• Alan Hirsch – Making Missional Marketable

    March 31, 2010

    I owe a huge debt of gratitude to Alan Hirsch.  The book he co-authored with Mike Frost, The Shaping of Things to Come, was the first I read that began to help me understand the angst I felt with the attractional model of church so prevalent in the US.

    This is why I was so thrown a few days ago when I read that Alan Hirsch had asserted that American Christianity is the great hope for the Church in the West.  He made comments to this point in the opening remarks of his talk at a conference called “Verge” in Texas.  You can view the video (Session 2) here.  At one point he said,

    If we don’t win the battle of the decline of the church here in the states, then it’s not going to come from anywhere else.  We will win or lose the battle over here in the states.

    His rationale seemed to be that 1) the Church is the rest of the West is all but dead and 2) that Americans have a built-in entrepenurial (apostolic) sort of spirit.

    On this count, I was surprised and disappointed on 2 levels.

    First, he seemed to communicate a latent assumption that “the West” maintains a position of superiority in terms of global Christianity.  He admitted that Christianity is growing in non-Western parts of the world, but never suggested that our hope might lie in learning from what God is doing there.

    Secondly, he referenced the American entrepreneurial spirit as the key factor in our ability to “win the battle of the decline of the church.”  I was blown away!  I was immediately reminded of a quote by Einstein, which, even more surprisingly, he referenced later, but totally misused,

    We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

    It is American entrepreneurialism that got us into the mess of creating a church system predicated on the cultural values of individualism and consumerism.  Relying on the same characteristic is hardly a promising solution.

    Over and above all these disappointments comes a more biblical/theological one, namely, that putting our hope in anything except for a willingness to sacrifice what is most dear to us, to listen to the voices of those on the margins, and to trust God with our future (which may very well mean the increasing marginalization of the church), is, in any sense, in keeping with God’s desire for the Body of Christ.

    There was a 2nd major part to Hirsch’s presentation that really made me nervous.

    He made the claim that the dominant expression of church in America, that of the seeker-sensitive/attractional model, has a market appeal to about 40% of the American population.  This yields what Hirsch called a “strategic problem” and a “missionary problem.”

    The “strategic problem” is that 95% of the churches in the US are seeking to become the kind of church that appeals to this same 40% of the population.

    The “missionary problem” is that 60% (and growing) of our population is being virtually ignored.

    So far so good, but at one point Alan was commenting on attractional types of churches that are “reaching” the 40% of the American population and said, “Those who do this well should strive to do it better.”  Not change what they are doing, just do more of the same, better.

    In affirming an attractional (or what he is now calling ex-tractional) model of church simply because it succeeds in drawing a crowd, he fails to critique the most devastating reality, namely, that these churches, on the whole, don’t make disciples. By and large, they facilitate the already pervasive nominal christianity that pervades at least 40% of the American population.

    Let me try to summarize my push back on what I am hearing and seeing from Alan Hirsch as of late.

    1) Putting our eggs in the basket (Easter week!) of the American church is futile, if not sinful.  This is exactly how we got where we are and trying harder ain’t gonna cut it.  It may very well be that God is at work killing off a defunct ecclesial trajectory and we would do better to repent and ask for mercy than to rely on any ability we think we possess to save the day.

    2) Alan is right, there is a descent portion of the American population that has some natural affinity with the sort of church which thrives in Christendom.  But, merely because people will respond to an attractional model of church does not make it ok.  A pragmatic victory is almost never a biblical one.  Attractional models of church are built on the cultural values of individualism and consumerism and, save for the grace of God, are incapable of yielding the sort of disciples the world desperately needs.

    I have a serious and growing concern regarding the temptation to make missional marketable.  The temptation is especially seductive to those who, like Alan, have a deep love for the church as the Body of Christ and want to see it thrive.  But, if God means for missional theology/ecclesiology to benefit the church, it will remain an invitation to repentance, sacrifice, and death.  This sort of invitation has never had much market appeal, especially in the US.

    Related Posts

    1. Attractional/Missional: From Pragmatics to Formation
    2. Toward a Missional Vision of Theological Education: The Fruit of the Problem
    3. Missional vs. Attractional Equipping

    Posted in: christendom, church, consumerism, culture, discipleship, individualism, missional, theology, western culture

Recent Comments

  • jrrozko said...

