NCxian: Are we too “ATTRACTIONALLY Focused?”
NCxian brought up an important observation about ChurchRater and our focus that I’d like to address here…
The format of ChurchRater is somewhat based on the “attractional†model of outreach.
That model assumes that the major “entry point†to a church community is a visit to a worship service, including lots of folks who just make a “cold callâ€. Thus, our worship services need to be friendly to that first time visiting stranger.
I think the current conversation (and perhaps research) suggests that attracting people to a church service was a good plan when most of the US population was “churchyâ€â€“likely to wind up in a church some day, because we were all pretty much “ethnic Christiansâ€. And I am not suggesting that our Sunday morning services should not be open, friendly, understandable, and so forth.
What I am saying is, a lot of what we focus on here is going to be relevant as we try to reach the remaining folks who are “churchyâ€, but not so relevant to reaching “unreached people groups†in our community.
It would be nice if there was someway to church-rate based on a more wholistic view (although I can’t think of anything to offer).
Good stuff NCxian - I’ve got a lot of thoughts swirling in my mind now…
Comment by: Peter Walker
1 11/11/06 10:21 PM | Comment Link |The first comment I’d make is: YES! We have been quite attractionally oriented here at ChurchRater thus far because so many churches are still speaking that language.
Just as “rating churches” can be quite a “modern” practice, so we are seeking to improve and challenge (and provoke) these modern institutions to be better - richer - wholer - realer.
We have to start where a lot of churches are at, at this moment. Most American Evangelical churches won’t be able to speak a non-attractional language for some time. Until that time, we’ll try to make existing realities better.
Some churches are simply not capable, at this time, of moving from attractional orientation to something more missional or relational.
But I very much agree that there are better ways for churches to make “first contact” with the unchurched.
This is one of the reasons why I think a lot of the current “Emergent-style” church settings will not last very long. They are merely transitional adaptations of a modern system into post (or post, post) modern sensibilities.
But I certainly pray that the emerging church becomes more than a new, hip version of the same old.
Comment by: April Terry
2 11/13/06 9:17 AM | Comment Link |We went into a church last Sunday that was dying on the vine. We attend different churches on the weeks we aren’t involved in our ministry and so we have seen the spectrum of churches.
This church did nearly everything wrong. The music was old fashioned and hokey, the pastor was about 100 years old, and even the building was dilapidated. Yet, it had a little charm about it that I can’t explain.
When it came time to greet one another. Every single member of the congregation came to every other member and greeted each other. It took nearly 15 minutes. There were even half a dozen seven and eight year old boys who came up and shook our hands, not because we were new, but because we were there. In addition, I have never seen a church that had more children than adults, but this one did and that was part of the charm.
When those eight year olds came up in front and sang “I’m in the Lord’s Army,” I wanted to hug them.
It isn’t about the music, the building, the good hair style, the funky band. It’s about the people. If you grow up good people, it speaks to you.
Comment by: Pastor David
3 11/13/06 11:37 AM | Comment Link |THANK YOU April. I think that is precisely the case.
Churches of all different “flavors” are growing in this country - be they evangelical, mainline, or emergent. And the churches that are growing have a variety of worship/music styles - from high church smells and bells to non-denominational praise and worship. I truly believe that those factors - so often thought to be the driving force behind church growth - have nothing to do with it.
I believe that church growth lies, primarily and fundamentally, in the intangibles. Is there a feeling of love within the congregation? Is there an excitement and a passion for the worship and the ministry of the congregation? Did it feel like “home” (whatever that means to you)?
The rest of it matters, but this is the heart of the issue for me. Am I totally off-base?
Comment by: NCxian
4 11/13/06 4:13 PM | Comment Link |So my question is, is a visit to a Sunday morning event likely to convey this? Is how we worship truly a all-encompassing slice of who we (collectively) are the rest of the time? Should it be? If it does succeed in being a comprehensive representation of who that particular church family is and what it is about, wouldn’t it feel to an outsider like somebody else’s family reunion? Is that bad?