Attractional Church
We covered this territory back in March of 2007 when I was reading a book called The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st Century Church by Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch. It’s come up again in light of our recent conversation. Plus, we’ve added so many new readers to this blog in the last two-and-a-half years, it might be beneficial to revisit topics like this every so often.
JamesBrett has been hinting around this thought, but let’s go ahead and state it explicitly. There is a movement among church leaders towards a more incarnational approach to ministry and away from an attractional model of ministry. In other words, these leaders believe we ought to do less “inviting” and more “investing” — less “come and see” more “go and do” evangelism.
At least, I think that’s what the whole attractional vs. incarnational thing comes down to. Am I missing something.
Let’s start with this question: Why is attractional so bad?
Well, perhaps we should try to arrive at a definition of “attractional” for those who haven’t read Frost & Hirsch’s book. So, okay…two questions:
1. What is an attractional model of church? Did my description above get it right, or did I miss something?
2. Why is that model so bad?
November 20th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
if we all know the definiton on “insanity” to be doing the same ole thing over and over but expecting different results…this should help with “attractional model”
need I say more?
there will always be a place for Main Stream Denominational Churches
yet for me, Grandma’s Church down on the town square is kinda like NYC
fun to visit, would not want to live there
as the movie put it best im going “Where the willd things are”
Grandma’s Church did not welcome the Holy Spirit
my family, friends and I need genuine, real, authentic life
not “tiny people with little plastic steeples” as Casting Crowns wrote
November 20th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Why does it have to be bad? My question would be why isn’t there room for both? I mean, I know a lot of people who thrive in what we’re calling an “attractional” model church. God bless em.
There are others who find more fellowship and incarnational ministry at the coffee shop or (God forbid) the local bar. Those are the people the traditional church is not (and doesn’t seem interested in) reaching.
Is there a reason why these two models can’t coexist?
November 20th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
yes there is a reason why the two cannot coexist.
oil and water do not mix
freedom and bondage don’t nest well together
November 20th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Let’s make sure we’re all talking about the same thing. I suspect the two of you may mean different things when you say “attractional”.
Or perhaps the difference is in what you two mean by “coexist”.
It sounds like jenksym is talking about two models coexisting in different local churches in the same community — while iz is talking about the two models coexisting in the same local church.
Is that an accurate assessment?
Oh, and what’s your definition of “attractional”?
November 20th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
iz,
I think it’s a little harsh to equate an attractional model with “bondage.” I have been part of one of the largest attractional churches in America since it started 13 years ago, and God (through the Holy Spirit, by the way) has done amazing things in people’s lives. We see and hear stories all the time of how God used a very non-threatening, outsider-focused worship service to bring people to repentance.
John,
I would say that to me, attractional is simply using what is culturally relevant (another charged word) to draw people in to experience God’s grace. There are problems with it, though. It’s too easy to sit and soak; to listen to a really cool guy in expensive jeans tell you how to live better; to enjoy a great rock band; to let your kids have fun in Disney-esque rooms made just for them; and on and on (don’t forget the half-caff double-whip soy latte).
What has made our church successful, in my opinion, is that it has had to be both. Irresistible environments are important in getting outsiders interested in what God has to say, but they have to hear the whole gospel when they’re there. Worship AND service, accountability in the context of community, being Jesus to their neighbors, why God wants us to give, etc. That’s why we see life change. It ain’t the bells and whistles.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
“Attractive” churches are basically “seeker sensitive,” which is another way of describing anything that’s designed to lure people in. Willow Creek & Saddleback are two excellent examples of attractive churches, done well. Many other examples exist that are done poorly (Most small CofCs and Baptist churches come to mind).
It’s bad for a couple of reasons, in my opinion. Which is not to say that nothing good happens there, or that sometimes it doesn’t “work.” The problem is that it isn’t imitating Jesus.
Isaiah 53 – He had nothing to “attract” us to him. And what was it about ANYTHING in Jesus’ ministry that was attractive? He promised persecution, family splits, poverty and loss. He demanded one ignore family funerals and good byes and take up crosses to follow him.
