attractional or incarnational – part nne

This is the fourth (and last) post in a series on attractional versus incarnational forms of ministry.  You can see the other posts here:

• Part Moja (1)
• Part Mbili (2)
• Part Tatu (3)

 I thought I would end with two common questions that arise when dealing with this subject.

Question:

Jesus seems to have been very attractional in his ministry on earth. He was always surrounded by crowds and attempting to draw people to himself through miracles, signs, and wonders.  How do you reconcile that with your claims that God intends for mission to be incarnational in its form?

I think we have to be careful NOT TO define attractional ministry as “any type of ministry which might attract people to God or his community.” Every form of mission is required to do that in order to be mission.  Jesus performed miracles, signs, and wonders IN THE COMMUNITY as he lived a blatantly spiritual life, demonstrating what it meant to be a citizen in the kingdom of God.  And people were drawn (attracted) to that kind of life, and wanted to know about the God who was responsible for it.  But that’s not attractional ministry; it’s incarnational ministry at its best — sharing the gospel by living Christ into a community.

That’s a far cry from designing programs and activities to which people might want to come, kingdom life involved or not.  Attractional ministry is when we offer some kind of program to get people on our own soil, so that we can THEN share the gospel with them.  I don’t know of Jesus ever having done this.  I wonder if he didn’t even go out of his way to prevent it… telling those he healed not to tell others what he’d done.  

---

Question:

I agree that our churches need to commit to ministering in more incarnational ways in our communities.  But I don’t see any reason to stop the attractional programs — I mean two forms are better than one, right?  I see mission as more of a both / and situation, in which we should seek to reach others in as many ways as possible.

Let’s look at Jesus as our example: everything about him was incarnational.  He left heaven for earth, and even took a human body in the process — God in the flesh is nothing but incarnational.  And he didn’t stop there… in his mission to/in/for earth, Jesus didn’t focus his efforts within the religious buildings and community. Instead, he lived a Spirit-filled life in the larger community, alongside the tax collectors and prostitutes, and on their soil.  I can’t find anything attractional in Christ or his strategy for mission.

I’m not saying attractional ministry can’t work, but it doesn’t seem to be demonstrated in the Bible, and I think it carries with it a lot of difficulties which have to be overcome. [See "attractional or incarnational - part mbili."]  The alternative is an incarnational approach to mission, which was clearly modeled, and successfully so, by Jesus himself .  When I look at the two methods side-by-side, I can’t think of any good reason to try and solve or overcome all the problems inherent with attractional ministry.  It seems that we’d be going out of our way in order to adopt a more man-centered and less proven approach.  The only reasons I can think of for sticking with an attractional model of mission are:

• It’s easier.
  
• It’s more comfortable.
• It ensures that our own congregation will grow and not just the kingdom as a whole.
  
• It’s the way we’ve always done it.
• It’s the only model possible if our members are not actually living transformed lives.

It seems most of our churches have an incredibly tight grip on what is a non-Biblical approach to mission, and show no signs of loosening that grip any time in the near future.  I think it would be wise for us to examine our reasons for doing so, because there’s not a reason listed above that is pleasing to God, or in keeping with his desires and purposes in the world.

attractional or incarnational – part tatu

This is the third post in a series on attractional versus incarnational forms of ministry.  You can see the previous posts here:

 

Part Moja (1)

Part Mbili (2)

In any discussion of methodologies in mission, we have to at least mention the terms centripetal and centrifugal, and how they relate to ministry.  I was taught Old Testament mission was centripetal in nature — that all other nations were to be drawn to Israel and their God — a sort of attractional ministry (on a national level).  I was also taught that God’s chosen strategy for mission changed in Christ’s coming — to become centrifugal in nature, as we are now called to “go and make disciples of the nations” (a more incarnational approach).

Personally, I don’t buy this — granted I’m no Old Testament expert and scholar; so keep that in mind as you read the following thoughts:  I believe God has always intended the same method for mission in the world: an incarnational approach.  An individual disciple is to live Christ into the community in such a way that others are drawn to, and glorify, God.  A family is the building block of society that lives Christ into that society in such a way that other families are drawn to, and glorify, God.  A church is a subset of a larger community that lives Christ into that community in such a way that other subsets of the community are drawn to, and glorify, God.  The nation of Israel was a nation (exceptional in that there are no “Christian” nations today) that was to live God into the world in such a way that other nations would be drawn to, and glorify, God.  

