the attractional v. missional debate
I think the use of the term attractional is a tad ambiguous, but because I am partly responsible for introducing it into the broader conversation I have to stick with it. What I am trying to get at in using the term attractional is what I call the missionary mode or primary posture of the church in relation to its context. An attractional church is one whose primary stance towards those it seeks to reach is couched in the expectation of a come-to-us mentality. And this expectation as it plays out in the US, Europe, Australia, etc. was basically formed in a time in history where the church had a central position in the culture and people naturally came to church to be cared for, to hear the gospel, and to participate in the community life. The problem is that adopting such a mode is at the cost of fundamentally altering our understanding of ourselves as a ‘sent’ people. (Incidentally, the word missio, from which we get our word mission, comes from the Latin word meaning sent.) And this is further exacerbated by the fact that we live in what historians and theologians rightly call a post-Christendom era. In other words, an attractional church can work in a Christendom context, but in a missionary context it actually undermines our efforts to reach people meaningfully with the Gospel of Jesus. It is literally out-moded! A ‘sent people’ no matter how you configure it implies a going of sorts. And when combined with the other primary theological metaphor in the bible of how god reaches the nations, namely the Incarnation, it clashes head-on with the primary expectation built into attractional forms of church. Hence the conflict–they are basically two different conceptions of church vying for our loyalty in our day.
But another ambiguity can be explained by saying that 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.
Forgotten Ways, The: Reactivating the Missional Church - Alan Hirsch
Forgotten Ways Handbook, The: A Practical Guide for Developing Missional Churches - Alan Hirsch, Darryn Altclass
ReJesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church - Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch
The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21 Century Church - Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch
I didn’t want Alan to have to make comment 100 again
Re: a framework for healthy discussion
Hi Ryan…
it’s a shame Peggy’s post was lost, hopefully she can retrieve it or reproduce it, because she has great wisdom and insight which will benefit us all… In the meantime here’s my initial thoughts…
You wrote that “it doesn’t seem like anyone wants to touch this topic personally,” I don’t think that’s so much the issue; the discussions contain a range of issues that have been debated, in one form or another, for centuries, and greater minds than ours have grappled with them. My reckoning would be that it is such a broad spectrum, that there are few who feel capable or qualified for the task…
Your current question;
“say that we both read a passage from the scriptures, and I interpreted it differently than you did. And based on your knowledge of the Bible, you thought my interpretation was incorrect, what would you do?”
is also no lightweight issue… it is a significant factor in the reality that Christianity has so many denominations.
However… though my answer may be naive and may require development, let me respond with how I handle things personally…
Firstly… I pray. I pray that God would enable me to open my preconceptions, to allow the Spirit of God to lead me into truth… then I pray for the person/people who have pointed to a different perspective. When I do that, I find that I can get beyond personalising the issues and it becoming a me v them thing, in the best circumstances it can become a mutual search for truth, and I often find we both have something to learn.
Secondly – I try to define the boundaries of the playing field… saying that we agree to see the framework of the Bible as the outlying lines of our discussion is helpful – identifying what role we believe experience plays in the discussion. Are there other statements we can agree to as a defining boundary, like one of the credal statements of historic orthodoxy – “The Apostles’, Nicene or Athanasian Creed etc…”
Thirdly… I distrust initial emotional responses, including (especially) my own. I have learned, in my own case, that initial responses are usually a reaction against change, often based on fear, rather than accurately dealing with the issues. Often my initial response identifies my own dysfunction - which I then have the opportunity to address (sometimes that is the very reason the difference is highlighted!)- rather than the functionality of the point(s) being discussed.
I also reject pressure placed to respond immediately… I choose to take whatever time is neccessary, to honestly seek out the truth of an issue, rather than just try to prove my exisiting understanding or disprove someone else’s. Theological topics deal with eternal issues - in a sense they’ve been around for eternity and continue into eternity - so there is nothing that truly requires an urgent response. If there is pressure, I tend to step back and consider where the root of the pressure is, why do I feel a need to respond immediately what is my agenda - what about the other party, is there an agenda there, other than a God honouring focus? I again ask God for insight into the circumstance, my heart in it and that of others involved.