When we make discipleship attractive, we are doing a “bait and switch,” and it often backfires when people find out that there are enormous struggles associated with the lifestyle.
But one problem with the “incarnational church” guys is that it’s not the church’s job to be incarnational. It’s an INDIVIDUAL responsibility! We keep giving our churches our job. churches are supposed to be holy, and always in the NT churches are primarily for saints to strengthen each other, confess sins to one another, and hold each other accountable. This is incongruous with visitors.
You had it right in your “silver bullet” note. Jesus said: GO – MAKE DISCIPLES, etc. The going part is the incarnational bit. We LEAVE the comfort of church, family and harmony to go into an ugly world (Just like Jesus). We eat dinner with Tax collectors and sinners, not invite them back to the synagogue.
Then … we make sure they count the cost, and before they become disciples, they need to know what they’re getting themselves into.
as it is now, when Jesus (or you) preach a difficult lesson or offer a rebuke, everyone leaves (John 6). You are forced to compromise the message of the gospel call, in order to make it appealing. Rather, we should be making disciples like the 12. After everyone else quit, Jesus asked if they’d leave too, and Peter said, “We’ve left everything to follow you. You have the words of eternal life. Where else can we go?”
The prodigal son didn’t come home because life on the farm was fun or easy, he came home because it’s where he belonged.
Seeking and saving the lost isn’t about attracting people to something cool or fun, it’s about offering people something they can’t get anywhere else: the strength to survive the inevitable storms of life (and sometimes church).
November 21st, 2009 at 6:01 am
I’d like to attempt to give my thoughts on this issue, though I may have some trouble getting everything down, especially in brief. [After writing all I wanted to say, I decided to post in three more manageable sections.] You should know that initially I intended to write that, while I myself prefer an incarnational approach to ministry, I don’t feel that an attractional approach is a poor one — and that it might even be a good thing for different congregations and areas to take different paths on this. But after going back and reading everything I’ve written, I have to be honest. I personally don’t see attractional ministry demonstrated in the Bible, nor do I think it is a very good idea. I am by no means authoritative on the subject And I welcome discussion on these thoughts, because I, like all of you, want to do what’s best for the kingdom of God. I also should apologize if I’ve repeated things others have said in their posts — I intentionally have not read any of the posts for this blog, so that what I write will not be reactionary in any way.
The definitions I will be using (I have tried to make them as objective as possible, but am afraid I’ve still failed):
Attractional Ministry = proclaiming the gospel primarily through methods of attracting people to your own soil (for and/or through programs)
Incarnational Ministry = living out the gospel in your community and on their soil
I should insert here my strong conviction that the church is the means for continuing the mission of Christ in the world. And that church is not in itself the goal or a goal; the body of Christ already has its mission laid out before it, and this mission is the very reason the church exists. A church should not be formed, and afterwards ask of themselves, “What is our mission in the community?” A thorough study of God, Christ, and mission must come before our study of church. [I think it was Frost and Hirsch that first (and best) pointed this out to me.] Theology to Christology and missiology, and only then ecclesiology. These ideas are core to my thinking on these issues.
Some Important Texts in my Mind
- “I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth,” Isaiah 49:6. Even as God gathered Israel together to himself, their mission was to be outside themselves. THEN the nations would come to God.
- Ex 19:3-6 and Deut 4:5-8 show Israel as mediators between God and the world, and his representatives in the world. I understand how one could view this as attractional, though I believe it is better interpreted as one nation living God into the world, in plain view of other nations.
- “The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us,” Jn 1:14. Jesus was incarnational in his ministry, coming to live among us. (see also Phil 2:5-11)
-“As the father sent me, I am sending you,” Jn 20:21. The apostles were sent just as Jesus had been.
- Jesus’ prayer for his disciples in John 17 seems to involve much language of incarnational ministry in continuing his purposes in the world.
- Paul seems to lean towards an incarnational approach in 1 Cor 9:19-23.
