[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Twoshirts.org, Jason Coker. Jason Coker said: Vineyard Churches at the Crossroads: http://bit.ly/4wh2hp Part 2 in my series on the Vineyard movement in a post-Emerging decade. [...]

jason, you might enjoy Soong-Chan Rah's new book called "the next evangelicalism", where he takes a cultural perspective at where the American church is going. he hits on some of the issues of your last 2 posts. Might be an interesting read for you.

i wish i were hanging with you at this gathering…sounds like a great opportunity. i try to keep my pulse on the "variety" in the Vineyard (whether its variety in missiology, ecclesiology, etc.), but especially ecclesiology. I am going to think more and coment later on sme of your others points, but i am greatly encouraged by people like you and others who see and seize theopportunity for real freedom vis-a-vis ecclesiologicaly praxis(and others as well)…i'll get back t this one…

It's a fantastic book. I didn't touch on those issue as "crossroads" in this post because, at the risk of sounding like a fanboy, they've largely been placed front and center by the US Vineyard leadership for nearly 10 years now (with the exception of consumerism, the critique of which has been very weak in the Vineyard IMO). Of course, that doesn't mean we've figured out good solutions to white western captivity, but we're trying, and I don't think anyone in the Vineyard wold consider it optional : )

Good to have yo here Daniel!

Although not a Vineyard guy, I think that we have enough shared affinity for our views and experiences to be similar.

Some of the big things that I'm traveling are similar to a lot of the cross roads you talk about, though at a lot of points trying to take a both-and sort of approach.

So, while I'm very far along the path on the missional side, I would say that it's outward focus has led to a polarly opposite focus of contemplative (much more inward).

I find myself increasingly looking back at church history but not being chained to it, taking much more of an ancient future approach, where instead of just saying "let's do what the early church did," saying "let's look at what the early church did and why they did it and then ask how we do similar things in our time."

As far as a specifically ecclesialogical shift I find myself wanting to find some sort of balance between a free church and high church mentality, wanting to capture the looseness and adaptability of a free church approach without losing the reverential element as well (I would say this is my biggest critique of most evangelical churches today).

Anyways, that said, I think your list is a good one for this sort of discussion.

I wish you were here too Steve. I look forward to your longer response.

i think bryan's right in line with my own further considerations. i am well into the missional side, which has had the same resultant embrace of the contemplative. i am a big proponent of seeking the tension of the both/and. i actually facilitated a small spiritual formation cohort last summer in which i sought to bring together the charismatic and contemplative bringing them together utilizing some formational/human developmental insights popularized by erickson and piaget. good stuff…

i think – in terms of the crossroads – the best way forward is also both/and…if we can do it. the tension is high, as i have witnessed a lot of pushback on the missional piece from others who have bought into the attractional piece. are these approaches so fundamentally opposed that a movement like the Vineyard cannot be free enough to have both involved in it, while seeking peace with one another and not disdaining or disparaging each ther? That's really a question of leadership, isn't it? leadership at every level, but especially the broader leadership "making space" for vareity.

one last comment in terms of the institutional/organic piece and structure…one of the things i have appreciated about the Vineyard – although there is always room for improvement – is their "grassroots" ethos. i like the "greenpeace" model of grassroots leadership, where the mre national and international leadership empowers the more local while still providing vision and resources.

During the late 80's and early 90's I was part of Chuck's CC in Costa Mesa. During that time the church was decided evangelical and missional, because it began with a culture of openness and acceptance. I remember the strange feeling of being able to sit in the front on the floor and listen to Chuck's warm inviting smile and message. He talked a lot about love and engagement of the other.

I left CC when I moved North and no longer attended. 20 years later, what strikes me now is how much the culture has shifted. That culture did not follow through to the larger Calvary branches. What shows up to me now is a sort of rigorous fundamentalism, bent on knowledge at the expense of any love.

This is obviously a caricature and I'm sure would not represent every CC church but it makes me sad when it is the dominant impression I get.

I think this is the dominant problem of any institutional form. The second and third generations don't share the main inform that makes the original movement flourish. Chuck and Lonnie, and John and (for Vineyard) were passionate, Spirit filled men. But what follows is often an attempt to reproduce the ends rather than being open to what made it work in the beginning, which is the Spirit through these men.

I'm a huge proponent of the both/and approach as well. I think in Canada the conversation is less polarized and the leadership (national) has worked really hard to keep the conversations open. My own church is more missional/ancient-future, but I have a huge appreciation for the attractional model as well. My conviction is that whatever you call the shift we are in, it is still far from shifted. So we need each other. I'm also convinced that missional and attractional are not opposites, but rather emphases that can help define where a congregation can/should/might focus its time, energy and money.