Fourthly – I consider whether the passage pertains to “eternal issues”, which for me involve things like who we believe God is, what we believe about issues pertaining to redemption, the outworking of Christ’s sacrifice… If not, then I examine what the “secondary issues” are… I question whether the specific question is an issue that is actually worth investing time and energy into… some things have already been done to death in Christian history, and we can just read other material. Is this an issue that can change how people apply understanding to the reality of daily life? Am I simply trying to prove how clever I am…? For me the issue has to have the potential for bearing “fruit” in some way… I also think that in some areas people can find support for their position in a particular branch of the church, sometimes people should be encouraged to relocate to a place where they can flow positively with the direction, rather than continually have to fight for their conviction. Some of us suffer from a disease called “terminal argumentatitis,” it’s something I continually have to address – sometimes I can find myself arguing for no good reason other than the fact that it’s an argument… and I enjoy arguing and I’m competitive about winning… I’m not alone in that weakness and it’s no reason to argue!! Again I return to prayer, for the Lord to supply discernment.
Fifthly - I view the topic in context from the inside to the outside then back to the inside… I ask a series of questions that take the topic on a journey and me with it… things like;
How does the particular passage relate to the immediate context of the paragraphs around it…
How does it relate to the “book” it is written in…
How does it relate in the historical context it was first written in…
What can I learn from the original language it was written in…
How does it relate to the breadth of the particular author’s work - if they’ve written more than just this letter/book…
How does it relate in the context of the genre it is written in…
What other passages appear to contradict an understanding of this partcular passage and how can I reconcile them…
How does it relate to my overall understanding of who God is, across the entire Canon, and how do I bring this into a consistent understanding of God…
How does it relate in light of the centrality of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ…
How does it relate to me in the context of who I am in Christ…
Having asked those initial questions to take me out of the detail to the BIG picture - and they can take some time to journey through - I then test my conclusions, by working back into the specific context of the passage under discussion, to see if my thinking has consistency at every level.
Is my conclusion consistent in light of what the Bible teaches - across the whole Canon - about God… about what Christ achieved… concerning who I am in Christ… in light of all the genre… in light of all that author’s writings… in light of the historical context… the language of origin… specific situation… direct context…etc
Sixthly - How does my conclusion compare to what other theologians have said in history? How does it compare to contemporary theologians… what have I missed? How does it apply to my life…
Having gone through all of that personally first, then journeyed through that with others who have formed a definitely different understanding, I review their position and try to define what the root is that we differ on and try to find a way to reconcile our differences or to agree to differ… There are areas where I can accept someone else’s understanding is consistent and might be right, but I have a conviction regarding my understanding – if there are no definable grounds for the difference then we’re probably both missing some aspect of the revelation of God, and again move to prayer as I require His insight.
Seventh – Rather than live in a place of enmity I look for a mediator (Christ in the first place) who can help us to negotiate our differences in love… possibly someone both parties can respect, that can help us conclude in prayer and commitment to the cause of Christ, despite our differences.
However, there are also some more serious aspects to this and if someone is clearly contradicting aspects that are indisputable “eternal issues” – who they say God is, their understanding of Christ and redemption etc… then I find it is difficult to have a relationship that is anything other than superficial. Their opinions can be disturbing, even heretical, and the nature of my relationship with them becomes more inclined toward seeking to enlighten them (which I recognise can also come from a place of personal and egotistical pride and I have to be aware and take care).
