+the Attractional Approach - this is the "get the church cleaned up, update the signage and deal with the nursery" way. This is usually important and a first step in turning a church toward vitality.
+The Incarnational Approach- this is "being the message," both as individuals and as a church. it is the dealing with dysfunction and confusion about what it means to follow Jesus and how that looks in the everyday Christian's heart. This is more work and more about cultural change than the attractional approach.
In this context, discipleship is discussed--how do we apprentice people, how do we create space for people to explore and belong?
One thing I have recently found is the power of asking for a big commitment. We are not only using a covenant as part of the membership process but have found people excited about reading the whole Bible in 90 days. In my suburban context I was thrilled to have 90+ people sign up (having 185 average worship attendance) to be part of our Bible in 90 Days--it has really pushed me to think about asking for more from people.
While this has been great, I do also have to admit that we had to cancel a very outside the box gathering that church folks could only attend if they brought someone with them who had no church. We canceled because there was trouble finding unchurched friends. One person said to me, "i don't know anyone in a way where I would know if they have a church----we don't ever talk about that and I don't want to." (We will give this event another try in June, so we will see...)
So how are you living an incarnational approach to conversion? Is there still a place for the attractional? How do we grow as congregations in today's world --do we ask a lot or as little as possible of people? How do we do this faithfully?
Rev. Nicole
Sometimes I think about a "velcro" approach: we need to be prepared to link our experience of the love/forgiveness/challenge of a living Jesus Christ into where other people are at with their lives.
ReplyDeleteWhen those two things match, we get a very strong bond and connection.
So I guess it's both "attractional" (All things to all people - St. Paul) as well as "incarnational" (we are the body, the hands and feet of Christ - St. Paul)
We need to be ready, but also pro-active.
I think the real difficulty is getting a comfortable definition of "conversion."
Too often we think it's something we have to do to change someone else, some action that causes them to change direction.
In reality, I think we are called to witness (another one of those difficult words), i.e. talking/sharing, about the change Christ is doing in us in such a way that others will honestly ask: "How can that happen in my life?" and "How do you do that?"
Perhaps a better word would be "mid-wifing" (Is that a word?) or perhaps "inviting?"
Thanks for your posts. Both of them got me to thinking about my own experience of "conversion." I got to thinking: "how did I come to know Jesus and God through Jesus?" Would I call my experience "conversion?," and if so, who "led me" to it?
ReplyDeleteI spend a lot of my time in ministry these days trying to lead folks out into our surrounding community - beyond the church campus. I think one of the major stopping blocks for folks is what I call "the E-word" (evangelism). I sense that folks are terrified that they are going to be called to witness to their faith to someone and be responsible for that person's conversion.
And what I try to instill or suggest is exactly what Terry articulates -- it's not about "us" per se -- it's about what God is doing in us and through us. Our ability to articulate that (and not to convert anyone) is what may lead someone to a similar relationship.
And in my experience of what Wesley would call a "regeneration," no one converted me at all. I'm not even sure if any of the church community that I was involved in at the time -- would be able to recognize that they invited me into a relationship with Christ through their own witness, really. But the experience of the church community and the heart-breaking honesty of this community with their life and religion struggles ... this led me somewhere. It gave me the language to be able to discern a call and to listen and recognize God's call into my life and Jesus' call into my heart. This form of witness (with conversion not as a goal per se) - this form of witness was slow, patient, and went exactly at the pace that I needed it to be. It was God's pace ... and while I experienced a rebirth in Christ ... my fear is that in our age of church plants at a fast and furious pace ... well, very few churches today can literally afford this kind of pace, I fear. Sigh.
I keep thinking about Hugh's neighbor Steve and the notion of interest first. This has resonated with me continually since I read this chapter: and I feel like I see it everywhere in action (yay!). Pardon me for my lack of articulation, but I've already written too much. This Incarnation Approach, well for me: It's just so where's it's at.
I know what you mean about the "just for them" kind of event that Jim Griffith talks about. Here's what we're going to do.
ReplyDeleteMy Age-level ministries person is going to arrange a cookie party at Christmas. It's going to be in someone's home and we're going to offer it as something Moms can do with their kids without making a mess in their own homes. The Moms from our church who do the inviting know they are to invite an unchurched friend and they seem to think they can do this.
The thing we hope is the hook is that the church is offering a way for you to do something with your kids that spares you having to make the cookies and clean up the mess. Good for working and non-working moms.
Then, we're going to have a "hand-off" invitation to our Puppet Christmas Eve services.
Small effort. We felt this small scale was more doable for us. We're hoping to have 7 unchurched families with 7 of our church families. We may have to do it at our church, but our fellowship hall is so yukky, we won't want to.