November 21st, 2009 at 6:05 am
[Below are my thoughts on the subject. I should point out they are only my thoughts -- and some of them very well may be wrong. I also should point out that I many times make statements such as “...lends itself to...,” “...often requires...,” and “...sometimes...” I know all of these statements are not true of each and every attractional church; that’s why I have used this language. I also understand that just because something “lends itself toward” another thing, this does not mean it is absolute and/or a bad idea. That last thing I should state is that I had intended to write one list about attractional ministry and another about incarnational ministry; but then everything kind of ran together. So there is not a great deal of order to what’s written -- and I should apologize because, in proofreading, I found that I began most of the statements with a negative view of attractional. If I had it to do over again -- or were willing to take the time -- I would have tried to begin the statements with positive views of the incarnational approach (though the negative view still would have come) -- I hate to sound so pessimistic...
My Thoughts on Attractional vs. Incarnational Ministry
1. One major concern I have is how we view our assemblies (usually Sundays). I view these times as an opportunity for disciples to come and lay before God the fruits of their worship (measured by obedient lives during the week), and to encourage and build up one another in those lives of worship. Personally I believe we are cheating disciples when that time each week becomes about bringing in outsiders. [I am aware that not all attractional ministries use their Sunday assembly as a time for evangelism.]
2. Successful attractional ministry often requires a church to “fit in” with and look like the outside culture inside the walls of their own building or programs. Versus incarnational ministry which, in order to be successful, must involve acting like Christ, and therefore peculiar, outside the walls of the building and in our communities.
3. Attractional ministry more easily lends itself to a numbers-based approach to mission, rather than an obedience-based approach.
4. Attractional ministry seems to work best in reaching only those who are like you. OR you can… (see #s 5-7)
5. Attractional ministry often requires that you remove individuals or families from their own culture and community, in order for them to join your church culture. Versus incarnational ministry which transforms other cultures and communities, redeeming some aspects of them, and allowing others to remain.
6. Individuals or groups removed from their culture and community in order to become part of an attractional church often lose much of their ability to witness inside their former culture.
7. Attractional ministry often seems to be about making OUR congregation larger — bring them to us, add them to our group. Even if it means we have to begin new ministries / subsets of culture in our building (which often cannot function well together with our “main” body) in order to make them feel more comfortable (ie. services in other languages, other worship styles, etc). Versus encouraging, allowing, and even helping new believers form new congregations or join other existing congregations that are more culturally appropriate for them.
8. I fear that attractional ministry is often an excuse for people not wanting to live markedly spiritual lives in the “secular” world, because it’s uncomfortable. Even when this is not the motivation, I believe it is often reality.
9. Attractional ministry often reinforces the erroneous conviction that there is a distinction between the sacred and secular. [The kingdom of God is near, versus the kingdom of God is here.]
10. Attractional ministry strengthens in the minds of many non-Christians the notion of “we have God in this building / box / program — come to us if you’d like a portion.”
11. It seems to me that attractional ministry lends itself toward larger, yet shallower communities of faith.
12. Attractional ministry seems to me to be more programs and less worship as a lifestyle.
13. Incarnational ministry seems to allow more room for God to do the drawing of men to himself, as we simply live life as intended in his kingdom.
14. Incarnational ministry more easily lends itself to disciple-making, rather than belief in a prescribed idealogy.
Remember: Mere opinions. I think they’re right, or I wouldn’t hold them — but still they’re just my opinions.
November 21st, 2009 at 6:09 am
I think we also have to address the terms ‘centripetal’ and ‘centrifugal’ in how they relate to mission. I was taught in graduate school, and many authors hold, that Old Testament mission was centripetal in nature — all other nations were to be drawn to Israel and their God, a sort of attractional ministry (on a national level in this case). I was then taught that God’s chosen strategy for mission changed in Christ’s coming — to become centrifugal in nature, as we are called to “go and make disciples of the nations” (a more incarnational approach).
