and a dash of Organic (mmmmm... organic).
Geoff Surrat has posted some thoughts prompted by some things here on bob.blog... excerpt:
"First, I've never seen a purely attractional church. Every church I've been connected with is deeply concerned with helping people become disciples of Christ. When I've sat down with the staff at the largest mega-churches in America they are all exerting an incredible amount of energy to discover new and better ways to help people grow in Christ. I'm sure that there are churches in America who care only about making the turnstile spin on the weekends, but I've never experienced one.
Second, I've never seen a purely missional church; every church I've seen has a desire to be attractive (from the Greek root "attractional") They sweep the floors, turn on the lights, set the air conditioner. They buy sound systems so the musicians and speakers can be heard, they set up chairs, they make coffee. While they may never buy a billboard or send out a mass mailer, every church I've seen makes an effort to be attractive to those who might attend. And the ones who do a good job grow. Bob wrote recently about experiencing so much growth he was having nightmares about having to start a video venue.
Third, every church I've been around is missional; they all see their members as missionaries in their communities. This whole idea started with Jesus when he told us to go into all the world and make disciples. His final instructions before he caught the last cloud back to heaven said our job was to share the good news in our neighborhood. So called attractional churches see the weekend service as an intregal part of fulfilling this missional calling. While their preference is that members share their lives and faith in their own neighborhood, they also recognize that most people need some help. Similar to the idea that parents should be able to teach their children to read and write, but we need schools to help, attractional churches see their weekend services as aid stations for their member/missionaries.
Fourth, Jesus ministry was both missional and attractional. He sent his disciples out into the communtiy with nothing but the clothes on their backs on a missional journey to share the Kingdom with the world. (I bet they smelled pretty organic after a few days on the road.) At the same time he performed many miracles which attracted large crowds to which he taught Kingdom principles. It is obvious that he wasn't simply healing the sick, feeding the hungry or raising the dead; there was a reason why he performed the miracles he did, when and where he performed them. At least some part of the motivation behind some of the miracles was to give the Gospel a wider audience than just the twelve. If not he would not have wasted his time teaching the crowds when they came. One of the best Biblical examples of an attractional style of ministry occured when the charismatics got crazy on the day of Pentecost and thousands came to hear Peter throw down the Word. And someone took the time to count how many people connected with the church that day as though they felt big numbers were a good thing.
Finally, we are spending way too much timing criticizing everyone else's way of doing church. I have so much to learn from how you do church, how you build biblical community, how you grow disciples that I really don't have time to pick at your methods. God will probably lead me in a different direction than the one you are taking, but that's ok. As long as we're both pursuing him and bringing others along with us I think our methods are somewhat irrelevant.
So for me the ultimate church is an attractional, missional body of believers growing organically through every means possible. We seem to waste so much energy throwing rocks at other people's tents we lose sight of the fact we have a very limited time on earth to spread the Good News and to build Kingdom community. If your church meets in a stadium, hires a rock band and is seeing people becoming disciples of Christ, that is very cool. If your church meets in a bar, features dialog rather than sermons and is seeing people becoming disciples of Christ, that is very cool as well.
And hey, Hey, HEY put down that rock!"
We then had a little back and forth...
ME: Thanks for the shout-out, Geoff (and the blog link!)... a couple of ideas.
I can't recommend highly enough the book "The Shaping of Things to Come" by Frost and Hirsch- on many issues but particularly this one. Honorable mention to The Great Giveaway by Fitch.
Like Paul, I'm happy that in all ways and shapes the Gospel is preached. That being said, I also want to realize (like Paul) that some motivations in ministry are better than others, because I think they tend to form different things in us and in our communities.
For me, methods can't be irrelevant because ends do not justify means. The issue isn't purely "what will get people in the seats?" but how the way we get them there informs who they become in our community. How does our methodology spiritually form us? How will what we do as a community form those who are part of it and who are becoming part of it? I realize that all (well, most... okay, many... uh,some) churches are asking the same question. I happen to be a part of a stream that is highly sensitive to the more consumer nature of church and its impact on us as pastors and on whole communities as followers of Jesus. I wrote about this in Escape From Consumer Church(http://www.dtour.com.au/articles/article.cfm?id=89) and even The Dangers of Easter.(http://bobhyatt.typepad.com/bobblog/2007/03/the_dangers_of_.html)
So to me, "Attractional with a side of Missional" doesn't quite get there- mainly because of (what I see) as the spiritually negative formative issues involved in the attractional model. I want to be clear- I don't think you guys doing a more attractional model or video venues are wrong. I'm not throwing rocks. I just have concerns about long-term impacts...
But I think you are entirely correct- there's no such thing as a purely this or purely that church. We're all of us somehwere on the spectrum. I just think it's important to be cogniscent of and intentional about which way we lean...
Yes- I want to be attractive. There will always be a "come and see" aspect to community. But in that, my two main hopes are:
1. I hope what people are being invited to come and see and what they are actually being drawn to is the aroma of Jesus among us, the way He lives in our community as opposed to our killer light show or cutting edge this or that.
2. That "come and see" always takes a back seat to "go and be."
I've always said that if our community can't grow by the quality of our relationships (as opposed to the quality of our advertising, kids programs, etc) we probably don't deserve to. That doesn't mean we pay NO attention to the quality of what we do... but we're a lot more relaxed about a lot of things. I care about how the music sounds, but mainly so it's not a distraction. Our real energies go into being a warm, welcoming community that's centered on Jesus... that's hard enough without throwing a lot of issues of production into the mix!
But even so, even our little pub church (that won't do a video venue, but may end up doing multiple sites each with their own main teaching pastor) is still struggling with this- come and see is just so much easier.
And that should probably tell us something, since the best way is rarely the easiest.
