The Attractive Church Theory
The Attractive Church Theory
I’ve spent more than half of my lifetime working in, for, and with churches. I know I haven’t seen and heard it all; but some days it sure feels like it. I have always been one to not jump on to buzz words, especially in the church world – because they either tend to show up too late, hang on too long, or have so many meanings that no one is ever having the same conversation anyway. If you’ve been around this you know what I mean – if you haven’t, raise a glass in thankfulness – your mind is likely more clear than mine.
The latest Celebrity Death Match in the world of church terminology is Attractional & Missional. By chance you’ve not lived in a cave the past few years, you know that one of the statements you cannot avoid is “We are no longer in an ‘either – or’, but a ‘both – and’ time in history”. Simply put, we must collaborate to move forward in a healthy and sustainable way.
If you want to read more about Attractional & Missional or Attractional vs. Missional – talk to Google and knock yourself out. I just wanted to share my observation and working theory based on the ongoing discussions and at times – down-right-arguments that are happening.
The Attractive Church
- Those who call themselves ‘missional’ tend to emphasize mission and downplay ‘attractional’ and claim to be focused on the person and not the numbers – and have been known to talk smack about those who go for the ‘big event’ approach
- Those who call themselves ‘attractional’ tend to emphasize the drawing of people in a larger numbers at a time and have been known to talk some smack about those who don’t try to go for bigger numbers.
My working theory is:
- Attractional Churches cannot become big without being ‘on mission’ – therefore we would not even be talking about them if they were not missional – because if they were not ‘on mission’ they would have no one at their churches and we would not be having this discussion.
- Missional Churches may be on mission by definition but I’d like to propose that it is absolutely impossible for them to accomplish the mission of the church without being attractional – meaning the people are drawn to know what moves & motivates their mission.
Jesus told us the “by this will all men know that you’re mine – that you love one another” – and “we are to reflect Him”. When we are like Him, reflect Him, and doing what we can to be Him on this earth – We are on Mission and that is Attractive. Therefore I propose –
THE ATTRACTIVE CHURCH: a church on mission to be attractive; being who God wants us to be – and doing what He has asked us to do by drawing attention on Him and not us.
Let the honest conversation begin…………………….
Pictures simply represent (1) old church used by younger generations, (2) mega-church utilizing facility to reach masses, (3) openness to cram into a bar / nightclub and embrace re-use & mixed-use, and (4) the understanding that we are the church whether in a cathedral, a stadium, a bar, or simply on a couch in a home.
Tags: Attractional, Attractive, church, Mission, Missional
Dec 22, 2009
I grew up in a very conservative Southern Baptist home. My father, local God-fearing, hell-condemning minister, always had a way of “talking smack” about those “attractional” churches although he has struggled for more than 30 years when it comes to attraction AND retention of his own congregation. I like your theory…it compliments the cooperation vs. conflict theory. You can’t have one without the other…they are mutually entwined with one another and both sides serve a verifiable purpose.
Perhaps I’ll let this issue rest with my father, but I appreciate your view…as someone who only recently found my way back into a “sanctuary” (one that is right for me and may not be approved by traditional minds…more specifically, my father), I understand the value in both and, at the same time, enjoy the true meaning of the “mission”…it’s attractive.
Hallelujah. Amen.
Dec 22, 2009
lkwhitney – thanks for sharing. The idea and language around the theory has been birthed and growing as a result of hear so many people spending time ‘discussing’ and ‘arguing’ one over the other. And, in my attempt to simplify complex things just so they fit in my cranium — I thought – hhmm, maybe we should all be attractive and hope that our lives would demand a response like “What is it about that person’s life that I’m drawn to?”
Dec 22, 2009
Michael,
I find your thesis to be spot-on. I too agree that for an attractional church to be successful it had to be on mission. I would also agree that there should be something attractive about a missional expression of church.