On secondary issues I can debate with friends “till the cows come home…,” the debate helps sharpen my thinking, clarify what I truly believe and helps me develop as a follower of Jesus the Christ. At the end of the day I have to live with my own convictions (not just unenlightened and uncritical opinion) I need to recognise my own limitations and seek to engage in community, to find a greater recognition of who God is and who I am in Him…
Engaging directly in a discussion, based on your question, also has a whole range of more subtle implications that arise in the specific environment of the setting that it is raised in. I hope that this general (in a sense naïve) response is helpful in beginning to establish some foundation for discussion…
Beannachd Dia dhuit
A Celtic Son
I’m way more naive than CS, who is a deep well indeed…
Back to the question…
“Let’s say that we both read a passage from the scriptures, and I interpreted it differently than you did. And based on your knowledge of the Bible, you thought my interpretation was incorrect, what would you do?”
Probably nothing.
My head is currently emerged in the history of the Stone-Campbell movement of the early 1800’s for my theological studies… which was a unity movement looking to restore New Testament church practices, proclaiming the bible as the only authority, mixed in with a significant spiritual revival in the Western U.S.
They developed the mantras “no creed but Christ”… and “in essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity”.
200 years on… I think it’s still not a bad way to go. Do we actually need to see everything the same? Do we really need to convert everyone else to our point of view… or can we just go… “Well, God bless you… I’ve learned you can look at that passage a whole different way. How interesting.”
Out and out heresy… yes, I’d put a bit of energy into respectfully articulating what I think.
I might need a bit more context to know why you feel it matters so much.
Ha! I was right! The cybergremlin just hates being outed..so my comment is right back where it belongs…which meant that I got the 100th comment, but thanks for jumping in there, CS!
And there was great rejoicing….
I have decided that it was a great thing (God helps me because I am so pathetic!) for my comment to be lost so that Celtic Son and Janet could get there comments in first! Between the three of us, there should be plenty to think about, Ryan!
And speaking of Janet…being a Stone-Campbell RM girl myself, I can totally relate to what you’re reading for your studies–there’s some pretty interesting stuff! You go, girl!
It was a fascinating period in history… it’s just a shame I have to write essays about it!
On further reflection, there are a few issues that do “push my buttons”… and although I’m blessed with an instinct to shut my mouth for a moment before shooting off, I do get concerned about issues with significant implications for the life and health of the church and its mission. For obvious reasons, I’m unimpressed with the “women should sit down shut up and don a veil” school of biblical interpretation, for example!
In such cases… Peggy’s and CS’s advice is wonderful.
I thank all of you for your well thought out responses.
Janet, my question was designed to elicit a response. I had previously posted #95 stating that John MacArthur states that the emerging church doesn’t believe there is such a thing as truth. Although “The Shaping…” and “The Forgotten Ways” don’t advocate this (at least as far as I have read) I wanted to ask you guys your opinion.
So, I guess my question is “Do the bloggers here believe in absolute truth?”
If no, I guess MacArthur was right. If yes, perhaps there are many with some differences (some major differences) within the “emerging church.”
My short answer is yes… Jesus is the Way.
My initial reaction is that John MacArthur has picked up a general generational trend (under 30’s have grown up in a cultural sea of relativism… a global communcations system with diverse views all on offer) which you would expect to see reflected in emerging church leaders of this age group to some extent.
This probably gives such younger leaders a capacity to reach their peers in a way older generations would find difficult to do, who might argue “this is the truth” to encounter a response of “how do you know, and so what, and aren’t you narrow minded, and I’m not interested in a dogmatic spirituality like that anyway.”
So, here we are working…and not even answering your question!
Well, the “What is truth” question is a very old one, Ryan. I believe Jesus when he said he was the Truth. And so I do believe that there is truth because I believe God is and has revealed himself in Jesus.
The problem starts with people’s perception of truth, or the challenge between differentiating between truth and reality.
Well, this is quite a sticky topic….
I believe many have problems because of their perception of the reality of truth…how’s that for muddying the waters!!!
There is absolute truth. Humans, however, will never have a corner on fully understanding or articulating it. It is a process of growth and struggle.
The problem, as I see it, is when any human or institution presents their perception of the reality of God’s truth as The Truth…and that puts everyone else in a bind if they see things differently.
