You may have seen Dan Kimball's latest post on the Out of Ur blog about why attractional churches are actually better than missional churches. Frankly I'm really surprised to see Dan come down on that side of the question, though my friend at seminary who just came from Vintage Faith Church says that it's not really that surprising to him, so I guess Dan's been thinking this way for a while now. Anyway, there are so many things I want to say in response, but I'm in the midst of finals and don't really have the time. Thankfully Julie already said what I would have said over at her blog. Check it out.

Labels: missional

This morning I had the privilege of sitting in on a small group discussion at Wheaton Bible Church with my friends Jim Henderson and Helen Mildenhall of Off the Map. Chris McElwee, the current leader of their church's emerging worship service, Ecclesia, apparently invited Jim to come and talk to their leaders about the insights from Jim's new book, Jim & Casper Go to Church. The book is in a similar vein as Hemant's, I Sold My Soul on eBay, in that an atheist (Matt Casper) and a former pastor (Jim) go to some of the more well-known megachurches around the country and review their impressions of them for the book. Since Wheaton Bible is a megachurch, it seemed they wanted to learn from Jim how they can improve and do better at reaching people like Matt Casper. As an emerging, missional church planter who is most definitely not leading a megachurch (and would never want to) it was very interesting for me to sit in on this discussion and learn what kinds of struggles and questions they face in their context.

At any rate, the conversation was good and ranged over a number of topics. Jim offered a lot of good insights, and one that especially struck me was something he said in response to a comment by one of the Wheaton Bible pastors. The pastor said that he had grown up with a faith that was mainly just about being a good person. Jim suggested that it might not have been mostly about being a "good person" but really more about just not acting like a bad person. And further, he suggested that if we were really concerned with being good and doing good, that would look very different than if we're just concerned with avoiding being bad.

I thought that was an exceptionally profound insight. Jim, of course, is very right. In the legalistic Christian circles I've been exposed to as well, the focus really wasn't so much on trying to actually do good works. The focus was primarily just on avoiding sin, on not doing certain "bad" behaviors that were associated with a certain stereotype of "bad" people - e.g. smoking, drinking, cussing, going to R-rated movies or listening to secular music, etc. If we avoided these sins, we thought we were pretty good people, even if we never actively did any positive good things (like helping those in need, standing up for the oppressed, loving our enemies, giving our care and attention to others around us, etc.)

And Jim is right that actively trying to be good will look very different than simply trying not to be bad. The legalism of the latter would be replaced by a missional attitude, and by spiritual habits that help us start being aware of others around and how we can serve them. The focus shifts from being all about me and my own moral purity, to how I can love and encourage others.

In some ways I think actively trying to be good is harder and more challenging than just trying not to sin. It certainly takes more creativity. Though, on the other hand, I personally find it more freeing and more exciting as well. It's depressing to be constantly thinking about all the things you're not supposed to do because you're a Christian. It's more invigorating to think about the difference you can make in the world by doing good.

Labels: missional