Van S and other blogging friends pointed out this post by Hamo on Incarnational vs Attractional Mission. It goes to the heart of the paradigm shift that simple/house churches are about. Here is some of what Hamo wrote:
If Jesus were alive today and his mission was still to ‘seek out and save the lost’ what might he do?…
Would he hire a building, set up a sound system, develop a music team, drama team, and then do local letterbox drops advising people that they could come and be part of his church on Sunday? Frankly I don’t believe this approach to mission would rate a blip on his strategic radar. The so called ‘attractional’ mode of mission centres its focus on the church service and is dedicated to producing an event that pagans will want to come to. The theory goes that the more professional the service is, the funkier the music, the better the coffee, and so on… the more likely the punters will come, hence the term ‘attractional’. As such the success of mission in this mode is almost always measured by the number who attend on Sunday. While a small minority of larger churches do experience some success with this approach, the overwhelming majority of smaller churches attempting to be Hillsong clones continue to haemorrhage members every week because they cannot offer the same quality of music, preaching or other services that their mega-mall comrades down the road are able to provide. ..
Was it ever Jesus’ intention that non-Christians should seek us and desire to attend our worship events? Or didn’t he say quite clearly that it was his calling, and now ours to ‘seek out and save the lost’ to ‘go’ to their world and enculturate the gospel there. Little Bo Peep evangelism (leave em alone and they’ll come home) is fast running out of steam as the Christian story ceases to be the dominant framework for Australian people to interpret their spirituality.
By contrast the incarnational approach to mission is refreshingly simple. It requires us to live amongst the people in our communities, love them, share the good news of the kingdom both in action and in speech and then as people become followers of Christ to form up indigenous communities of faith that reflect the specific context. This requires no great resources or buildings, no slick marketing plans and no highly talented people. In incarnational mission the gatherings exist to support the believers as they move out in mission rather than being seen as the place to bring people to. While attractional churches will continue to dominate the landscape of the Christian world, I strongly believe that hope for the future lies increasingly with an incarnational approach to mission that takes both gospel and context seriously and sends Christians out as missionaries rather than calling pagans to come and attend church.
If we do "church in the house" but do not become incarnational ("sent ones") amongst those around us… we have done nothing but free up some real estate.
Comments
5 responses to “Incarnational vs Attractional Mission”
It would be helpful and worthwhile to hear from people what are the elements that prevent them from being missional. Is it fear? Lack of time? A belief that church is only about community? Is it lack of vision? What are some of the struggles people have had in living out this missional emphasis. Of course house church is no guarantee that we will be missional. My experience is that house church becomes another attractional model. Instead of focusing in on singing chorus’, sermon style, programs etc we focus in on having meals together, what style of discussion we will have and what to do with the children. Furthermore, I do not think it is helpful to always be comparing us to what is happening in India, Africa, and other places (as is being done in Jim Rutz’ new book Megashift and house2house) where the church is growing. North America has it’s own particular problems. I believe that Tom Sine speaks to part of the problem. We have to intentionally re order our lives. The gospel of Jesus has to be burning in our hearts. a great quote from Gordon Cosby of the Church of the Saviour” (Written over 40 years ago).
“The tragic thing is that very few people ever get past the point of looking after their own situation, their own personal lives, and their own families and they keep arguing, “if we take time away from this thing which we need to be working at, if we take time from our family, we’re neglecting our responsibility.” this is right at one level and wrong at another. Unless some people have time left over, unless they have some love left over, unless they have some resources left over for the people who don’t eat, for the people who are desperate, none of us is going to have any family. We are not going to exist at all. It is that simple. This is what the prophets of God are talking about. We simply cannot live alone.”
My dear friend Roger, I had to reply to this one. Thanks for the blog; it is provocative.
This is an enjoyable blog to follow. Very little new is to be found here, but it is always interesting to track the age-old tension between my way and their way.
No matter how the author couches his response to the posted counter-points (in the original blog from which the article I reply to was taken), his intent is clearly to minimize the value of being attractional, to elevate the value of the incarnational idea, and to use a broad-brush to link the church with the former and the house-church with the latter. As delighted as we all seem to be with our new labels and terms, this age old tension also has an age-old solution; it takes one to achieve the other. If you cannot attract, you cannot present incarnation. Without the incarnation there is no real attraction.
