I had a great email conversation with a reader…here it is:
I left a comment but also wanted to email you. My name is (Jack) and my wife and I are currently attending a mega church in Phoenix. Having said all that I just wanted to say that I have been burdened by the thought of something just not adding up with the “come to us” strategy in today’s church culture. I haven’t been able to get it off my mind lately. I feel like something is wrong. Not that the Church isn’t doing good in the world, but that we aren’t living up to the capabilities God has equipped us with. I feel like my heart is to reach a crowd of people that the church has seemingly avoided due to it’s “come to me” attitude. I am really looking forward to seeing what you post in the days to come about this situation. It has been on the forefront of my mind and heart non-stop lately. Do you think that we have totally strayed from what the Church’s strategy was intended to be? Do you feel like my generation (I’m 20) will be the one to fix these issues? I know my heart is to be a part of a local church but to do ministry in what seems to be an unconventional, missional AND attractional way. Maybe in the near future what is on my heart won’t be too unconventional after all.
And my reply:
Thanks for writing Jack. Actually, I don’t see what the typical church is doing today as a “come to me” attitude. I see it as a strategy or method. And the thing is–it’s working in a lot of places! Why? Because culture is diverse–and for a bunch of people who don’t know Jesus or who don’t “go” to church…attending a church service in a church building fits right into their culture. They “go” to a stadium for a game, they “go” to a mall to shop, they “go” to a school for an education.
So, no, I don’t think we’ve strayed from what the strategy was intended to be. I don’t think church buildings were part of God’s strategy, but neither are they unbiblical. We were left on this earth to go into the world. As Alan Hirsch has said, “We need to go into a culture and figure out what the good news means to them. We need to discover what church looks like in their context.” I’m convinced the “come to us” model is still the right model for millions in America. I believe it might be the right model for about 40% of my community.
But the problem–that 40% number (or whatever you think it is in your setting) is shrinking. And the number of people for whom the “come to the box” model will never work–it’s growing.
I want to be part of the solution. I want to have eyes wide open about how to reach the 60% while still being effective with the 40%. I want to help motivate thousands of Christ-followers in an established church to open their eyes and offer Hope and Light to a world around them who might never come to church.
How would you have answered Jack? What thoughts do you have about my reply?
17 Comments
Great conversation. I think Jack is right about the come to us mentality. We planted a church in Scottsdale, AZ 5 years ago and had been part of a mega church staff and environment in Tulsa, OK prior to that. It took me several years to undo what I had mastered in a mega culture to get to the heart of true community and transformation. Not to say you can't have that in a mega church, but there is no denying the difficulty of it. There simply needs to be balance and simplicity. We have to have a paradigm shift in understanding the church as a what to understanding the church as a who. The five fold ministry gifts exist to equip the saints to do the work of the ministry (loving people in the context of daily life.) The truth is sometimes the mega church operates by creating life around church rather than church around life. This is the biggest mistake in my opinion and what drives isolation and sub-culture mentality. People need to understand how to be salt and light. They need to see it in operation and when church staffs haven't been out in the community in years because they are "doing church," I think we need to take a deeper look at how we are modeling ministry. I recently joined our local Chamber of Commerce to find out that of the 600 members, not one of them was a church. I think we need to look at where life is happening and start creating conversation there. We need to quit expecting people to come to us and start seeing where people are going and engage in the conversation. Our efforts include understanding the internet more effectively, teaching our core to share their stories more effectively through Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, LinkedIn, and building WordPress blogs to create connection. As churches, the opportunity to influence our communities lies in our teaching and training our congregations to effectively engage, listen and genuinely care about the people whom they work with and live with and to get off our donkeys as the Good Samaritan did and reach the needs as they arise.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tim Stevens and faithHighway, blarson. blarson said: RT @timastevens: "Have we strayed from what the church's strategy was intended to be?" How would you have answered? http://bit.ly/bapbGN [...]
Tim,
I have been reading your blog for awhile and wanted to comment on this post. I actually blogged about it on my blog because I thought it would be good for my readers as well.
I would argue our effectiveness is less, as in like 20%.
One thing that Tim states that I find interesting is that we go to the mall, to a concert, to a sports venue ergo we go to Church to be spiritual or to get our Church experience. I would argue that even though we go to places to get things the Church is different because it is who we are as followers of Christ. We have done ourselves a disservice over hundreds if not the better part of a thousand years by making the Church a destination and not a reality. And now our culture is looking for the reality of Jesus not the destination.
The challenge for the Church moving into the future is how do we live this out, speak this language in an authentic and relevant way. I believe it will mean we redefine what we call success, we redefine what we consider works which is hard because it feels like it flies in the face of everything we know and has yet to be created. But this is the place where the next innovation and creation of God's work in a new millenium will happen.