Dear Egyptians, 

In the name of our God, we’d like to invite you to our annual Fall Festival.  There will be carnival rides and games — and even a dunking booth!  Of course we’ll have several inflatable bouncy toys for the kiddies, and a great lineup of food vendors, with everything from corn-dogs, burgers, and Gefilte fish to funnel cakes, fried snickers, and matzo pudding.  

We’re excited this year to have Moses and his Divided Seas Band back with us for their second straight appearance.  Also on schedule, and a must-do for every little boy, are our dradle games and brick-making competitions. As always, the event is free to all our neighboring nations in an effort to get to know you better. Remember, you’ve always got a friend in Israel.

Sincerely,

The loving Israelite family at Jerusalem

---

P.S. — Due to the nature of this event, and in order to cater to the preferences of such a diverse group of attendees, it has been our tradition to ask those in attendance NOT to wear Halloween costumes.  While we know this is customary for some groups, we hope that you can help us make this a family event, in which everyone can be comfortable.  We hope to see you here!

Never did Israel invite the Egyptians, Philistines, Midianites, or Moabites to a Fall Festival or Super Bowl Party.  Nor did they host VBS or Trunk-or-Treat in efforts to get all the international children into their Family Life Center.  They didn’t use functions and events in order to share the good news of the one true God with their neighbors.  Nor was that what God intended.  Rather, he called Israel to be a peculiar people who acted in peculiar ways, and in plain view of all the other nations.  They were to be a people who were visibly and unmistakably different.  Other nations would be drawn to them and to their God, but this would come as a result of living Godly lives among those nations.  

If we’re living conspicuously spiritual lives everywhere we go, we’ll no longer need to entice our neighbors with exciting events, in hopes of engaging them in a God dialogue once inside our buildings.  Transformed lives in a broken community will naturally create these dialogues as a result of an authentic witness in the real world.

Part Nne (4): Frequently Asked Questions

attractional or incarnational – part mbili

In the first post in this series, I defined attractional and incarnational ministry, and listed several key verses in support of an incarnational approach to evangelism.  In this post, I want to list other motivations for choosing this approach.  So my thoughts will follow shortly, in no particular order, and with much overlap I’m sure.  But first, disclaimers. These are merely my thoughts and opinions — and some of them very well may be wrong; please let me know if that is indeed the case.  I am in search of truth, as are all of you. 

I should also preface by explaining that I frequently make statements like “lends itself to,” “often requires,” and “sometimes.”  This is because I know that not all of these statements are true of each and every church with an attractional strategy.  I also understand that just because a method “lends itself” to a certain less-than-good result, this bad outcome is neither an absolute nor necessary end; nor would this “lending” be reason enough to label a particular system as deficient.  To be clear, I am attempting to be objective, however, I do fully intend to make a case for incarnational ministry over its alternative, attractional ministry.

My Thoughts on Attractional vs. Incarnational Ministry

1. One major concern I have is how we view our assemblies (usually Sundays).  I view these times as an opportunity for disciples to come and lay before God the fruits of their worship (measured by obedient lives during the week), and to encourage and build up one another in those lives of worship.  Personally I believe we cheat disciples out of an important experience when the purpose of this time each week becomes about non-Christians.  [I am aware that not all attractional ministries use their Sunday assembly as a time for evangelism, but for many this is the core of their mission statement: to make “worship” each Sunday attractive to outsiders.]
   
