The Attractional Church
If I were not already predisposed to believe the negative things bloggers and writers say about the Attractional Church, I would think that “Attractive” would fit into the definition. But as I read on and on no one ever says anything positive about being an Attractional Church. So I will take my liberty here to crank out a positive description of the Attractional Church. Why? Because I believe in the mission of Attractional ministry…the way ARC does it. Anyway, here are some thoughts.
The Attractional Church is attractive… The vocational church is not attractive… The missional church that is not attractive soon loses its momentum and becomes vocational. (Read my blog on the vocational church) It’s true that the Attractional Church has a strong focus on Sunday services, services that are designed to draw many unchurched people. For discipleship purposes an emphasis on small groups is commonly found. It has a city-wide vision that includes outreach to all groups of people and specific missions to the needy and hurting. Often there are small groups in the Attractional Church that are very missional in their approach. KEY: The more the pastor and leadership express the need to be missional, the more missional the church becomes.
The Attractional Church tends to draw people to its services because of its “attractive” style and relevant approach to communicating the Gospel. In most cases worship is contemporary but doesn’t have to be. Services are fun, happy and the people are friendly.
Theologically, the Attractional Church is biblically rooted and the messages are biblically based. There is also concern and consideration for the culture around it. Therefore, much is done to know the “market” or culture in the area, and subtle adjustments are made to be relevant to that market. So the way the Bible is presented is influenced by the culture/market that is being reached. The difference is not in the content of the message but rather in the style of presenting it.
Application of the truth presented is a big part of the message in the Attractional Church. “What I want them to know” and “What I want them to do” are huge elements in the presentation. It is in the application of the message that missions and outreach is encouraged. Application of truth is also related to everyday issues such as family, employment and finances.
The Attractional Church has a large variety of services that it offers the community. Eventually, with growth, its financial and human resources can be a one stop shop for nearly every need that a member would have. If I were going to make a comparison in medical terms, it is more of a “hospital” whereas the Missional Church is more of an “urgent care” clinic. The Vocational Church would be a classroom on the ills of society. Apparently we need all three types because people attend them all on a regular basis. One is not better than than the other…just different.
Challenges – The Attractional Church can become inwardly focused and lose sight of its mission to the under-churched culture around it. It can inadvertently train up a group of Christians who speak “Christianeze” and become introverted and isolated from non-Christians. The fact is that most churches lose their evangelistic and missional mindset after four years.
Alan Hirsch, who is widely attributed for coining the term “Attractional Church”, said at a recent conference, “To be missional means we must live as a “sent” people. People that go into their community and reach others for Christ. The church goes to people not the other way around. Sent people go into their community and reach others for Christ. Acting “incarnationally,” sent people equip those that they reach to reach their own culture” He added, that in a missional setting, when we act “attractionally”, we effectively extract them from the host tribe/culture and that this is highly problematic. The reason is, the Gospel travels along relational lines within any given culture or sub-culture for that matter. Acting “attractionally” in a missional context effectively extracts people from that context and leaves unreached people and cultures unchanged”
The lesson here is not to “extract” people from their culture once you win them to Christ. So “acting attractionally” is really acting “extractionally.” Bottom line is this. What I define as a true Attractional Church is one that lives as a “sent people,” reaching and discipling converts in their own culture through small groups and outreach, and then providing them with places of worship to bring their families and friends to hear Christ preached….anyway that’s what we’ve been doing for the past ten years. And it works.
Give me some of your thoughts. Billy
15
Comments
Joseph Garza
At New Generation Fellowship in San Antonio we are both missional and attractional. We live out a missional life personally on a daily basis. We engage culture and people- everyday everywhere we go. At the same rate our Sunday morning services are highly attractional. We use high powered services, radio, media, and relevant messages. We are both.
There are some people though, especially post-moderns and drug addicts for example- that are hard to attract. You have to engage them on their turf (coffee shops, city streets, work, etc). They will only come through relational means. We have had 101 people give their lives to Jesus the first 6 weeks of our church.
Once again we believe in a highly attractive church experience with a missional daily life style.
Billy
Joseph, you are doing what I think an Attractional Church should do. Keep it up. Billy
John Jackson
Hey Billy,
Thanks for posting this! Whenever i teach on this subject, I say…”would you rather be attractional or repulsive?”!!
I’m thankful to the Father for the ministry of ARC and TCI and other ministries which are attracting people to Jesus by incarnating the gospel in their lives and communities.
I think it was Geoff Surratt who said, “I want to be attractional and missional with a dash of organic”.
It’s the miracle of AND
Keith Morrison
I completely agree. It is not a question of “either/or” but “both.” Too many times people try to place the mission and call into a single category and one is best. I believe a healthy church must have both – and that is what we are striving for.
