This is a subject that causes me a lot of conflict. My lens of how I view the church is much different than most people that currently lead churches. My atheist background and desire to connect with other atheists/agnostics in the church causes this. I have serious issues with the attractional church, yet I see how people are transformed and ministered to by it. This is my conflict.
If you stop to think about it, when the first century churches were being established, were they attractional? Actually, they were quite the opposite. The early church was a collection of people looking for something powerful that brought them into harm’s way. It was not safe and comfortable. Most first century Christians faced persecution and death if they were caught gathering as a church or professing a faith in the Christ. However, today the church is a very comfortable and non-threatening place. Leaders within the church try to make it as welcoming and inviting as possible. The first century church was a call to action, not a call to grab a seat, sit back, and have your needs catered to for 60 minutes.
Before I go any further, let me first establish the foundation for the definition of the attractional and missional church. I think Tim Chester summarizes this well as:
Attractional church is a come-to-us mentality in which church revolves around the Sunday meeting. You often find that even people who talk of being more missional want to start by doing something with the Sunday meeting. A truly missional approach emphasises a missional lifestyle and mission in the context of ordinary life in locations where unbelievers feel at home.
In the context of what is considered an attractional church vs a missional church, it’s hard to see how one could be the other–they are just too distinct to operate in harmony with each other. I don’t know of any missional churches currently trying to be more attractional, yet I know many attractional churches trying to become more missional.
In my opinion, the better question to ask is: Can an attractional church become more missional? In response to this question, my answer is yes. This is where I believe the focus of the attractional church should be, yet there are still going to be some conflicts:
- If the attractional church is so focused on Sunday services, how can it then go on mission and reach people outside of the church? If the efforts and budget go to helping those outside of the church that will never become church members, how can the church then maintain it’s budget and staff?
- Many in the attractional church are coming for a reason. They are attracted to the great programs and the fact they can remain anonymous and comfortable. How long will these people keep coming on Sundays if they are asked to go serve others instead of coming to be served?
- When people in the attractional church feel their own needs aren’t being met, they will leave to go find another church that will. The attractional church attracts consumers.
Ed Stetzer & David Putnam give some good observational analysis to the contrast between the attractional church and the missional church in the book Breaking the Missional Code:
- From programs to processes
- From demographics to discernment
- From models to missions
- From attractional to incarnational
- From uniformity to diversity
- From professional to passionate
- From seating to sending
- From decisions to disciples
- From additional to exponential
- From monuments to movements
While my perspective and experience causes me to be aligned more with missional communities, there are some aspects of ministry that are compelling for the attractional church model. It’s heartbreaking at times to see this as a dividing line with no real solution other than taking a side and hoping your side prevails over the other. While I stand firm in the belief that the attractional church will never be missional in the true sense of the word, I wonder if somehow both sides can come together and seek some unifying means to be the church as Christ calls us to be. To care for our brothers and sisters in Christ, yet bear the burden of seeing others in the world come to know the love and grace that we have been showered with.
In my next post I will attempt to seek some middle ground and help unify the church to be on mission, yet doing so in different forms. For now, I’d be curious to know what your perspective and experience have to say in regards to an attractional church becoming missional.
Related posts:
Obviously this flushes out differently for every church, so a blanket statement really isn’t fair. But I would say absolutely yes, an attractional church can be missional. Why? Because you can be attracting people to the mission. You can use attractional methods (for lack of a better phrase) to bring people into the mission of the church.
Tyler, I see your point and concede to it in that context. The missional church will always have an aspect of attracting people to its mission. However, I would disagree in that it now denotes the missional church as being attractional. The mainstay of the attractional church is that it attracts people to it’s location on Sundays (or Saturdays or whenever they meet) and everything is secondary. It’s about exceptional worship music, dynamic preaching, not ever getting beyond 80% capacity, fun youth programs, big Easter & Christmas events, etc. Without exception, every mega church in the US is an example of what it means to be an attractional church.
I think we’ll probably both agree on the points I bring up in my next post about how there can be some middle ground where an attractional church can become *more* missional. Thanks for sharing your perepective and engaging in the discussion!!!,
the attractional church as it is framed today has the ability to “cross over” to missional or incarnational. The ability to “Cross Over” is succesful with some simple ingredients not exhaustive:
1) be prepared to be lonely
2) Miracles will confirm the mission
3) there will be grumblings and resentment
4) change will force adoption or desertion
5) expect to have early adopters and carry late adopters
6) Its ok if you don’t know the next step!
The new attraction is the mission! In essence missional is now attractional from a pastor with experience..
