What Are The Boundaries of Mission?
If Hiebert reads my blog from beyond the grave, I may be in trouble.
I think there’s an important distinction between being attractional and being attractive. When we use the word “attractional” pejoratively we’re usually describing a philosophy of being event-driven. The goal is to attract as many people as possible, and the most expedient way to do so is to use the tools of marketing and hype. This allies the church with features of the popular culture that are inherently deceptive and manipulative and naturally leads to a consumer response.
But being attractive means others see something in us they want. That can be a very good thing. Isaiah 2:1-5 is a major paradigm for me in terms of mission, and it describes the Kingdom of God as attractive because of the presence of God and the pragmatic wisdom that naturally flows from God’s community. I don’t have any problem with people being drawn, my question is how do we draw them? By marketing savvy, or by power, wisdom, and character?
The difficulty is that the prevailing Christian culture is so accustomed to attending a big, passive, spectator show in Sunday morning that the moment you setup shop in that mould you “attract” Christian shoppers and consumers, not the poor, the lame, and blind, and the imprisoned who are desperately in need of power and wisdom. Build an impressive church facility complete with trendy coffee shop, bookstore, and indoor playland and you’ve effectively erected a huge sign that says, “ATTENTION CHRISTIANS: SHOP HERE!”
And they do.
However, I think the attractional vs missional dichotomy in emerging circles runs a little shallow. Because the concept of attractional tends to be criticized one dimensionally (i.e. having a come-to-us mentality), the solution tends to be presented in equally shallow terms (i.e. a go-to-them mentality). The problem I see is that rejecting the former in favor of the the latter erases all community boundaries. I realize saying this will could open a can of worms, but there’s an inherent need for robust communities to define their boundaries. This, I think, is why really radical emerging churches tend to lose all orthodox cohesion, because their commitment to being missional (”going to them”) dictates a stance of hospitality that refuses to articulate any boundaries whatsoever.
Jesus was out being “missional,” and people were highly “attracted” to him. But here’s the real kicker in my opinion: Jesus didn’t welcome everyone in. He turned people away all the time, and not just the Pharisees. Jesus rejected people who came and asked to join his Kingdom and he rejected them because they weren’t willing to do what was necessary to join him.
I think when the church finds the courage to be among people “missionally,” expressing compassion and power, while at the same time being willing to articulate what George Ladd called “The demand of the Kingdom,” then we’ll have found that bridge between being missional and attractive.
Tomorrow I’ll articulate how I’ve come to think of that boundary. But int he meantime, what do you think? How can we be missional, yet maintain a cohesive community?
Forgive me but the typo was precious: “the poor, the lame and the blond” :)