"Come see us" vs. "Let's go get 'em"

        Theologians, Pastors, and "Professional Christians" have been infamous throughout history about arguing over things that don't mean a hill of beans to anyone. One of those debates I've been hearing so much has to do with this question: "Is our responsibility as a Church to invite people TO church, or take the church TO them?" The debate is over whether a church should build buildings, and hold "Worship services" and ask people to come to us to experience Christ; or take more of a "house church" approach and take the church more to people in the community where THEY live.  Theologians and "missional thinkers" (whatever that is), have placed most churches into one of two categories: "Attractional" OR "Missional".   So many pastors I know of have been struggling to figure out which one they are, what they are, and what they're supposed to be doing. Theologians have drawn battle lines over this issue, believe it or not.
       I want you to know that I believe this whole debate is pointless: First of all, it's important to keep in mind for a healthy dose of perspective, the fact that neither the word "Attractional" or "Missional" is found in the Bible ANYWHERE, in connection with the church. If this classification and debate was that important, don't you think God would have spelled it out? However, the MAIN reason this whole debate is pointless is because I believe a church is not supposed to be either "Attractional" OR "Missional".  I believe every church should be both! I believe every church's call is be BOTH Attractional AND Missional!       
        God addresses this issue in the book of Acts when it says:  "So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart," Acts 2:46  (NKJV). Gosh, isn't it more simple than we're making it? Aren't we supposed to INVITE them to worship at the "Temple" with us, AND hang out with them in our homes?! Isn't THAT the Biblical model? What am I missing?
        At MLC, have an incredible worship service, that's designed for those who might give God and  the church one more shot, each weekend. And we have reached TONS of people this way! However,  85% of our adults in our church are active in a small group each week that meets in a home in our community. These groups are ALWAYS open to outsiders, and designed in such a way that outsiders will always FEEL welcomed. We've had many people over the last several years attend a small group for weeks, even months, before giving our worship service a try. We're fine with whatever path a person chooses: As long as we're reaching people for Jesus Christ! We invite them to "come see us" and we tell our people: "Let's go get 'em" and they do! Call us "Attractional" or "Missional" or whatever you want to call us. I just want to be "Biblical." Great Commandment---Great Commission. That's what Jesus said was important. What about you?

Comments

[brent Colaw]

Thanks for this much needed dose of truth. It would be great if we could avoid the "pendulum has swung to far" phase of this adjustment of the churches priorities. I believe these "pointless" debates are used by the enemy to create disunity among Christ followers. Let us never forget that Christ prayed for the unity of his followers "so the world would know" who Christ is and of God's Love. Certainly we can agree that unity for the sake of God's glory trumps perceived differences in strategy.

[Ray Brock]

Excellent Post! You nailed it!

[Megan]

i could not agree more. I think that MLC has a mission to make a "home" for people. So, not only do we reach out to people who do not have a church to attend, MLC makes it a home for them. Mountain Lake wants outsiders to feel welcome, and comfterble. But at the same time, i feel that MLC does not pressure people who do not want to be apart of the church to become involved. Mountain Lake is welcoming and, is so open to outsiders that it almost feels like the "missional" is not needed. The atmosphere that our church gives off attracts "lost" people.

[Jim Henry]

Sweet post Shawn! I couldn't agree more. We've had the same debate within the history of our church, but have found that we are truly called to be both and are striving to do just that...It's amazing how complicated people try and make things when God has already spelled it out so clearly and simply in His word. I guess it's easier to take a position than it is to actually do your homework and see what God says about it.

[paul]

Hey Shawn!

You've been popping it lately man! I can't wait to soak in the MLC culture!

Hey, ("Shameless plug" alert) I posted something along the same lines recently...

http://paulpeterson.wordpress.com/2007/03/07/im-fed-up-with-the-church/

[Mike]

I don't disagree that there should be elements of both in a community, but I would say that the "missional" part of the equation probably came after Acts 2 when the church moved outside of the Hebrew Culture and the Temple. I think I see that as the value of the missional movement, as we move further into a culture that is outside of our Churches. Which is new to our history.

[Bil Cornelius]

It's about time someone speaks the truth on this "non-issue!" As far as house churches, can't they just become a smaller version of the "attraactional" model? Both can be healthy or both can be unhealthy...it has to do with the leaders, not the model of church. -Bil Cornelius

[Charles Whitmire]

Shawn, great posts the last few days... Do you have any posts/advice/books/suggested reading for designing the type of service that you are talking about? I'm in Austin, planting a church focused on reaching the un-churched, but I am struggling with content of messages, etc... Thanks!

[scott hodge]

Great post... Thanks!

[Scott Pollard]

Attractional and/or Missional are OK, just don't let anyone label you as "Emerging" that really starts a debate. :)