    1

    Though I don't want to be an anti-Hirschite, it's helpful to know that I'm not alone in my observations. Thanks Mark. By the way, be sure to check your FB inbox, I sent you a message about a week ago. Let me know if you don't see it.

    03/31/10 4:44 PM | Comment Link

  • Gustavo K-fé said...

    2

    What to say about Allellon? Don't they have "consulting" services? 1-800-my-church-needs-help kind of thing? At first it looked like MMM to me.

    03/31/10 5:03 PM | Comment Link

  • Zach said...

    3

    As we move through holy week, I am reminded of a long held hunch of mine – that perhaps the death of the "western" church is the necessary prelude to a resurrection we cannot see or conceive yet. A resurrection that may come from a non-white, non-european, region of the world.

    03/31/10 5:04 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    4

    I haven't had much connection to Allelon in the last few years. My impression remains that they would like to be helpful to the missional conversation, but have undercut themselves by centering everything around one person.

    03/31/10 7:30 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    5

    See, not that seems much more in keeping with the biblical paradigm of transformation & renewal I think. Thanks for sharing that Zach.

    03/31/10 7:31 PM | Comment Link

  • Ryan said...

    6

    While I really do prefer "missional" over "attractional," I want to be careful not to demonize "attractional." It isn't all bad, as Alan seems to want to point out. Surely, it's not the complete model for church, and probably not the long-term model either. But in some ways, we can create rigid categories where there is a spectrum. I think in the attempt to communicate a new way ("missional"), we make a characature–an "attractional" straw man.

    Let me illustrate with a little parable. Maria loves God, and follows Jesus. That motivates her to move into a neighborhood and start loving the community and practical, sacrificial ways. Her neighbors get to know her. Sometimes, a few of the local kids hang out in front of her building. Maria invites some of her neighbors to come over for tea. They begin to feel comfortable enough to stop by to talk. Is Maria missional (because she went into the neighborhood) or attractional (because she's invinting the neighborhood to into her home)? What if a church does the same thing?

    03/31/10 8:04 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    7

    Ryan, thanks for your comment. While I appreciate the dynamic you are (rightfully) leery of, the example you provided actually illustrates a vital point – being ATTRACTIVE is not the same as being ATTRACTIONAL. As I said in my post, attractional models of church are those which are, to varying degrees, predicated on individualism and consumerism. They confuse "cultural relevance," with "incarnational witness." While I have no need to "demonize" this phenomenon, I do think it is fair to point out its inability to produce Christlike disciples.

    It should go without saying that if we are leading Christlike lives, some, not all, will be attracted to that and want to know more. At the same time, if our discipleship runs deep, and we stand firm in our Christian convictions over-against those aspects of our culture in need of transformation and redemption, plenty of people will be put-off.

    I hope that distinction between being attractive and attractional helps to clarify where I am coming from.

    03/31/10 8:17 PM | Comment Link

  • localchurchpastor said...

    8

    Some of this conversation makes me think about Bob Hopkins talking about the mixed economy that may be needed in the Western context we find ourselves where all three are necessary:

    1) Attractional church (more event centered, inviting people to come in)
    2) Engaged church (incarnate into specific context, bring back to "the center)
    3) Emerging church (incarnate into specific context and stay)

    There are parts of me that think this is right on, there are parts of me that are still a little wary given the track record of "attractional" churches (and for the purpose of this thought, attractional is understood best as "attractive", though more event centered) to actually make disciples!

    But that being said…can we really point to ANY kind of churches, big, small, missional, attractional, whatever, that are really making disciples well?

    I guess my question would be this: If each of these churches is actually able to make disciples (and I realize that's a big "if"), but let's hypothetically say that's happening, would we be more comfortable with this mixed economy approach?

    On a tangential note, I LOVE the imagery being painted here with death and resurrection. But I wonder if the death being described has more to do with churches embracing Discipleship as the main thing and mission flowing out of that transformation rather than a "death" of a "way" of doing church in a large scale. Makes me think of the Cost of Discipleship. While death isn't attractive, the life that comes after is, which is why we embrace death. Is it possible for "attractional" churches to embrace that kind of death and still be attractive because of the signs of life and resurrection because discipleship is happening? (see what the Village Church is going through with Matt Chandler illness).

