You know you’ve arrived when other people start attacking your philosophies and strategies in their books. Skye Jethani, the managing editor of the Leadership Journal, did just that in his recent book, The Divine Commodity. In the book, Skye goes on the attack about some things Tim and I wrote in our book, Simply Strategic Growth. Skye has never communicated with me either face-to-face or in writing, so we’ve never had the opportunity to discuss our obvious differences.
Unlike Skye, I’m still of the opinion that healthy churches are growing churches. I also believe that if we embrace some intentionality in our ministries including our worship services, we’re more likely to connect with today’s culture. At the end of the day, I believe churches should be both attractional and missional. Skye believes otherwise. Here’s what he wrote:
These pastors, representative of so many contemporary Christians, believe that God changes lives through the commodification and consumption of experiences. If our worship gatherings are energetic, stimulating, and exciting enough then people will attend, receive what’s being communicated, and be spiritually transformed. The justification for this approach is simple: people won’t come to a church that’s boring. And what qualifies as boring is defined by our consumer/experience economy. But the moment we believe transformation occurs via external experiences, the emphasis of ministry must adjust accordingly. Manufacturing experiences and meticulously controlling staged environments become the means for advancing Christ’s mission. And the role of the pastor, once imagined as a shepherd tending a flock, now conjures images of a circus ringmaster shouting, “Come one, come all, to the greatest show on earth!” In Consumer Christianity, the shepherd becomes a showman. (p.75)
I’m intrigued by this position. Let’s assume for a moment that we agree with what Skye offers. How should we respond? Should we intentionally offer worship gatherings that are dull and boring so no one wants to participate? Should we just show up for worship without preparation? Do we start offering teaching and music and other elements of worship that reflect less than our best effort so that people aren’t attracted to the experience? Does this suggest that if someone is a gifted communicator or vocalist that we shouldn’t allow them to share their gifts in worship because people may want to invite their friends to come experience the gathering? If our worship starts to attract people, should we make it less engaging so people will stop inviting their friends and family and our worship gatherings will stay smaller? Does God want fewer people in worship?
I also think it’s a bit of a stretch to judge the methods of other churches based solely on their worship gatherings. I don’t know of a single church that relies solely on worship gatherings for spiritual transformation. Typically spiritual transformation is encouraged through several next steps including relational connections, Bible studies, serving opportunities, missions, spiritual disciplines, personal evangelism, etc. I’m intrigued with this notion that worship gatherings are the end-all-be-all to spiritual transformation. If, indeed, there are such churches, I might agree with Skye’s thesis.
My guess is there may be some misunderstanding of my interpretation of Skye’s thinking. And, of course, that happens when you begin to pull elements of someone’s writing out of context and arrive at conclusions without engaging a dialogue.
Skye, maybe we should do that.
__________
fyi… The publisher sent me a free copy of Skye’s book to review several months ago. You can send me free stuff, but I’m always going to shoot straight with my readers.
Great post… We’ve been in a similar discussion. I’m advocating a planned out, prepared for service that gives people something worth attending, others view that as “putting God in a box” and “putting on a show.”
I’m always intrigued by positions such as Skye’s because I’m confused as to what they assume the alternative should be.
Excellent questions.
Great post!! I believe if an author uses another authors material to validate his/her point then the opposing author should at least make an attempt to communicate with the original author.
Great post. I’ve been trying to figure out the missional/consumerist/mega-church thing for a while. Many of the missional church advocates like Skye (and he’s not alone there’s a lot!) that write on consumerist approaches to church generally don’t answer the question of why numerical growth doesn’t occur in most of those ‘missional’ communities. It’s a bit ironic. Dan Kimball wrote a great article on this (I think it was in Christianity Today).
It has been a helpful critique for me to keep thinking, is this leading to discipleship or am I just trying to fill seats. No doubt the two can align in our culture though! I think what Skye and others would want is to do away with large worship gatherings and form networks of smaller communities that are more focused on living worship through mission, as opposed to large gatherings focused on musical worship. Alan Hirsch is a great resource on forming missional communities.
