The Forgotten Ways » Blog Archive » the attractional v. missional debate This blog post is one of those all helpful clarifications of new terminology in a world of evangelicalism that is notorious for coming up with new ones. (seriously - seeker, seeker-sensitive, alter call, baby Christian, vacation bible school....all helpful within church culture, but confusing for people outside of church) The two paradigms discussed here are missional vs. attractional. These terms describe "the missionary mode or primary posture of the church in relation to its context." Does the church see its primary posture towards the culture as come-to-us (attractional) or as sent-to-them (missional). The article is brief (so you should read it :) and helpfully articulates how western culture (North America, Europe, and Australia) have all shifted the church out of its previously held central position in the culture. The church no longer has the sway and influence in mainstream society. Therefore, the church's primary posture toward the culture must change away from expecting people to come to our churches. Instead, the church must see its primary posture as sent-to-them to effectively communicate the message of Jesus Christ being sent to a world so desperately in need of experiencing the love of God...a love that moved him to send his only Son to die for us. Two closing thoughts. 1) We must not forget, " while a more missionally defined church moves from a come-to-us mentality to a go-to-them mentality, nonetheless all expressions of church should be attractive. That is, we should always be culturally compelling. Don’t mistake not being attractional for not being attractive." 2)The goal of a missional church should not be to return the church back to its cultural centrality which it previously held! This end goal is my biggest fear for the future of the church in its western context. As we come out with slicker cooler versions of our grandparents and parents churches, will we find ourselves in 20 years back at this same debate, coming up with new terms to get us back to being "missional" or "sent"?? This fear is likely more real than we realize. So much of the perceived "successful" churches of the last 50 years has been defined by western values such as consumerism, materialism and capitalism. Even worse, the trend has not yet stopped. Buildings get bigger, single church numbers get larger, video-venues multiply. While these things can help accomplish the goal of spreading the message of Christ, it does not mean they have God's stamp of approval, nor are they inherently missional at all. (I will have more to say on this later) A church must see itself as constantly sent! It should never setup show and camp in one place forever. Think of it this way. Two churches are around for ten years. One church has 6 campuses comprising thousands of people. The other has five-hundred people and multiplied itself six times and those churches multiplied themselves six times. Lord, I pray that your church would not be content with thousands....but that we would fall on our faces believing that you have the power to reach millions.

Powered by ScribeFire.