Personally, I don’t buy this. I feel God has always intended the same method for mission in the world: an incarnational approach. An individual disciple is to live Christ into the community in such a way that others are drawn to, and glorify, God. A church is a subset of a community that lives Christ into its community in such a way that other subsets of the community (or portions of) are drawn to, and glorify, God. The nation of Israel was a nation (I think exceptional in its case in that there are no “Christian” nations today) that was to live God into the world in such a way that other nations would be drawn to, and glorify, God.
Now, if an individual is drawn to God as a result of my living Christ into the community, then it would often follow that this individual would be drawn/attracted, in some way, to me. [However, as implied earlier, that may not be the case when that individual or group is of another culture,subset, etc.] But I don’t see where Israel was called to invite other nations to a potluck, bowling night (excuse the sarcasm), or any other program/event/activity. They were to live by the rules God had given them, and be blessed by him. They were also instructed to treat aliens and strangers in their midst exceptionally well — but I would argue that promoting justice in any community is largely incarnational. How does a Spirit-filled group of disciples, and more importantly why would they need to, promote justice within their own community — a community of people who seek to build one another up and encourage one another, as they share in God’s mission?
If you’ve made it this far, thank you for your patience.
November 22nd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Wow. A great and timely discussion. While I’ve not spent much time thinking at this altitude about where my heart is during our church search (see the previous
“When It Stops Working” comments) I realized that this dialog captured the tension I feel perfectly. These two categories frame the internal conversation perfectly.
Here’s the rub- I’m a product, if you will, of the Attractional model. That is, my chronology began when I walked through the doors in 2000. A new (month old) Christian that moved from the first church I’d ever attended (a very traditional, in a PC way, PCUSA church in a small city) and began attending Jesus-world (it felt a bit like a big box retailer). As my faith grew, and my desire to know Him deepened, my actions and change developed along side it. With that, intellectually and spiritually, my eyes were opened to the holes in the very church model that had brought me along. For me, it was about the natural evolution of my heart, growing closer to God and requiring more of my heart, head and hands.
While the scriptural foundation for Incarnational Ministry is clear, IMO, it seems that on a non-corporate level, I’m called to Attractional Ministry as an individual. I believe that being “attractive” to others (because they seem my good deeds and perhaps, give glory to God) means being open to be approached so that I can share the good news. That without being Attractional, I’m not truly living Christ out in my life because I’m not living with open arms.
This sounds incredibly simplistic but taking a Relational approach to your community suggests, at least to me, that your opportunities to share the core of your life with someone is greatly simplified by the fact that you submerged with them.
I get the whole God in a Box implication and I’ve not settled on where I sit with it but Jesus ate with tax collectors precisely because they came to Him due to his attractiveness. He is undeniably attractive. Then His truth can penetrate the exterior shell we all wear.
Am I missing something? Is this too simple? I truly want to learn from this dialog because we are at that point in shopping for a church so please weigh in!! Thanks for this conversation.
November 22nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Heh…I should have finished JamesBrett’s Pt III. Thanks for clarifying some things!
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I should apologize, though, for writing so much. I seem to only be able to think well when I’m either writing something out or saying it out loud in a conversation. So in order to get my thoughts together, I just start typing. Then at the end, I always realize I’ve got pages of stuff. That’s where being a bit lazy comes in — and I don’t go back and pare it down. So I’m sorry for dominating a discussion by posting so much. But I really appreciate the opportunity, John, to get to work some things out in my mind — and hear others’ thoughts as well. Thanks for hosting us.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I think it’s an unbalanced overstatement to pull that quote from Isaiah and claim there was nothing about Jesus’ ministry that was attractive or attractional. Yeah, he promised persecution and all that, but he did feed thousands of people and heal people of all sorts of diseases. He also told some really funny stories — poking fun of religions and political leaders. He also promised hope for common people and relief for the poor. Those were pretty populist messages. People came from all over to hear him teach and ask him for a miracle. He never turned anyone away — though he did wonder aloud if they were just coming for the show. Furthermore, one of the 12 seems to always be involved in bringing people to Jesus. Andrew is big on the “come and see” kind of evangelism some of you seem to knock as unbiblical.
