I always enjoy reading Steve Addison's blog . A recent post on missional church caught my eye.
The post covers an article by Dan Kimball. For a while now some very influential voices have been advocating missional church as opposed to attractional church as the way forward. The missional church, if I understand it correctly, is one which has as its focus equipping people and sending them out into the community to do the works of the kingdom. Attractional church on the other hand seeks to attract people to its building / campus. That is probably oversimplifying the concepts, but in essence that is the supposed difference in the two approaches to church. Advocates of the missional way of doing things often argue that their way is the most faithful to the New Testament.
But it would appear that perhaps all is not well in missional world. Listen to these comments from Kimball:
"Conversely, some from our staff recently visited a self-described missional church. It was 35 people. That alone is not a problem. But the church had been missional for ten years, and it hadn't grown, multiplied, or planted any other churches in a city of several million people. That was a problem.
Another outspoken advocate of the house church model sees it as more missional and congruent with the early church. But his church has the same problem. After fifteen years it hasn't multiplied. It's a wonderful community that serves the homeless, but there's no evidence of non-Christians beginning to follow Jesus. In the same city several megachurches are seeing conversions and disciples matured."
You'll find Steve Addison's post here and Dan Kimball's thoughts here