Curious Christian

Reflections on culture, nature, and spirituality from a Christian perspective

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about missional ecclesiology over the last few months and one of the things which has emerged for me is a deep questioning about how much energy churches should expend in inviting non-Christians to services, to the point I wonder whether alternate worship services should be restricted to initiates.

How is NOT inviting people missional you ask?

Bear with me for a moment.

At the heart of this is a re-examination of where the church service fits within church life, which I have tried to illustrate here.

In attractional churches, the church services are the primary context for evangelism and the primary gateway through which people are connected into cell groups and other aspects of the community life. The services dominate and mediate the life of the community. There is consequently great pressure on services to be as accessible to non-Christians as possible if they are to grow. Is it any wonder they have become entertainment driven … audience driven? And cell groups have little incentive to engage with the world beyond, their only “misisonal” job is to invite their friends to hear the professional evangelist at the service. Is this really the way things are supposed to work?

In missional churches a different dynamic comes into play. Because the church is engaged as a community in the wider community of the culture, other times become the primary context for social action and welcoming non-Christians into experiences of Christian community. Less expectations need be loaded onto a single hour each Sunday. Resources may be freed up. There is space for the rites of the church to resume their original status, as the inner mysteries of the church.

Think about these dynamics. One significant consequence is that communication patterns are forced to change. Sunday service bulletins are not a good way of informing a missional church community about what is going on in the life of it, when only the hard core attend it. I am sure you can think of more consequences. Everything needs to be rethought in a missional church.

Now I want to introduce some other stuff I have learned from engaging with other religions. The fastest growing religions in Australia, Wicca and Buddhism, reserve many of there deepest mysteries and rites for initiates. They do not water their rites and practices down to make them accessible for casual visitors, yet these movements are growing far faster than even Pentecostal Christianity. Is that not sufficient demonstration that welcoming services may not be as universally expedient as we have been led to believe?

Now I am still working through this. There are consequent implications and loose threads I still have not followed all the way through. What about funeral and wedding services I hear some people ask. I don’t know yet. But I thought I’d post this regardless in the interest of stimulating dialogue.

Now what stimulates this thinking? The question of whether a missional cell group can be grafted onto an attractional service. Some say blended approaches can work. Others aren’t so confident. I still don’t know that for sure. But I am sure seeing clear problems.

25 responses to “Attractional vs Missional Services”

  1. Peggy Avatar
    Peggy

    I am with you on this one, Matt. Well said.

    Like

  2. Tim Abbott Avatar

    This is very well put – the diagram illustrates it perfectly.
    I’ve always had a bit of a feeling of dilemma over the whole ‘seeker friendly services’ thing. I believe our worship should reflect the otherness of God and the intimacy of faith and these very things are often compromised by our often honest attempts to make them more ‘accessible’ to unbelievers. Also there seems to be little or no evidence to suggest that the early church saw worship as being for anyone other than ‘initiates’.
    I guess this analysis also reflects the change in access to faith from ‘believe, belong’ (get saved then join the church) to ‘belong, believe’ (join the community then find faith).
    I find this very helpful, thanks.

    Like

  3. Rick Meigs Avatar

    Matt: You hit one out of the park with this post. This gets journaled and blogged on.

    Like

  4. philjohnson Avatar

    Just to echo one of Tim’s remarks: in early church practice the service was divided into two parts “mass of of the catechumens” and the “mass of the faithful”. The catechumens only participated in the first part and were not permitted to attend the “mass of the faithful”.
    I would also toss in this: how much of what is discussed about church (cool church, mega-church, liberal church, boomer church, Y Gen church etc) ends up reflecting more of our own ideas of the purpose of the Body of Christ and “what can I get out of it”? When was the last time we heard in this exchanges specifically about God’s view of the Church (Bride of Christ) and the purpose of the church to worship God and to proclaim happy news of the saviour?

    Like

  5. len Avatar

    Matt, you are reminding me of another diagram in Missional Church where Roxburgh develops and overlays the idea of centered vs bounded set, where the missional church is a centered set, but CONTAINS a bounded set at the core… the core is composed of those who follow a rule of life, are covenanted and committed to shared purpose. Its somewhat complex but I think he hit it right.