If it’s just about being the best and coolest distributor of religious goods and services — if that’s what we mean by “attractional” — then I agree it’s unbiblical and wrong. That mentality plays into the consumeristic tendencies of our culture. If, however, it is about contextualizing our message in a way that allows the gospel to do its work by removing cultural barriers, then I’m in favor of it.
In my opinion, when we set these two at odds with one another, we’re going to fall off the horse to one side or the other and end up flat on our backs. Attractional is not inherently evil. Rather, it is when a church becomes only attractional in its approach to ministry that it goes off the rails.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Yeah, I know it seems odd to see Jesus or His message as unattractive. It caught me off-guard, too when I first started checking it out. Please let me encourage you to look again.
Jesus does feed people, sure … but only after days without food, and when they follow him because of it, he deliberately offends them in John 6, discouraging them to the point that many leave! The rich young ruler, and pretty much everyone … was discouraged by Jesus, and if you read carefully, you’ll see why: Jesus says if we don’t leave everything we CANNOT be his disciples. He isn’t saying we’ll be disallowed, but that we’ll be UNABLE. That’s why he tells them to count the cost first.
Being a disciple is costly! (Grace is free, discipleship is not. I still haven’t quite figured that out, yet)
The attraction of Jesus was for those who were looking for the Messiah, those who wanted healing or physical aide, and those who wanted spiritual cleansing. It seems to me that Jesus’ compassion was his motive for healing & feeding, not to attract. And when people came for that, he wasn’t surprised or discouraged that they left. they are represented by the first couple of soils in the parable of sower/seed.
But those who surrender all, who are willing to skip their dad’s funeral, to sell all their pearls for only one, who will stand up from a money table or the greatest catch of fish in his life … drop it all and follow Jesus – these people aren’t found by his being “attractive,” but by the fact that he alone has the words of eternal life. What draws deeply committed servants to Jesus is the healing power of the cross (Just as the serpent in the wilderness was ‘attractive’). And in Paul’s case … he WANTS to have fellowship in Christ’s suffering, and be conformed to his death! Maybe it’s the kind of thing that “attracts” someone to do an ultra-marathon or triathlon or climb k-2.
Look at Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 2 about his preaching. He deliberately refuses to be clever or wise in his preaching when first making disciples in Corinth. Deliberately unattractive?!
I know it’s challenging, but check it again. I think you’ll find only one thing matters when it comes to disciple-making: God working through those who will deliver His invitation accurately – - to reach the few hearts who have been prepared (by the Holy Spirit) to receive it. Those will be people who are willing to burst into a room full of religious types and wash Jesus’ feet with their tears. Those are people who will lay it all down right now. God has prepared the fields for harvest – all we need to do is go for it.
I suspect we’ve gotten to the point we just don’t believe. We don’t believe the fields are ready for harvest. We don’t believe there are those who want to suffer alonside Christ … so we try to soften the blow. we argue over variations of marketing. We don’t want programs, but we build them and call them something else. I believe there are those who are ready to offer themselves as living sacrifices to God, and we aren’t finding them because we keep marketing to those who want stuff.
Anyway, I know it’s weird of me to butt-in to your conversation. I do so anonymously because these ideas are SO unpopular, and my own church would freak if they found out. Call me Nicodemas, for I need to sneak out at night to find the truth. sorry, and thanks for your indulgence, brother.
I’ve been scowering the scriptures for years, and I cannot find a modern church model that matches the work Jesus or Paul did. You guys seem ridiculously well-read in all the right books. If anyone can challenge my ideas, I know it’ll be you. And frankly, I’d just as soon you prove me wrong, because trying to establish an “ugly” Jesus doesn’t (apparently) have many precedents since the first century.
Thanks again for what you do
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Dude,
I thought long and hard before I approved your first comment. I normally do not allow anonymous postings here — it’s led to some belligerence in the past. But I suspected you might just be anonymous b/c you’re afraid of what someone might think. I know some places that have fired preachers for their posts. I’m sorry to hear my suspicions were on target. I’ll pray that you can find a place where you can speak openly and without fear.