2. Successful incarnational ministry must involve acting like Christ, and therefore peculiar, outside the walls of the church building and in our communities.  Successful attractional ministry requires that a church design their programs in such a way as conform to, and appear like, the outside culture.
3. Incarnational ministry leaves a great deal of room for God to draw men to himself as Christians are simply living obedient lives in the kingdom.  Attractional evangelism attempts in some ways to do God’s drawing for him by way of skillful programming.
4. Incarnational ministry seems to focus on obedience as a lifestyle, while attractional ministry seems to focus on programs.
5. It seems to me that attractional ministry lends itself to larger, yet shallower communities of faith.
6. Incarnational ministry more easily lends itself to disciple-making, rather than belief in a prescribed idealogy.
7. I fear that attractional ministry is often an excuse for people not willing to live markedly spiritual lives in the “secular” world, because that can be so uncomfortable and messy.  It’s so much easier to plan an event with sign-up sheets and call lists, than it is to be conspicuously spiritual in “public.”  If we host an event, we can determine the “norm” for behavior.  Who wants to pray for a coworker in front of others at the office? Or talk in a bar about what God has been teaching me lately?
8. Attractional ministry reinforces in many ways the erroneous conviction that there exists a distinction between the sacred and the secular.
9. Attractional ministry strengthens in the minds of many non-believers (possibly believers as well) the notion of “we have God in this building / box / program — come to us if you’d like a portion.”
10. Attractional ministry is often a “bait-and-switch” of sorts. We invite others to a Starbucks look-alike coffee shop where a Coldplay-like band is followed by a tousled-hair Gap model talking about how much God is like (insert trendy book or movie title here).  Then a year later, we wonder why our churches aren’t embracing Jesus’ words about dying to self and even being persecuted for following him. [I know not all attractional churches look like my example above -- only the “best” ones...]
11. Attractional ministry sometimes reinforces the separation of clergy and laity, because all forms of evangelism end with “…and invite them to church.”  It’s universally known that someone will learn better what it means to be a disciple of Christ from the pastor in a sermon than from me in my life.
12. Attractional ministry seems to work best in reaching only those who are just like you.  OR your alternative is to slog through the difficulties listed below in numbers 13 through 15:
13. Attractional ministry often requires that you remove individuals or families from their own culture and community, in order for them to join your church and its culture.  Incarnational ministry, however, seeks for God to transform other cultures and communities, redeeming some aspects of them, while allowing others to remain.
14. Individuals or groups removed from their culture and community, in order to become part of an attractional church, often lose much of their ability to belong and to witness inside their former culture.
15. Attractional ministry will often create new subsets of culture within their own congregation in order to help new converts from other cultures feel comfortable (ie. second language services, new worship styles, etc) in their church.  And it’s incredibly difficult (if not impossible) for these many subsets to function as one body.  Incarnational ministry, however, will encourage, allow, and even help new believers form new congregations or join other existing congregations that are more culturally appropriate for them.  (I think the reason for this follows in number 16.)
16. Incarnational ministry looks for results in terms of obedience and kingdom life, while attractional ministry more easily lends itself to a numbers-oriented approach to evaluation.  Attractional ministry is often about making our own congregation larger and growing in numbers (whether we can function as a body with those numbers or not).

Remember: Mere opinions.  I think they’re right, or I wouldn’t hold them — but still… they’re just my opinions.

Next post: Part 3: Centrifugal vs. Centripetal Forces in Mission — how I was taught wrongly.

attractional or incarnational – part moja

 

There’s been a lot of talk over the past several years about attractional and incarnational ministries.  I’ve decided to add my thoughts in a four-part series.  When I first began writing the other day, I intended to say something like this:  “While I myself prefer an incarnational approach to ministry, I don’t feel an attractional approach is necessarily a poor one — it might even be a good idea for different congregations to differ on strategy, in order to complement one another.”  But after examining scripture further and rethinking some things, I have to be honest:  I personally don’t see attractional ministry demonstrated in the Bible, nor do I think it’s a very good idea.  I am by no means authoritative on the subject, and I welcome discussion and disagreement on these thoughts.  Because I, like all of you, want our churches to do what’s best for Christ’s mission, the kingdom of God, and our world as a whole.

Mission is not an activity
of the church;
it is the reason the church exists.

It is probably best to define the terms before going any farther.  I have attempted to be objective in my definitions, though I willingly admit my biases:

• Attractional Ministry = proclaiming the gospel primarily through methods of attracting people to our programs; these programs usually take place on “our soil,” and these churches are sometimes designated as “seeker-sensitive.” Most church evangelism programs with which we are familiar are attractional in nature, and at least begin or end with an invitation to participate with us were we are: VBS, “trunk-or-treat,” hosting coffee shops, bowling nights, church potlucks, Super Bowl parties, soup kitchens, and any evangelism which requires inviting others to our services or place of worship.  This form of ministry can be thought of as “come to us.”

