Missional and Attractional, Part 3
Posted: Tuesday, August 05, 2008
by Jared Wilson
http://www.elementnashville.org
In the last installment in this Missional and Attractional series, I elaborated on the first couple of contrasts in the following chart highlighting general differences between the attractional and missional ways of "doing church" and being the Church:
In this entry, I will elucidate the next three contrasts suggested by the chart.
Evangelism Inside vs. Evangelism Outside
As suggested previously, both attractional and missional models of church place a high priority on sharing the good news of Jesus with the lost and seeking, and both place a great emphasis on Christians living lives of contagious witness. The key difference in these modes of doing church, however, often lay in where conversion is often thought to take place.
For all of its apparent rebellion against the fundamentalist airs of its traditional forebears, the attractional church continues to reinforce a revivalistic expectation in their worship services. The approach may be different -- topical sermons replacing expository sermons, contemporary pop music replacing hymns, modern architecture and stage props replacing overly churchy aesthetics -- but the goal of the worship service is often the same: get the attender "saved." They might even emphasize different aspects of the gospel differently, the traditional church playing up the weight of sin and the modern church playing up the availability of grace, but both are gunning for the soul of the unsaved with their church service.
In the attractional world, the church building and its weekly worship service act as the chief instruments in acclimating the unchurched to church culture and, hopefully as a result, to a relationship with Jesus. Everything is designed to achieve comfort for seekers and the mechanism of the facility and the service is the chief mode of the church's evangelism.
In the missional model, by contrast, despite being seeker-mindful and despite preaching the good news of grace for sin every week, the chief mode of evangelism is the community life of the church body being Jesus outside the church walls. In this vein, evangelism is much less about attracting the lost to a program in which they may get saved and much more about church members living Christlike lives in Christlike ways. The chief mechanism of evangelism is not a church worship service but the church worshiping God by acting out service in the outside world.
Program-Driven vs. Improvisational
This is a shorthand way of alluding to the dominance of business principles and self-help attributes in the attractional church. In the attractional church, people and services are structured, strategized, and systematized into whatever leadership or program "machines" are in place. An easy litmus test for determining if a church is program-driven is taking a look at its community structure. If there is a set design for small group curriculum and assimilation, it is highly likely the church is program-driven.
There is much emphasis on centralized control in the program-driven approach, and problem areas of the church are often addressed by devising new systems, training techniques, or, well, programs .
The attractional church frequently leans program-driven because it makes the mechanism of the well-oiled church run smoothly. Every aspect of every structure, from the bottom up, submits to the strictures of the program.
The missional mindset, on the other hand, typically makes things much more difficult. There is a higher emphasis placed on leaders shepherding the various aspects (or even programs) of a church, allowing flexibility within general structures. A missional church has a leadership that, in many respects, is at a functional disadvantage, because it frequently must react to situations and problems, whereas in the program-driven model, problems are anticipated and expected to submit to the prescribed program or self-select out of the life of the church
The missional church, on the other hand, is able to respond to individual dilemmas and problems individually and with consideration. There is no prescribed outcome except for what is biblical. It does not ask, "What best serves the program already in place?", but "What best serves this situation?"
There is more work (and more headaches) involved in this sort of "leadership jazz," but there is also more freedom.
This contrast will take on more shape (and clearer delineation) when we get to the "Firm/established vs. Flexible/organic" contrast later in the series.
Missions as Program vs. Missions as Purpose
This contrast is fairly straightforward. Because the attractional church exists primarily to get as many people as possible through the doors of the facility and into the worship service, local and foreign missions are relegated to compartments of the various other tasks of the church structure. Mission work and mission giving is often seen as a necessity, but not more necessary than keeping the facilities and the services offered by the church structure going. Looking into the figures on mission giving in the average church budget will bear this point out.
In the missional church, however, mission work is what the church does and, so to speak, what the church is . Necessarily and primarily. From the daily lives of witness of the community to the outlined structure of the church programming to the theological reflection of the church's doctrine to the budgeted finances of the church's coffers, the missional church clearly and obviously exists to glorify God by obeying the great commandment to love neighbor as self and by reflecting the great proclamation that Jesus is "making all things new."
This Article has been viewed 424 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (1 total)A really good piece but I find it strange that in either church what you have written to is what the believer should be doing. The difference in approach, perspective, application yet the one same objective. Yes many ways to the same God. Good job.in either church what you have written to is what the believer should be doing
Robert, can you explain why you find this strange?
Thanks for your comment!Strange that I see them as , for lack of a better word, approaches to the same objective and in fact they can be intertwined, mingled or utillized as desired if they prove successful to the mission objective, winning souls.Ah, yes, I see what you mean.
The aims of each are admirable and good.
I would only argue that the ends don't always justify the means, and that good intentions are no substitute for good ecclesiology.Yes that is also true and the path to God, although he is the same for may denominations, is splintered in belief and approach. I, being a very spiritual person was born into a ritualistic church. I deeply love some of the traditions and rituals, signs and symbols but I also seek God more spiritually. It is in humbelness that I feel closer to Him. Others find that in different ways. I am also quite hard, as my writings go, about knowing, examining and doing who you say you are. "Why do you call me Lord , when you do not do my commens", Luke. I enjoy your work and find it interesting. Best wishes, luck and prayers. Robert.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.