Anyway, thanks for being polite. Disagreements are welcome. Mean-spirited isn’t tolerated.
Having said that, I maintain that church can be attractional and missional at the same time. Jesus had something attractive. The disciples did, too. Paul encouraged us to season our words. He also gave instructions for how to behave when non-believers were present in our assemblies. I don’t think he was being intentionally un-attractive.
BTW, I certainly wouldn’t like it if my wife took you literally. I imagine you wouldn’t want your spouse to become deliberately unattractive as a way of following Jesus more closely!
What the Apostle Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 2 must be taken in the context of 1:10-4:21. Paul is disavowing only those cultural perspectives that have engendered strife, promoted community fragmentation, and brought about disharmony in the church at Corinth. In other words, Paul’s wisdom is incompatible with the mores and cultural values dominant in Roman Corinth.
Paul was deliberately clever and wise in some of his writing and preaching. I’m thinking particularly of his speech on Mars Hill in Acts 17. I also think his letter to Philemon is really, really clever.
I’m glad this can be a place for folks like you and JamesBrett and Walt (and me) to think things through!
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I believe that in I Cor 14, we see evidence of “attractional” concerns in a New Testament church. In fact, you could even say that the church is being rebuked for non-attractional practices. Paul is concerned about the experience of the non-believers who show up to the assembly. He doesn’t want to church to behave in ways that will be a turn-off to those non-believers who came as “guests.”
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
thanks for understanding the anonymity issue, John Alan, and for your patience with me.
The main reason I jumped into this is because of the terms you used in your original questions … you talk about ministry and church … almost interchangeably. This is where I get weird, especially considering Rick Duncan’s observations from 1 Corinthians 14. The whole argument of Paul in that section is to point out that the Spirit gives gifts for mutual edification (nothing about attraction, and the only mention of outsiders is about how they’d react if they came to one of our meetings and saw us speaking to one another unintelligably).
This has nothing to do with outsiders, but rather it’s focused on believers making one another stronger – tougher – more adult. This is why the bit about that which is “perfect” (awful translation) in 13. It’s rather about spiritual maturity. If the ONLY goal of the church is to help “one-another” grow stronger (1 Cor. 14.26), then where’s evangelism?
I think Jesus’ command to go, make disciples was to individuals, not to congregations. When Paul speaks in 1 Cor 2 about not being persuasive, he was talking about his original message to make disciples. At that time, there was no church (“I planted, Apollos watered”), and he even mentions WHY he did this: because he wanted their trust to reside only in God. It’s interesting to note that his intro lessons in Corinth were immediately after his less-than-stellar performance in Athens. And of course Philemon and Romans and other bits of his eloquence were to believers.
In Ephesians 4.11, ff and specifically in 1 Cor 14.26, the mission of the church is clear: it’s a meeting for mutual edification (strenghtening to maturity and/or the fulness of Christ).
I’m thinking that we’ve become too focused on turning our assemblies (not called ‘worship’ in the bible) into little weekly “Billy Graham crusades.” And though non-christians can come to these and find great information … that’s not what God intended. Rather He intended that they be intimate gatherings of fellow-disciples designed to get us ready to GO out into the world as incarnate ‘missionaries’ (individuals) from the holy assembly.
I think of it as athletic practice, designed to strengthen each player/athlete … but the performance, the “worship” done by the individual is OUT there on the field (when you saw ME hungry, etc). Then what’s attractive is when people see the individual’s good works, and glorify God. Like in Joseph’s stories when Pharaoh didn’t give credit to Joseph for being brilliant, but said, “His God must be powerful.” So the “attraction,” if you want to call it that, is that God’s strength is showed through our weakness.
When the world sees us suffer with strength, to serve and love and show compassion in our daily lives … then they will want to be like that. THEN they’ll ask about some sort of support group that will help them get better, and THEN we invite them to church.
I thank you again for considering this, and I hope I don’t come across as too argumentative.