Comments on: Something Just Doesn’t Add Up

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:30:55 +0000

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…

By: Glenda Farmer

Glenda Farmer — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:21:29 +0000

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!]

By: David

David — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 18:20:14 +0000

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.

By: Al Shaw

Al Shaw — Sat, 29 May 2010 00:35:12 +0000

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.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 28 May 2010 19:27:04 +0000

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.

By: Adam Penner

Adam Penner — Fri, 28 May 2010 17:26:05 +0000

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.

By: dmbaldwin

dmbaldwin — Fri, 28 May 2010 11:19:22 +0000

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

By: David R.

David R. — Thu, 27 May 2010 22:24:19 +0000

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.

By: jeffandwendy

jeffandwendy — Thu, 27 May 2010 21:14:17 +0000

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.

By: Bill (cycleguy)

Bill (cycleguy) — Thu, 27 May 2010 19:58:04 +0000

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.