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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.