Robert Champion
There is a huge need in our day and age to see churches once again become “Attractional.” Jesus was very attractive to the lost of His day and I believe it is the mandate of the church to be attractive as well. I long for the day when the church can stay Attractional and mission focused after that 4 year cycle.
Everything definitely rises and falls on leadership. When leaders of churches get consumed with so many things that they lose sight of God’s mission, inevitably the the church will follow. Becoming and continually striving to be an Attractional church is something that every church must keep it’s eye on at all times. When we fail to be attractive, we fail to accomplish the whole reason why Jesus came.
I believe that every church whether just planted or established for 100 years needs to evaluate their attractiveness on a yearly basis and then make the necessary changes. Attractional churches create experiences during their services not for a “production” but rather to creatively communicate the most important message in the world, the gospel of Jesus Christ. ARC churches are some of the most Attractional churches I’ve seen. Keep up the great work guys! Lord, make churches attractional once again in our day!
Glenn Hatcher
When it comes to “missional” vs “attractional,” it’s really not about being “either/or” but about being “both/and.” The problem – as I see it – is when we become spectators rather than participants, consumers rather than disciples and leaders become performers rather than equippers. The word is waiting to see a group of people who can be life-giving and loving – in the building and outside.
I’m convinced that God gathers us to send us, and sends us to gather. The gathering makes us stronger; the sending makes us fruitful.
chris g
in the area in which we are there are no attractional churches within 60 miles, we are the first. unfortunately because of the lack of a force in the community and excellence on Sunday this is considered the least churched community in the US. we cant wait to see what Jesus does up here!! great post Billy.
Jim Johnson
Even as a missionary who is called to Missions I love and agree with what you’ve written about the different approaches to church. It was impressive to see a real example in Ft. Myers. I especially liked; “Bottom line is this. What I define as a true Attractional Church is one that lives as a “sent people,” reaching and discipling converts in their own culture through small groups and outreach, and then providing them with places of worship to bring their families and friends to hear Christ preached….” This describes our work in Berlin.
Thanks for your Kingdom service Billy!
Jim in Berlin, Germany
Dave Ohlerking
As a Presbyter for Healing Place Church in Baton Rouge I have watched Pastor Dino Rizzo employ the Attractional principles–they work!
Larry Clark
Some churches think they are an attractive church but they are more like a revolving door church. They have great worship, biblically sound sermons but the people do not know how or do not want to be attractive. Jesus was attractive because He exhibited compassion and people who feel cared for will return but those who do not feel cared for will leave even if there is great worhsip and biblically sound sermons.
I was involved with a church whose pastor thinks the church is attractive and on the surface it is. But rarely do vistors become committed followers of Jesus. The pastor has not been able to move the peopleto take on the third side to the triangle.
As a result many are like me they drive 20 minutes to churches that have learned to have great worship, biblically sound sermons and compassionate people.
Joseph Garza
Wow!! These are amazing comments. It’s good to know so many of us in ARC and beyond have the same heart and values in ministry. Proud to be an ARC church!!
http://newgenerationfellowship.net
Michael Trent
Billy,
I’m so glad that you are leading this discussion. I know that we each had solid dialogue recently with Alan Hirsch and each of you are men of integrity that have the opportunity and ability to have and open conversation of “both / and” -
I’ve been playing with The Attractive Church Theory – as if we need more labels right
http://thirdplaceconsulting.com/2009/12/the-attractive-church-theory/
Michael Trent
@ChurchBartender
Jon Hamp
Thanks for the clarifying blog Billy. I think I wasted too much time in the early days of vision development deciding “are we ‘attractional’ or are we ‘missional’” The real question is: “Who am I, and how do I feel most natural doing ministry” followed by “would that work in the community I feel called too.” To be honest, I have stopped trying to fit into anyones definition of missional, attractional, or organic. We are Discovery Church of Parker and we have seen 63 people accept Christ since our launch in Sept ‘09. Now, we’re seeing those same people get involved in Discovery Groups and be discipled by learning what it means to follow Christ, become good stewards of their finances, improve their marriages, and become better parents. If that is not effectively reaching our community, then the group of people who associate themselves with Discovery haven’t figured that out yet!
Blessings all!
Mike Shay
Thanks Billy!
Since being with ARC I keep telling myself, “I knew I wasn’t crazy! I knew I wasn’t crazy! There ARE people who think like I’m thinking!” Thanks for leading with the Spirit and affirming what He is doing in all of us!
Billy
Jon, thanks for your comment. I believe that there are tons of pastors who have attractional churches that have been confused by some of the articles and books that have been written that portray the Attractional Church in a negative light. Hope this helps them.
Mike, you are not crazy!
Dave, they do work…..
Leave a Reply