That said, I would offer up a few nuanced comments. Regarding the attractional church- I think that one of the main problems that continues to cause such division, apart from mere semantics, is that many in the missional church camp believe that the attractional church was on mission. The problem, however, was that the attractional church’s mission was more about serving self than serving God and His kingdom. The argument could be made that the mission of the attractional church, in many instances, was to increase attendance, enlarge budgets, and expand facilities. This resulted in ‘celebrity pastors’ who were perceived to be experts regarding what it took to grow a vibrant congregation. The church, therefore, became more about growth and/or the pastor than it was about Jesus and His kingdom.
The current trend towards being a missional church is not without its faults or excesses either. One of the most alarming trends that I have seen in the missional church conversation is to equate everything with church. Rebelling against the idea of a church building or a produced worship service that people can be attracted to, many are suggesting that we find and cultivate organic expressions of church that occur where life happens. Employing this logic, it has been argued that you can meet with friends in a pub, over a beer, and enjoy church. Others have suggested, sometimes facetiously, that we don’t have to attend church “because we are the church” and that, therefore, we can go play golf on Sunday mornings and enjoy Christian fellowship in the cathedral that God Himself has created. But what is the mission that drives such expressions of church? What is attractive about such a mission? Is Jesus what is being seen? Is it Jesus who makes such an expression of church attractive?
As you have said, I think that the ideal expression of church is both missional and attractional. If we sway to one or the other, it seems that we end up with excesses that prohibit us from truly being the church and thereby keep us from having the impact that would otherwise be possible.
Dec 22, 2009
I posted some thoughts on this from the @edstetzer and David Fitch conversation posted on Vimeo.
http://vimeo.com/2746309
In general I think that one of the indicators of the attractional model is how we measure success. In the traditional church that many of us now in our 20’s,30’s and 40’s grew up in (which was revoluntionary in its day) the way success was counted was by attendance, converts and offerings. (or even worse, size of programs).
I find much of my disdain with the attractional method more against the “program” church.
Dec 22, 2009
There’s too much definition going on right now in the church. I seriously doubt if anyone cares outside of our church circles whether a church is “either or”. It all becomes semantic at this point. A new generation of leader’s is rising up and is re-defining paradigms there fathers defined. And on and on the cycle will go. I understand the need to say what you are, but I think that is inherent in the word, “church” or rather Ekklesia. It defines that we should be missional, attractional, New Testament, Multi-whatever (ethnic, location, generational, etc). Sadly, because of false prophets and false religions we have to differentiate ourselves verbally. Paul ran into similar problems. So, nothing new here I suppose…
Dec 22, 2009
Josh / Casey / Sean
Great comments in the reply. I know it’s often “semantics” – yet people put so much weight in words – which is not a bad thing. As Casey mentions about the defining and redefining of words. This is true and is a healthy and good thing.
I like what my friend Dave Gibbons says in his book The Monkey & The Fish about how each generation creates a new language to define the now and next – and that in this transition a lot of tension can be created. The use of language is vital to our communication.
“In writing this book, my hope is that we will sacrificially foster and prioritize next-generation thinking, next-generation methods, and next-generation leaders in the church so that the global movement Jesus began will be known first and foremost for sharing love without strings, healing, extravagant radical compassion, and radical reconciliation with the world so lovingly breathed into existence by our creator.” – Gibbons
And Casey makes a great point the “those outside the church” probably know to care or care to know for that matter. But what is important to note – and is one reason I’d even open this conversation is that people are watching us, our lives, our churches, how we operate, communicate, and they are making decisions about the God we profess often times based on the love we share and show for one another.
Regarding Metrics — oh yes, that is not a can of warms…it’s more like a keg or case. Of which is essential to this discussion since it is a key discussion point at many tables and “in between session” times at conferences both big and small.
Dec 22, 2009
Well said. I’ve been wrestling for a year over the attractional vs missional thing. I work with ARC, which plants attractional churches, but some well known ARC churches (like Seacoast, Healing Place Church and Church of the Highlands) are also highly missional, involved serving and have Dream Centers.