Many may find comfort in the closeness of a small group meeting in a home, but I daresay most unbelievers would be more likely to risk the anonymity of a larger group than the intimacy of another’s home. Fulfillment of incarnation lies in relationship with God, with His body, and with the lost. Perhaps in certain cultures the process to this result is best intiated one on one; in the world of the 21st century and in the west this does not seem to be the case.
For me it becomes an issue of looking at the whole picture rather than building on a pet peeve (whoops… hope I didn’t crunch too many toes). While one critques the church for ‘hemoraging’ people out the back door, any pastor will tell you that the back door is a problem in small and big churches alike. Likewise, our call is to preach the gospel and then disciple. If Attraction brings an individual to be presented with the incarnation and they reject it, the back door will at some point be swinging in their wake. Usually (not always but usually)if the back door swings, the front door swings exponentially more. Thank God for the Attraction that draws people in numbers. From house churches to mega-churches, every body of believers has people come and go. Granted, some larger churches have problems that are revealed by the squeak of the door hinges; even house churches deal with this. As far as I am concerned, tho, the swinging back door that reveals a restless front door moves me to say ‘let the hemoraging begin!’
In the end we would do well to consider whether Paul’s admonitions in I Cor 12 apply to the church today. If they do not, then we are compelled to finally decide which it will be, attraction vs incarnation, tradition vs reinvented tradition, established church vs home church. We should go further as well: Baptist vs AOG, Nazarene vs charismatic, Methodist vs COG. We have a lot of work to do.
If, on the other hand, scripture is authoritative, then we would do well to perceive that God moves in His own way after His own fashion. He came up with the idea of the Body of Christ and He administrates it in His own way for one purpose: to reach the lost. Our examination should not center on my way or your way, but on what has He called me to do. I may be an eye and you an ear. Thank God for that balance; help me as the eye to serve you well, oh ear, because I know you cannot see. Likewise, serve God with all of your heart, oh oracle of audibility; I will miss what I cannot see unless you hear for me.
Be blessed. Let’s serve His body beautifully to make a beautiful Body.
Robert
Ouch! It is good to hear from you, Bob… an old and dear friend from way back. I plan on catching up with you via email.
I say “ouch” because I hope this is not an “our way” vs “their way” blog or post.
It is true that, in order to define one path it is necessary to create a distinction between that path and another. But, in regards to this specific post, I do not see the author making a distinction between traditional church and house church at all. They can both be attractional or they can both be incarnational. I believe the challenge that is given here applies to both types of churches (or any other).
Incarnational mission is not about presenting the incarnation (that should take place in any Gospel message), rather incarnational mission involves the people of God taking the light of the Gospel out into the world where the world lives– in shops, businesses, coffee houses, schools, kids’ sports, etc. It’s about each of us incarnating the life of Jesus as we go into our worlds so that we truly take salt into every place we tread. Unbelievers do not want to be invited into a living room (for certain) and increasingly they do not want to be invited into a church building. Therefore, as this trend continues we will need to learn to take Jesus out of all buildings and gatherings into the places where unbelievers live and befriend them there.
It’s a worthy dialogue because attractional models of mission, though valuable, have proven to be limited in their ability to transform communities and cities. We move more people from one church to another then we move people from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light.
Should we cease doing attractional mission altogether because of this? NO! Bless those efforts! Increase the missional impact all that you can.
Should we acknowledge the limitations of what we are doing and be willing to go after anything that might provide a greater missional impact? YES! Should we learn how to be “sent ones” as Jesus was sent. Yes. I believe the church (of all forms) needs this message.
Love to you.
I would like to recommend a book that might add another twist to the conversation. This book inspired me to seek the Lord in how he can move in me/us and our region. It’s called Desperate for His Presence (God’s Design to transform your life and your city) by Rhonda Hughey. Some of what she talks about is probably already on the radar for those who are are familar with the current prayer movements and city reaching movements. However, what specifically impressed me are the organic, down-to-earth concepts that speak to all of us interested growing closer to the Lord and are interested in reaching the world around us. More importantly it is not exclusive to those in or out of traditional church expressions, but is for anyone who desires to see his kingdom manifested in our communities.
My recommendation maybe sidesteps the discussion of incarnational vs attractional, but hopefully it adds a missing ingredient to it.
Site: http://www.prayerbydesign.com/articles.php?page=1 (book excerpts)
Interview: http://www.nppn.org/InnerViews/InnerView015.htm
Really good post, and great comments also.
Oh man it can be hard to be the only one in your community who carries these kind of ideas and values. The thing is, I do believe in them, and want to practice them, but how to find others who can share these things with me?
God knows.
You have a good blog!