I heave a bit of a sigh as I write this, but I’m a little weary of the way these words get used interchangeably to describe church, when I would suggest they have quite different meanings. I hear it and read it regularly so for what its worth here is my explanation of the difference.
As one of the crew (Forge
torque movie download wind chill movie download
) who – as far as I know – began the use of the word ‘attractional’, I’d say I probably have a fair idea of what we mean by it – and certainly in our understanding it doesn’t mean the same as ‘attractive’.
Not at all.
In missional church lingo the term ‘attractional’ refers to the way a church seeks to do all it can to get people to the service. This might be better music, more comfy seats or a free car (serious…) It is all about marketing and developing a way of getting people ‘in’. It operates on the assumption that people actually want in… a bloody big assumption if you ask me…
I am not a fan of church being attractional. I believe the foundational assumption is flawed. People are not sitting at home just waiting for us to get the show right and then they will come. This approach will lead us to more focus on style and less on substance.
However I believe Christian community ought to be attractive. If there is genuine Christ centred community happening where we are loving one another deeply and sharing life then it will be attractive to people. Perhaps not to all however. Community can be frightening – exposing us and leaving us vulnerable – it won’t be everyone’s cup of tea.
But the foundational assumption here is not that people are waiting to join us if only we could ‘get things right’. It is simply that if we are a genuine community then chances are that will be very attractive to many. And if they encounter our community then they will find it life giving.
So am I saying we should have crap music, lousy teaching and poor coffee?
Nope.
We don’t need to do these things poorly. But doing them with ‘excellence’ will not be the difference between people coming or not coming. I’d say that doing these things well will probably make us more attractive, but if these are the factors drawing people to us, rather than the depth of community we experience then those people will not be genuinely connected and discipled and will disappear as soon as someone else offers better quality preaching, music etc.
This is not about church expressions. Large, small, alternative, traditional etc. It is about the imagination of church that shapes us.
Anyway I hope that’s cleared up what I find to be an ongoing confusion when it comes to missional ‘terminology’.
Pingback: Attractive versus Attractional » Mission in Action
Good thoughts, Hamo.
Pax
J
that is a very good description I believe of the difference. Very well put.
Keep on keeping on Hamo!
Thanks for a good explanation from a guilty party Hamo! I like your distinction and I agree that ‘attractional’ in the way megachurch often uses it is not good.
But one thought: Frost and Hirsch seem to use ‘attractional’ in opposition to ‘incarnational’. For me an attractive Christian community will be a new people that doesn’t simply work to transform an existing people group in their setting, but call people from all groups to a new people. That’s my main point of departure from them. Interestingly, I think of your church as a great example of it happening well.
Whoops, that came out wrong – I mean I am a guilty party and am thanking you!
I should also add, I agree so much about ‘getting the show right’ not being the gospel. Spot on.
All cool Nath!
I’ve grown weary of the attraction road. There are so many people that are hurting so badly that they cannot even fly toward the flame. May God give His Church a vision for taking the flame to them! I want to put my flesh and blood to that vision and that mission.