Bear with me for a minute: A guy (or gal) has a heart/gifting for evangelism. So what does he do? Does he become an evangelist? No she becomes the Pastor of a Church and endeavors to create an organization centered around her goal of soul-winning. She turns every church gathering into an evangelistic crusade (what we should actually be doing outside the 
church – scattered on mission). In my estimation, the Attractional model for church fails to differentiate between the church gathered and the church scattered.
You see, in the Missional model there is always a sense of “sent-ness” (John 20:21) – bringing the good news to them, vice asking them to come and be part of us. It’s “go and tell” vice “come and see.”
In the attractional model we try to make ourselves into a group that people will want to become a part of. It’s similar to the old “seeker sensitive” model except that the seeker sensitive model was always accused of watering down the message for the sake of church growth. But in the attractional model (with an Evangelistic Pastor at the helm) once we get ’em in the door, you betcha we’re gonna hit ’em with an explicit “gospel” message. The attractional model seems to always involve the marketing of the local church: “We’re a cool, fun group of people who love and support each other, so come be part of us! And look we have a cool church logo!” – the branding of the local church. It often plays out like this: “invite your friends to church, so I can preach an evangelistic sermon and they’ll get saved!” But shouldn’t I already be talking to my friend, in a relational, conversational setting, about Jesus and how following Him has transformed my life?
I found a couple of pretty good infographics that I stole from the internet which illustrate what I’m getting at here. The first one compares the attractional church with the missional church:
The second one compares the consumer oriented church with the missional model:
While the consumer church is a different animal, I still think it is helpful here to compare it with the missional community.
So what do you think? Are these two equally valid models from which we can pick the one that works best for us (I’m a terrible poker player, so I think it’s pretty obvious which one I favor). Should we be following the missional model as more Biblical? What role does the historical precedent question from hermeneutics play in this argument? If indeed we see a more missional model in, say, the book of Acts, does that necessarily mean that God intended it as prescriptive for all the church throughout all ages, in all cultural settings? Should we give in to consumer Christianity because we live in a consumeristic dominated culture? Or should we be counter-cultural and teach our people that following Jesus is about so much more than having our own needs met? Let me know what you think in the comments below!
Brad you probably could guess my comment before I even write it, but I can’t help myself. NT Scripture reveals that we are to counter-culture and follow Christ, as Paul stated “don’t be like the world..be like Jesus” (paraphrased of course). I feel that all the commercialism that is flooding the American church, Jesus is about to break out a whip and start flipping our tables, because we have indeed turned it into a den of thieves. God bless and keep up the good work!
I hope not, ’cause a lot of those people are my friends. But yeah… “I dig where you’re comin’ from, man!” <>
Here’s a twist:
Consumer church = discipleship for new believers. Missional church = outreach for matur(e)ing believers. Missional church presumes a common level of spiritual maturity and co-felt sense of being “sent ones”. But what happens when new believers come to faith through their efforts?
They will need (a) to be fed, (b) to have their needs met (ie. is their marriage a wreck? are their addictions that need to be overcome? have they been living on the street and now in need of some way of breaking the cycle of homelessness?), and (c) their kids will need some help (because their parents can’t pass on what they haven’t yet learned themselves).
I wonder sometimes if a “both/and” is the healthier, more biblical balance, instead of pitting the (mislabelled) “consumer church” against the “missional church”.
I pretty much agree with you. We’ve got to get people to a healthy place so we can send them out on mission. Face it, people come in messed up and we’ve got to help them get whole, meet needs. But I still think we don’t want to send the message that the church is a place you come and bring your tithe to purchase nice Christian products and services (program ministry) for you and your family. While we’re helping people heal we need to set an example that the church is about mission. I’ll offer one more counter. Jesus model of ministry & discipleship was to proclaim the KoG, do the works of the kingdom, and teach other to do the same (“here, now you try it…”) This is how he trained “the twelve knuckleheads” and IMHO they were a pretty messed up bunch of individuals who really didn’t “get it” probably until after the resurrection.
I am pro-missional, trying not to be anti-attractional…I am opposed to the marketing of the Sunday service, but I think this is what bothers me more: a) defining “church growth” as visible/numerical expansion (as opposed to Eph.4 unity/maturity/service) and b) defining success in ministry by these measurements.
Tim – you are a man after my own heart! Seriously, though, there’s nothing wrong with trying to bring people into the kingdom who currently aren’t following Jesus (obviously). But the Church Growth movement does seem to lead to an emphasis on bringing people into the (church) building and on growing the organization (as well as growth, survival and preservation of the organization at all costs) as opposed to growing people as disciples (followers) of Jesus. And don’t even get me started about the Marketing of the Church!
You might be interested in a couple posts I did here at TT on metrics:
http://thinktheology.org/2014/08/05/got-better-metric-butts-seats/
http://thinktheology.org/2014/08/13/better-metric-measuring-success-local-church/
or just read the section on Metrics in my paper from #SVS2015. You can download that here (it starts on p. 7):
http://thinktheology.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/bblocksom_organicforms.pdf
Thanks for your comment!