    03/31/10 8:58 PM | Comment Link

  • @markvans said...

    9

    It seems Hirsch's emphasis has shifted in the past few years. I'm not encouraged by the shift. It seemed to be, in the past, that he is getting more mainstream and pragmatic and certainly far less subversive in his challenge to the larger Body of Christ.

    03/31/10 4:19 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    10

    Yeah, good clarification. In the presentation he definitely spoke to the downsides of the ex-tractional model. If he understands attractional to be different, he didn't really speak to that. I'd be interested in how he'd even articulate the difference – maybe in his latest book?

    I think I would go on to say that being extractional is but one sin of attractional churches. There are plenty of ways to be attractive that have very little to do with lives of discipleship.

    04/1/10 3:06 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    11

    I thought about that too, but I had some of the same reservations it sounded like you might have had.

    I would be open to hearing what it might mean to be an event-driven church for the sake of making disciples, but given what I know about American culture, I'd be a hard sell!

    Yes, the goal for me is the multiplication of Christlike disciples. I could care less what we name we give to the ecclesiology driving that process, but the names do serve a purpose in communicating what is of primary importance. It's really difficult for me to think of attractional churches and missional churches as two types of the same thing – like a sedan vs. a convertible. I tend to see it more in terms of a car that runs on unleaded vs. one that runs on diesel. The fuel just isn't the same and isn't interchangeable.

    On your last point, absolutely! But, my sense is that as more people look to make missional marketable, we are in danger of compromising that central value of "making discipleship the main thing and letting mission flow out of that transformation." We sell people on the value of unleaded over diesel, but fail to inform them that they are gonna need a whole new engine in order to make it useful.

    04/1/10 3:40 AM | Comment Link

  • Jenelle said...

    12

    Great critique in this blog post, JR. We need to be challenged on so many of these points, particularly in terms of discipleship/dying.

    Wondering if you got to read/watch the full text of Al's talks? From what I know of Alan, I'd hesitate to comment much unless I knew the context of the conversation he's being quoted from.

    I'm reading the Hirsch' latest book *Untamed* right now, as Alan and Deb have been excellent team-members to Christian Associates for the last few years. (They have served in some sort of "consulting" role for our mission, and for that I'm very grateful…) I'm about halfway through *Untamed* and I'm finding all of your same concerns about discipleship reflected throughout their writing (i.e. Your critique of the attractional model: "They confuse 'cultural relevance,' with 'incarnational witness.' While I have no need to 'demonize' this phenomenon, I do think it is fair to point out its inability to produce Christlike disciples. "

    Have you thought about sending Alan a message (via Twitter or FB) inviting him to dialogue about some of these concerns?

    04/1/10 6:14 AM | Comment Link

  • michael said...

    13

    Hey dude, just want to clarify. You said, "In affirming an attractional (or what he is now calling ex-tractional) model of church simply because it succeeds in drawing a crowd, he fails to critique the most devastating reality…" I'm not defending Hirsch because I tend to agree with you, but to be fair, he is not affirming an "extractional" approach. I've heard him say something to the effect that the "sin" of the attractional church is that it is extractional. So I would see him only affirming attractional churches that are not extracting people from their social orbit in order to attract them to some new circle (another issue I have thoughts about). I wonder how similar his vision for a non-extractional, attractional church would be to what you are calling an attractive church?

    04/1/10 2:49 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    14

    Hey Jenelle. Yeah, after I read the quote I went and watched the full video (a few times actually) and didn't formulate my thoughts until after trying to be sure I understood the context. Hopefully I was being fair.

    I am thrilled, and quite frankly, not all that surprised to hear that the latest book he wrote with Deb is addressing some of these concerns.

    I would love for Alan to enter this conversation, I will see if I can reach him via twitter, I don't think we're Facebook friends, but I may try their too. Thanks.

    04/1/10 12:43 PM | Comment Link

  • Jenelle said...

