Jeremy,
I agree there might be a heartlessness in a marketing approach. But there is also a hidden heartlessness in the standard church planting paradigm as well.
This is because there are people groups in our society that our churches fail to target.
“Operation World” a survey of christian mission describes the disabled as one of the largest unreached people groups in the world. A standard “church planting” model will leave this sort of group to later - or last - because it is hard to set up a church plant with any hope of independence among the disabled. And most church planting models have the assumption (or an aim) that after a while a congregation will be independent.
This is not to knock church planting! But simply to achnowledge that any strategy will have gaps.
Something of Lukes intentional strategy is needed for some groups.
Hospital chaplains are an example of targetting one group where church planting may not be the best strategy.
It may be that a conservative evangelical theology of church or at least the way we clothe it in practice will connect to some groups better than others.
We need to be alive to that possibility.

@Jeremy, well I don’t think I was making a theological point :) Sure, theologically we want to reach everyone, just like a politician wants everyone to vote for them (if I can use that without negative connotations!).

The pragmatics of the situation however obviously put certain constraints on what can be done. People will always be excluded - you exclude people you might otherwise reach in a targeted campaign with a broad campaign, you exclude people you might otherwise reach in a broad campaign with a targeted campaign.

If we accept that theologically we want to reach everyone and remain open to everyone, but pragmatically we only have so much by way of time, money and people, then it seems silly to call one or the other ‘heartless’.

The question is simply what works.

For some reason that idea seems too crass, or heartless, or whatever, to get taken seriously, when it’s really plainly obvious and how we operate 99% of the time.

For instance, if I said we should embark on a sustained sky-writing campaign in multiple languages to reach as many people as possible, people would rightly dismiss it as a silly idea simply because it wouldn’t work. It might be well intentioned and theologically sound on one level, but if it doesn’t work, who cares? You make the same argument, so I guess we’re on the same page.

The point isn’t so much the need to reach micro-communities (though MUCH respect for John pointing out the disabled) it’s about reaching those who are persuadable.

I guess it’s like fishing where there are fish, rather than sending a few boats out into the middle of the ocean and hoping for the best.

Or, to go back to my military metaphor, it’s about fighting the fight where the fronts are and where we want to win territory, and expanding from what we’ve got rather. (Which is along the lines of your second point, so again I think we’re on the same page :).

I mean who knows, maybe this will all happen with Connect09 or whatever, but I get the sense that big, all-in effort will ‘rally the base’ (you can tell it’s political season...) a bit, but without clear goals it’s hard to know what you’re aiming for or what success looks like, which is why I asked how many people won over would make the campaign worthwhile? What actual number is the threshold for success?

I don’t mind the broad effort, but to me the chances of success are far greater when you pick an area and say ‘we’re going to plant three (or 30) churches here’ or ‘we’re going to convert 1000 people’ or something like that. There’s nothing profound aobut that - to hit a target, you need to know what you’re aiming for - but it does make you stop and think ‘Ok, where are these people going to come from? Who are the persuadable people and how do we reach them?’

Otherwise there’s a real risk of target everybody, get nobody.

John Sandeman - 14 October 2008 10:56 AM

“Operation World” a survey of christian mission describes the disabled as one of the largest unreached people groups in the world.

And can I just say, I still like my idea of a roving, diocesan or regional minister/s for the sick/disabled/house bound :) Try and meet 5 people/day or ~25 p/w (?), leave a sermon on a DVD with them, pray, chat, eat, move on to the next person.

Luke, I don’t really like the word persuadable (as the gospel is not persuasive in that way… it’s only by the work of the spirit that anyone hears it) but I get your point. There are definite sections of soceity that it would be worth giving more energy too.

But we also must preach the gospel to those who are not open to God. Somehow God will be glorified through their deliberate rebellion.

Well, that wasn’t exactly Jesus’ attitude (Luke 10):

8"When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set before you. 9 Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God is near you.’ 10 But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’ 12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.

Luke Stevens - 14 October 2008 01:05 PM

I guess it’s like fishing where there are fish, rather than sending a few boats out into the middle of the ocean and hoping for the best.

I like fishing illustrations.  The “best” fisherman always target a fish species.  They know their habits, seasons, where they hang out, at what times, not only what food they like, but how they like their meal prepared.  Tides, Times, Moon, weather, water temperature, water clarity and even barometric pressure can affect fishing, and an experienced fisherman will always take this into account.

of course - there’s never a guarantee you’ll catch something - and someones you come back with a big donut.

and sometimes - just throwing out an old dirty prawn on an old rusty hook with a 20yo rod and reel will catch you something surprising.  Cause you never actually know what you’re going to get.

Many a times I have gone out fishing on a boat, 15km off shore, with expensive gear, the right bait, to the most strategic spots at the most ridiculous times - to come back and find the 10 year old back at the Jetty with dodgy gear severely out fished me.

oh - sorry - what were we talking about again?  I got distracted!

Mike

Luke Stevens - 14 October 2008 12:47 AM

In a sense I think a successful mission strategy has to take a targeted view, like generals with a map of the battleground, for want of a better analogy. You don’t just say “Oh we’re going to influence the whole area, win all the people, everyone’s going to chip in and it all work out”. You may as well rely on magic in that case.

**Warning** Wet Blanket Post follows…

I have to say I have some sympathy for Luke’s view here…

One of the thrusts of C09 has been connecting with every single person in the diocese, which might sound good in theory, but I have some concerns with it.

On gross numbers, to cover every person in the diocese would need each Anglican to connect with 60-70 people (based on a Syd population of ~4M). Realistically you cannot build meaningful relationships with this many people even over 5 years, so there seems to be an assumption that a large majority of connections will be very brief, e.g. handing a stranger (albeit a local one) a gospel.

This seems a bit scatter-gun to me (back to Luke’s point). Why not focus on getting people to build significant relationships with a realistic number of people in their “areas”...neighbours, work colleaugues etc, which can then be built on well after 2009?

Now possibly the response will be “We’re encouraging people to do both - it’s not either/or”. I would personally question the overall effectiveness of the hit-and-run approach (such as giving materials to strangers). Sure it might be effective for some people, but such an impersonal “connection” will surely not resonate with many.

Additionally it seems an attempt to connect with everybody assumes, in a way, that it’s all up to the Anglicans (queue cavalry music)...but surely the Baptists, Presy’s, Indy’s and even Pente’s are doing all sorts of things to reach the communities around them...has anyone thought that a scattergun methodology might actually undermine their actvities?

Wetblanket post concluded…