I did a little more reading last night in The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission in the 21st Century and I was once again struck with their lack of balance. Don’t get me wrong Frost and Hirsch aren’t the only ones involved in this upheaval. I’ve seen the same thing in Guder, Stetzer, Putnam, Van Rheenen, Mark Driscoll, and others as well.
I will more than likely never work in (or plant) a church that doesn’t have facilities because it is “attractional.” I have always been bothered by such a statement. When I was first exposed to missional it was in the context of Solomon’s Porch. It seemed a little hypocritical to say that they didn’t “do church” like the rest of us when the only difference I saw was that they sat in a circle. Congratulations on escaping the trap of being “attractional” (I hope you can “hear” the sarcasm).
Why does being missional “require” (and I don’t think it does) a total abandonment of what we “used to do.” The fact is I don’t think that you can ever gather in a corporate setting without being “attractional”. (That is unless of course a “missional group” met to beat each other and then it may not be attractional.) Matthew 5:1 is the context of the greatest sermon ever preached. Look at what it says:
Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples CAME TO HIM, and he began to teach them. (Matthew 5:1-2, TNIV, emphasis mine.)
Some people here have been angered or alarmed at the use of the word missional. For some reason they are guilty of the same thing as those who have been writing the missional literature that so many are reading. They think that to accept something means to totally reject everything else. The past is useless to those who are missional (or so they suggest in a subtle way). I just don’t buy it. There are lessons that can be learned from all “seasons” of the church. I for one am striving to learn and move forward.
I really believe (and have ever since I was old enough to think about it) that my generation will be the first in a new wave of the church. I know that as far as it depends on me the “new wave” will be one where we only can our theology inasmuch as we have failed to properly live it out in the past. This means things like effectively reaching our communities and balancing (there’s that word again) our teaching and training with serving and sharing. I desire to experience and express life in Christ.
Give me balance and I’ll be there. Tell me I have to ignore my past and drop my paradigm for this new one that is so simple that it takes you 200 pages and me to read your book twice to get it and we will have some problems. Let’s talk about it, dream about it, do it. We’ve got to get out of books (which I am guilty of) and out into our world. It’s dying out there. So let’s quit trying to convert people to being missional and let’s just do it. In doing so we will be better teachers of the very thing that we are attempting to espouse.
My friend Josh Kingcade has had some stimulating posts on missional lately. Check them out here.
Blessings.
3 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
I think that you might misunderstand our use of the term attractional by confusing it with being attrative. Attractional has to do with the primary missionary mode (or stance) of the church. Be as attractive as you can. But assuming that pepople must always come to church tyo hear the Gospel has done it untold damage and made it a very ecclesio-centric affair. The church somes from the Gospel not the other way around.
Shalom
Alan,
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate the need and desire to be “attractive.” But I think that to suggest that “attractional” (with balance…hence the title of the post) can in fact be a very positive thing. There are so many ways that our facilities can be used to bring people in a position to come to know Christ. All I am suggesting is that while I agree that we have been too attractional in the past I do not think that it warrants a total rejection of the practice. May God help all of us to be more Christocentric and God-honoring in our ministry that focused on ourselves, our facilities, or anything that removes the glory and honor from God Himself.
— Michael
One of the difficulties I have with the “missional” organizational structure is that a lot of the terms used are similar to other words, and have to constantly be redefined. There are many initials being used also so that words like p.e.a.c.e. and dna and b.e.l.l.s all mean a whole system of things rather than just what they sound like. It’ s all in code. Makes critics like me VERY uncomfortable. A new “secret” language is being used, new jargon, and it’s somewhat divisive.
I see good things coming from the missional organizational system…service. I think it’s great. Reworking the bible or what it means to be a Christian makes me not care about the service though. If I wanted some of the eastern religious influences I could be an agnostic, pick and choose Yoga, meditaion, and go through labyrinths, and also do good deeds and have almost as much as many mergent churches these days. Christ offers something more than new terms, new ideas, and new age.