Personally though, I side with a both/and approach. Missional communities with an emphasis on large, emotional worship. Why not have the best of both worlds so long as it is Christ-centered worship.
Thanks for the post!
Tony,
I fail to see where Skye (at least from this quote) advocates “boring” or “dull” services. I think he’s arguing that environment alone won’t bring, win, change, or keep people, though if you took a survey of popular internet Christendom it wouldn’t be hard to come to that conclusion in our CAPS LOCK world.
Two years ago I visited a mainline church for an Ash Wednesday service, and the following words could not be used to describe the service: energetic, exciting, engaging. However you could use these words: holy, reverent, reflective, introspective, peaceful, spiritual.
I think (again, from the quote and not any other reading) Skye’s trying to warn us against a confidence in best practices and production over anything else.
Maybe there was more in the book to backup your other thoughts, but it doesn’t seem the quote you showed correlated to a dull, unplanned service being advocated.
I happen to have the same opinion as expressed as Skye in the quote (have not read his book). What I don’t understand is why being ‘attractional’ has become such a big component of contemporary Christianity.
Two year olds see through wrapping paper in seconds so why do we bother putting the majority of our budgets towards it? If the North American church put it’s building budgets towards feeding the hungry and clothing the poor wouldn’t we be attractional rather than having campus’ looking like BMW dealerships – looking, sounding and smelling attractional.
To me attractional as a goal is compounding our challenge against a consumer driven church. Akin to watching football and falling asleep on the couch, rather than playing the game.
To answer your questions? – try this one Sunday. Shut the doors and tell your congregants to stop watching church and be the church.
Hey Tony…I love reading your blog and have never commented before. I agree with most everything you have written here, but everything in me wishes you would have talked to Skye before writing a post about him/his post.
Hey Tony,
keep saying the stuff that you’re saying!!
you’re inspiring more people than you realize!!
keep bringing the heat!!
I am struggling to see why doing every possible thing we can do to attract a crowd to be able to present the Gospel to more people is considered a bad thing. That really doesn’t make much sense to me. If having high-quality worship services that attract the unchurch will get them in the door to be able to hear the message of Jesus Christ then why would we forfeit that for anything else? Can’t attractional worship services be a part (not the entirety) of a healthy church’s strategy? Going ‘missional’ is not the answer to all the church’s problems in America. Jesus was both missional and attractional–why can’t the church be that same way without so many negative critics?
“I also think it?s a bit of a stretch to judge the methods of other churches based solely on their worship gatherings….”
- Amen.
Hi Tony,
Please keep saying what you’re saying.Its encouraging to hear that the church body is involved in these discussions.And that is my point, the comments and criticisms are coming from “churched” people who are or prayerfully saved and know ministry.lol. This astounds me that after knowing what it is to have testimony in the church those criticisms arent left for the “unchurched”. Has anyone surveyed them and asked them that if they were invited to a dull service would they listen or stay? Offering an attractive, talent rich worship service in order to attract the unchurched is just what we need to do, its necessary! I think that those traditionalists out there are basing their negativity towards innovation on THEIR personal experience of salvation. Because they didn’t need the “hype” they feel like no one else should. Times change, methods change. Not to sound pious but I as part of the existing body i shouldn’t be a consumer, I should be a provider to those who aren’t consumers yet. If we are gonna call it consumerism.isn’t that what we are called to? Instead of consuming, giving our time and talent away?
That being said, we are competing against the MTV generation and techno media rich society these days. If we don’t attract them they will.What this is, is smart ministry.We should be free and secure enough as ministers that we can Change the method never the message! Thanks again Tony!
Your response comes off a bit defensive and I say that as an admirer of your blog and ministry. I do think you have misinterpreted what Skye was attempting to say. I also think it is both but at the same time neither.