What I love about the Vineyard is that by building around values (not doctrines) we keep the possibilities open as to how those values are expressed.

I hate being the one to ask this question, but what is meant by missional?

Ed Stetzer or Lesslie Newbigin? Rick Warren or Richard Rohr?

Missional has been co-opted and now means evangelistic. Actually, I think it is just a new evangelism technique. Influence people to interact with their neighbors, coworkers, family and friends and "invite" them to our programmatic religious center. So, you can be mega, attractional, and missional!!! The both/and tension is true, unless it is just a rationalization to keep doing and being what we already are. If we are just tweaking our ecclesiology enough to still be attractive, but are still offering a consumerist religious product, I don't think we will see the transformation necessary to have an authentic approach to the Missio Dei.

And, I'm a proponent of both/and being. That is one of the reasons I think the Vineyard is positioned to move into a new generation. Contemplative Spirituality, for me, offers the only way forward. This, to me, was one of the attractions of the Emergent conversation and I think McLaren's relationship with Richard Rohr will be interesting to watch over the next few years.

Many think that a move or shift towards the contemplative will move people away from the justice issues that prevail, but those in the Contemplative movement (especially Franciscans like Rohr) would be offended by this. I think that as one communes with Jesus in the way of contemplative spirituality, they are exposed to the heart of God. His heart for us, as the people of God, but also his hear for justice. Once exposed to His heart, justice is a necessary reaction. God is love and God is justice. The way of Jesus was a "just love" way of living. You can not experience Jesus in a significant way and not be deeply moved concerning justice issues. If one isn't, I think, like Paul, we should ask what Gospel they are adhering to. I think this is part of why Mike Bickle and the International House of Prayer (a Wimber disciple) is attractive. It is highly charismatic and fiddles around with some of the extreme pentecostal stuff, but as an experiential way of following Jesus. 24/7 prayer results in Justice. This year, IHOP is rolling out some significant justice ministries.

A consumerist (attractional) approach can never offer this. An Hour on Sunday is not a discipleship process, it's entertainment. We must be willing to help people enter into an intimate, life changing relationship with God. We must teach people to "go there" with Jesus. The result will be a heart and passion for Justice. The kicker: we, as pastors, must be going there ourselves, or we will never lead anyone down that path.

That is an important question. In Canada the EC conversation ditched the term Emerging and went with missional. Both terms cover a lot of ground and, as you pointed out, are being re-interpreted by different groups. I sort of felt that emerging was a more honest word, at least it indicated that something was emerging from something else – that is you had a hope of defining it. But missional just sounds like something we all should be. My experience is that evangelical like words that sound like they mean something important, something we should all agree about, but they do not like to unpack those words. Gospel is another example – try asking a few evangelicals what gospel means. If they have an answer it is likely just the doctrine of substitutionary atonement in a slick package.

Let me be specific about my use of the term. I wrote a chapter in the book Fresh + Re:Fresh where I compare and contrast the Vineyard I pastor to Guder's characteristics of a missional church. I think the general thrust of Newbigin's understanding is what most of the Canadian EC conversation had in mind. And in the Ontario Vineyards (of which I am a part) I've discerned a number of different ways of understanding this word – most basically it means to be actively evangelical in some way. Talk about making a word work for you. What was interesting to me is that I listened to fellow VIneyard pastors using this word (differently) and carrying on the conversation like they all meant the same thing. No one, myself included, had the gads to say hey, you're talking about something quite different there. I'm going to try that next time.

I know this is unpopular, but I'm pretty well convinced that missional and attractional represent a polarity. That's not to say I can't appreciate what attractional churches can, and have done – but I don't think it's possible to have it both ways for both theological and cultural reasons.

I'm willing to be wrong : )

"The second and third generations don't share the main inform that makes the original movement flourish….But what follows is often an attempt to reproduce the ends rather than being open to what made it work in the beginning, which is the Spirit through these men."

Amen!!

I believe the crossroads for me and others of my "generation" (ie. 3rd and 4th gen leaders) is whether we are willing to go back to the "why" we do things or if we are going to continue to do the "stuff" (ie. church, ministry time, worship, etc) just because it's the "Vineyard way." And honestly, I think the "doing-it-because-we-are-Vineyard-crowd" is winning!

If the Vineyard is to continue, we need to go back to the Spirit led, eschatological Jesus, Kingdom of God theological mindset/worldview that fulled our beginnings. If we don't recapture the "why", we will become just another church building with our own rules and regulations.

