It’s a problem that is on my mind when I go to sleep, and I’m thinking about it again when I wake up. It is huge.
First, an illustration: Back in 1986, Mark Beeson came to town and started this church we call Granger. At that time—the church had all of 5 people (the number in the Beeson family). By our best guess and memory of demographic reports from 25 years ago—about half of the local population attended church somewhere. Mark and Sheila went after the other half—the people who were unchurched. And we built an entire ministry around that mission.
And it worked. Better than we could have imagined. We couldn’t baptize, disciple or minister to them fast enough.
Now, more than two decades later over 5,000 attend regularly, 8,000 attend at least once a month, and we have a well-established community impact ministry happening throughout the city. Conservatively, more than 10,000 people have given their life to Christ and untold thousands of next steps have been taken by Christ-followers at all stages of their spiritual journey.
And yet, today, as we look around our community, the stats haven’t changed a whole lot. Even with all that impact, there is still about 50% of the population that doesn’t attend church (maybe even a bit more now).
How is that possible? How is it, when we’ve gone from 0 to 8,000 – that we aren’t even making a dent in the unchurched population?
I think it’s because of three other conditions…
- The church in America, as a whole, is in decline. That means if you combine the stats and impact of all the churches in our region, we are cumulatively involving fewer people and having less of an impact with every year that passes. That is a statistical fact that describes our country—and a subjective, yet intuitive reality about our local region.
- The culture is becoming more varied by the day. With rare exception, churches tend to reach people like themselves. At Granger, we are reaching a subset of our local culture—and doing it VERY effectively—but that subset is a smaller percentage of the population with every year that passes.
- Culture is not only more varied—it is changing. More people are exploring spirituality now than ever before—but fewer are doing it through the context of a physical church.
Pick any well-known large impact church and ask the same question.
- Willow Creek – is the percentage of people in the region who are fully devoted followers of Christ higher than when the church started? The same? Or actually less?
- Saddleback – same question.
- New Spring Church – same question.
- North Point Church – same question.
- Name Your Favorite Large Church – same question.
I don’t pretend to have studied the demographics in each of those areas, but in general, my sense is there is something about the “come to us” model that isn’t working to expand the gospel. Yes, it’s working for who it’s working for. But it’s not working to curb the decline of the American church overall. And that, my friends, is a statistical problem.
Some popular authors and speakers are saying it’s time to give up on church as we’ve known it. Leave the “attractional model” behind and become “missional” instead.
I don’t think it’s an either/or. I think there is an AND in the conversation that we are missing. Like I said, it’s been on my mind 24/7 in recent months. And, it is having a gargantuan impact on our thinking at Granger about the future.
It’s something I’ll be writing more about in the coming days, but for now, what are your thoughts?
63 Comments
personally, i think it is either / or. incarnational and attractional ministries seem (to me) to oppose one another completely. i understand when people say we can live Christ into our communities (incarnation) and still have a really bang’em up worship time on sunday to ensure visitors feel welcome and want to stay (attract). the problem is that by making that sunday meeting about evangelism and outreach, we’re preventing the body of Christ from using their spiritual gifts to build one another up. so when that church does attempt to live Christ into the community, it’s an immature version of Christ.
also, the attractional model always, to some extent, calls people into our community and context in order for them to meet and know God. this is one of the reasons the gospel isn’t penetrating other cultures. we’re removing from those cultures the individuals who come to Christ and would have been missionaries among their family and friends. we’ve got to worry less about our numbers and our becoming spiritual powerhouses, and worry more about making obedient disciples of Christ — whether they attend our congregation or not.
my biggest arguments, though, for incarnational work to exclude attractional don’t have anything to do necessarily with what works and/or is effective. rather, incarnational ministry is the type of ministry Jesus did. and we are called to be Jesus in our communities. i’ve never seen a version of attractional ministry in Jesus’ life (or in the the bible for that matter) — though i would be happy to have one pointed out to me.
Matthew 4:25 Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him. | Matthew 8:1 When he came down from the mountainside, large crowds followed him. | Matthew 13:2 Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. | Matthew 14:13 When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. | Matthew 15:30 Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them.
Jesus ministry was both attractional and missional. They're not mutually exclusive. They may not always comfortably co-exist, but that is why we must design for both.