Let me explain briefly. Emergent, classical, traditional, missional, mega are in for the ride of their lives. I have been wrestling with the issue of authentic worship/church, the quest for it, Christ’s perspective of our interpretation, etc. I agree that worship is integral to church however it IS “the hook” more often than not (right or wrong). I just wonder if the twenty-first century holds something completely unheard of when it comes to spreading the gospel. What if we stepped back, unchurched, gained perspective and let the Holy Spirit lead in a whole new way. What could the future church do to radically draw people to Christ?
I have not read your book, nor the book being quoted. I was directed to this blog posting by a friend. But from what little I have read, I completely and wholeheartedly agree with the Skye’s quote.
We don’t want dull and boring, but we don’t want superficial shows of extravagance. The unchurched see through this professional consumerism for what it is. It is an appeal to the senses not to the heart.
We don’t want external experiences. We want genuine internal experiences. We want changes of heart, not “two thumbs up” from Ebert & Roeper.
Healthy churches are growing churches. I agree. But growing churches are not necessarily healthy churches. Hybells said as much a couple years ago about the mistakes his team made at Willow creek. We don’t have balance sheets, we have churches. Churches should be communities 1st, and professional glitzy shows last. Shows and music and hip videos and such are just window dressing; wrapping paper as a commenter above has put it.
So, bringing people in the door is not the goal. Churches need to foster spiritual growth** in their congregants. This spiritual growth will then cause these congregants to attract others by the lives they live and by the message that they have.
It’s interesting to note that the early church in the book of Acts did not deem its mission to be attractional (see Acts 2:42, “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”). Evangelism and attracting people is an individual believer’s function and job. The individual should be attractional.
**by spiritual growth, I mean a community that becomes more like their savior. Col 1:9-10 For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God,
We want communities that are healthy, that are growing as believers, not hipsters; we want thinking Christians, not merely butts to fill our theater style seating.
I don’t care for the “show” of a church service. I’m impressed by it, but it rarely results in life change. So, I agree with Skye.
However, I do not think worshipful is synonymous with boring. There’s no reason the church cannot be attractional and missional. And I’d argue that there’s a big difference between a church service and a church. So, I agree with Tony.
That should clear things up. :)
This may not be a very popular comment and I’ll say up front that I am a member of our church staff team (administrative). Normally I would jump to your defense and agree that if you bother to do something it had better be all out. I do feel that way. God deserves our very, very best no matter what.
I think churches should be culturaly relevant and that may or may not include catering to a consumer mentality. But what I think we most often forget is that our once or twice a week gatherings are not the main attraction. These meetings are creations of man. Don’t get me wrong, they have their place and purpose, but the church is the church 24/7 – not just when they are in a corporate gathering.
Being the church on a daily basis will do more to further the Kingdom of God than bells and whistles on a Sunday morning production andy day. We must be careful of how we invest our time and resources as we strive to be faithful stewards of what God provides for us.
What the missional church needs to be worried about is riding the wave of the corporate justice movement.
To quote Joel Houston from his justice breakout at Passion 2010. He said “Right Now Justice is Sexy”
I think many are turning to the missional movement because “its sexy” It is almost reminiscent of starbucks…
I agree with MIchael -”There’s no reason the church cannot be attractional and missional.”
First we should define dull and boring.
Second we should understand why one is drawn to something not dull and boring.
For us, we’ve started attending an Anglican church. The choir and organ are in the back balcony, so you only hear them. When singing, you stare at the altar, anticipating the coming confession and Eucharist.
It is the least dull and boring Sunday gathering I have ever experienced. It is sacred, holy, reverent, and focused.
oopsss…one more thing. i really have to say (in my very knowledgeable opinion!) i dont think god cares if our worship is dull. i think he simply cares that we worship in spirit and truth.
dull is subjective, entertainment should not be a goal. consumption should not be modeled. humility, excellence, talent, praise – yes.
frick. UNknowledgeable opinion. darn spell checker fixed it when I didn’t want it to be fixed.
ok, anne, that was funny.
Could it be that different churches are called to reach different audiences?
A traditional church glorifies God by reverent worship and sound Biblical teaching. Although some who visit this church would see it as boring, others would see evidence of a holy God that they want to meet.