But there are brighter and sharper minds out there on this blog…perhaps that will have a moment to weigh in on this age-old problem
Blessings,
Hullo-o-o…
a wee note in response to Janet’s point about “the “women should sit down shut up and don a veil” school of (un)biblical (mis)interpretation” In all honesty, I’ve been having discussions around this issue for some time now and I’m a bit jaded.
However, I do feel that it is vital for men in leadership to raise our voices on the issue, so I didn’t want to just let it slip by. My aim is simply to lay down the conviction I have come to in prayer and in the Bible… I recognise that it is limited and I’m open to Biblical insight, but I’m beyond arguments based on experience and agenda’s that are not clearly Biblical…
We can over-complicate the discussion, in the hope that men can retain the imbalance and control we have had for centuries. Though, due to constraints of time and space this is an over-simplification! A good insight can be found in the book “Women in the Church” by Denise Kjesbo and the late great Stan Grenz.
To put it simply, according the Genesis 1
, the image of the relational, communal God of the Bible is invested in the the relationship of human beings in community… “male and female He created them both.” The image is incomplete when preference is made on basis of gender… in either way. The extremes of feminism need not have happened if the church had been playing out the male-female dynamic as God intends.
In biblical the concept of headship is primarily relational - not directly a leadership issue - the head serves the body “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…” No doubt about the role of the head - the head needs to die (the their own agenda) to release the body in Christ’s mission. It’s a framework that enables people to ensure family dynamics are healthy, and then engage in mission from that place of health… Leadership is not gender specific, it is a natural ability and intended to be applied in service to the church - the Spirit gives gifts as He determines - the secure famiy can release the gifted person to serve Christ’s body…
“The Fall” in Genesis 3
breaks covenant, introducing a paranthetical period of the Law, until covenant is reNEWed in Christ - and “you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The relationship that was perverted is restored, we can live in freedom, no longer in bondage…
With that overview, we view Paul’s passing comments on a couple of situations that were addressed specifically, not prescriptively - Paul is not contravening Christ’s prescriptive to set people free… Paul stands incontrovertibly against legalism. When Paul writes, one of his major concerns is that the gospel message is not perverted, misapplied or interupted - and his concern that people in gatherings inappropriately interupt the message is something he addresses.
In periods of revival/renewal of the church, women have featured in leadership, until institutionalisation sets in and the organic life of the church is buried under the pressure of the organisation. The church becomes an organisation rather than the called out people of Jesus. In organisations, less-gifted people can take opportunity to redefine leadership to suit themselves… Once leaders are seated behind the desk on their rusty dusty, rather than actually getting out in front and leading forward momentum is gone. It’s one tug on the rope, that begins the sounding requiem bell for a movement… do you hear the bells toll?
For the church to survive - in any era, not simply because we are under threat of extinction in the West - we need to be true to God’s biblical agenda, for men and women to partner together to represent the image of God to the world
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Luv your stuff, CS
Love your work too, C.S. I was really trying to think of an issue where different interpretations of a particular verse would push my buttons… because there aren’t all that many areas where Christians interpret things differently… and where to me the interpretation is important enough to make a song and a dance about. (Young earth creation science is another matter that makes me cranky… I’ve heard ONE THIRD of youth in America who have rejected Christianity claim it is because they cannot believe the earth is 6000 years old and they’ve been told you MUST to be a Christian. Grr. Sorry, another aside…)
Well, we get to the real issue as to whether there is such a thing as “absolute truth”, and what that means.
Just so we don’t chase any more false leads, I think I’d like some grasp about what John McArthur defines as “absolute truth”. If he’s going to critique the EC for not embracing absolute truth, the least he could do is explain what he means by “absolute truth”… because people mean vastly different things when they use these words.
For example… some people have an extremely fundamentalist and narrow view of “absolute truth”… ie if you don’t believe in an inerrant bible, a 6000 year old earth created in 6 24 hour days, premillenialism, etc. etc. etc…. ie anyone who doesn’t interpret the bible exactly the way I do… is in error and rejects the absolute truth of the bible.