You skipped the most obvious explanation – Perhaps Granger has grown at the expense of other churches! We so often mistake church growth for kingdom growth.
This is exactly what I was thinking. BUT, you didn't mention the population growth over 25 years. Perhaps the population in Granger has exploded, so it's been harder to go above 50%? I do think the transfer growth thing is a valid question.
First the statistical problem – over two decades the number of older, greatest generation people who passed away is significant. They also represented a high percentage of the churched population in 1986. From that standpoint, I'm not surprised that the 50% still stands.
As far as the solution goes, I agree that we need to be focused on the "And". A large church will always be to some extent a receptor church – it happens without even trying. Second, no matter where we are in the country, but especially in the midwest, a good percentage of our folk will have a church background, but needed to reconnect with God. Both those groups are accustomed to more of an attractional model. The challenge there is to help them see the other side of the "And" and become missional in their own lives.
On the other side of the coin, the church has to keep it's focus on reaching out to a changing cultural environment in an incarnational way by living Christ where we are.
Good observations Tim. I've think you've revealed the biggest elephant in the church today. We're not making the impact we think we are. There is still much to be done.
Be encouraged first of all, I believe God has done some amazing things though you and your ministry there and will continue to do so as you are all hungry for God's voice, word and guidance.
I agree in your conclusions WE are the church, people on the outside see US as hypocritical, they see church (over all) as a place where people are likely fake, non transparent, inconsistent or lack integrity. When tragedy hits where is the church? (like your post about New York)….
When people see real, authentic sinners, who confess and boast about their dependance of Jesus and demonstrate real love everyday with no strings attached and are willing to see or give everything away because they are "crucified in Christ and they no longer live but Christ lives in them"…man, I think we'd be talking about a different set of circumstances possibly, hopefully.
M_
I believe that it should be AND also. I believe that Jesus did both. Unfortunately, we don't have every conversation he had before us. Yet, did he not go to the synagogue to do more than criticise the teachers of the law, and scribes, and the chief priest; surely, he went to observe the Jewish traditions and customs also. Whether for good or bad, the customs of the 21st Century or different than the earlier Jewish customs. So, the church has to live in that paradigm or cultural context. In making disciples, there seems to have to be some attractional. In making disciples, there has to be incarnational (missional) transformation.
Of course, I am not for sure the stats you have given are enough to answer the question (has pop. changed, how involved are other churches, etc).
Just some early morning thoughts. Love that GCC is continuing to seek and ask the right questions.
i think your point #2 is what a lot of church and ministry leaders miss. it takes a long term perspective both forward and backwards to understand that – that perspective isn't easy to cultivate.
I don't think the problem is the attractional model. I think the problem is that too many people in attractional models only serve, lead, give, etc. when it is organized by the church itself. We have to find ways to put the ministry of the church back in the hands of the people and not always have them wait for the professionals to tell them what to do. It's not that attractional models are bad, they're just incomplete if they are not coupled with a strong emphasis on training people to go out as well.(missional) One thing my church has started doing is to ask everyone to identify their "who" and "where." We've asked everyone to pray and seek who God is calling them to reach and where they are called to be. One woman is reaching out to women in the sex industry, one guy is reaching the engineers he works with, one woman is really pouring into her children, one man is reaching out to college students. None of these efforts have our churches label on them, but we recognize stories like this continously. So while we still want relevant weekend experiences, we recognize that isn't the whole story. AND is the key in my mind.
I agree. I think there is great power in freeing up the church people (from church responsibilities) and training them to use their gifts in their own areas of influence (work, schools, neighborhoods, etc.). Ideally, people's small groups would have a strong emphasis on praying for and serving the people around them.
Great blog and you are spot on. I don't think it is either or. I think it is EACH church figuring out who they are called to be and getting clear vision on doing that well. It isn't about following other churches. We are seeing that clear vision requires complete alignment in ministry, culture, leadership, facilities. It burdens me when I talk with churches and there is a sense they are chasing vision instead of having vision. We all become passionate in what we do when there is a compelling vision we believe in….not when we are drifting without direction and not feeling we are making a difference.
I am looking forward to this series of posts. Thanks Tim for post about complex big stuff.
