I’m not hip. I’m not cutting edge. I’m not particularly technologically savvy. Basically, I am OK at keeping up with trends.
In the case of the future of the American church, there seem to be two competing trajectories: emerging and missional. Yes, I know that these trends started a long time ago (by today’s standards of time). Yes, I know they’ve been discussed ad nauseum in thousands of other places. But my point here is to give a picture of where I’m striving to go in my faith.
If you don’t know, the most simple defining characteristic of the emerging church, as I understand it, is that it is an attempt to readdress the structure of the Church (not limited to physical structure). It typically expresses a disdain for the traditional organization of institutionalized Christianity, which encompasses areas like authority/hierarchy, structure of services, locations/buildings, and anything else that might be changed to provide perceived cultural relevancy. These churches usually embrace the post-modern cultural influences. Familiar voices in this movement have been Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, and Mark Driscoll, though not all continue to associate with it.
The basic characteristic of missional church seems to be its attempt to readdress the purpose of the Church. It typically expresses a disdain for the passivity among believers and urges a “missionary attitude” of being a people sent for the purpose of ministering the Gospel. These churches usually embrace the ideas of contextualization, using terms like “incarnational” to describe the process of being in relationship with the world in a way that encourages Gospel transformation.
These movements are not necessarily exclusive of one another, and they can overlap. But most often you find one emphasized over the other. While I personally find some benefits to the emerging “conversation”, I find the missional thrust much more compelling. This speaks to the heart of what Jesus mandated in the the various commissions in Scripture, and takes seriously the need to be radical and totally devoted followers of Jesus (die to self, take up your cross, hate your father and mother for my sake). The previous generation’s way of being Christian strikes many of my generation (I was born at the tail end of 1979, so I’m usually pegged a late Gen X-er or early Millennial) as passive and too inward focused.
The church in the U.S. is stagnant. Some churches die while others grow. If you take into account the fact that most of the growth of the church has come from “sheep shifting” and immigrants (largely worshiping within ethnic communities), you’re left with a shrinking remnant among non-immigrants. Immigration is not a bad thing, but it can obscure the true decline the church is facing, unless we are content only to grow through immigration.
I believe that reconnecting the Church to its mission, calling people to a purpose greater than themselves, and igniting a movement of missionaries who are willing and able to engage with the cultures represented around them will be a key component of the renewal and even explosion of the Gospel movement in the U.S. Regardless of how the church is structured (which may be a future post), we must be Living on Purpose.
Living On Purpose 
Stephen, would you mind expounding upon your comments about immigration and the Church in the U.S.?
Sure, T.C. I’m not sure specifically what you want expounded on. Most of my reading and experience indicates that if it were not for the significant number of immigrants populating U.S. Churches, the overall number of people attending U.S. Churches would be in decline. Now, I love the fact that so many churches are being established and are growing among the immigrant populations.
Two points do cause me concern. In a large segment of the church in our country we’re experiencing a serious decline. Also, many of the immigrant churches are (currently) mono-cultural. They have had a challenge reaching people beyond their own group.
Two things need to change, as I see it. The churches already established need to re-learn the Jesus way that spreads virally through communities. Second, the immigrant churches should make the effort to move beyond their natural affinity groups to the larger culture (as some have done, to the church’s benefit and blessing). This could help to reconstitute power dynamics among dominant culture churches and immigrant churches. This would be a huge additional benefit.
One other thought. The argument could be made that declining church attendance is not a good way to evaluate the health of the church. I agree. We could simply be seeing a truer expression of Christianity, without some of the cultural Christianity that has so long been present in our country. However, it is almost impossible to truly ascertain the health of the church across the country and I’m simply using this as one indicator among many.
I believe that a church that is not missional is a dying Church. More importantly, one that is not missional is not in fidelity with the Great Commission. The emergent church is nothing more than a do over of the liberal church of the 19th century, which has moved towards universalism and eventually will end up in nominalism. The remnant will be saved by the Lord and spark a revived Church. We just have to look through the OT and NT to see how this cycle has repeated itself through history.
Call me “Missional”