    15

    Good man, JR (for watching and re-watching the whole video). Dang. I hope a conversation can get going. Let me know if you want me to nudge him on FB if you aren't able to reach him on Twitter.

    04/1/10 3:56 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    16

    In a DM I encouraged Alan to "push back on my push back." If you want to encourage him as well, that would be great.

    04/1/10 8:03 PM | Comment Link

  • michael said...

    17

    yeah, "lives of discipleship" seems to me to be the litmus test for being "attractive" in a healthy way. but then again, attractive to whom? i love Paul's imagery of the church as "aroma". To some we are repulsive and to some we are fragrant. The same kind of kingdom-inspired activity can be perceived/appreciated differently by others.

    to put it another way, the faithfulness of a particular community may not secure a positive response every time…in fact Jesus seems to promise the opposite.

    the chief sin of the attractional model, in my view, is that it seems to draw people toward activities and events that reflect something other than "faithfulness" or at least are not inherently faithful (i.e. kind/quality of music, personality of pastor, affinity with the community, etc.).

    04/1/10 10:08 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    18

    Agreed, good stuff.

    04/1/10 10:20 PM | Comment Link

  • alan hirsch said...

    19

    Wow, what a str yo have caused JR…or is it me? :)

    Bro, regarding the American thing…I did not mean to reinvke manfest destiny, but really do believe that unless there can be missional turnaround here we are going to further decline in the West. Yes, we can and must learn from the two-thirds world, but because those contexts are pre-Christian, pre-modern, often non-democratic without market-based economies, they seem to take root a whole lot easier than in our context. I a convinced that the turnaround is here and now.

    As for my affirmation of existing church I am just being realistic. They do have significant reach into 40% of the population because they are in the same cultural space. that is not to say that everything they do is great…but it is also to say that not everything they do is bad either. They do a whole lot better than mainline liberal churches for instance. Besides, if they can shift to missional (and I think they can if there is significant political will and vision to do so) they they will become primary platforms for missional-incarnational forms.

    You are right to discern that I have shifted in my approach to them…but that is because in many ways they (the mega-church movement) has shifted very much in the missional direction. They are leaning into it. And its time to talk and cross-fertilize.

    Gotta go!

    Stay true!

    A

    04/1/10 10:31 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    20

    Alan, thanks for taking the time to comment here. I want to say again how helped I have been by your writing and how glad I am for your voice and ministry.

    I am all for missional turn around, but I think there's a great deal of discussion to be had in terms of what that turnaround will entail. I am of the mind that it will begin with repentance and will entail sacrificing those things which go hand-in-hand with an entire paradigm of church that is antithetical to an ecclesiology rooted in the Missio Dei. If that's right, then "success" here in the West will have much more to do with listening and learning than with leveraging and launching. I found myself wishing I had heard this in your talk to these pastors and leaders.

    As for your second point, I am glad, and join you, in affirming that which existing churches (by whatever label) are doing well. You are in touch with far more church leaders than I am, so I will do my best to take your word for it, but this whole notion of allowing the leaders who have their identities all wrapped up in leading "successful" churches to think that missional is something they can simply "shift" (the vernacular being used by Ed Stetzer as of late as well) to, is dreadfully problematic. Continuing in patterns and practices that perpetuate nominal Christianity while we simultaneously try to launch new initiatives to reach that portion of the American population that's not interested in consuming Christian goods or being "christianly" entertained is not a faithful option in my book.

    The trajectory of the church in the West, in my opinion, is not in need of a shift. Rather, to a large degree, it has derailed and needs to be set back on the tracks going in a better direction. It's hard to own up to the reality of the matter and harder still to embrace what will be lost in the work to get back on track, but this is the only real option I see.

    I am looking forward to picking up your latest book to see if it addresses some of what I am articulating here.

    Peace! at the close of this Easter Sunday my friend.

    04/5/10 4:25 AM | Comment Link

  • tsk said...

    21

    wow. cool post. thanks. just twittered the 95% quote.

    04/5/10 6:49 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    22

    Thanks Andrew. If you haven't already, you may want to watch Alan's video from the conference to see if you get his overall point any better than what I am presenting it.

    04/5/10 8:19 PM | Comment Link

Leave A Comment

Mail (will not be published) (required)