We've thought about this as well. Our area has smaller communities that are unique. We have been pursuing how to cross the lines in each area and how to connect in each community. We've had success reaching a group of people now (over 60% weren't going to church who currently come as of spring survey) but how to we keep reaching the unreached. The next phase needs to have more of the same but also something different. We can't just keep doing the same thing and expect different results. There has to be a blend of attraction & missional but also multiplication. If 3 churches are closing for ever new church start, the addition can't keep up with the subtraction, we need to figure out a network of multiplication that attracts people but also meets people where they are at in our communities in a missional way. Please glean all your vast knowledge on us this week.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tim Stevens and Lynn Noe, Dee Lauderdale. Dee Lauderdale said: In my opinion this the biggest elephant in the church today: we're not making the impact we think we are http://tinyurl.com/2eppnon [...]
I think every model is attractional and missional, and here's why. Let's say North Point is "attractional", well, I bet over 60% of their unchurched visitors are invited. So, somebody was missional in their lives before inviting them to church.
Let's say somebody is "missional" and they are part of a house church, well, if an unchurched person meets them and their life isn't "attractive", meaning they don't see something different about them that they are encouraged by, they would be less likely to connect with them, and subsequently Jesus. People aren't flocking to the crazy street corner evangelists….because nothing about their life attracts someone to Jesus.
Every model is some of both, it just depends on how much of each.
I also think you can't look at one church (Granger) and assume that because they're effective the church attendance numbers in the whole city should be rising. My city has 1.5 million people, and off-hand I would imagine 90% of our churches are plateaued or declining. It would take a host of healthy, growing churches to reverse that number. That problem isn't just the models, it's the implementation of the models.
I do believe the so-called attractional model is completely Biblical, when applied well. Not to mention I don't think the Bible left us with a specific model, because the Church needs many models that change with culture and time. The early church had large gatherings that attracted thousands, and had house churches as well.
Nick, I totally agree with you. The challenge is being intentional about being both… Just like in other parts aspects of our lives, we can choose to let things happen by accident, or be intentional ( or on mission) about it.. Your illustration about them not being mutually exclusive was great!
Fantastic post Tim. Spot on.
And…we ARE going to "Open a Can" at GCC November 4th & 5th. I can't wait.
well you also have to see that Michiana has grown quite a bit since 1986
.
I also struggle with the either/or model. From my perspective, God's people will always gather in community. They did it in ancient days and they will do it today. However, many (probably most) churches have a "come to us mentality" which means that collectively the church is not involved in the life of the community around the church. Not sure what all of the answers are, but I am looking forward to reading more.
i don’t know that we all have the same definitions for attractional and incarnational ministries? it seems some of us are defining incarnational ministry as house churches and attractional ministry as any time someone is attracted to christianity.
the terms were intended to address the primary way in which a church seeks to proclaim the gospel to the world. do we seek primarily to attract people to programs and events (often on our own soil)? or do we primarily attempt to live Christ into the non-Christian community?
so when Jesus is walking around town and a crowd gathers to hear him speak, that is not attractional ministry although people were attracted to him. it is incarnational in that he was on their soil, and there was no organized program or event to which people were invited. incarnational ministry does not preclude people finding christianity attractive — rather it is based on it. i’ve heard someone say that the word “extraction” would be a more descriptive word — in that you extract someone from where they are in order to enter your place and group.
i’m not arguing this is necessarily the solution to the problems you’ve brought forth in this post. rather i’m simply saying i don’t think there can be a both / and. and i also can’t find where Jesus did anything attractional in his ministry.
Think about it like this. The Church (big C), is the body of Christ, right? The Church gathering or community should reflect Christ in a way that is greater than any one person (body part) can.
Jesus embodied that on his own, he was definitely attractional because people were attracted to him, they invited their friends to meet him (see Philip & Nathanael). He lived among the people AND he attracted them as crowds…..it was pretty much unavoidable because of who he was and what he had done.
The Church, as the body of Christ, should be the same. We should live among people, and be attractive to them. When we gather, people should be attracted to that and should experience Christ in a powerful way. That gathering could be a small group or a worship service, or something else…that’s where the cultural/method part comes in.
