Successful Church
I've posted before around the issue of what success looks like in youth ministry and church life (e.g here and here). But the models that are still prevalent are those based on number crunching and surface effect.
Here's a quick quote:
"But we are not far from thinking that the church leader with the biggest congregation and the flashiest Sunday meetings is the most successful" (Chester & Timmis, Total Church, p188).

On the other hand is there a danger that we lose any desire for growth in these ways because of the fear of being accused of being "attractional" rather than "missional"? How can we be realistic in looking for growth that is deep and Christ-centred?

Missionary Disciples
Tuesday - Wednesday was an overnight "regional and national teams consultation" with the Baptist Union. The theme was "encouraging missionary disciples", which is the strapline for the Union's strategy document. It was good time to chat and think through some issues, catch up with people etc.

One of the key issues for me around helping churches and therefore Christians to be "missionary" is the change in mindset from mission as an activity to mission as an integral part of being. It seems to me there is still a danger for us all to see being missional as bolting a project onto our cell group or congregation life. Or running an event. But it needs to be deeper rooted than that, which is why I guess people say it takes 10 years or so to move a church into a more missional mode (there's some good stuff on that at Allelon) .

There is in my experience a relationship between intentional mission (trips, short term projects, events) and an ongoing mission attitude, but we should not mistake one for the other.

Anyway, good to hear about stuff going on around the UK and that mission is at the heart of the agenda.

Assignment Complete
I posted the essay off yesterday - so its out of my hands and now at the mercy of the postal system!
Was interesting thinking through the issues of inculturation and contextualisation. Seems to me that there are 2 common responses I hear from people (and in some of the literature): one is fear, sometimes driven by a conservative theology, but often I think fear of change, of not being "sound". The other is the opposite, which results in almost an obsession with relevance and fitting "my culture" that we lose sight of the church's call to be a distinctive community. I agree with those who say that the church should be odd, but that has to be because we're shaped by the gospel rather than just out of touch!
I think one thing we're (me too) often bad at is listening. Its probably an under used part of mission!

Missional Youth Ministry
Interesting letter over at Scot McKnights re. Missional Youth Ministry.
One to watch as the discussion develops.

Mission in the Suburbs
I think it's for all the right reasons, but somehow "urban mission" sounds better (sexier?) than "suburban mission"! Clearly we have an historic problem of Christians leaving the urban inner-cities. In part here in London and in many cities that is being counteracted by some great deliberate church planting movements (e.g. Urban Expression) and the growth of the Black majority Churches and other ethnically distinct congregations. But it's still an issue of under-investment.
There is however, a challenge of mission in the suburbs. Reaching people who are doing well without God with the Christian gospel is tough! So I was pleased to read some stuff from Vineyard USA on the suburbs, from their "Cutting Edge" church planting magazine (Summer 2007 here). (thanks to Tony for the link!). It's an interview with David Goetz who's written an interesting looking book on the suburbs (which I've added to my wish list!).
Couple of quick quotes from the article:
"I think missionary training needs to be as rigorous for the suburbs as it is for the foreign mission field"
"Don't assume the large suburban churches have all the answers"

The second quote reminds me of something I read, although not sure where, about suburban churches which have the "smell" of success, without the missional depth. A warning that resonated with me.

Roxburgh Journal
If you're interested in things around missional church, especially about can an existing church move and change, then I recommend the Roxburgh Journal.
So far 4 episodes, one with Steve Taylor, one with Mike Goheen, and one where Daryl Dash interviews Alan Roxburgh (yes that's 3, not heard the 4th yet!). All downloadable mp3's.
The first 2 were helpful when I was thinking about "can an inherited church become an emerging church" for a college assignment, and I listened to the 3rd yesterday and found it equally useful.Good for those boring journeys!

Technique
Couple of things have led me to thinking about this.
Wednesday I went on the annual trip to the Christian Resources Exhibition.
It struck me that if all the courses, ideas and "stuff" worked then we should have a thriving church in the UK! (With nice chairs, folding tables and a glass lectern!)

Today I was at something called the London Urban Theology Project, a bunch of people presenting papers for discussion around ministry in London. It was stimulating stuff! One of those papers echoed this idea suggesting that the ABC for many churches has become "Attendance, Buildings and Collection". We focus on style and technique, programme and things rather than attending to the hard work of being church.

This echoes a lot with the call for community and authenticity in some of the stuff around emerging missional church. Yet in so many areas of church life (youth ministry is a classic example) we seem to lack the time or imagination to do anything other than buy an "off the shelf" solution.

I often wonder if some churches do "projects" to avoid really doing mission! Being "missional" is much more intrusive.

Becoming Missional
'Leaders become permissional and missional when they:
1)Become less purpose-driven and more dream sensitive
2) Create an atmosphere of inquiry rather than one where questions are stifled.
3) Help others "colour outside the lines" rather than looking for prefabricated performances'
(from Cooke & Goodell: Permission Granted to do Church Differently, p94).

Is there a tension between leading people somewhere and being releasing or is that merely based on modern mechanistic notions of going somewhere, and mission as based on programmes and "attraction"?