Milton, it was so great having a chance to hear your perspective on how you transitioned a traditional church to become more missional. I greatly respect and appreciate all the pain, suffering and resentment it took to go through that. However, my contention is that attractional and missional can never be the same. That a missional church can never be about programs and Sunday worship services…it must remain focused on community and mission. If people are being attracted by programs and a great worship experience on Sunday and then go serve the community in a small group next Thursday night, does it really make the attraction church now a missional church? I don’t dispute that the attractional church can have missional aspects, but I do take the position that the attractional church can never truly be considered missional. As I stated above though, this is just my perspective and I know your perspective is probably even more unique than mine. You’re awesome!
Hi Milt,
I heard you retired from HUD and was trying to get ahold of you. Please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Thanks
Muri
A great post and timely question Dave. I am wrestling with it myself and will soon have my church ldrship wrestling with it as well. I think an attraction church can have a missional element to it. The transition to a “fully” missional church is another matter. I am sure, with God’s help it is possible, but there will always be people who cannot relate to it. Reggie McNeal’s book Missional Renassiance is an excellent volume to me and worth the read.
Jim, I think you and I have been involved in similar conversations and have similar conclusions. During a meeting with Milton Herring last week, Missional Renassiance was a recommended read for me, so it’s on my list now :) Thanks for the reply!
great post dave, as always you speak not only from your readings but experience … this is awesome. I do agree that church today has a lot of work to do. Our Lord never intended the church to be attractional in the things of this world, BUT missional is also attractional in that it attracts all of us to the Gospel, grace & mercy of God, Jesus Christ, and all the hidden blessings of the Word! So yes, the church must be missional with right attractions to draw people closer to God.
Thanks again for great post and keep it up, bro!
Peter, welcome to my blog :) Interesting that so many have commented on the attractional aspects of a missional community. Whether attractional, missional, emergent, house church, etc. I think it’s truly not the church is Christ is not considered to be its head or the receiver of its glory. Thanks Peter!!!
I’ve spent a number of years doing the attractional model — and finally couldn’t do “the show” anymore. I have no problem with Christians doing things with excellence, but in all honesty, the only people we were attracting were Christians from other churches. Church had become a contest of “who has the best show in town.” And when I asked myself, “Would Jesus be at our show?” the answer was rarely, if ever, “yes.” That completely revolutionized how I saw “church.”
I like what Tyler had to say — people being attracted to a mission. Because if they’re attracted to the mission, then they’re ready to sacrifice and not just consume.
Ah, “the show” is something I was taught to be the most important aspect of church. Then as I began to look more towards Jesus and how his gospel was the center of first century communities it really instilled a passion within my heart to share this lifestyle of love and grace with others in his name.
Tyler and everyone else mentioning that the missional church attracts people to the mission is true, but it isn’t that easy. Too many people in the church today are not only consumers, but forced to be consumers due to the style of worship services prevalent in American culture. The shift is beginning, but it’s slow.
Thanks for sharing your story!
Very nice post. I would say the answer is yes, however I think it is probably more helpful to see the movement/shift on a continuum that measures missional activity. I think the best we can hope for in most traditional/existing attractional churches is incremental change. The “gravitational pull” towards attractional belief and behavior is very strong in churches that were birthed with that philosophy.
Brad, While there have been churches that have been attractional one day, only to attempt to be fully missional the next, I do agree that it will be a slow process of incremental change. However, I do sense there is a shift in church culture that will lead attractional churches to become missional, which may ultimately not be possible. I’d really like to see more unity within the church and support coming from both sides for the greater good of the gospel.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how the “best” church planters are probably those who’ve rarely or never darkened the door of the church. I’m just waiting for someone who has the guts to throw everything we know out the window and start fresh. Seems like the churched people are so used to church looking a certain way, that it’s very difficult to change that force of “doing what we’ve always done.” I mean, we all think we’re doing something new and fabulous, but really, we probably aren’t. :) (not speaking of you, Dave)
Lisa, I can tell you that it’s incredibly hard to build credibility and respect amongst the established church leadership and being fully independent for the sake of continuing the vision of such a new and radically different ministry (in modern day terms) leads to small churches impacting small parts of the community. I do believe the day will come when this type of community in harmony with the greater church-at-large may be what is considered traditional. However, there are always going to be the Christian that wants to be fed God’s Word through a public speaker on Sundays and they’ll only sing certain songs in certain styles, etc. The balance of all things church is the struggle, but the fact that it causes traditions to be broken when many don’t think there is anything wrong with the normative tradition is where we happen to be right now. As an individual I see it being so great to be in a post-church society doing things in fresh ways. As the leader of a small church, it can be disheartening and frustrating when other leaders can’t support organic movements, which ironically happen to be how the first century was established in the first place. This is probably best-suited as an independent blog post :) Thanks for your participation in the dialog here!
Good post and a subject of interest to many.
Your first question, “Can an attractional church be missional?,” is clearly no as the definition from Tim Chester make apparent. They are two completely different mindsets.