I think it’s always both/and, the problem is people ASSUME an “attractional” church doesn’t personally invest in people and that’s just ridiculous. I don’t know of a single, healthy, “attractional” church that doesn’t have the majority of it’s new people coming from personal connections (also known as “missional”)
I know this will hit hard, but I see a lot of people label healthy churches “attractional” because they’re effective and people are coming to Christ through them and sometimes there is jealousy or envy in play.
If there are churches who teach their members NOT to invest in people’s lives, and NOT to share the gospel personally, and only expect unchurched people to show up without invites, then yes, that would be bad. I just don’t know of any. I guarantee if there are any, they won’t last long.
I know of some who get labeled as such, but that’s by people who don’t attend there and really don’t know. They assume.
“Jesus embodied that on his own, he was definitely attractional because people were attracted to him, they invited their friends to meet him (see Philip & Nathanael). He lived among the people AND he attracted them as crowds…..it was pretty much unavoidable because of who he was and what he had done…. We should live among people, and be attractive to them. ”
this is incarnational ministry. the fact that people were attracted to Jesus does not mean he was using programs, events, and invitations to minister.
and i’m not saying a church can’t dabble in both pots. but, if i understand them correctly, the terms we’re using imply that this is a church’s primary means for evangelism and outreach, etc. that they have made a decision (whether consciously or by default) to focus their efforts on one of these methods. i’d argue that you can’t have two primary means of outreach. and i’d argue that if you are going to have one as primary, it should be that which Jesus chose as primary (or exclusively for as much as i can tell).
and incarnational ministry isn’t defined by “investing in people’s lives” or “sharing the gospel personally.” it is choosing as your primary method of evangelism living Christ into your community. you can share the gospel personally in a church’s family life center, and you can invest in someone’s life if they come to your church and are comfortable there. but that’s not incarnational. Jesus left heaven, put on our flesh, and came to earth. that is incarnational — it’s not done on our soil at our events in our programs.
I think that's a total mis-use of the word incarnational, in terms of tying it to one evangelism method. Your last sentence was a good definition. Except, the earth is Jesus' soil
Not to mention, people that are part of "attractional" churches are incarnational anyway, unless they live, work, and play only with Christians. I know of no such people.
If we talk about it as the primary method, that is helpful for clarity. But, somebody better slap Peter on the hand for gathering thousands of people he clearly wasn't "incarnational" with, and leading them to follow Christ at Pentecost.
The problem is we can't pretend like a program or event is bad. They're simply methods of gathering people, no different than when people gathered to hear Jesus teach.
maybe the definition i’ve been using is too narrow. because it seems obvious to me that churches who primarily rely on attraction ministries are, at least at times and in ways, going to have some who are living Christ into their communities. so by saying i can’t see a situation where there’s an AND, i’m suggesting every church has a primary method of seeking to share the gospel. and if that method is inviting people to events and making your sunday gathering (in large part) about getting visitors to come, then you’ve made your decisions. there is no AND as to your primary method of evangelism.
here’s what i see as the big difference. i know you’re saying that people in “attractional” churches are also being incarnational, by living and working among non-Christians. i think a good way, though, of discovering what type of ministry a church has is by looking to see what these “incarnational” (i’d argue very few are) members are doing when sharing the gospel. my guess is 9 times out of 10 (at least) their version of evangelism is inviting someone to church, or to a church-led self-help group, or to a party at the church building, etc. those are all signs that this individual and church are attractional in their ministries.
peter didn’t gather people at pentecost. the Holy Spirit did, because there happened to be a lot of God-fearers already in Jerusalem and each heard preaching in his own home language. the church didn’t organize an event and it wasn’t a “come to us” program.
i’m not saying attractional churches are bad people. but what if gathering people at an event on our own soil is bad — or at least not nearly as good? what if it pulls them out of their community in order to become a member of ours? we’ve greatly lessened our chances of growing the kingdom into that community.
and it’s very different than gathering to hear Jesus teach. i gather with people to study the bible several times a week. groups often gather around me when they hear me talking about Jesus. but i’m not asking them to meet me on my property, in my classroom, in a culture in which i’m comfortable. gatherings aren’t bad, but i think having our own space that is “sacred” and making them come into it is.
It seems like some of the issue for you is about where the gathering happens. For me, for instance, I don't view the church building and the rest of culture (school, work, etc) as mutually exclusive or opposing each other. I don't feel like I'm pulling myself or an unchurched friend out of something to invite them to church. They all should exist together.