    Like

  6. len Avatar

    Image in question

    Like

  7. The Blind Beggar Avatar

    Comparing Attractional and Missional

    Matt Stone has done a great post on Attractional vs Missional Services. It is a great post, so be sure you go over and read it.
    To make his point, Matt used this illustration:
    Think about it. In an attractional model, what it the primary door to the c…

    Like

  8. Jane Kelly Avatar
    Jane Kelly

    Matt, this is really great stuff and I think that this needs to be discussed and developed further in the situation I find myself. The Missional Church strategy definitely gives the responsibility and privilege of sharing one’s faith back to the individual rather than hoping that the preacher will convict those who visit our Sunday services.

    Like

  9. sally Avatar

    “They do not water their rites and practices down to make them accessible for casual visitors, yet these movements are growing far faster than even Pentecostal Christianity. Is that not sufficient demonstration that welcoming services may not be as universally expedient as we have been led to believe?”
    Matt if we cannot engage with this then I believe our spirituality is sadly lacking; I have huge problems with making the gospel accessible by watering it down, huge problems with making services user friendly at the expense of mystery- I would suggest that we need otherness- and would add that this is the attraction of the goddess “religions” that are growing in popularity….
    We err when we present “Simpsons” style Christianity- for it lacks depth and substance.

    Like

  10. madetopraisehim Avatar

    Core values?

    Rick Meigs and Matt Stone have recently posted comparing attractional and missional models of church. They’re both really good posts and well worth a look. And their doodles are great:
    I’ve…

    Like

  11. Matt Stone Avatar

    Len, I like the directionality and sense of movement with the Roxburgh diagram. And yes, the image does fit with this nicely, though with what I am proposing the word “congregation” would need to be substituted for something that doesn’t have quite the same church service connotations.
    Actually, the responses here are all very interesting. I was anticipating a “drop the invites” suggestion to be more controversial to be honest and I’m pleased the diagram has helped explain.

    Like

  12. Matt Stone Avatar

    To follow up on Tim and Phil’s comments. Reflecting on the ancient liturgies did help me process some of this, and it should be noted that even with the mass of the catechumens, the catechumens were not casual visitors by any means. Furthermore, though I have not studied the Chinese house church phenomenon in detail, would I be wrong in suspecting the underground churches were rather selective with who they extended invites to as well?
    Oh and Phil, thanks for reminding us of the Bride of Christ metaphor.

    Like

  13. Matt Stone Avatar

    Jane, though this model does encourage Christians to take more personal responsibility for evangelism I should clarify that it is not an individualistic model, just in case anyone got that impression. It does still allow for evangelism in community contexts – it is just the community contexts would be beyond the service.
    Consider for instance a spiritual discussion in the pub or with youth around a BBQ or at an alternate spirituality festival. Those gifted in evangelism would very welcome to lead evangelistically in these contexts, though what we are talking about here would need to be much more dialogical by the very nature of the context.
    In the missional service the role of the evangelistically gifted would shift much more in the direction of equipping the Bride as a whole for evangelism and sending out. To do that effectively evangelists would have to have experience in doing evangelism somewhere other than a stage me thinks. They would need to be able to model what they are asking of the church as a whole in a way that the church as a whole could follow.

    Like

  14. Steve Hayes Avatar

    Very interesting, Matt.
    In my doctoral thesis on Orthodox mission methods one of the things I had to deal with was the common perception among Western missiologists that Orthodox mission was centripetal rather than centrifugal, and i tried to show that such a perception was an over-simplification.
    I’m wondering whether the centripetal-centrifugal thing is the same as the attractional-missional one, or, if it is not, what the difference is. Is it simply a matter of terminology?
    Secondly, I’d like to tell a story.
    About 20 years ago the Orthodox Church in South Africa was, to use your terms, neither missional nor attractional. The local parishes were based on diaspora communities, and the services were inaccessible to outsiders, because they were all in foreign languages, mostly Greek.
    A group of us formed a mission society, which we called the Society of St Nicholas of Japan. St Nicholas of Japan was a Russian missionary who started a Japanese Church. We wanted to follow his example rather than the oft-repeated mantra “Orthodoxy is Hellenism and Hellenism is Orthodoxy”, or, as one woman once put it, “the Orthodox Church is not missionary because its purpose is to preserve Greek culture.”
    But we also saw that there was little point in preaching the gospel to outsiders if one was going to bring them into a church like that. So we started an English-speaking parish with the aim of making it more attractional — having services in English and using music that was not quite so alien to South African culture as Byzantine chant sung by lay chanters (referred to by others as “goat-strangling”).
    But that was it. We did not use musical instruments, slap Bibles (much less special leatherette pads made for the purpose). We did say “Come and see” But we invited people not to come and hear a professional evangelist, or entertainment but to come and see. What we invited them to come to was “Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:22-24).
    This is “attractional” but not watered down.
    And what we have found is that one of the most attractional things is funerals. Many people who have come to Orthodox funerals have said “I want to join that church”.

