part 2: from attractional programs to attractive people

Comments

3 responses to “part 2: from attractional programs to attractive people”

1. 

   Josh Rowley

   May 10, 2010

   I suspect these two posts will only further muddy the missional waters.
   In his first post, Bolsinger writes, “For reasons both biblical and missional, I believe that the ‘attractional vs. missional’ dichotomy is unhelpful and unnecessary.” He adds his opinion that “‘missional vs. attractional’ is a theological and missionally false dichotomy.” This contrast may or may not be a “false dichotomy”; but the term “missional” is certainly not a synonym for “attractional.”
   When the terms “attractional” and “incarnational” (rather than “missional”) are paired, the contrast between the church growth conversation and the missional conversation becomes clearer. Reggie McNeal names the differences between “attractional” and “incarnational” in Missional Renaissance (see especially pages 49-50). Alan Roxburgh and Scott Boren contend: “We know how to do attractional church: multisite models are simply new ways of being attractional, small group structures are usually formed to organize those attracted to the weekend services, and evangelism systems are designed to get people to come to church. But a missional imagination can’t be squeezed into such models” (Introducing the Missional Church, 49). An attractional church focuses its resources on attracting people to a church building, which is where Christianity happens; an incarnational church focuses its resources on doing church where people (including unchurched people) live their everyday lives. An attractional approach clearly has a different focus than an incarnational approach.
   Bolsinger seems to conflate being attractional and being attractive. This conflation strikes me as unhelpful. An attractional approach to doing church is likely to perpetuate the common notion that a church is a “place where” religious goods are consumed. (The “place where” understanding of church is one of the main concerns of Missional Church, the pioneering book that popularized the word “missional.”) In contrast with this approach, a church that understands itself to be a people and not a place can be an attractive or winsome witness beyond the walls of a church building, wherever they are, whenever they are there.
   It seems to me that a better approach than that of conflating the attractional and the attractive is to distinguish between the two. In Introducing the Missional Church, Roxburgh and Boren distinguish between “attractional” (which they impugn) and “attractive” (which they affirm). Similarly, Colin Greene and Martin Robinson write, “Dynamic missional models are at least attractive, even if they do not intend to be attractional” (Metavista, 195). What these models intend to do is to engage people incarnationally in God’s mission. Others will observe these people at work in the world, and some of these others will find what they observe attractive. The admirers may even be moved to start participating in God’s mission; but even these people may never enter a church building.

   Loading…

   Reply
2. 

   Michael W. Kruse

   May 10, 2010

   Josh, I share some of your concerns. I think there are some ways in which it is appropriate to be attractional.
   I agree that the core of ministry is in the personal relationships. But any vibrant congregation is going to develop an identity as a community. To some degree that image to the community needs to be thought through and the community needs to be intentional about its image and identity. I think this is attractional in that reduces barriers to entry to people who may have learned something about the church or may know people in the church. For new people moving into a community. How do they find a truly incarnational church.
   What the missional church wants to “attract” and nurture are people with a missional understanding. That is primarily by personal relationships but I don’t think it exclusive to that.

   Loading…

   Reply
3. 

   Josh Rowley

   May 10, 2010

   “How do they find a truly incarnational church?”
   An incarnational church goes to where they are–that’s the point of the missional conversation’s use of the term “incarnational.”
   Few if any churches (missional or otherwise) will do nothing attractional. But missional churches do not focus on attractional efforts. To claim otherwise requires ignoring the vast majority of missional literature, including the pioneering books produced by the Gospel and our Culture Network. Some large garden-variety evangelical churches that have had success (measured quantitatively) with their attractional approach in the past are now trying to keep one foot in that world while putting the other foot in the missional conversation. Their syncretism is only adding to the confusion about the meaning of the word “missional.”

   Loading…

   Reply