Another church magnifies God by putting great resources into presentation the gospel in creative ways. They reach the MTV generation by communicating using their language, including lights, video, etc. Some people would view this church as superficial and just a show, but did they stay long enough to see life-change taking place?
I can appreciate both points of view and hope all churches do their best to fulfill their calling.
Enough of the attractional or missional debate! It is and always has been BOTH. My guess is that it will be both for the future church. Mark’s gospel is full of exciting and attractional stuff. I don’t think 5,000 men were captured by a dull message or a lame miracle such as feeding all those folks with the equivalent of 3rd grade brown bag lunch.
Tony, I read the blurb posted. I love both of you gentlemen and the heart that each of you have for God’s people. I guess I fall somewhere in the middle. I posted on someone else’s blog a horrific experience I endured at a church right after I had rededicated my life to Jesus in late 1994. The church had all the liturgy, knew all the invocations, and could tell you every high holiday on the Christian calendar.
But it was as dead as the toupee on Burt Reynold’s dome. It was so boring that I would cry after service. I complained to my youth pastor about it. I raised my voice. Because of that experience, I vowed never to serve at or belong to a frozen chosen fellowship under circumstance.
On the other hand, I belonged to a church that had every part of the service rehearsed. Were there times when I thought it was a bit much? Yes. But I judge the quality and effectiveness of a ministry by three things:
1.) Are we allowing the Holy Spirit to engage people through the call He has on our local fellowship?
2.) Are we making disciples and providing grace space for those who do not know Jesus?
3.) Are we married to our “methods” instead of the Master?
As long as leaders are about these things, I have no issue. And even if I do, I would understand that not every local fellowship will look the same. But they had better have the same mission because Jesus didn’t found the Church using Whiteboard, Exponential, Leadership Summit or the Purpose Driven model. He founded it on His very life. And I know His life is your passion. Hang in there, brotha!
Sorry for the wordiness. Too much coffee.
Nobody wants dull and boring, but I think it would be fair to ask a couple of questions:
1. Can you have non dull and boring worship without paying band members
2. Can you have non dull and boring worship without plasma screens. lasers, and smoke
3. Can you have non dull and boring worship without tv’s with countdown clocks mapping a service to an exact time?
I could keep going and going. Production doesn’t guarantee and energy, and energy doesn’t guarantee sincerity.
The day that Jesus turned a small meal into food for 5,000 had to have been exciting day for all the followers, I’m sure it was attractional, and I’m sure it was faith lifting. Following Christ should be exciting and passionate. The only difference is that Jesus didn’t do it on Friend Day at 3 different location across town, and 2 video venues.
If your relationship with Christ is dull and boring than you don’t know him. But just because you want to attend church because it is exciting doesn’t mean you do know him.
Hey Tony, so much for that boring blog huh?
Hi Tony,
I have read all your books and I have read many of the missional books as well, and honestly, coming from Czech Republic, the most atheistic country right now, I wish I have these problems that are outlined in the hot discussion on the contemporary church :-)
It seems to me that the whole movement against the “attractional” megachurches comes only from an environment where you have actually growing megachurches that attracts people. I would say to the critics of these churches who desire to have only small communities of real minded and hearted believers, to move here to Czech, we have plenty of them here.
But we would wish to see at least some of these attractional megachurches here that could attract the millions of our ateistic friends.
Anyway, your books have been a great resource of ideas to me as I try to build the church in my unChristian reality.
I didn’t think that the church was an event or a place…and the attractor is the Holy Spirit…am I reading the wrong Bible? Wow, we really are overly focused on our Sunday morning christianity
“I don’t know of a single church that relies solely on worship gatherings for spiritual transformation.”