I like your term “The Attractive Church” and think it’s a good perspective and worth discussing like you’re doing on here. I’m definitely always going to be a both-and kind of guy.
Dec 22, 2009
Greg,
Thanks man – it really is about open communication, honest conversations, and being able to find some collaboration between the polar opposite stances on the two words. No doubt, “Competition is great for the marketplace” – and yes, I believe there are ways that applies positively to the church market (yep, I said it)…. But more importantly this discussion can help us find collaboration now when we need it most.
Part 2 is already being drafted…..but i think there is more discussion here first.
Dec 22, 2009
The difficult part about both of the sides of a discussion is that we deal in theory while churches deal in reality. We make a lot of assumptions in these statements and they are good and positive assumptions. We assume that an attractional church is on mission to spread the word of Jesus Christ. I would hope this to be true but sometimes they are on mission simply to be big numerically which is great but I’m not sure how that serves the kingdom by itself. There are also missional churches whose mission is to spread the Good News of the gospel and there are missional churches who are on mission to separate themselves from culture and I don’t think that is beneficial either.
I think we should ask ourselves, what about a church should be attractive to our culture. Is it our professionalism? Our ability to run a business? The quality of our music and worship? I don’t think those things are bad things however there has to be more to a church because I can find many organizations who do this well or even do some of these things better than the church. I believe the missional conversation is a good one because I believe for years the church forgot that one of it’s primary functions is mission and we desperately needed to be reminded of that fact but you can’t force a church to be missional. It has to come from the Holy Spirit, the leadership of the church, and the people who attend who understand what role they will play in the mission of God.
In the end I think being on mission is attractive to people in our culture. The gospel is unique and crazy and if we are living it out there is something that draws people to that. Yes I know that something is the Holy Spirit but it is also the community of people living in the way Jesus intend for us to live our lives that is very attractive to any culture in any place.
Good Conversation
Dec 23, 2009
I think it may be important that as we have this discussion we do our best to restrain from words like “always, never, all, none, etc…” Let’s be honest, the points we make probably don’t come out of thin air; there is likely some truth in every statement that has been posted.
I’ve been a part of the fastest growing churches in America and I’ve been a part of what I would say was one of the fastest dying churches in America — oh, and I was a part of a church that was alive, on hospice, then alive again —
In an effort to see the value and positive of each side and to try and add some value and actual action points…What if those say “I’m missional” could say to the “I’m Attractional” (and vice-verse) –
I would like to see the Missional church:
(1) Do more _________________________________________
(2) Do less _________________________________________
(3) Do the same _____________________________________
OR
I would like to see the Attractional church:
(1) Do more _________________________________________
(2) Do less _________________________________________
(3) Do the same _____________________________________
Jan 08, 2010
This issue is the definition of “mission.” Are you pursuing the mission of Jesus? These comparisons help me understand the differences between attractional and missional…
Congregation is program centered
Congregation is people centered
Congregation is building focused
Congregation is community focused
Congregation has a “come” structure
Congregation has a “go” structure
Evangelism is program based
Evangelism is relationship based
Ministry rests on a few people
Ministry rests on all people
Pastor is a doting caregiver
Pastor is an empowering equipper
Church focuses on adding members
Church focuses on multiplying leaders
Leadership development focuses on the head (more classes and knowledge =
mature Christ-followers
Leadership development focuses on the feet (living out the ways of Jesus in the
community = mature Christ-followers)
Church counts the number of members attending
Church counts the number of leaders functioning
Success is measured by attendance, programs, money given, and facilities
Success is measured by Christ-like character, biblical wisdom, gift-based
service, and spirit-filled living
Jan 16, 2010
I think the most attractive church, is the most powerfull church. Power comes from pattern. Those who follow the ‘Acts’ pattern in doctrine, experience the Acts power in demonstration. Here’s the neat thing, the church of acts was both missional and attractional. Im going ‘acts’..how about you?
Thanks for the article.The Lord bless you greatly in 2010.
Paul