the missional vs. attractional church model myth
There’s been a debate among church leaders in the United States as to whether the primary function of the church is to gather (attract) or scatter (mission). The missional camp focuses on empowering people to live out God’s mission in their context. The attractional camp focuses on hosting events that draw people to the church so that people can engage in spiritual discussion there.
The missional movement has, for the most part, been a healthy critique on the practices of a majority of American churches. The discussion has forced many to ask, “What is the purpose of the church?” Is the church the vehicle of redemption? Is the church simply the people of God? Those who came from a missional paradigm obviously stress the “missional” component of the church. As Reggie McNeal says in Missional Renaissance, “the church is not the destination but the means to the destination.” On the flip side, those who come from a more attractional church background see the church more as a gathering of people that do certain things.
It seems to me that the church must be both. The church is the people of God who gather in community and who then are sent out on mission. In the Scarlet City Project our hope is to be a people transformed by God to change the world. We firmly believe that there is nothing more “attractive” than a community rallied around Jesus and the restoration he brings. Furthermore, we believe that the love of Jesus compels us to intentionally enter the lives of our neighbors so that they can experience the same hope and love that Christ lavished on us.
Do we hope to be missional? Absolutely. Do we want to be attractive? Unashamedly yes. I guess we want to be attractively on mission.
Good stuff Jay! Attractively on mission. Missionally attractive. Attractively missional. Missional in our attraction.
Nice piece, Jay.
As to your (second-to-last?) paragraph, I offer a resounding “Amen!” But I think a large part of the problem is a misunderstanding of what constitutes an “attractional” church, and hence a mass lumping of (far too many) churches (i.e., all who don’t fit neatly into the “missional” camp) into that camp. Attractional, in my understanding, does not = gathered. Rather, it is the approach one takes to the gathering. Attractional churches are consciously, aggressively, dare I say primarily, focused on church worship services as a primary means of connecting the lost to Christ. More often than not, they do so at the expense of what has historically been understood as the primary purpose(s) of the gathering.
Churches that put a lot of energy and resources into their worship gatherings are not properly all attractional. Many of them invest a tremendous amount in facilitating weekly gatherings that are radically Christ-centered and Word-saturated. A missional gathering, whatever the size or cultural flavor, will expect unbelievers to be present and will be conducted in a manner that is intelligible to them (Paul affirms the need for this, in his discussion of spiritual gifts). But if it is to be called “church” (ekklesia, contra most missional gabbers, means “gathering” or “assembly” rather than “called out ones.” Look it up in BDAG), the primary focus must, and inevitably will be, “the church.” That is, if it is Christ, not man, who is lifted up as the central focus of worship, both in Word and “sacrament,” then “doing church” is necessarily a response of believers. God help us to do so in an authentic and rigorously Christian way. Only then will what unbelieving visitors experience be genuinely Christian, and hence genuinely transformational.
Shalom,
matt
Matt, thanks for sharing your thoughts and convictions on the church. I think you’re absolutely right in pointing out the lack of clarity in defining “attractional.” If “attractional” equals “seeker oriented” then your analysis is correct. However, many lump all gathering focused churches into the attractional model. As you know, they do this because they see the church’s primary role as being missiological. I’m advocating balance. The church is a gathered community sent on mission.
I love the dialogue. Keep the thoughts coming.
Great thoughts Jay! Thanks for generating these discussions. I definitely share your sentiments on the need for balance in this approach. I would also add that the debate sometimes places too much emphasis on the idea that “others” need to hear the Gospel. We forget that one of the primary reasons we gather as a family is to celebrate what our Father has done for us through His Son. Not only is it important to proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus to those who do not yet know Him (both in a church gathering and by living missionally in our workplaces and neighborhoods), but we also need to preach that message to those who are already in the family. I find that in my own life I can verbally acknowledge all the right doctrine (Jesus died for my sins, etc…), but my actions and attitudes can simultaneously prove that I love, fear, and trust other things more than Him. All moral transformation that pleases God results from believing, trusting, savoring, and celebrating what Jesus has done. The church needs to hear the transforming message of the Gospel just as much as the unchurched. I personally think that the world is attracted to people who are authentically grateful for the way that God loves them, and authentic celebration of the Gospel inevitably moves us into mission.
Good word and balanced Jay. Got a book coming out on the subject in Feb. 2011. Thanks, Billy