Note: Before you quote me on this post make sure you read the two paragraphs below! This is quite intentionally a polemic piece of writing, and while it reflects much of what I believe it is said in a way that I normally wouldn’t choose to say things. So before you either quote me or write me nasty emails read the fine print 🙂
I mentioned a few days back that Scott had asked me to write a piece on ‘Incarnational v Attractional Mission’. It was to be a maximum of one A4 page size 12 font… approx 500 words… How hard is that?!
Knowing the potential for biffo with this particular topic I often try to be a peacemaker, but here’s 500 words that go a little bit harder. I do this not to bash the attractional expression of church, (because many of my close friends live there), but because its hard to have a good debate if we’re all just being nice to each other. This isn’t quite ‘gloves off’, but it does get a little more pointed.
Here goes…
Incarnational versus Attractional Mission
Over the last 7 or 8 years I have become increasingly convinced that the incarnation is the primary biblical lens through which we are to view the missionary activity of Jesus and in turn the church. When ‘the word became flesh and moved into the neighbourhood’ he had many options as to how he would live his life as the ‘son of God’. Yet, somewhat paradoxically it would seem, he spent most of that journey quite intentionally as the ‘son of man’, living a simple life in a small town for his first 30 years, prior to any recognised ‘ministry’. So much so that when he returned to preach the people laughed and mocked him saying ‘He’s just a carpenter” Mary’s boy” Who does he think he is?’ It begs the question, was Jesus a lousy missionary or was there something quite intentional and radically subversive about the way he approached his life and mission that we need to learn from and emulate? If Jesus were alive today and his mission was still to ‘seek out and save the lost’ what might he do?…
Would he hire a building, set up a sound system, develop a music team, drama team, and then do local letterbox drops advising people that they could come and be part of his church on Sunday? Frankly I don’t believe this approach to mission would rate a blip on his strategic radar. The so called ‘attractional’ mode of mission centres its focus on the church service and is dedicated to producing an event that pagans will want to come to. The theory goes that the more professional the service is, the funkier the music, the better the coffee, and so on” the more likely the punters will come, hence the term ‘attractional’. As such the success of mission in this mode is almost always measured by the number who attend on Sunday. While a small minority of larger churches do experience some success with this approach, the overwhelming majority of smaller churches attempting to be Hillsong clones continue to haemorrhage members every week because they cannot offer the same quality of music, preaching or other services that their mega-mall comrades down the road are able to provide.
I would argue that this ‘attractional mission’, while effective for a few, is actually a case of putting the cart before the horse. Deciding on a form of church and then trying to make it so that people want to come is mission in reverse. There is a growing awareness that pagan Aussies do not want to come to church and simply making the Sunday event more attractive is not the answer to this problem. Perhaps the question we ought to ask ourselves is ‘why do we think they would want to come to church?’ Was it ever Jesus’ intention that non-Christians should seek us and desire to attend our worship events? Or didn’t he say quite clearly that it was his calling, and now ours to ‘seek out and save the lost’ to ‘go’ to their world and enculturate the gospel there. Little Bo Peep evangelism (leave em alone and they’ll come home) is fast running out of steam as the Christian story ceases to be the dominant framework for Australian people to interpret their spirituality.
By contrast the incarnational approach to mission is refreshingly simple. It requires us to live amongst the people in our communities, love them, share the good news of the kingdom both in action and in speech and then as people become followers of Christ to form up indigenous communities of faith that reflect the specific context. This requires no great resources or buildings, no slick marketing plans and no highly talented people. In incarnational mission the gatherings exist to support the believers as they move out in mission rather than being seen as the place to bring people to. While attractional churches will continue to dominate the landscape of the Christian world, I strongly believe that hope for the future lies increasingly with an incarnational approach to mission that takes both gospel and context seriously and sends Christians out as missionaries rather than calling pagans to come and attend church.
————————————————————————————————————————————
Ok… fire up!
Fantastic piece of writing, I couldn’t agree more. Being incarnational is what it is all about. We also have a 2million dollar building whih we take care of very well, but to think that people will be saved because of a building is ludicrous. We do great events and have great services (in my mind) but if we don’t have authentic relationships with people then we have missed the starting point to mission and are wasting our time.
Pingback: links for 2007-01-18
Hi and greetings from Sweden (I’m actually from Scotland originally)! Totally agree about the incarnational approach (the word became flesh and lived among us – and got alongside us -sharing our journey). However, I might disagree a little about the Little Bo Peep analogy. Does she not represent to some extent the Father in the story of the Prodigal Son and the Prodigal Son represents the sheep who came back wagging his tail? The stories of the lost sheep and the prodigal son appear in Luke 15. Sometimes we need to go out looking and other times we need to give people the space and the time they need to wander off – but we must always be there to welcome them back and sometimes to help them pick up the pieces too. What we need is the wisdom to know the difference. Otherwise, spot on 🙂
Thanks for the post, I was having a long discussion with someone on this topic last night but don’t think I worded my ideas as well as this.