Thanks, Brad, I read each of your links…a good read. I have a new thought though, and wonder if you could share a brief response: we see today’s churches ADAPTING to the outside culture in an effort to be “culturally relevant” and to reach them effectively – I get that. But, what about the idea that we (as the Church) have our OWN culture that the world needs. Should we stop “adapting” to the culture around us and learn how to effectively bring a Jesus culture to them? (I’m not sure what I’m getting into here…) We change the way we do ministry (I get that) in a way that is attractive to lost people, and we avoid old methods of “Bible-thumping fundamentalists” telling them they’re going to hell – I get that. So, we do humanitarian stuff, compassion ministry, acts of kindness, ue technology, etc. The methods change but not the message – I get that. But what about this issue of “culture” – their culture vs the Church’s culture – I feel like we’re succombing to theirs, rather than holding our own. When we do outreach, do we always have to impress them how much we are like them? Can’t we impress them with how positively DIFFERENT we are, and how much they need what we have? Is it wrong to think that our Christian culture IS superior to society’s culture?
Tim – This is something that I’ve been struggling with myself for a while now, but I’m not sure I’ve come up with an answer yet. I’m all for “culturally relevant ministry” to reach the lost, but is there a limit? By way of example: we live in a consumer driven culture – do we therefore then give them consumer Christianity? I don’t think that’s the right answer. Should we give consumers the worship-tainment that they want? Or do we rather model in the church that: “no – consumerism is not what genuine Christianity is really about!” But how far is too far when it comes to contextualizing the gospel? I’m not sure I’ve figured out where the line is. But here’s a helpful article by Ed Stetzer on that very question:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2015/september/wisdom-in-contextualization-how-far-is-too-far.html
Do you think it is harder to define how far is too far when considering our own culture as it rapidly changes? I’ve been pondering this for awhile and ask myself what it looks like if I were going overseas to reach the lost. I’m pretty sure I would approach their culture respectfully. I’m wondering if I should look at the culture in which I live in the same way I would approach a foreign culture. Is this what Paul was doing when he was all things to all people that he might save some? Certainly in our American culture, outside of church we gather in big, loud events like sporting events and concerts. If a church used that to attract people to hear the gospel, but then introduced them to a community of believers that walked through life with them in discipleship, would that be appropriate for this culture or do we have to force people into what is outside their norm in order for it to be authentic?
Great questions Charlotte! A few thoughts:
One of the questions I’ve been asking is how far is too far when it comes to contextualizing the gospel. I’m not sure I’ve come up with a full answer but the best I’ve been able to find is by Ed Stetzer: http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2015/september/wisdom-in-contextualization-how-far-is-too-far.html
I’ve said it elsewhere before, but since in the US we live in a consumer culture, is the answer (being culturally relevant) to give them “consumer Christianity”? I don’t think that going to be helpful.
One of my concerns is that this may lead to an eventual “bait and switch” approach to ministry/church. We attract them/bring them in with fog machines, lights, a rockin’ worship band, and a hip, cool funny Pastor/Teacher. Then once we’ve hooked them in, we tell them the truth: “Uh actually real Christianity isn’t about any of this. Now that you’re a Christian you are called to live a life of selfless sacrifice, humility, suffering, giving away of your time, treasures and talents.” No wonder we’re getting, “Whoa, wait a minute, I didn’t sign up for this brand of Christianity.” Phil Strout says that “you keep them the way that you get them.”
First, how did I get here? I decided to look up and compare the definitions of “preach” and “teach” in Webster’s original 1828. It was what I suspected. Preach is to evangelist and non-believers as teach is to pastor-teacher and believers. That got me thinking of the many, many “get saved” sermons I have sat through all the while looking around and saying to myself, “I am pretty sure everybody here has confessed Christ…decades ago.” That got me thinking of the attractional model, which landed me here.
I recently read America at the Crossroads by George Barna. Here is a part of a review I posted:
Barna rightly points out that most American Christians lack a consistent and comprehensive biblical worldview. He says we need pastors who possess “the courage and biblical training to teach on issues of the day”. He says “A voting population that lacks comprehension of the issues and their biblical connotations is vulnerable.” He then observes, “This deficit in Christian education is causing Christians to withdraw from the cultural discussion regarding how to think about these issues. One example of that isolation is the decline in interpersonal evangelism. An equally startling example is the recent finding that biblical Christians are less likely than other people to raise or debate current social issues with friends who hold different worldviews because they feel ill-equipped to engage in such conversations.”
So, note, a deficit in Christian EDUCATION speaks to a lack of teaching not preaching. Preaching is cross/repent/death/life oriented but teaching is empty tomb/life abundantly oriented. The attractional wannabe evangelist preacher model tends to keep people at the cross and immature–repent! repent! be sorry for your sins! Uh, I have confessed Christ as Savior so repent of what exactly? How or where am I still sinning so I can repent? When does the Christ as Lord come in? The pastor-teacher missional model equips and edifies the saints so they can do the work of the ministry.
Let me rephrase this. Once upon a time I used to succumb to guilt and condemnation: if I were really in love with Jesus I would witness (verb) more. Then one day that still, small voice said, “You are a teacher not an evangelist. Besides, the best way to witness (verb) is to BE a witness (noun).” I realized that the doing emerges naturally out of the being.
So I proceeded to systematically renew my mind and eventually acquired a (relatively, I hope) consistent, comprehensive biblical worldview. Now I cannot help but BE a witness which causes me to frequently witness…not in a Romans Road sort of way but in a no matter what the topic is I can usually inject light and salt into the conversation sort of way.
Hope this makes sense.
Merry Christmas!
There’s a term for that: it’s called “Preaching (a get saved sermon) to the choir” (already believers)!
At some point we need to stop declaring ourselves unqualified because of some existing struggle in our walk, and start doing what God has called us to do for the kingdom!