Missional Church
We took a stab at trying to define “attractional” church. Personally, I wonder why we feel the need to add -al to the end of everything these days, but there it is. Attractional. Missional. Incarnational.
Anyway….
The term “missional” is being used a lot nowadays, but very few people know what it means. It’s become kind of a junk drawer for everything people would like to see fixed in local churches. Some people talk about adding culturally relevant music to their Sunday morning gatherings and say it’s important because they’re trying to be “missional”. Others talk about serving the poor as a way of being “missional”. I have a friend who is not planting a church; he is planting a “missional community”.
It seems to me, though, that a group of people who are committed to joining God on his mission to redeem and restore the world might do things like…I don’t know…gather together regularly to worship corporately and learn from one another and encourage one another and pray for one another and other things that might look an awful lot like…I don’t know…a church.
Has missional become the new inconceivable (“You keep using that word — I do not think it means what you think it means”)?
What is a missional church?
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I’m not sure; and so I refrain from using that one. But from what I understand of how it’s often used, it seems kind of redundant — speaking of a missional church or missional Christian lifestyle. I feel like we’d be just as well off to use the word authentic or real or serious or committed or Spirit-filled or transformed… you see where I’m going.
I’d prefer that we redeem the words Christian and church, so they don’t require modifiers.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
what is a “missional” church?
hmmmm…
is it a Church with a mission?
harde har har
I’m no sailor. Have spent very little time at Sea.
But I have taken a cruise. (Alaska-Bucket List)
Sorry back to subject.
You can categorize Churches into two camps (or ships)
1. Battle Ship
2. Carnival Cruise Line
you tell me which is “missional” and or has a “mission”
One tells you come and be served, play, have fun, kid friendly. No surprises. Comfort at all cost.
Other ship tells you it is not safe. Women and children stay home. People will die. One mission. War. For. Freedom.
now watch clip from Braveheart where Sir Wiliam Wallace has his face painted blue and screams before they go into battle with sword held high
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I tried hard to jsut use the word “Mission” and not “Missional.” But I caved in. Some (not all, but some) young leaders in NE Ohio are all about being missional, but they want to attractional churches to pay them a salary. That way, they can create missional churches and then criticize the attractional churches that pay them their salary. They also want the attractional churches to keep on paying them a salary 4 and 5 years after their missional project didn’t become self-supporting. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you… At breakfast in a Bob Evans here in NE Ohio, I heard Ed Stezer call these guys “angry white boys.” I believe the Bible teaches that we should be both/and when it comes to missional/attractional as organizational guru Jim Collins would advise. Thanks, John, for making us think.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Unfortunately, I think we’re not gonna solve this so simply. When I look at Jesus, I see both. Miracles, signs and wonders which attracted. “Come unto me” sounds pretty attractional. Yet, he’s also sending and is by his very nature missional. “Word made flesh” kind of defines the whole idea, doesn’t it? Perhaps I’m naive, but it still seems to me you need some kind of balance. Both/and sounds like a goal worth shooting for.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Jenks,
We can’t define attractional ministry as “any type of ministry which might attract people to God or his community.” Every form of mission is required to do that in order to be mission. Jesus performed miracles, signs, and wonders IN THE COMMUNITY as he lived a blatantly spiritual life, demonstrating what it means to be a citizen in the kingdom of God. And people were drawn (attracted) to that kind of life, and wanted to know about the God who was responsible for it. But that’s not attractional ministry; It’s incarnational ministry at its best — sharing the gospel by living Christ into a community.
That’s very different from designing programs and activities to which people might want to come, kingdom life involved or not. Attractional ministry is when we offer some kind of program to get people on our own soil, so that then we can share the gospel with them. I don’t know of Jesus ever having done this. I wonder if he didn’t even go out of his way to prevent it… I’m not saying it can’t work, but it doesn’t seem to be demonstrated in the Bible, and I think it carries with it a lot of difficulties which would have to be overcome.
But when I look at the alternative of incarnational mission, which was demonstrated by Christ, I can’t think of any reasons to try and solve all the problems inherent with attractional ministry, just so that I can use what is a more man-centered approach…
…except the following: it’s easier; it’s more comfortable; it’s the way we’ve always done it; and it ensures that our own congregation will grow and not just the kingdom as a whole (there’s also some money involved in this one).
November 24th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Rick,
I’m with you completely. I think those young guys you speak of are going about it wrongly. Not, though, because I think they shouldn’t accept or ask moneys of “attractional” churches… I think communities of faith of all kinds should strive to work together — and in your example, it seems the larger churches are being incredibly mature and doing just that. I also don’t think it’s wrong of those young guys to speak / teach what they believe is truth about the way in which God has called us to do mission. But criticism of those churches who disagree…
–[Complete speculation and guessing about what I don't know to follow]–
I would guess the problem is mostly a lack of planning and realistic goals, due to a misunderstanding of attractional ministry and what that type of church might need to look like and how it might function best? It seems odd to me that these guys require a lot of funding, and especially for so long. I feel like one thing attractional ministry really lends itself to is not requiring a great deal of funding, or even paid staff (especially in the beginning — unless you’re having to live and minister in an area other than where you lived prior to starting this ministry).
As for the whether or not the Bible teaches we should be both/and in our forms of ministry, I can’t find that. But I want to see it if it’s there. Take Jesus for example: everything about him was incarnational. He left heaven for earth — even took a human body. And if that wasn’t incarnational enough… in his mission to/in/for earth, he didn’t focus his efforts within the religious buildings and community. He was living a Spirit-filled life in the larger community, with the tax collectors and prostitutes, and on their soil. I can’t find anything attractional in Christ.
Jenks did suggest that Jesus offered the words, “Come unto me,” which does seem pretty attractional. But he also followed with, “and I will give you rest.” Unless I can give rest, I don’t see this as my ministry. But my ministry IS living in plain view of others a life in which that rest is evident. And when they see it, they will be attracted to the one who gave it to me. Attractional ministry says, “Come to our coffee shop, and we’ll tell you about rest while listening to calming music.” It is true that they may see Spirit-filled believers there who are demonstrating lives of rest — but some of the damage has already been done at this point, because we’ve required them to come to us.