Any ideas of how to convince a church (that’s the bunch of Christians in the building) that they need to get out of church (being the building) and start talking to people who don’t speak the same Christianised language as them?
Pingback: What is Incarnational Ecclesiology? | Lo-Fi Tribe
Pingback: StretchyChurch » Attractional vs. Incarnational
I wonder, can I have your permission to translate your text and post it on my Swedish-languaged blog concerning the emerging conversation and the missional church? We have a need for good presentation’s of missionality in our language. Of course you and your site will be referred to as the source.
Hi Daniel
Certainly! You are most welcome
Andrew
Pingback: SelahBlogg
I’ve now published your post in translation (Click the url above to reach it), we’re thankfull to you here on the other side of the globe.
I’m just having a small question; what do you mean by the word “punters”, does it apply to costumers/consumers in general? I’ve translated it with a word that means “costumer”. Yet, I’ve been told that punter means “John” (“costumer of a prostitute”), but that sounds a little harsh in the context…
“consumers in general” is a good defintiont!
Doesn’t punter technically mean someone who makes a bet on something? sorry still trying to get my head around your language.
rev
Sorry for butting in … I agree … but perhaps what is more pertinent to the church that is seeking a way forward in the post-Christian context is, what it means to be and how we go about the forming up of ‘indigenous communities of faith that reflect the specific context’.
How do we wrench from our patterns, structures and mind sets about church, those things that Christendom has imbued in and around us?
How do we authenticly reflect our specific context in our faith forming communities?
Blessings
Rob
Pingback: the 7 | relevintage
Pingback: Hamo Steps Down | Kouya Chronicle
Pingback: Resources for Some Friends: | Kouya Chronicle
Pingback: Total Church 11 « fresh expressions…
Pingback: Attractional Versus Missional Church | Kouya Chronicle
Great article. I just think it misses the point of the both/and character of the postmodern world. Why can’t the church be both attractational and incarnational at the same time? Isnt there the Lost Sheep and the Prodigal son? And how can people be sent if there is no place for them to gather in twos or threes? Or is as simple as saying “as long as you dont have a building and walk and live among the community you are incarnational? Where is the sustainability financiall in that kind of set up? or are you advocating that all clergy should be bi-vocational, or that we do away with clergy altogether? Before pastors of churches start buying into such theology they better know the consequences. Better yet, are you a pastor of a church that has a building?
Im not trying to be nasty here, just asking the obvious questions that no one seems to be asking.
Bill
G’day Bill
This post actually had about another 60 comments which gave clarity to the questions you were asking – but in transferring hosting they were all lost.
Oddly enough I wrote a post last night that may clarify my understanding on some of what you ask.
A couple of other thoughts:
It was intentionally polemic as it was written originally for a debate. I have caricatured somewhat for the sake of getting an argument going 🙂
To answer your questions:
Q: Why can’t the church be both attractational and incarnational at the same time?
A: See my post from last night (written before your comment oddly enough)
Q: Isnt there the Lost Sheep and the Prodigal son?
A: Yes, but I don’t think the father set out to make ‘home’ as sexy as possible to win the son back home.
Q: And how can people be sent if there is no place for them to gather in twos or threes?
A: I agree with the need to gather – no argument there at all. It just doesn’t need to take a specific form.
Q: Or is as simple as saying “as long as you dont have a building and walk and live among the community you are incarnational?
A: No – I think that would be a caricature the other way!
Q: Where is the sustainability financiall in that kind of set up? or are you advocating that all clergy should be bi-vocational, or that we do away with clergy altogether?
A: Complex question. I prefer bivoc approaches to ministry these days, but i appreciate some people are called and required to serve full time vocationally. Having seen the view from both sides of the fence I like the bivoc persepective better – but it is a difficult balancing act.
Q: Before pastors of churches start buying into such theology they better know the consequences. Better yet, are you a pastor of a church that has a building?
A: I have a building. It is my home. Seriously – that is a building and it is adequate to the task before us. Maybe one day I will again work for a church that has a dedicated building, but i do find the thought of a ‘worship centre’ where it is used once a week quite abhorrent.
Cheers
Hamo
Pingback: Backyard Missionary » Blog Archive » Big Hitters
Pingback: 10 Years of Blogging | Backyard Missionary
Pingback: When Our Prophets Rage | Backyard Missionary
Pingback: RIP Attractional Church? | Backyard Missionary