I cannot claim to have an answer but readily feel the heart of Jack… A heart that cries out there must be more than this… Something more meaningful… Something where the true capacity of the gospel is unleashed and we can claim and praise God that Jesus' words were true in that we have seen even greater things than those that followed Him on earth. That we with all honesty can say to a man, woman, and child we have seen the movement of the Holy Spirit in a powerful and profound way that only God could have initiated.
Our world, our culture. Is looking for real, looking for transcendent, looking for meaningful, life changing, and purposeful. We are searching everywhere for it… But will only ever find it in God. I want to know that, I want my Church to know that, I want Central Chester County to know that. I pray for that day, and pray that God would lead us toward our version of the answer which I believe won't be so much of an answer but more of a journey that molds and shapes itself over time as we exegete our culture and God's word firmly planting ourselves in the gospel
Tim,
After reading your response I stand up for your response.
We all understand that Jesus isnt limited to Sunday Mornings or whenever your service is. We know this. However, I believe that what people in our society are attracted to is transformation. We someone is transformed within the walls of our building, its not the building doing the transformation, it Christ.
With that in mind, our church, CrossPointeChurch.tv has used the transformed lives as our main mode of reaching out… or in Jack's case, "come and see". People who are dramatically transformed tell other people… they bring them to the "place" of transformation, which in the our case is the church building.
I would argue that "come in see" is exactly what Jesus wanted… What Jesus wanted them to see was transformed lives…
Just my thoughts… trash comes on Friday morning so you can toss this out if you want!
Ok, everyone on this subject is right. There are no wrong perspectives on this. I have come from every end of these perspectives right down to present day. I'm not a bible scholar or teacher, but I will say I am willing in every circumstance. I have prayed with Nuns and conversed with Jehovah' s Witnesses. I was a member of a church of twenty people to a member of a church of thousands and I was a worker that cleaned toilets to an officer and leader in the company I work for. My wife of 28yrs and I raised a son with an incurable disease. In all of this, we have found a church in GCC that meets us with Jesus at the forefront and most importantly, right where we are. Its not divisive or trickery. Its a place that the unseeing world can identify with. And more importantly that they can see God's love through the risen Christ. Please people, let us start trying to see whats happening with the eyes of the unborn and the blind. I can confess that my life in Christ through GCC HAS MADE ME DESPERATE FOR PEOPLE SOULS. Finally for the people I Love and the people I don"t like. I would not have otherwise become proactive in my witness. If its a MEGA Church or a little country church.
Jack said;"Do you feel like my generation (I’m 20) will be the one to fix these issues? I know my heart is to be a part of a local church but to do ministry in what seems to be an unconventional, missional AND attractional way".
I dont think that the word "fix" really fits in here Jack, I think your generation will the copilot at the helm with Jesus as your pilot just like you predecessors awaiting new ideas from the Holy Spirit. All steering different courses to the same destination.
Sincerely with the Love of Jesus in my heart.
So Tim, do you believe that what you do to reach the 60% that need something more missional will not reach the 40% that are being reached by your attractional? In other words, will that 40% only be reached by the attractional style?
Great question. The categories are confusing. For the 40%…I think what has been called "attractional" is actually many times missional. It's both/AND. It has to be. I also think for the 60%–while we may not build a ministry that requires (or even offers) them to come to the box, it will still have elements of attractional / outward focused ministry.
I think categories are confusing as well. What does "missional" or "attractional" really mean? It seems like everyone has their own opinions. What I think is clear in your posts is that you feel something needs to change to reach 60% of your community. I find that realization incredibly courageous and I respect the fact that you are challenging the process from a position of success. As you make shifts, are you affraid you will lose who you have?
Francis Chan made statements at the Verge conference along those lines; but the shifts he was refering to seem to be incredibly radical (which I love about his leadership…pure guts). What does both/and look like in your setting? Is it a comprehensive shift in your existing structure, or do you start something new that runs simultaneously?
Sorry for all the questions. I'm wildly currious. If this is to much for blog comments just tell me to "wait and see" and I will stay tuned in.
I have been reading your post for quite awhile tim and comment off and on. I feel like I should this time (not that I can add that much but to maybe support what has been said by someone else). I tend to agree with David on this: could it be that everyone is right? Is there a right and a wrong way. I just read chazzdaddy's blog and he linked to an article about Shane Clairborne's speech and "we ought to be be serving the suffering." I reckon I tire of being told that "I ought to do this or that." Why can't each person, each church, minister in their own way? God has gifted us each differently. I heard you speak at Sticks in November of 2008. Thought you did a fantastic job but I remember you saying, "I am not a preacher." But you communicated with what was on your heart. You constantly talk about Mark Beeson's ability to communicate from the pulpit. Great! That is his passion, his heart. If a church wants to be "attractional" then by all means be it! To the best you can. If it wants to be missional then great! There is no right or wrong as long as the message of Christ is being presented and people are hearing God's heart. Sorry to have rambled.