Yuk, yuk… I really think this kind of Phariseeism does the church and its mission a grave disservice. As Peggy alluded… when absolute truth is MY interpretation of the bible we’re in trouble.
At the other extreme is something else I reject… “we can’t know anything about anything, really, the bible is only a collection of human ideas about God and nothing more, we can’t really know anything about the historical Jesus, all religions contain truth and are ways to God”… this is namby-pamby nothingness.
There is a mid-way… where we cling hold to Jesus as Lord and trust the bible as God’s revelation… but only hold lightly the issues of doctrine on which Christians have differed… where we approach the scriptures with great humility, knowing like the Pharisees of old we can deify the words and entirely miss the Spirit… that we always have more to learn… that the bible was written in a different language and a different cultural context to ours, and we need to interpret it with care… that other christians with different viewpoint about the bible may in fact be right.
So…. does McArthur define his terms, or does he just throw potshots?
As an aside… I have a gut feeling under 30’s in the institutional church probably aren’t too disimilar to under 30’s in the emerging church in their willingness to be a bit fluid and open to the points of views of others… we just don’t ever “do theology” in a cultural vacuum: we are always influenced by the cultural sea in which we are swimming.
It’s good to be among friends who encourage and who continue to push the boundaries on the journey towards Truth…
Yeah Janet
interesting you mention the whole young earth debate/debacle! I upset a few people, in their fifties and sixties, at lunch yesterday when I didn’t endorse the young earth theory they proposed. My challenge to the table was that we engage people on central questions, not peripheral issues, things like this that cannot be proven empirically. When I suggested that the Bible does not set out to discuss issues of the age of the earth… one bloke got very heated. He calmed a little when I pointed out that the Sun and moon were not created till day four, so at least the previous days did not have to be 24 hour periods… Why do people get soooo heated about things that are not clearly defined and actually work against communicating the Bible as truth? Bah humbug!!
Ryan…
In answer to your question, and engaging some of Janet’s thoughts - I believe in absolute Truth… I also believe that it is impossible for a limited, finite mind to completely grasp the infinite realm of Truth. I believe in a spiritual realm, a realm of the soul, a realm which is beyond that which we can embrace with our natural five senses – the area of spirit, emotion, mind and will. My falling in love with my wife makes no logical sense whatsoever, with a population of 6.6 billion people, why should any person conclude that there is only one person to be with? Yet my love for my wife is more real to me personally than the concept that writing 2 + 2 = 4 on a piece of paper is a reflection that, that is true… logic and material sensory perception are not the ultimate measurement. While I believe that human understanding cannot fully comprehend Truth, I have come to believe that the human spirit can have a connection with Truth that empowers a person to engage with Truth. I believe that spiritual connection can be vague and unclear, can be impersonated and we can be mislead…but is no less real.
After a measure of personal research and life experience, I have come to the conclusion that the the Spirit of the Bible is the Spirit of Truth - that is, that Jesus is the Truth - and that in “Jesus” I mean the triune, creator Father/Son/Spirit person(s). I have accepted in my conlusions that there are things that I do not understand, that there are elements that do not make sense. That does not mean that my decisions are uninformed, but that I allow for a certain measure of error - not from Truth, but in the human process of communication of Truth. That same allowance for error pervades my thinking generally; I have embraced that same process in considering science and philosophy, literature, other religions etc… My conclusion has been that Jesus the Christ fits my comprehension - naturally and spiritually - of what constitutes God, with less apparent error than any other proposal…
A couple of points here…
According to the Bible, a communal, relational God created humanity in their image – therefore to accurately represent the image of God, humanity needs to exist in relationship, in community, in harmony. Therefore, it is not unexpected that an individual mind is too finite, to comprehend a God that the sum of humanity in perfect community is intended to represent… The gap between the individual finite mind and the grasping of truth is both the realm of community in unity - in community we each bring a piece of the jigsaw - it is also the realm of “faith.” The realm of “faith” is engaging firstly with Christ, then with the reality that we are “in Christ,” and subsequently with the reality of who we are in Christ. Faith empowers the capacity to “know” and “see” via the spirit - to operate based on faith, rather than just on our sensory responses to the material realm. Faith is not blind, but it “sees” in a different dimension. To engage with Truth the human spirit needs to engage with the Spirit of Truth and be led by that Spirit. Jesus points to this in John 14
and also to the fact that the world will not accept the Spirit of Truth, because it cannot “see” and does not “know” Him. See also Jesus’ points in John 16
, and Paul’s in Romans 8
.