In regards to the Holy Spirit and Pentecost, I would never assume that the Holy Spirit is completely absent when I invite my friends who aren't believers to church. In fact, I believe the Holy Spirit is working through me the whole time I've known them, served them, loved them, and yes…invited them.
I can get on board with labeling a church by it's primary evangelism strategy. I just can't get on board with the idea that it automatically means they ONLY do that one, or that certain ones are not Biblical when there's no clear Biblical evidence for that. Thanks for the convo, I'm enjoying this.
“I don’t view the church building and the rest of culture (school, work, etc) as mutually exclusive or opposing each other…. They all should exist together.”
i think that’s a great way to look at it. it’s just that what i generally see is churches creating “sacred” spaces, where Jesus is shared with others. so instead of people seeing Christ at work in a community, they see him at work IF they are willing to come to this place at this time, etc.
“I don’t feel like I’m pulling myself or an unchurched friend out of something to invite them to church.”
you very well may not be. but most of our churches are in some way or another. what happens is we create our spaces and worship times, etc, to appeal to a particular type person (generally those like us). so we’ve limited in a way who can come or at least who will feel comfortable coming. for many people, they will have to “become something different” in order to be a part of our group. because our group isn’t an accurate representation of Christ in the culture from which they come.
and i don’t mean to make it sound as if i believe attractional churches are not indeed churches — or anything of that sort. i simply don’t think it’s a sustainable or reproducible form of evangelism. nor do i see it modeled in scripture. that doesn’t mean i believe it’s wrong. i simply believe it unwise.
Think about it like this. The Church (big C), is the body of Christ, right? The Church gathering or community should reflect Christ in a way that is greater than any one person (body part) can.
Jesus embodied that on his own, he was definitely attractional because people were attracted to him, they invited their friends to meet him (see Philip & Nathanael). He lived among the people AND he attracted them as crowds…..it was pretty much unavoidable because of who he was and what he had done.
The Church, as the body of Christ, should be the same. We should live among people, and be attractive to them. When we gather, people should be attracted to that and should experience Christ in a powerful way. That gathering could be a small group or a worship service, or something else…that's where the cultural/method part comes in.
I think it's always both/and, the problem is people ASSUME an "attractional" church doesn't personally invest in people and that's just ridiculous. I don't know of a single, healthy, "attractional" church that doesn't have the majority of it's new people coming from personal connections (also known as "missional")
I know this will hit hard, but I see a lot of people label healthy churches "attractional" because they're effective and people are coming to Christ through them and sometimes there is jealousy or envy in play.
If there are churches who teach their members NOT to invest in people's lives, and NOT to share the gospel personally, and only expect unchurched people to show up without invites, then yes, that would be bad. I just don't know of any. I guarantee if there are any, they won't last long.
I know of some who get labeled as such, but that's by people who don't attend there and really don't know. They assume.
+1
Jesus, while here on earth, and God throughout all of scripture seemed to be both attractional and missional.
i can’t find a place where Jesus was attractional, where he organized programs and planned events, inviting people to come into his home or his building or his neighborhood so that they could know God. he was always on their soil.
i’m not trying to be difficult, but i keep hearing people say Jesus was attractional in his ministry, yet i’ve never heard of a single way in which he was. coming to earth in itself is incarnational. the entire time he was here, he was in the flesh with us — rather than inviting us to him from heaven or some other faraway place.
James – I have really appreciated Alan Hirsch's recent teaching on this issue. He believes (as do I) that we MUST find the "and." It can no longer be either/or type of thinking. That will keep the church in its' precipitous decline. The only way out of this is if established attractional churches find a way to teach and motivate their people to become missional–and then put in place organic systems that accommodate a virus-like spread. That's what I'm praying for.
