Missional Fruit (2)

I am writing in response to Dan Kimball's article, "Missional Misgivings" (Refer to Kevin's last post). Although he gave us some good things to consider, overall the article discouraged me. The only 'misgiving' I had was toward his idea of "effective" ministry.
Dan begins his post with this statement: "Small, indigenous churches are getting lots of attention, but where's the fruit"?
Right here, Dan. I am the fruit.
I grew up in a fairly large Lutheran congregation. In high school, I went to youth group at a separate mega-church downtown. It was fun, it was flashy, and it was cool. Now, mind you, I am not here to bash mega-churches. I know they minister to large numbers of people, and I praise God for that. However, for someone who attended church her entire life, surrounded by a huge community of Christians, I felt alone. How is it that I attended a church with hundreds of people, yet knew only a handful? I went to church, I heard a great message, I got pumped up by the rock-band worship team, and went back to my normal life at home. I could skip a few Sundays, but I didn't need to worry- no one would notice. I was one of the hundreds. A small fish in a big sea. I was a member of a seemingly large support system, but did not feel supported.
In college, after much searching, I found a 'small, indigenous' church in downtown Spokane. For the first time I understood what Jesus meant when He talked about the Body of Christ. I felt like I was part of a family. People there were warm and inviting. I developed meaningful relationships with people, and was held accountable by my brothers and sisters. Church began to spill over into my week. It was no longer a Sunday event. It was a lifestyle.
This church was not perfect by any means. But it was here that I learned the importance of putting people first. It was here that my faith was most nurtured by the relationships I had.
Numbers? Small, but steady. There was growth, but nothing in comparison to the mega-congregation down the street. However, when we start looking at numbers to define the "success" of a church, we are missing the point.
In his article Dan Kimball, referring to one particular missional church, explains, "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."
Alright Dan. Now I am overjoyed that conversions are happening left and right in that city's megachurches. I rejoice for that. However, it seems that he is discounting that missional church's ministry. He says himself that it is a "wonderful community that serves the homeless." It is a community that is taking giant steps in faith to serve the lost and forgotten. I have been to many churches over the years, and most steer clear of homeless ministry. It is uncomfortable, and takes a great deal of boldness to step out of your community and enter theirs. Building relationships with the homeless can be difficult. They do not give their trust easily, and most have been broken and abused in unspeakable ways. It's a whole different kind of ministry. We cannot judge a ministries success based on the number of people "we" convert. Last time I checked it is the Lord that changes the heart, not ourselves. We do not always get the privilege to see the fruit of our labor. Most of the time, hearts are not changed in an instant. The Spirit moves, but in His own time. Perhaps the church Dan speaks of has not "multiplied" in 15 years, but they are continuing in their ministry to the homeless and are being faithful to that call. Who's to say God is not stirring hearts in preparation for a later conversion?
Numbers do not determine effective ministry. Do we give Jesus a hard time for choosing only 12 disciples? Would it not have been much more effective to pour into 100 disciples who could disperse and spread the good news? How dare he assume 12 could do the job. Right?
Now I say this to stress a point. I am not saying that large groups are ineffective either. What I am saying is that Jesus knew how important it was to invest in relationships. He wanted a small group of disciples he could...wait for it...disciple. He wanted to develop a deep and meaningful relationship of trust with these men. He knew that the more he poured into them, the more they could pour into others. Clearly it worked. Open the Gospels and look at the great things these men did in faith.

As Kevin stated in his response, and I think he hits it right on, "I think the greater question is, "Who is your church trying to reach?" The answer to that question can lead to harder, less traveled paths of ministry. It can also lead to a more relationally based ministry that is hard to quantify in attendance, but is no less impacting."

I feel like there is so much more to say on this topic, but I want to stop here and ask for your thoughts.
I want to remind you again- my point is not to condemn one church model and praise another.
I do think Dan's article makes for an interesting discussion. I think it's good to be in conversation about such things...

a united Body.

There has been a reoccurring question tugging at my heart lately. There are so many of us that feel a pull towards Church-planting. I understand that God equips every person with a unique vision, and I understand the purpose behind church planting. I feel the call myself. Yet, I often wonder if we get too focused on starting from scratch. We want something new, something better. If every one felt this way, we would never build community. Sometimes I wonder if the church is getting too separated. I wonder if our unity is fading. We cannot forget the importance of bridging existing communities together. I'm not talking about creating one giant mega-church here. I'm talking about working together and sharing together- recognizing our identity in the larger Body of Christ. Should this be our primary focus?
Let's chew on this. I want to hear your thoughts.

coloring outside the lines.

We are getting farther and farther away from the need to interact with others. One could choose to live his life without face-to-face contact and most likely get by. With online banking, online shopping, meal-delivery services, instant messaging, Redbox dvd rentals and the like....who needs people?
However, though the means by which we are relational may be changing, we are clearly not losing the desire to be connected with people. Myspace, Facebook, blogging, Twitter....social networking is flourishing.
We have a desire to bond like never before. A desire to be a part of people's lives. A desire to know the when, the where, the why, the how. It may border on the line of ridiculousness, but it is telling of our thirst for relationships.
Whether or not we are fans of this new phase of online networking, we must look at it at face value. What does this say about our society? What does this say about our culture? What does this mean for the Church? I promise you, it will and already is, affecting the way we do ministry. We may have to find new mediums to reach people, especially the younger generation. We do not want to be 'of the world', but we are called to participate in it just as Christ did. He was never a "worldly" man. His Kingdom was in heaven, but He came to reign on this earth and give 'Kingdom eyes' to those still in darkness. Jon Foreman explains, "This world is where I breathe let it never be called home". We do not belong to this world. We belong to the Lord through and through. However, while we are here we are given the opportunity to share this truth with those who are unaware. Christ lived among the outcasts of society. He befriended them, and he loved them. Did he participate in their sins? No, but he invited them to live a new life that would bring them freedom and joy.
We are made in the image of a creative God. What are some ways we should be thinking outside of the box when it comes to ministry?