As part of an Action Research Project being done for the completion of my M.A in Ministry degree, I am researching churches that are transitioning to a more missional identity and structure, particularly in the area of small groups. Over the next several days, I will post short sections from the literature review portion of the paper. If you would like information on any of the cited references, I would be happy to assist. Also, I would love to hear your response to what the literature seems to be saying.
INTRODUCTION
Criticism of the small group movements of the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s is growing increasingly strong. For instance, Boren (2007) writes, “In short, good old American pragmatism [has] turned small groups into a modernistic program that leaders could control and produce growth. … Most of us bought into a set of small-group myths that resulted in growth but little radical transformation” (p. 10). Hirsch (2007) is another example, claiming small groups were used as nothing more than “prop-ups to the ‘real-deal,’ weekend-based church” (p. 4). Smith (2007) is perhaps most scathing of all, saying small groups quickly became “protective, hoarding, territorial and inwardly focused” (p. 15) in the old system.
In addition to this critique of small group movements, Paul M. and Inagrace T. Dietterich (1994) comment on the nature of the church of recent history in the West and call for a missional transformation, claiming the church is caught in “the trap of success” and suffers from “success syndrome [emphasis in original]: a pattern of organizational thinking, behavior, and functioning” (p. 5). Symptoms of the syndrome include insular thinking, parochialism, complacency, and belief in infallibility (Dietterich, 1994). Churches caught in this trap rely on what worked in the past when confronted with new challenges and are unable to be open and creative or accept new ideas and insights. Such churches need a “dramatic shock” to challenge and change the “theological self-understanding” of the church body and bring it into an “entirely new frame of reference” (Dietterich, 1994). Many authors contend that a transition to missional living in congregations is the needed corrective for the problems facing both small group ministries and the institutional church (see Barrett, 2004; Boren, 2007, 2010; Carter, 2009; Dieterrich & Dietterich, 1994; Halter & Smay, 2008; McNeal 2009; Rouse & Van Gelder, 2008; Van Gelder, 2007).
The critique levied against the small groups and the institutional or “Established Church” (Dietterich & Dietterich, 1994) by missional scholars and authors is pointed and clear. Less clear, however, are the solutions offered or the changes proposed. Roxburgh and Boren (2009) admit that the missional concept is hard to define and avoid limiting their thinking to models and structures, leaving many pragmatists wondering how to do missional living in their churches. The missional concept is compared to a flowing river (Boren & Roxburgh, 2009), “not a what but a who,” [emphasis in original] (McNeal, 2009, p. 20), and a Spirit-led initiative unique in every local context (Van Gelder, 2007). Trying to identify clear proposals and solutions to problems in missional literature can be much like grasping at air. Those who write in this field not only recognize this difficulty, but also celebrate it as a move away from the rigid programs in recent church history and toward a more contextual ministry (e.g. Roxburgh & Boren, 2009).
Though writers at times attempt to refrain from limiting missional concepts to definitions and models, a review of the literature seems to show commonalities among scholars, authors, and practitioners alike. The commonalities occur in the areas of why the church needs to live missionally, what missional living looks like, and how Christian communities can begin the missional transition process.
No comments:
Post a Comment