Re-engaging the Neighborhood
What exactly is Church Transformation?
I’ve spent the last month talking with pastors around the US about church transformation. A few pastors are in really difficult situations (read more at: Leaving Egypt and Not Liking it).
From those discussions, it seems that a common idea is
Church transformation is to move a church that is stuck or in serious decline, and lead them into a new vision of what God has for them,
Thus launching a new life cycle of growth.
Stetzer calls them Comeback Churches. I’ve seen other various titles, like Boomerang church, Redevelopment, Revitalization. Seems the common word now is Transformational.
Moving from Attractional to Missional
A common thread these pastors shared with me is moving congregations to shift from an exclusive focus on attractional tweaks to becoming more missional and engaging their community.
Attractional ministry focused on quality programs, excellent hospitality, and marketing to get people in the door. This was sometimes called a “magnetic” church.
(See Comparing Missional vs. Attractional at Blind Beggar)
As I’ve looked at Evangelism Committee reports, church information forms, and mission studies, a lot of churches still think that making small process adjustments to their parking lot, greeting process, or welcoming will help them reach out to the neighborhood.
Attractional ministry is based on the idea that visitors are coming to your church already, and that if you do enough marketing, you can get more foot traffic in your door. Your hospitality will help the newcomers “stick” (see www.stickychurch.com), and your church will grow. It’s a variant of “if you build it they will come.”
Missional however moves to help the church re-engage its neighborhood.
Some pastors are in island churches, meaning their church is mostly commuters who used to live in that neighborhood. The culture around the church has changed (demographically, socio-economically), but the church has not adjusted accordingly, thus being a cultural island.
Missional helps the church get out of hoping people will visit them to actively engaging the needs and people of the community, and in the process both demonstrating and sharing the faith in Jesus as Lord.
Many of the pastors I spoke with this past month are trying to move congregations in this direction.
They still seek to improve their attractional ministries, but now realize that churches have to be connected to the neighborhood.
It’s a journey process, and some have moved further along than others.
Example of Missional Move: Block Party to Day Care
Ten years ago, an island church invited me to do some Evangelism Consulting with them about launching a new worship service. The average age was 60, and no young families in the neighborhood. They were in survival mode and needed something to get new people.
The pastor wanted a new worship service, but the congregational elders didn’t.
Instead, I lead them into a brainstorming process, and out of that process they decided to do a block party.
The congregation organized the block party. Food, games, inflatables, and so on. Members hung door hangers around the neighborhood and invited the local community to come.
As a result of that block party 10 years ago (and its continued annual repeats) this church has discerned the neighborhood needs and launched several new ministries to reconnect with the neighbors:
- Preschool (now with an annual budget larger than the churches).
- Meals on Wheels.
- Neighborhood Watch
- And other ministries.
This church has become much more missional in it’s mindset and has lots of new vitality and energy to serve.
Now they are being more intentional about actively sharing their faith along with serving the area.
This is where more intentional evangelism training will come into play.
The church needs to engage with actions, but also be able to explain how they are different than the rotary club. See Is Neighborhood Outreach Evangelism?
Let me ask you this?
What outreach did your church do that helped you re-engage the neighborhood?
What were some fruits that developed out of that connection?
Chris, I believe churches have to get out of the “If you build it, they will come” mindset. The attractional church usually only pulls in other Christians who are unhappy with their current church. It is not appealing to the lost. The church must go it if it expects the lost to come in. Good post.
Excellent post. Isreal was God’s people- a light to the Gentiles whioh was supposed to draw the nations to Christ. The new Isreal is sent into the nations to bring people to Christ. Thanks.
Our Chicago suburb requires us to build bridges that people are willing to cross 75% of the new people in our church are unchurched who have been touched through one of our bridge events.
We do a combo block/back to school party. It includes live music (80%secular 20% Christian) food and events for the children.
We aren’t trying to lead them to the Lord (YET) we just want to become part of their lives, which in turn opens door for sharing the gospel.
Good article. Reminds me of some other influences recently Tim Chester/Steve Timmis and Frank Viola’s work. The total church conference recently done at Kaleo (audios are on the web) addresses this topic very well. It is not either or… it is both… If a ‘church’ is going to be missional, then I believe they need to get away from the ‘come and see’ and remember the ’see and go’ or as we call it at Oasis…. drink and go… investing in people without an agenda other than to participate in God’s plan to move onto the next step takes time. I am not talking about friendship evangelism, I am talking about intentional gospel-centered evangelism.
Makes perfect sense (now here is the “but”) What if the congregation isn’t willing to re-engage? I see many churches close their doors in my denomination each year because they won’t, can’t, or say they don’t have the “right” pastor (leadership) to do so. Sounds like leadership from within the church (laity) needs to embrace the Holy Spirit’s leading?
@Don
Thanks for sharing what your church does. Building relational bridges are still important for attractional models as well as churches working the missional culture. I think healthy churches need both.
@Derek
Thanks for pointing out the both/and. I’ve been reading The Tangible kingdom and it contains many of these same themes. Currently planting a church from scratch and working the missional angle as we are still small.
@elliot
I’ve seen congregations that won’t re-engage. I’ve seen Pastors try to lead, but they don’t want to follow — one party eventually leaves. I’ve seen pastors work to help bring the grumblers along, but Crandalls work shows that after the pastor leaves, the church stumbles again.
Thanks all for sharing your thoughts. Keep it up . .
Great post!
So the church used an “attractional” to get to “missional!” Common sense tells me making it attractional VERSUS missional, or making them mutually exclusive is wrong. It’s not an either/or, it’s both/and…
I’m not at all surprised to see that churches that really are engaging their communities and reaching people for Christ are doing some of both.