You should think about coming to the AND Conference!
i haven’t heard or read any of hirsch’s recent teachings on the subject. again, though, maybe the definition i’ve been using is too narrow — because there can only be one primary means of evangelism. and “come to us” vs. “we’re among you” don’t seem to play well together. it’s not even, to me, a situation in which the invitations to our buildings and events are in and of themselves the greatest problems. it’s the mindset and theology that lies underneath all that — ideas that most members of congregations don’t necessarily understand are even there — yet these assumptions define all evangelism for them.
i mean if you ask 100 christians how they can share their faith with someone, more than 90 are not even going to be able to come up with a way that doesn’t involve inviting someone to their church building — and that’s not even asking them to do it. that’s just asking them to think about how.
if you’re saying we need both/and in order to get ourselves out of the huge mess we’ve created, then i might be more inclined to agree. but i don’t understand how the un-biblical model ever became the default. and those pushing for incarnational ministry are the ones being put on the defense. that’s the way Jesus did it, plain and simple. attractional ministry is a man-made method, designed around human intellect and probably resting on a general distrust of the Holy Spirit to do his work.
by organic systems that accommodate a spread, do you mean a church planting movement? starting reproducible churches and the like? because when you offer that “the only way out of this is…” i can’t find anything in your answer that is both-and, except for that you’re starting with established attractional churches shifting to incarnational forms of ministry.
please know that i’m not trying to be difficult. i honestly want what is best for Jesus’ mission and God’s glory.
I'm trying to get some context here, and looking to learn whatever I can…..
Were you burned by a church at any point?
Have you never met anyone who was invited to church and their life was ultimately changed through that experience?
Do you really believe nobody was ever invited to the church gatherings we read about in the NT?
Do you believe the Bible presents a very specific, universal method for doing church?
Can you paint a picture for me of what a "incarnational or missional" church looks like? What is expected of believers and unbelievers? What would a perfect "incarnational" church goer do as part of that church?
Can you show me 20 examples of churches in the U.S. doing that, and reaching people in a significant way? I'm all for doing something different but all the arguments I hear act as if it's being done all over the place with success….in America.
nick, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt and not writing me off as a troublemaker.
i have not been burned by churches or a church. i’ve worked in/for several.
i also have seen people invited to church who came to know Christ and to become more like him. but many of them were asked to change some of that in them which was cultural and not in opposition to the gospel or Christ himself. and i’ve seen many who have flourished in their new church culture. i just think we missed out on reaching others in their culture because of that.
i think we’d have been better off to have helped them become obedient disciples where they were, so they were more apt to lead others to Christ — and probably to start their own small church, which would represent Christ in their culture better than my church did / could.
i don’t find any evidence that non-God-fearers were invited to christian gatherings in the new testament, and yes, i think i find it unlikely that this happened often. the assembly doesn’t seem to be primarily (or even secondarily, or tertiarily — is that a word) about non-Christians and/or evangelism.
i have to run. but i’ll try to answer the other two questions a little later this evening (my evening, your mid-day). i am really enjoying the conversation, by the way. thank you, nick.
So, Jesus was not attractive? Let's face it, that's all the attractional model is, representing Jesus to the world. Forget programs and events, they simply exist because it's a group of people trying to represent one person, Jesus. I wouldn't organize an event for myself. The organization comes from trying to work together to accomplish the mission.
You're denying the ways Jesus was attractional, because it's all over the gospels and all over the Bible. Let's stop pretending like people that are a part of "attractional" churches have zero involvement in culture. That's pretty much impossible. Sure, plenty of Christians are inward focused and don't have relationships with unchurched people, but I would argue most of them aren't actually a part of attractional churches. They are a part of dying churches that don't even know what model they're using.
Let me pose this question, in the "incarnational" model, how should Christians gather to be the church? Is it small groups? That's fine, but that's a program
for christians to gather is important to the mission of Jesus. we need to build one another up, by using the gifts we’ve given by the Holy Spirit. i would argue this is the only reason for church. it only exists as a means to an end — to be Christ in the world. but for Christians to gather together and encourage one another in this way is not an evangelistic tool in and of itself. and of course it’s a planned event — sometimes. though most of the time when the NT mentions church, it is in terms of people being together, sharing their lives, taking care of one another — not a single meeting in which we “worship.”‘
so i think whether or not a church — established body of believers meets in small groups or in a building is irrelevant to the ways in which they are seeking to be Jesus in their communities. i’m not against christians meeting in buildings. i’m against their outreach being inviting people to those buildings — or in some cases even to those meetings in which they seek to build one another up into maturity.