All that being said- thanks so much for your willingness to read widely and dialogue this stuff!
Oh... and we meet in a bar and have sermons WITH dialogue, not dialogue rather than sermons :)
GEOFF: Hey Bob,
Thanks for stopping by and chatting. I appreciate your perspective.
A couple of things always challenge me in this type of discussion. The first is represented by the statement:
"The issue isn't purely "what will get people in the seats?"..."
The implication is that this is the primary motivation for those on the other side of the fence. My point is that I don't know a single church leader with that perspective; its a straw man arguement. Every sincere church leader (and most that I've met are sincere)is deeply concerned about what happens after (and before) someone shows up for a church service. Spiritual formation is their goal. Its like a net fisherman and a rod and reel fisherman arguing about who really cares about catching fish. (To paraphrase an analogy from Jesus) Different tools, same goal.
A second challenge is the thought that if something is easier it must not be the right way:
"And that should probably tell us something, since the best way is rarely the easiest."
If I wanted to go to Portland from South Carolina I could walk, I could hire a taxi, I could take a bus or I could fly. Now I could develop a lot of maturity during the walk, I could form a deep relationship on the taxi ride, I could experience a unique community while riding the bus, but on my one trip to Portland I flew. Once I got there I matured, connected and experienced, but I'm still convinced easier was better in case.
I realize this analogy breaks down in about 27 places, but the point is just because something presents fewer obstacles it may still be a good way to go.
For instance, Bob, from everything I read evergreen seems to be a very attractive place to visit. It sounds like a safe place where I could investigate Christianity within a comfortable atmosphere somewhat like the old tv show Cheers(I'm old, I have old references) If I were living in Portland and not connected to a faith community that would appeal to me. If I heard about it (maybe from stumbling across the bob.blog while searching for pubs in Portland) I think I'd like to come. And if I came I might meet some people I could connect with. And if I connected I might find faith. And if I found faith I might begin to grow into the mature Christ-follower God created me to become. Now I came in the wrong door (the attractional one), but I ended up a mature Christ-follower. Is that so bad?
As to evergreen going multi-site, that's awesome. Video venue would be silly in your context, but an evergreen in every pub in Portland would be very cool. If we can help in any way (multiple sites can lead to multiple headaches regardless the teaching style) please let me know.
And sorry about the dialog vs. sermon comment, my bad.
ME:
hey man-
Good thoughts... I hear what you are saying...
I probably should have said it more like:
"Since we both agree the issue isn't purely 'what will get people in the seats?'..."
You said:"The implication is that this is the primary motivation for those on the other side of the fence. My point is that I don't know a single church leader with that perspective; its a straw man arguement. "
I know that we're all concerned with what happens next, which is why I think we should be more concerned with what happens first...
So, I don't know that it's quite a straw man argument. I hear an awful lot of church growth type guys saying things like "...I think our methods are somewhat irrelevant." :)
I just don't think they are. I 'm excited about anyone coming to Christ, any time, anywhere...
I'm also convinced that certain methodologies might have longterm impact in spiritual development, both for individuals and for communities.
In other words, I'm highly skeptical of the marriage of Christianity and American marketing techniques and consumerism. I think that when those two go hand in hand, people may still come to know Jesus, but the unintended side effects for the church as a whole may suggest we pursue other metholodologies.
To use your fishing example- we may both be fishermen, but if someone's methods are or might be (like driftnetting) ultimately harmful, it's not wrong for someone to ask those questions.
I hope that doesn't sound jerky at all... I'm not saying I've got it figured out- we're still very much in process...
But all that to say, I enjoy talking this stuff out and would love to hash out some ideas and thoughts on multi-site churches that use different teaching pastors and use that growth to plant other "hub" churches that will replicate the pattern.... lots of ideas swirling in my head, some that are probably good, some that are probably the opposite of good :)
Maybe if you are at the NPC again...
Bob
Great dialogue. Agree with Geoff that there are no "pure" on either end and many times we do spend too much time critizing what is happening elsewhere. But your response is right on, the sending nature of the church (or as you said the "go and be") must be at the forefront of who/what we are/do NOT the "come and see."
Unfortunately 4 decades of the Church Growth movement (and 1700 years of Christendom) has created such a deep "rut" in the ways we understand the church that it is extremely difficult to see things any other way.
The answer is certainly not "attractional with a side of missional."
Posted by: brad brisco | April 10, 2007 at 09:17 AM
One of the best conversations I've read between an evangelical and emerging believers. For many people, emerging means anti-modern, but its about moving past it. There's nothing wrong with comfortable seats and a nice atmosphere. We just need to remember attraction is more about being comfortable to reach God and not about being relevant.
Posted by: Miracle | April 10, 2007 at 10:56 AM
I saw this and felt compelled to respond to it.
"Every church I've been connected with is deeply concerned with helping people become disciples of Christ."
I'm afraid that with what we see in the world I have to disagree with this opinion when stretched from the author's personal perspective to the Church in the world at large.
In the traditionally churched western world it is becoming more and more obvious that Churches have driven people away from Christ. Many people consider us to be in a "Post-Christian" age because the percentage of people attending church in America and Europe continues to decrease year after year. It doesn't end with church either as other signs of religion and faith are becoming rarer and rare. In Europe the trend is far more advanced, but it continues in the U.S. the same.
People growing up in "churches" are becoming more and more likely to not attend church or have faith when they grow into adulthood.
If most of our churches are so missional and are doing what it takes to creates Disciples of Christ then why is that?
I believe that many churches have stopped producing spiritual "fruit". I put forth that many churches are becoming less and less attractive or missional.
Bob and Geoff do you see this trend in western cultural? and what are your opinions on it or those who believe they see it?
Posted by: David Wiley | April 11, 2007 at 08:55 PM