“Attractive” or “Attractional”?
18 April 2023
Keen viewers of the English documentary… sorry, comedy series… “Rev” will recall the episode where Adam’s church is taken over by a local Evangelical group in need of a home who run every gimmick under the sun to “attract young people”. Comfy chairs, a smoothie bar, a charismatic preacher with a permanent etched-on smile, and a rap star song leader. All tied together by a constant theme of fundraising for “our expansion”... Of course these methods “work”. Even Adam briefly succumbs to the Jesus Splash, though he eventually feels the need to add a swig of vodka to get through it all. In the end, of course, it all goes horribly wrong, and the spiritual and community devastation left in the wake of the invasion is going to take a lot or work to repair. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGfsd03KZAQ&t=101s
As readers of this blog will know, I am interested in exploring the idea of “attractive” church (one that presents Jesus as so compelling that people want to come and see, as distinct from, or in addition to, a missional church that goes out seeking converts.) One of the presenters at the LYCiG conference I attended recently used a different, slightly clumsy word – attractional – to talk about much the same thing. Being a pedant I thought, “Yes, but sorry that’s not even a real word.” And this led me to Google to check just in case it was….
If you do a search on “attractional” you quickly discover that the word does indeed exist, but that it is an entirely church-based 21st century Americanism. It describes the phenomenon of churches that base their entire programme around what they think will appeal to their potential constituency. It’s all about marketing Christianity as a product, and trying to win as many customers (sorry, worshippers…) as possible. Critiques of this model run thick and fast on various blogs. I won’t link to any of them here, but they’re easy to find.
One of the best critiques draws a distinction between “attractional” churches and “attractive” ones. It is this difference that I’d like to explore in a little more depth, because it has helped me get clearer in my own understanding of the ideas I am seeking to promote.
To be clear, I am not interested in churches that modify their programmes, even compromising the Gospel in the process, purely in order to get more people through the door. (“Attractional” church.) I am interested in encouraging church communities that do the necessary work ON THEMSELVES to make their communities more Jesus-focused, with greater spiritual depth and an open sense of welcome; church communities that explore how to establish genuine connections within the communities of which they are a part, and in doing so to show others that Jesus is a promise not a threat. Over time such churches become more attractive to the wider community not because they are catering to what is fashionable or flashy, but because they are authentically and demonstrably Christian.
At least part of the church growth narrative presently being deployed to “rescue failing churches” is in danger of becoming focused on what is “attractional” rather than “attractive.” I am all in favour of new initiatives, but to each of these initiatives I would want to ask a fairly fundamental question: is the Gospel at its heart? Is a free pizza night with praise band, a petting zoo with the vicar dressed up as a shepherd, or whatever other gimmick is thought up to “catch” people an authentic expression of Christian love and community? Is the latest bright idea thought up at Parish Council going to be a sign, an icon, a sacrament that points people to Jesus and to a sacrificial life of service and worship? Or is it likely to end up being something else?
Such questions need regularly to be asked of all the elements of our strategies for growth. Because growth in numbers will only be lasting and genuine if it is accompanied by growth in faith. And faith doesn’t grow on gimmicks.