and, yes, i would argue that Jesus was not attractive in his ministry — not in terms of these two words. you’re skipping half the definition of attractional ministry. it’s not about whether someone is attracted to you as you represent Christ; it’s about whether you’re putting out a “come to us” message or living among those whom you seek to serve. Jesus did the second. of course we want people to “come to Jesus,” as he is where they find abundant life, forgiveness of sins, and relationship with God. it’s the message of you have to come to our place on our terms in order to get to him of which i don’t approve.
and i’m not saying members of attractional churches aren’t involved in culture. i’m talking about how they invite people into the kingdom. are they pulling people from their cultures in order to be a part of ours? that’s where we meet most of the problems. because it’s not reproducible or biblical.
tim, i question your assumption that the church is in decline. the book "the american church in crisis" challenged my own view on this. olson's statistics show that church attendance overall is going down, but church involvement and attendance in evangelical churches is steady or increasing almost everywhere.
we still need to improve ourselves, plant new churches, baptize more people, and make more effective disciples–but i think we ARE on the right track!
You said it yourself – "church attendance overall is going down." My comment isn't about how engaged or involved those are who are attending — it's that every year fewer people are attending church while the overall population is going up.
Great post Tim. I continue to be challenged by the people leading GCC. Complacency doesn't stand a chance around here!
Tim,
I am a church planter in Memphis,TN and have for two years now been stating exactly what you stated above. I was once affiliated with North Point as a partner and their model is completely attractional in nature but I have continually felt led to embrace a model that is foundationally "missional" that will utilize the "both and" approach instead of the "either or" approach.
Seems like both groups have something great to offer but each one tends to divide instead of trying to blend the two approaches. It is possible and very intriguing to me.
Thanks for the article.
jonathan, i can’t grasp what a blending of incarnational and attractional ministries would look like. can you help me? i’m obviously not objective on the issue, but i want to understand what others are talking about.
I have an idea James — you should come to the AND Conference and enter the conversation with us. Seriously, my desire is to see the polarized arguments come together and let's learn the best from both camps.The end goal is the same–surely we can find some connection points and explore those.
i would love to, but i’ll be out of the country. when is it? will there be one in 2011?
AWESOME! The "AND" conference? AWESOME!
me too
I grew up in ministry watching those that led the way in the attractional model reject irrelevant traditions. Over and over again I heard statements like, "we need to hold onto traditions, rituals, rules, and our stuff with a loose grasp and let it go when it is no longer effective." This arguement was used to toss out the hymnals. It was used to get relevant worship on the stage. It was use to change sermon styles, to reshape the atmosphere of the room, and to remove the pews.
I remember my pastor making the statement to younger leaders, "Sure Sunday school isn't working for the majority of people; but there are still some who want it." That "some" got smaller and smaller until it became tiny enough to ignore.
Why is it now that the attractional model is coming into question, and everyone seems to agree it is loosing its effectiveness more and more, the revolutionaries of the past are holding so tightly to it?
The only people I ever see argue to support the "attractional" model are people who are in churches that are doing it well, who also live incarnationally, and who could share hundreds of stories of lives changed through their church.
People who are holding onto traditions are typically in a church that doesn't even know what model it is nor are they running it well, whatever it is.
Yes. Jesus model was both. What's the argument? Jesus DREW a crowd, then worked them down to the 12, the 3 and the 1 on 1.
And out of the 1 on 1, the 3, and the 12, came a crowd.
This is pretty tough stuff. I still have strong emotions after a pastor and leadership team president left our growing church in Illinois after reading the Forgotten Ways. Felt the "attractional" model was unbiblical, so they left to be missional. The fall-out hurt a lot of people and a growing church took over two years to recover.
I heard Alan speak at Velocity this February and for the first time realized that he was also a proponent of the "And" concept. I want to hear more. I want to figure out what missional looks like in the context of a nation where megachurches have been leading the way, but aren't the only way.
Thanks for opening a conversation that threatens the perceived place that Granger and other churches hold.
[...] think about them. I’m a statistics guy, and it is the statistics (that I talked about earlier) which are waking me up to a missional problem. Now that I’m aware of the Growing 60% [...]
I think you're right Tim! about there being a both/and. But I'm not smart enough to understand the entire equation to know whether they're exclusive, or how they can be integrated?
