diverse group of people; what might draw an upscale yuppie in an urban context might not draw a soccer mom in the burbs)? Healthiest for transforming a neighborhood? I’m not exactly sure those are all the same.

2) This is less a question and more of a point. I’ve been involved in a couple of different very large churches in the past. Church X had growth that was very much driven by the gifts of the senior pastor, with more people coming for the “show” than involved in some of the very good things that were also happening there. This person left after some of the unhealthy structures (lack of accountability, mostly) yielded scandal as fruit, and the church shrunk dramatically. Yuck. But Church Y, though not perfect by any means and not likely to fit someone’s definition of “missional,” has had a long track record and reputation in its region as being a place that is after people who are far from God, a place that is on a mission to help the broken and the poor. I landed there for a while a few years back. I was very broken, and I experienced a lot of healing there that I’m not sure I would have experienced somewhere that didn’t have the same resources, if that makes sense. It was a very healthy place for me to be. So megachurches aren’t all one in the same.

3) Is it healthy for the church (or for individuals) if people aren’t fully utilizing their gifts? What are those gifts (whether it’s more behind-the-scenes or more up-front) given for if not for the sake of the church? I’m all for “everybody gets to play.” But not for “some people shouldn’t play so hard so it makes others comfortable getting on the field.” Is that even what “Pastor A” is trying to do, or am I getting that wrong? Is there room for excellence and creativity in a missional context?

Instead, let us look at percentages. For example, if you are leading a rural church of 40 people in a community of 1000 people – then you have 4% of the population. However, if you are a church of 2000 in a town of 500,000 – then your church only has 0.4% of the population. Which group has the “biggest” impact of the life of the community? The one with 4% of the population or 0.4%?

In the same, you can look at the number of people in the church are actually serving and joining into the community of the church. If you are a mega-church of 2000 and you have 200 volunteers – that is only 10% of the church actually ‘being’ the church. The smaller church of 40 may only have 15 volunteers actively involved in ministry – which while smaller in number, actually represents 37.5% of the church body. Which group is doing the better job making disciples?

How about conversations? A mega-church pastor could boast about ‘saving’ 100 people over the course of the year. While that sounds like a high number, it is only 5% of the church community – meaning that most of the people in the church did NOT have any influence on the conversions. Yet a smaller church could reach the same percentage of influence by only bring 2 people to Christ….

In a nutshell, what I’m saying is that sometimes we need to look at the percentage of people actually living out the Word versus a simple count of people sitting in the pews. By doing so, we will see that sometimes (but not always) the smaller churches are actually doing a better job making disciples then the mega-churches.

Full disclosure:

The numbers listed above – they are based upon real numbers. Well, the attendance count is – the number of volunteers and conversions are made up based up on prior experience within both churches (I am currently helping lead the smaller church based in a rural ranching community while I used to help out with the mega-church before joining the church planting team).

I’ve said a few things on here in the past about defining the terms missional and attractional. Terms are helpful for bracketing meaning and enabling conversation, but they’re also unhelpful when our brackets contain different sets of meaning, as so often occurs when our terms become faddish and trite.

Thanks again!

I think the thought that this has to do with what we think about church (what is it, how is it healthy, etc.) is the proverbial nail head here. But I wonder if attractional vs. missional is not simply a rabbit trail. I have a hard time imagining a church that isn’t both but with different emphasis. (And what do those words even mean? We have to be cautious as we even use our terminology to play power trips on each other as evangelicals.) I would make a few suggestions:

1) hold our structures lightly – I find frustrating any talk that is naive about its own structures. All churches use structure – even the most fluid looking emerging church. We do this because relationships are structured, it is how we navigate our world. New isn’t always better, nor is old. Structures need to be functional and able to fit the situation. The higher we hold our structures the harder it is for us to shift when we realize they are no longer serving us.

2) seek first God’s Kingdom – and the Church is not the Kingdom. Rather the Church is the community that the Kingdom calls. For me this statement means we need to be a people of prayer – but also a people of wisdom, understanding and action. Wisdom is acting out of a deep place – able to navigate the tensions that life presents. For me wisdom is the product of the rest of these actions. Understanding comes through exploration, study and conversation. I think the blogs are a wonderful means for understanding to happen, the new Socratic experience. But we nee to learn from our rich history too – I find too many evangelicals hardly know their own tradition let alone the history of the Church or any of her theologies. And it can’t stop there. All of this will lead to action. One of my favourite phrases about the Kingdom is that it advances with force in this world and the violent lay ahold of it. I like it because it puzzles the heck out of me, but at the same time it says to seek the Kingdom means I can’t sit on my butt.

3) honour each other – I sometimes talk about a hermeneutic of love. What I mean by that is that we need to honour people, churches, each other. That does not mean we do not raise a critique ever – as if honour is simply a passive stance. Actually it is anything but passive. Honour is getting to know the heart of each other, actually hearing what each of us is saying and why. Only then can a critique be loving. For me love is active.