But that is really not the question we should be asking if we want to move the conversation along. Your reshaped question, “Can an attractional church become more missional?, ” is much better and more in line with what churches are exploring. The simple answer to this new question is yes, because an attractional church can take steps to spiritually form people who emphasize a missional lifestyle and mission in the context of ordinary life in locations where unbelievers feel at home.
Looking forward to your follow-up posts.
Thanks Rick! Hopefully we’ll be more in line philosphically regarding the church once you read my follow up post :)
Its a bad question that does nbthing but pit one group of christians against another, something God would never want. Every time I’ve ever seen a discussion on this, I see sides being taken, ugly accusations and words being thrown around, feelings being hurt, and The Body being wounded . Perhaps we should all go focus on reaching the lost in the context that each of us are uniquely designed by God for, and love and support other churches and groups who do it differently.
Acts 5:38-29 38 “So my advice is, leave these men alone. Let them go. If they are planning and doing these things merely on their own, it will soon be overthrown. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You may even find yourselves fighting against God!”
John, I would differ in saying that it’s not necessarily a bad question as I think the attractional churches will strive to be more missional in the future. It’s a reasonable way to see more multi-culturalism and disciple-building can happen. However, I do agree that choosing sides and standing steadfast can lead to bad things. I was formerly in one of those camps and I’m starting to have a shift in my thinking and interested to see how others respond to that shift. You’ll get a better idea of the heart of the matter from my perspective in my follow-up post. Thanks!!!
I think the apostle Paul said it best…
1 Corinthians 9:19-23 ” 19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”
I think there is room for many types of churches to reach many types of people with many types of backgrounds and personalities. That is also one of the things that is unique about Christianity…the central story of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, and the free gift of Salvation doesn’t (or shouldn’t) change no matter what other “window dressings” (methods) are used to spread that message.
I agree with you that there are many attractional churches who are primarily about the show and getting big numbers on Sunday, but many also go much deeper in attracting people to the mission. Plus, numbers can matter…if you are missional, but in methods are not “attractional” (not culturally engaging people enough for most people to give you the time of day) and you only turn 10 people per year into fully devoted followers of Christ are you doing things better than an attractional church who gets 10,000 people in the door and turns 100 or 1,000 of them into fully devoted followers of Christ, and who makes that determination anyway?
I think David Putman’s own church, Mountain Lake Church in Cumming, GA is a good example of a church being both attractional and missional and I think he would agree with that assessment (David if you happen to read this, feel free to correct me). I just don’t think there is a “right” answer to this question. I think it is “both/and”.
Jody, I appreciate your insight and thought-provoking reply! For the purposes of this post though, I’m not trying to stir the debate over numbers or baptisms. I’m simply asking the question: Can the attractional church be (fully) missional? I agree that it will require churches with different styles and philosophies to reach the world. Some will be more focused on preaching/teaching those already in relationship with Christ, while others will look to be relational with the world-at-large that does not know the Lord. I do, however, believe that the missional church is better-positioned to disciple believers because they are at the heart of the Greatest Commandment and the second, of loving our neighbor as ourselves. Our neighbors should not always look like us, think like us, or believe like us. More in my follow-up post. Thanks again :)
I wonder if some of the keys to this question can be found in the differences between the more Jewish
church(es) ala Peter and the gentile churches ala Paul in the first century. And certainly there was even a mix depending on the culture and what people were use to. Perhaps this is what it boils down to, the culture and what people are familiar with. It does seem, to me anyway, that an attractional church might have a harder time allowing/enabling people to become more ministerial and see themselves as active participants in the gospel and kingdom, as opposed to missional churches, which
is exactly the essence as I view and understand it.
exactly
Jeff, there are definitely several ways to look at the contrasts between the attractional vs missional model of church. I agree that culture does play a role in this and I sense that culture in our post-Christian, post-church America i dictating that the church become more missional to connect with unchurched and unbelieving people. Therefore many people are asking the question: Can the attractional church be (fully) missional. It’s a relevant question today and one that we need to view with an open mind for the sake of carrying the gospel to those outside of the contemporary, attractional church. Thanks for your feedback!
Hey Dave, I’m not so sure America in it’s entirety are “post-Christian. I think most people in the heartland of the country are very church and God-focused.
Needless to say, I believe both the attractional model and the missional models are biblical. Jesus called to out to some to, “come and see” while also sending out the 72 to “go and preach/proclaim.” I believe in order for the Church to be effective, we need both the “come and see” and the “go and preach” models. Both only will “work” as we are lead by the Holy Spirit.
Now on to your follow up post.
Josh, good word here. While both the attractional and missional models of church can be considered Biblical, I think we as people try to define one as being better than other way too often.