Personally I believe that outsiders are looking for something that actually is the Jesus of the Bible, but we've wrapped him in all this church culture stuff that they have very negative impressions of, so they are more averse to going to a church to find answers – the entire culture basically tells them that the last place for answers is the Church. That's why I think we need to come-up with a new way. Also, I think there are some unbiblical practices that we need to let go of.
It seems to me Granger's attractional was missional and Granger's missional was attractional (attractive). The question is are we seeing people come to faith in Christ…If we all were seeing that the numbers would change
First I want to say that this is a tremendous post. I have read your book Pop Goes the Church and it helped me better understand the philosophy of Granger Community Church. With that said, I personally believe that the strategy of leveraging pop culture into the church to better reach the unchurched is losing its influence. With so many outlets of entertainment today, it is difficult to craft sermon series that will attract a large mass of people. In other words, Pop Culture is less significant than it was five to ten years ago. Is it still a solid strategy? Yes, and GCC should still do what it does best, but I think that GCC will have to look into new avenues of reaching the unchurched for Christ. Craig Groeschel (Senior Pastor at LifeChurch.tv) recently said, "In order to reach people no one is reaching, you must do things no one is doing." So does that mean that GCC does church more virtual? Should GCC partner with other churches like LifeChurch.tv did?
(Read the next comment first) I am not sure and I am definitely not qualified to give great answers to be highly considered. I do know that there are thousands upon thousands of people locally, regionally, nationally, and world wide that do know Jesus Christ and thus have no relationship with Him. Is it not the whole point of church to introduce Jesus to people who do not know Him and to establish a relationship with God? It will be interesting to see what the "attractive model" churches do in the next five to ten years as our pop culture diminshes and society changes. I am confident that the leadership team at GCC will do their best to lead this magnificent church in the coming years. Thanks for the post.
Unfortunately, I have a graphics problem on my laptop and so I am only able to read the extract of Tim’s article which appeared at Catalyst. His site’s font is white and I can’t read it, but from this extract I get the bulk of what he is saying and I have one word for Him: HALLELUJAH! Thank you Jesus for Tim Stevens. Thank you Lord that the Leaders whom you have appointed to speak on your behalf in this world are speaking up and finally making your message heard, the message that Church was never about bringing the people into our four walls, but about your transformational grace and mercy reaching so deep within us that we can’t but GO OUT to serve and share that love with others who are in need, any kind of need.
I pray that many like Tim will begin to speak up; that your will, Lord Jesus, will reign over all men’s wills and that the power of your spirit begins to make those who do not have the desires of your heart within, to crumble and disappear. I am excited to be a part of the Body of Christ in these times. The new wineskins are finally in our midst and the waves of radical change within The Church are now being seen in our horizon. Thank you Lord for Leaders like Tim with a servant’s heart and not a CEO mind. Bless your people Lord Jesus!
Love it all.
I would like to add in on the numbered reasons for varied culture or why people don't come. They are anti-God, holiness, Jesus and such. We had a gal here at Westside featured for her great work against porn and porn and women issues in the New York Times. She was ridiculed and insulted over and over.
And not because she was old school, boring, conservative fodder type. No just plain hatred of Godliness. This is a real issue too. Neither model will break that. Only HS in their lives. I am for all the models, just remember, yes they will know we are Christians by our love for each other, but knowing might equate to hatred.
Couldn’t be more on board with this thinking. It has taken ahold of me lately. I’s almost becoming somewhat of a heavy burden for me. I can’t help but think about the fact that something isn’t right. What we are doing isn’t as effective as what God created us capable of. We’ve strayed from the Great Commission and instead expect the whole world to come to us. Can’t wait to see Granger strategically attempt to be a part of the solution!
I am not sure God called us to be effective. Just called us to go and do. Effective is up to Him. Be obedient. Have a model. Have a great model. Evaluate it, poke it, make it better…constantly. I am all for this. But above all obedience is all that is required.
Be still and know that I am God.
[...] didn’t think about them. I’m a statistics guy, and it is the statistics (that I talked about earlier) which are waking me up to a missional problem. Now that I’m aware of the Growing 60% –I can [...]
[...] conventional thinking, Tim Stevens poses a very thought provoking idea in his post on how churches have a statistical problem. The coming decade is going to require some different thinking and for some churches to take some [...]
[...] We Have a Statistical Problem in the church. How do you respond? [...]