Contours of Post-Christendom Vineyard Ministry
UPDATE: Frank Emmanuel, a Vineyard pastor in Ottawa, adds his thoughts on why we’re in for a hard road ahead. In my experience, Canucks tend to be ahead of the curve regarding this issue and it’s good to see a leader like Frank pitching in his perspective.
______
Part 1: Did Tony Jones Kill the Vineyard?
Part 2: Vineyard Churches at the Crossroads
As I mentioned, Jenell and I huddled with a small group of Vineyard pastors last weekend to compare notes on the experience of leading non-traditional, missional churches. We were hardly able to scratch the surface on most issues, but here are some of the main topics that came up:
Common origins and experience
For the most part everyone’s stories had at least one common theme: Nobody lacked significant leadership experience and everyone had led in an attractional church (some successfully, some not), which led to a high level of frustration with the overall lack of discipleship fostered by the attractional approach. Yet, nobody in the room was willing to condemn attractional churches. Still, everyone was generally in agreement that, as a rule, it is predisposed to more shallow congregations on the whole.
A time of liminality
Everyone seemed to have a long list of anecdotal evidence that attractional/church-growth oriented congregations are rapidly failing – yet nobody feels there are established, sustainable alternatives. One person basically said, “I think this is going to be really hard for a long time to come.” Nobody disagreed.
High commitment to kingdom theology and the “radical middle”
Everyone spoke of Kingdom Theology and the Radical Middle as key underpinnings which kept them strongly rooted in the Vineyard, even though they felt the association overall was largely quiet concerning the emerging/missional movements and the ecclesiological shortcomings of attractional church.
A Sense of missional continuity prior to church-growth models
Most of the people in the room had been practicing many elements of what we now call “missional” church (i.e. use of third spaces, intentional communities, contemplative and liturgic
al practices, etc.) long before the missional/emerging conversations were popularized, and, more importantly, long before the church-growth movement took hold – at least as far back as the early to mid-seventies. For me this was a light-bulb moment. There’s a great deal of talk on the attractional side that missional ministry is a fad, but, whatever you may call it, the “missionary to the West” mindset seems to be both a descendant of theological shifts beginning in the 1960’s, but also a by-product of the religious fervor stemming from the Jesus Movement.
Family ministry in the missional church
This was probably the most energized conversation of the weekend. There’s a great deal of frustration with the void caused by a rejection of centralized, professional, spectator approaches to children and youth ministry. Everyone believes these approaches are bankrupt, but hardly anyone could articulate a viable missional alternative and nobody was aware of a proven approach. It was pointed out that in the absence of a compelling alternative, most parents would understandably choose to have their kids satiated in an entertaining mega-church ministry. Future-facing churches must fill this void with a biblically insightful and culturally appropriate approach to the discipleship of whole families.
Partnering with culture, making culture
There was a pretty solid body of experience in the room when it came to engaging with culture. This is understandable. Within the emerging/missional stream this has been relatively strong and the people in this group reflected that: there were examples of partnering with local government (especially schools) to fill civic needs, participating with local AIDS organizations and justice issues, creating third spaces, offering secular counseling services, and creating internet communities and arts organizations. Everyone seemed comfortable and positive about pushing forward in this direction. This, of course, isn’t exclusive to so-called missional churches. More traditional churches are making rapid progress with innovative cultural engagement; that’s always been a strength of evangelicalism. The difference is that missional churches tend to lean more toward culture making (see Andy Crouch, Culture Making), whereas traditional evangelicalism leans more toward cultural critique or cultural emulation.
One church, many congregations
Unity was identified as a major theme, and a phrase that stuck with me was, “One church, many congregations.” Particularly in the bay area Mike McCoy is working with a large collection of diverse churches to bring about an unprecedented level of cooperation and unity in that region. Here in San Diego the catch-phrase I’ve heard from several people is “a citywide church.” As Christendom winds down and Christian communities are marginalized, these kinds of networks are likely to become vital and the Vineyard has a history of ecumenism, inherited from John Wimber.
Embracing grassroots organizational dynamics
There was some spirited conversation around the subject of embracing grassroots styles of organization as particularly compatible with the values of egalitarian leadership, the priesthood of the believer, and discipleship/multiplication. A.A. and Crossfit were bought up as examples.
The critical need for inter-church missional leader relationships
Everyone agreed that the single most important benefit of the weekend was developing relationships with others who are also experimenting on the fringe. It’s easy to feel marginalized when leading a church these ways. People both in your own church and in the Vineyard at large sometimes press for more traditional indicators of success.
Returning to the simplicity of Jesus
As we wound down on Saturday afternoon, the conversation shifted to the importance of refocusing on Christ. It was pointed out that movements historically tend to take off as “roots movements,” but over time become cluttered with the minutia of bureaucracy. If the Vineyard is the speak a fresh word and a demonstrate a fresh mission to a new generation it will have to be a word/work about Christ. He is the mission.
What we didn’t discuss
There were some conversations we didn’t have time for as much of this gathering was a “get to know you” session since few of us had any significant prior relationship. In my opinion, some of the pressing conversations we could/should have in the future include:
- Gender and sexuality issues facing the church
- Science and faith conflicts
- Politics and peacemaking
- Post-Charismatic Pneumatology
- Post-Christendom theological education and leadership development
- Navigating religious and theological pluralism in and out of the church
- The role of arts and aesthetics
- Ancient/future liturgical practices and consistency
- Public evangelism in post-Christendom
- Alternative economic practices
What are your thoughts?
What are your experiences with some of these topics? Do you see them differently? Are there critical issues we missed?
_______________________
People Present:
Certainly, there were others we could have invited. The decision was made to keep this a western gathering for cost and convenience, and to keep it very small in order to maintain a manageable conversation dynamic. A few were unable to attend such as Rich and Rose Swetman from Seattle, WA, Barry Diamond from Las Vegas, NV, and Randy Knutsen from Palm Desert, CA.
- Bill Farris – Orange County, CA
- Pete & Gail Mosgofian – Arcata, CA
- Mike McCoy – Concord, CA
- Jason & Jenell Coker – North County San Diego, CA
- Eric Brown – Huntington Beach, CA
- David Ruis – Hollywood, CA


For those whose prophetic memories have been amplified by faith, these experiences of the future sustain like no food can. But for the beloved community of God, they’re more than memories, for we inhabit them together when we feast at the table of fellowship, and Ebert stumbles upon it’s earthly parallel:
Ichak Adizes