I’ve been doing a lot of soul-searching lately in regards to my view on church. Some things I feel have been reinforced, yet some things have been re-shaped. As I posted last week here, I do believe that there is a division between the attractional church model vs missional communities. The basis for which they are founded are too distinct for it to be any other way:
Attractional Church- Focuses most of its energy and resources on the weekend worship services. The belief is that if people come to the service that they can come to know Christ through everyone singing worship songs, hearing teachings from the Bible and connecting with Christians in a safe, anonymous setting.
Missional Church: Is really outwardly focused in every sense. To be missional is to live out one’s faith every day and to do so in surroundings that aren’t necessarily comfortable. The resources of the church are aimed at connecting with people where they are–rather than attracting them to a service–and forming community with them regardless of whether they are Christians. The heartbeat is to serve others outside of the existing church.
There are a lot of unresolved (and some unrecognized) issues within the church whether it be attractional or missional. Rather than make it solely an issue of how we do church, I think it’s best if we look at how we can combine both aspects of these two church models into one harmonious effort to reach people with the love and truth of Christ and how he desires to be known in our communities. Instead of trying to analyze why attractional churches are for baby boomer Christians and missional communities are the next wave of postmodern church, or why missional communities don’t honor God because they are too small and have questionable theology, we should be looking at how we can open our minds to a shift in the traditions of the contemporary church and reach across the aisle to find some common ground.
Most of this debate has actually been initiated by the Reveal study done by Willow Creek Church a few years ago. Bill Hybels looked at how effective Willow Creek was in discipling people rather than attracting an audience of Christians. It turns out they weren’t as effective as they thought after reviewing the results of a comprehensive survey they gave to their members. To them it was obvious that being fully attractional as a church led to shortcomings in the area of discipleship. However, megachurches such as Willow Creek can’t make a drastic shift in their philosophy and revamp as a new entity a week later. They need to chart a course and be purposeful in taking the people they want to disciple (rather than lose them to other churches that cater to their needs rather than commit to doing more). Therefore, the attractional church can look to be more missional, even though they may never be fully missional.
A (perceived) negative factor for missional churches is that being fully missional generally means being very small and uber organic. It lacks structure and is always in a state of transition. As the goal isn’t to convert people, but rather to share Christ’s love and believe that Christ will transform their lives at the appointed time even if it’s not while they are a part of the missional community, it’s hard to see steady growth within this model. Most missional communities do incorporate worship services of some sort, and we all know how difficult it can be to build momentum for our work in Christ when the gatherings are small.
In essence, as I look at both the attractional and missional church model I see room for improvement in both. I do not want to deny the great work done through both church models if they deem themselves successful being fully attractional or fully missional. However, regardless of how one wants to convey this idea, I do think in reality that the attractional church does lack in areas of discipleship and engagement. In contrast, I think that missional churches tend to look away from certain attractional elements that could help them build momentum and see change come about. In the end, should it be about what we think has worked well for us so far or should it be how can we work together for the sake of keeping the mission of Christ relevant to the eyes of the world and culture in a post-Christian, post-Church America? What worked for the past 20 years and seems to be working today may not be what the church will look like as soon as next year. There are shifts going on in the church–some due to economic influences, some due to cultural influences–that should cause us in church leadership to be open to changes in the future. We should be active rather than reactive. We should lead culture rather than be led by it. What we as the church do in the next 5-10 years will have a huge impact on how people live lives of faith and how they choose to express that faith.
Imagine the possibilities if instead of professing our alignment with guys like Bill Hybels or Rick Warren vs Dan Kimball or Alan Hirsch, we chose to profess our alignment with the mission of Christ in the 21st century. It’s easy to choose sides and engage in debate, but ultimately the case usually comes down to meeting somewhere in the middle; taking things from history and re-creating them to make them better today. This is where I will do my best to position myself moving forward–less divisive and more about building bridges. I sense that not many people will take this middle ground today as I do, but I do believe that 10 years from now we will be talking about churches that have elements of being attractional and missional as more normative rather than one model winning out over the other one.
If you’re part of an attractional church that is going through the process of trying to become more missional, please share your story. If you’re a missional community now looking at ways you can be more attractional and connect with people more in corporate worship, please share your story. Any thoughts on this are welcome.