Agreed. We are not in a contest – in fact, we are to bless the work of the Spirit in whatever church or group He is moving in. In fact, one of the reasons I love the Vineyard is its center-set mentality – it does matter where you are at as long as you are moving towards the Center.

Yet, with that said – we, the Vineyard, must be careful not to lose the focus/heart that God has given us. It is a tension – yet one we must learn to live with. =)

Thanks Bryan, I'm glad you jumped in. One of the catch-phrases in the Vineyard is "the radical middle," which originally referred to finding the best of the evangelical and pentecostal worlds, without having to carry the negative baggage as well. Over the years that both/and catch-phrase has come to be applied to all kinds of things and I think you've hit upon that same spirit with your comments.

Thanks for sharing!

Me too and I think Franks comment above about "building around values (not doctrines)" has been the key to that grassroots freedom. I'm grateful for it.

Jonathan, I'm so glad you brought the CC perspective to this discussion. I spent the better part of the latter 70's and 80's at Greg Laurie's church in Riverside, and I have to say that by the time I was 14 or 15 (1984-ish) I was sensing (and struggling with) some of that rigorous fundamentalism.

Having said that, I really agree that it's a caricature that can't be extended to every CC any more than the "Toronto Blessing" insanity can be applied to every Vineyard.

Well, you've both touched on a major pet peeve of mine. I brought it up today in our little experimental Vineyard huddle. "Missional" can mean anything from outreach to evangelism to discipleship to social justice efforts to "going out" For me, it's informed by Newbigin and idea of joining the spirit in the world expressing missio dei. Mission belongs to God.

Frank, in line with your comments, this is deeper than just differing definitions of mission. Usually when I push that in a group I find that different definitions of mission come from differing opinions of what the gospel is. "Substitutionary atonement in a slick package." Indeed.

Thanks guys. Great comments.

Well Jason, once again you have managed to skirt the true issue and have a wonderful discussion about unimportant things. Now you know I say that because I think you are very bright, and that I love you and see the tremendous potential you have influencing the church and that you have a following who wait for your every word. But until you realize that "missional" is only a fad of the day you will miss the real message for our culture.

Hey Joshua, thanks for commenting.

I think you make some great points about sticking to important core values. I especially like that you've focused on being spirit-led and holding to an eschatologically-oriented, Christ-focused Kingdom theology. I do think, though, that we need to guard against the temptation to view this is a contest between churches. Just because I tend to see missional and attractional as irreconcilable polarities doesn't mean I'm struggling against my friends who adhere to an attractional approach. Everyone is pursuing whatever form they genuinely believe is most effective for disciple-making, and I'd be pretty arrogant if I didn't celebrate the fact that those churches are doing good, Kingdom work and bringing people into relationship with Christ.

Besides, I'm probably wrong. : )

Thanks again for pitching in. I hope you add more as we pursue this topic a little further.

Tension indeed! Well said again.

i think you are right about contemplative spirituality (although i would ask the question why this is so?)…as a contemplative that is doing a lot of justice (we're almost ready to launch the new "Justice Response" resource site at VineyardUSA..), I – probaby like rohr and others – see a contemplative stance and doing justice work well together, keep one forward-leaning in a spiritual formational way, and provides balance for the long journey of faith in Christ…

alan hirsch – following newbigin and bosch, etc. – seems to want to set up a polarity of sorts – like our friend jason here! he sees evangelistic-attractional on one side of a continuum and incartional-missional on the other…and i tend to see it mostly that same way, so when i am usiang missional i am following the newbigin/bosch/hirsch range of meaning…

meant to add that in simple form, michael frost understands "missional" as the radical re-orientation of the organizing principle of the church as the mission of God. i think that is where i land…

Oh Tom, I know you generally disagree with me, and I'm fine with that, but it would be more helpful if you contributed the substance of your reasoning (back-handed flattery is not a support for your argument). I agree the word missional will likely turn out to be faddish or trendy, but that doesn't mean the discussion is unimportant. Faddish terms don't necessarily equate to faddish ideas. When language becomes trite – as it always does – and old terms evolve to connote faddish ideas, it's helpful to coin new terms in order to renew the discussion of older, more important ideas. That is what the missional conversation is all about. Maybe I'm wrong, but, if so, it would be helpful if you contributed an argument rather than merely a conclusion.

A few thoughts….
Missional vs. Attractional
Missional is a language which is not to far removed from evangelism. It has now become palatable for mainstream churches. In the process the original radical nature has somehow been watered down.
Institutional vs Organic
The liturgial revival will only take place if new meanings are found in old practices. It will be interesting if this can happen. I think there will be a small interest but not a revival. (Maybe it is the type of people Tod is hanging out with?)