    Like

  15. Matt Stone Avatar

    I would agree the attractional-missional and centripetal-centrifugal conversations are directly related.
    It’s about the difference between “drawing in” models and “sending out” models, between “starting where we feel at home” and “starting where you feel at home”, or less generously, between field of dreams “if we build it, they will come” approaches and “can we help you build it?” approaches.
    Sometimes the biggest gaps aren’t the geographical distances but the cultural distances. As you suggest this can be a bit of an oversimplification; there is nothing that forces churches to be consistent in what model they adopt.
    In the story you mention I would suggest that translating to English is a shift towards a more missional mode, in least in terms of language. Contrast this to say, sexing up Greek language classes.

    Like

  16. alan hirsch Avatar

    Good observations Matt. As you know this is certainly the case with the early church. They were hardly what one could call ‘seeker sensitive’ and would actually make it hard for people to join. Kinda like a fight club!

    Like

  17. Jane Kelly Avatar
    Jane Kelly

    Thanks for your response to my initial comment. No, I didn’t think that this was purely an individualistic tool of evangelism. But I was commenting that rather than the masses sitting back and expecting the community to come to them and the pastor speaking from the pulpit, the missional mode challenges everyone to be involved.

    Like

  18. Matt Stone Avatar

    Most certainly – its a getoffyourassocracy.

    Like

  19. Andrew Hamilton Avatar

    This is very much like what we run with at Upstream – which is part of the reason we haven’t grown at anywhere near the churches around us.
    Our gatherings are unapologetically aimed at discipling the core and others are welcome, but we aren’t putting on a show for them.
    We also generally don’t invite people unless they are close, very interested or wanting in.
    Its always a challenge for us not to feel like we are failing though because the evangelical measuring schema is very strong!

    Like

  20. Matt Stone Avatar

    Deprogramming ourselves is hard I agree. And I would say this goes way beyond evangelical culture but is ingrained deeply in contemporary Christianity across the board. I remember laughing at the movie Dogma where, in an effort to boost numbers, the Catholic church supposedly started granting granting salvation to whoever crossed the church threshold. We laugh because we know its an exaggeration, but an exaggeration with a touch of truth. Unapologetically shifting focus to the hard core goes against the grain of everything we’ve been told, but in the end I am growing in conviction that its a shift that needs to be embraced. I just want to encourage you in that.

    Like

  21. Timothy Victor Avatar

    Hi Matt,
    It’s a while since the conversation ended. I tried doing the missional thing within a congregational context – so an ambassadorial model set within an invitational model.
    It took about 2 years before I felt “sandboxed” by the invitational framework. I think the settled pole held in tension with a missional pole was a good suggestion, but in practice it didn’t work for me.
    I believe that the ambassadorial/missional model needs to be able to re-structure the architecture of church. Otherwise those being reached won’t experience the settled church as their home. Also, they’ll always be branded by the settled pole.
    Without being able to re-structure the architecture of the settled pole, which would mean those comfortable there would move on anyway, the best option is to plant something, allowing what a “church worship service” means to emerge from those who’re discovering Christ.
    A few of us have started a journey like this and a bit of a public record can be found at our shared blog – http://capeconversation.wordpress.com

    Like

  22. Matt Stone Avatar

    Tim, something seems amiss with the link.

    Like

  23. ben's blog Avatar

    The service isn’t the entry point

    Inviting people to church is a common way to think about and practice evangelism, at least in its initial stages. And it’s okay as far as it goes, but I think in the missional church we need to re-think this emphasis. Check out this image from Matt Sto…

    Like

  24. Graham Avatar

    Ouch…..as he looks up from using an Easter Egg hunt as part of worship…. ouch! ouch! ouch!
    Thanks for this and for being a conscience to me this morning..

    Like

  25. tim Avatar
    tim

    I am a pro-missional pastor, trying not to be anti-attractional. But I also struggle with the Sunday Service being the main event. I struggle with “church growth” being defined as visible/numerical expansion as opposed to Eph. 4 unity/maturity/service. I struggle with “success” in ministry being measured by size/attendance.

    Like

Leave a reply to Timothy Victor Cancel reply