Has the ‘missional movement’ been given enough time to produce fruit?
Dan Kimball appears to be getting impatient as he writes,
“Small, indigenous churches are getting lots of attention, but where’s the fruit?
I hope I am wrong. For the past few years, I have been observing, listening, and asking questions about the missional movement. I have a suspicion that the missional model has not yet proven itself beyond the level of theory. Again, I hope I am wrong”
The article he writes appears to me to ask some serious and compelling questions, comparing the growth of ‘attractional’ churches with the apparent lack of growth of those pursuing alternate methods of church.
“We all agree with the theory of being a community of God that defines and organizes itself around the purpose of being an agent of God’s mission in the world. But the missional conversation often goes a step further by dismissing the “attractional” model of church as ineffective. Some say that creating better programs, preaching, and worship services so people “come to us” isn’t going to cut it anymore. But here’s my dilemma—I see no evidence to verify this claim.”
I wholeheatedly agree that the measure of a method of ‘church’ needs to be, is it growing and seeing people move from non Christ follower to fully devoted disciple. Maybe I am a late adopter, or maybe its time for some serious re-evaluations of those who are the self appointed ‘evaluators’
