Missional or attractional church? It is now apparent that the traditional model of the church, the attractional model, is no longer able to reach the majority of the population; sixty to sixty-five percent of the populace in the United States is repulsed by the attractional model of church. This has led to calls for church reforms and for the development of a model of the church which is at least able to reach the whole of the population: the missional model. However, the attractional model is still able to reach up to 40% of the population with the message of Christ, so are we to completely abandon this historic form of church that has been used for 1700 years? It needn’t be an either-or question; it ought to be an “and.” We need churches that have preachers and teachers who are connected to the historical form and messages of the church, with apostolic leaders who are creatively expanding the ministries of the church into a culture that is largely ignorant of the Christian message. A church shouldn’t be limited to either/or options when both are able to reach out to a huge portion of the populace. What currently lacks for this to be a viable option for most churches is a balance of biblical leadership: Pastors, Teachers, Apostles, Evangelists, and Prophets. The church in America seems to be super loaded with pastors and teachers, but lacking the other three. We ought to begin inculcating balanced leadership within the church and searching for ways to make the gospel relevant to the entire populace; some of this will entail an attractional model, most will require something entirely new and specific to the cultural contexts which an individual church finds itself in.

God bless folks,

Aaron