I did not take time to read the other comments so please don't read this as reply to anyone. I am also typing out what I am thinking so it probably includes stuff that may not fit exactly with your post. I like what you have to say Tim. To me being missional is discovering how to be Jesus to people in our community. There is nothing "forgotten" about that – which is why I do not like the title of that book. You discovered through Granger how to be Jesus to a whole bunch of people. You reached people because you discovered the best way to communicate and live out the love of Christ in their context. Now you have a burden to reach others. For these it will take a different way of being Jesus. It really is as simple as that. You simply have to do what you did before to a different group of people in a different way. You are the expert. Ignore people who throw around ridiculous phrases like "attractional versus incarnational". To be missional is to get to know peolple, and discover how best to reach them. Argueing about methods is a true waste of time.
For me what clouds the issue is that we have our hands full with the shrinking 40%. Yesterday we had a half day meeting working at figuring out how to manage the growth we're experiencing so why worry about the 60%! We can't keep up with the shrinking 40%. But I do believe that's the wrong way to look at it.
As a result of Tim's original post I've starting talking up the idea of challenging some of our people not to look at our church as a destination, but to perhaps stay at home in their neigborhoods and take LifePoint Church to those places. Or to do something during the week in their neigborhoods that would reach the 60%.
So that's been my take-away from Tim's post.
Thank you. It has really made me think.
Blessings,
Dave
First, I truly appreciate this conversation and have serendipitously found myself amongst many sharing with us outside this site. Let's listen to the Holy Spirit!
Second, I think we should clarify a few things:
– There are attractional churches who are not missional.
– There are missional churches who are not attractional (many), but some who may look attractional in some form or another.
– There are no missional churches who are attractional. Seriously… having small groups or service projects or an outreach plan is not missional. Go read Guder and Roxburgh and Hirsch and figure out what missional implies – there are fundamental differences in posture, even if "forms" may blur the lines.
The problem is that there are a million attractional churches (the one I attend and at least 10 church plants in my city) that call themselves missional, yet are textbook seeker-sensitive attractional churches. This distinction is essential, without which we would not have birthed the term "missional". I think we should actually assume when we use these terms that "attractional" churches are in fact, not missional. If you are talking about a missional church who does some things that look similar to what people think of "attractional", then you are still missional. Missional transcends model and size, but fundamentally calls into question the genesis to the vision and objectives of your church, your gatherings, your leadership, etc. within your context.
Questions about the 60/40 split that haunt me:
– if I'm committed to a biblical vision for missional that authentically expresses/transforms/develops an incarnational community of Christ followers, why "continue to reach" the 40% with a lesser authentic/explicitly un-reproduceable and un-sustainable innoculation (fruitless substitute) for missional/incarnational community? (uh oh, I'm gonna ruffle feathers with that)
- won't the 40% find just as much/more compelling a vision of missional engagement that reaches the 60% (win/win?). If not, who are these people? My guess – churched, but not on mission.
-
The Great Commission says WE are to GO. The church building and program might be incidental in helping a person take the step to be follower of Christ. There are people I know who I might invite to church as a first step just to get some talking points; there are others that I might invite to church as a last step after we have been doing life together for a while. It is life to life; person to person. We must get more comfortable just talking to people about Jesus.
Here in the UK, I would think that the "come to me" approach is appropriate for only 5-10% of the population.
Sadly, it seems to be dominant in the thinking of many churches, who, in many cases, are only reaching the religious minority.
Would love to chat with any this side of the pond who want to try some different approaches.
I know what a mission is. But shouldn't attraction be the key to missions work?
"The "Come To Me" sounds more like Christians interpretation or people that still attend a church looking from the inside out. Before we started attending regularly we looked at GCC from the outside as Christians as thought more like "Go To There". Like people did when Jesus was teaching, people traveled to hear about what was happening. It was the Pharisees saying(Paraphrased) "we don't like the way your going about this Jesus".
My wife and i said to each other that our Love is in Jesus and through Jesus. We wanted to find a church that we could experience the type of growth we've gained at GCC. We now know that because of GCC we ourselves are preparing for God to send us out on mission. Whenever that may be we are preparing for it. Make no mistake, whether its " come to me" or "go to there", attractional or missional, GCC is on mission. Jesus is their attractional mission.
And thanks to any of you who ever thought any good could come out of my life. You guys, sometimes I think I'm just gonna burst. I am more excited today about Jesus than nearly 30 years ago when first invited him into my heart. Love believes all things and hopes all things and If God is for who can be against us. Lets not get too caught up in analysis paralysis.
Adam wrote;
"- won't the 40% find just as much/more compelling a vision of missional engagement that reaches the 60% (win/win?)"
Hats off my friend.
Just do it and stop talking about it!
If it doesn't work then … perhaps it wasn't attractional or missional. Oh well…
[pastors in large attractional growing churches - stay where you are because you are doing a great job!]
Dallas Willard talks about the importance of "establishing beach heads for the kingdom of God" throughout our community. I wonder what this would look like if we really started getting creative…