I really agree with your assessment, both about the use of the word missional and the idea of a revival of religion. The symbols must be recast in order to function as sysmbols. Perhaps they can with a generation for who they are essentially a blank slate, and I'm sure that will be the case for certain temperament types. But as I consider it, I keep remembering something Don Williams has often said: "Religion is our last line of defense against the living God." Even if Todd is right, for how many people will it simply be that last line of defense?

I think we are in the middle of a liturgial revival – it may not be a large "revival", but I think it is happening in small ways. People are beginning to back to history and find comfort in the structure and rhythm of the liturgy. Part of this is the fact that the rest of our lives are so crazy and mixed, it is nice to find something that is solid and unchanging.

I know I have been personally drawn to offices of prayer – praying at set times with set prayer that have been past down for centuries. My sister-in-law, who came from a standard-independent evangelical church, recently joined the Anglican Church (under the Rwanda diocese) and has found great comfort in their transition. She also mentioned that she is seeing a trend of young people moving toward different liturgy practices – like the prayer offices (she is a librarian/teacher at Trinity International University in Chicago).

The 24-7 Prayer movement would be another example of people finding new meanings in "old practices". (I am talking more about their boiler rooms/modern-monasteries then their prayer meetings at local churches).

As I write this, I had a thought…maybe the "revival" isn't people going to high liturgical churches, but more of people taking liturgical practices and incorporating them into their lives and the practices of the low church culture….

Ardell, I think that's very true, and I think there are a variety of Vineyard churches across the spectrum that have demonstrated a re-embrace of a few traditional liturgical practices. Ken Wilson's church in Ann Arbor has even re-imagined the "radical middle" concept as a "radical center," turning the linear continuum into a quadrant that includes spaces for liturgical and social justice space. I've used the offices of prayer on and off and have settled into a few other practices as well such as the use of prayer beads and the stations of the cross. AlI that is pretty widespread, I think.

I guess I took Hunter's comment as a prediction of large-scale return to liturgical traditions, but maybe I misunderstood. Still, there's a difference between appropriating some traditional elements and becoming Anglican or Catholic or Orthodox. I affirm much in those traditions, but some of my theological underpinnings preclude me from joining any of them as an adherent.

Organic movements and organisations also require supportive structures. What do they look like? Here are some fledgling thoughts, would love to hear your POV on this. That missional and attractional are at a polarity makes a lot of sense to me and I think that has a bearing on or is beared upon by the whole organic vs institutional thing. Attractional church cannot function without professionalised leadership, there are fewer leaders leading lots of people and you can’t do that without the time that professionalisation affords. Leaders in attractional churches lead by coordinating and administrating and people follow by buying into a programme or project. We all know how costly programmes are! Leaders in a truly organic-missional church lead by example, people aren’t buying into a programme they have set up but into a lifestyle that they want to be discipled into.

Even an organic model needs some supportive structure to protect, release and support people for missional lifestyles (and to patch them up when it all goes wrong). what does that structure look like? I have no clue! Also any thoughts on “para-church” (much as I hate the term), is that where the church’s mission got taken care of under the christendom model? As churches pursue mission embedded more closely in church life, do we also need to borrow some of the supportive arrangements which exist in mission agency’s, NGO’s etc which are built to support missional rather than attractional life?

Jana – Very insightful comments! I think you’re pretty spot-on at every point – although I might want to shift organic leadership slightly away from “example to follow” and more toward a person who catalyzes by changing the structure of how we meet and shifting the conversation by knowing what questions to ask. Christian leaders must have integrity, but integrity is more the qualification for leadership, not the currency of leadership.

Also, BTW, your comments about para-church orgs is right on, and it’s not something I hear very often.

Thanks for the comments!

It’s a good point about example being the qualification not the currency. Yes para-church has been on my mind of late. If you think about it, mission-oriented people have for decades left the “church” to practice their call full time in christian and non-christian agency’s. If the church want’s to reclaim that missional purpose (and I have heard so many leaders moan about para-church organisations) it must also learn that it cannot use the same structures to support that kind of activity that are use to support attractional activity. There is a reason this kind of activity has not been able to flourish in traditional church structures (God always gets his stuff done one way or other), but am yet to see that this is any different in missional communities – or how it might be? Maybe it’s ok for these sorts of purposes to be fulfilled at arms length from the congregational or teaching and worship focussed life of the church?

Perplexed by the whole thing!

Thanks for your blog, always bringing a challenge or clarity!