• Incarnational Ministry = proclaiming the gospel primarily through methods of living Christ into our communities; we would struggle to call these “programs,” and they usually take place on “non-Christian soil” in secular environs.  It’s difficult for us to picture this type of ministry, because even when we begin to think along these lines, we often revert back in the end to “…and then invite them to church.”  This approach to ministry requires that we spend time with non-Christians where they are. It may involve playing in sports leagues, being involved in PTA, going out with coworkers in the evening, playing poker with some guys on Tuesday nights, or any number of “regular people” activities.  But we don’t view these activities as forming relationships in order to invite others to church; instead we view these activities as a way in which we demonstrate, and invite others into, a life with Christ.  Church comes later.  This form of ministry can be thought of as “we’re among you.”

It’s important to note in the definitions the words “proclaiming the gospel primarily through.”  I am not suggesting VBS and “trunk-or-treat” are not great programs and activities for our children.  I believe churches should have events and programs in which they come together to encourage one another and have fun.  These activities can be very beneficial, and I believe Christ-centered communities of faith will spend lots of time together.  I also am convinced there are good programs designed to serve and help others in our communities.  A soup kitchen, for instance, is a wonderful opportunity to share God’s love with others by meeting their needs — even if it is held in our own building; and some may turn to God as a result of this service.  But this discussion concerns the primary means through which we share the gospel.*  If our motivation for the soup kitchen is evangelism, then I would call that an attractional approach. [I might suggest it’s a “better” attractional approach than many others -- but there are still some inherent problems.] Is our Friday night coffee shop an attempt at evangelism or a time of Christian fellowship?  What was our motivation in building a cafe in our building?  To bring non-Christians to us, or to have a safe place for our teens to gather after football games?

* I don’t like separating out purposes and objectives in the Christian life, categorizing some activities as service and others as evangelism, and then being forced to distinguish between the two.  [Just as I don't like distinguishing between "our soil" and "non-Christian soil," but that's how it's viewed by many Christians and non-Christians alike.]  I believe life in the kingdom is life in the kingdom, and a transformed and obedient life is going to be involved in lots of overlapping areas.  I don’t believe we can in reality separate evangelism and service, fellowship and teaching.  But our churches currently function in what we might call “highly intentional and purpose-driven” programs, so I am adopting some of this language in order to be expedient (and lazy).

I should insert here my strong conviction that the church is the means for continuing the mission of Christ in the world.  And that church is not in itself the goal or a goal; the body of Christ already has its mission laid out before it, and this mission is the very reason the church exists. A church should not be formed, and afterwards ask of themselves, “What is our mission in the community?”  A thorough study of God, Christ, and mission must come before our study of church (thanks Frost and Hirsch): Theology to Christology and missiology, and only then ecclesiology.  Churches are wrong when they view mission as merely an activity of the church.  The body of Christ is to continue his mission in the world, and that necessitates communities of faith made up of Spirit-filled and gifted disciples, building one another up for their mission in the world. Mission is not an activity of the church; it is the reason the church exists. These ideas are core to my thinking on these issues — so if we disagree here, it is likely to only get worse….

Church is not the goal,
or even a goal.

A Few Important Texts

• “I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth,” Isaiah 49:6.  Even as God gathered Israel together to himself, their mission was to be outside themselves.  Then the nations would come to God.
• Ex 19:3-6 and Deut 4:5-8 show Israel as mediators between God and the world, and his representatives in the world.  I understand how one could view this as attractional, though I believe it is better interpreted as one nation living God into the world, in plain view of other nations.
• “The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us,” Jn 1:14.  Jesus was incarnational in his ministry, coming to live among us, and like us. (see also Phil 2:5-11)
• “As the father sent me, I am sending you,” Jn 20:21.  The apostles were sent just as Jesus had been.
• Jesus’ prayer for his disciples in John 17 seems to involve much language of incarnational ministry in continuing his purposes in the world.
• Paul seems to lean towards an incarnational approach in 1 Cor 9:19-23.

Part mbili (“two” in Swahili)