The problem that arises, when we make a “formula” of this, is that of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” - people who are new to exercising “faith” and are initially limited in their ability to “see,” become enamoured by charlatans who pretend they can “see,” and pretend something exists to build their own reputation. We end up with buildings full of people who, rather than be honest that they see a naked emperor, co-dependently agree they see something that does not actually exist! People caught up in this spirit never grow up, never impact anyone else with truth, because, although they have a form of godliness they do not have the Truth (see 2 Tim 3
). The church, which was intended to present the Truth, can end up being a purveyor of untruth and others, who are sensitive to the Spirit of Truth, find greater evidence of truth in places other than that church. The true emerging church needs to work hard at keeping the Truth - the person of the Christ in the fullness of the Godhead - central, rather than our ideas of truth, which by nature of our limited, finiteness are limited and finite and therefore innacurate.
One of the benefits of smaller communitues of faith, is that it is less likely that individuals will get away with pretending the emperor has clothes on, or that others will co-dependently join in the charade. The fact that we are innacurate doesn’t mean that we have to live with being “wrong”, but we do need to acknowledge that we have need of greater help to become more accurate in our journey towards absolute Truth. The fact that we have to work harder can become an excuse to give up on the search for absolute Truth, and lead people to settle for namby-pamby nothingness… Jesus never settled for less than absolute Truth and those who truly follow in His footsteps must deny themselves and take up their cross daily…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Hey C.S… there was a pretty accessible discussion on creation science etc. on Signposts not that long ago if you want to refer people who are vaguely open to a range of opinions… they can restart the discussion there if they’re interested.
However… often people aren’t vaguely open. Alas. I wouldn’t mind if I didn’t think it a block to mission. Oh well.
http://www.signposts.org.au/2007/02/05/shall-we-sign/comment-page-1/#comments
Although on second thoughts… might be a bit long!!!!
Ryan - to summarize briefly these excellent responses to your equally good question - “Do we believe that Jesus is the Truth”: I can’t speak for everyone, because saying He is has huge implications. Yet, I certainly do, and I would suggest Alan does directly advocate it in his book and many do in this blog.
In TFW, Alan talks extensively about how Jesus being the center is the driving force of a church planting movement, rebukes the idolatry of the John Shelby Spong types that have entered into North American Evangelical churches which perpetuate a distorting that Jesus is one of many options and draws heavily from the Great Shema text of Deut. 6:4
Hear o Israel YHWH your God is one - there is no other God.
Talk about killing a Church planting movement - Jesus the optional God does the trick every time.
Your distinction between “attractional” and “missional” sounds very like the distinction missiologists used to make between “centrifugal” and “centripetal” mission. But perhaps I have misunderstood, and you are talking about something else, so if you do see a distinction between attractional/missional and centripetal/centrifugal, I hope you will clarify it.
I prefer the old terms, because they are both forms of mission. As Andrew said to Nathaniel, “Come and see.”
Steve, I think they are probably similar/associated ideas. To be honest I have never made the connection. Strange eh? But missiologists usually say that the centrepetal/attractional was the primary mode of the OT whereas the centrifugal/missional is the primary mode of NT mission. So, I accept the categories. I still say we need more missional than attractional in a missionary environment. Andrew and Nathaniel were in the same ‘churched’ environment of Israel. It wasn’t a truly missionary situation as we have now.