If this is true then why the constant score keeping of souls that have come to Christ the night of or day after a worship gathering.
love the folks that are embracing the both/and parts of this conversation. that’s why i think it’s dangerous to judge a ministry solely on their Sunday services. so much of ministry happens in relationships, in serving, in the community and in our time alone with God.
if you believe all spiritual transformation has to happen on Sunday morning, i can see why someone might get nit-picky about “how” churches worship. again, i can’t name a single church that only uses Sunday services to help people take steps in their faith.
eddie, i agree with you. worship is only one component of a healthy church…but it is a component; otherwise, we wouldn’t see instructions in Scripture like in I Corinthians 14 about worship gatherings with both believers and unbelievers.
john, through your filter it’s “score keeping,” but through my filter it’s celebrating life change similar to Acts 2:41, Acts 4:4, Acts 5:14, Acts 6:7, Acts 9:31, Acts 12:24 and Acts 16:5. of course, you may only be focused on the salvation numbers while i’m also focused on other measures of heart changes similar to what i outlined in this post:
http://tonymorganlive.com/2010/01/03/west-ridge-church-highlights/
btw… there’s one other key distinction between Skye and me on this topic, but i’ll save that for later in the conversation.
this is a fun dialogue.
Tony:
Great blog – I had a wonderful chat about it with Rodney Hunt at Westridge. My wife and I had a VERY extended chat last night as well. We played a game – what church services were memorable to us in the 35+ years of attending? Quite a conversation starter. Here is what I told Rodney… he told me to throw this at you as well….
wow…Glenda and I just read out loud all the responses to this blog entry of Tony’s. Have to say, based on the quotes mentioned, I am in Skye’s corner on this one (based on the quote – I have not read any of his stuff). The most life-changing services I have ever been in – and Glenda and I reminisced about so many of them – the ones that impacted me the most were the most non-exciting, non-energetic services (as defined in this blog post).
Hands down the service that changed me the most apart from the day I was saved, was a Lutheran liturgical service. It was dull (again – according to the subject as discussed here (music was an organ and someone singing a solo, old hymns and a liturgy) to the nth degree. But the liturgy centered on “the just shall live by faith”, and in the dull and boring reading and response of that service I caught a glimpse of grace – my breath was taken away. And of all the exciting church services I have attended – most of my Christian life that’s the kind of services I attended (Westridge-style, Northpoint, Giglio type of services… lots of Multimedia happening, GREAT presentations etc)- I STILL remember that 1980 Lutheran service. I can still tell you about it… That’s just me. Personally I have preferred the dynamic multimedia rich services, but I wonder why they don’t stick with me. Tony – this is a good discussion.
Regards,
Paige
This is right in line with the premise of a book I just finished entitle “The Trellis and the Vine”. The spoken work during our weekend worship experience is important…it is only a very small part of evangelism…i.e. Church Growth.
This of it this way:
It’s like a doctor thinking to himself, “Seeing each of my patients individually and diagnosing their illnesses is just too difficult and time consuming. Instead, I’m going to get all my patients to assemble together each week, and I’ll give them all the same medicine. I’ll vary the medicine a bit from week to week, and it will at least do everybody some good. And it’s more efficient and manageable that way.”
I am sure that none of us would want to see that kind of doctor, but yet we approach evangelizing and discipleship in our churches using that approach….seem backwards to me. So to think that the weekend worship experience is the end-all to our evangelism, discipleship, gospel growth regimen seems short sighted
Food for thought…good discussion
Tony,
I just have to look at the list of individuals that endorse Skye’s book and I put it down immediately. Not because I don’t like some aspects of the Emergent Church, but their lack of belief in the inerrant scriptures is not something that I want to have filter through my blood or my congregation…
If Skye is going to shoot down the “Contemporary Worship” and preparation that takes place and deems it “entertainment”….then he should look at the last Passion Conf. that just took place in ATL this past weekend and see that the entire “Experience” motivated people to think outside their own skin, look for opportunities to serve and give….and ultimately raised 1.4 Million dollars for many International Missional Causes. Oh..and these were broke College Kids. I say this, College kids won’t give up their CASH (after paying $200 per ticket) without the Holy Spirit moving mightily in their presence.
In a nutshell, your book with Tim and Skye’s book don’t run in the same circles…they may cross paths every once in a while, but really they don’t mix well.
You’re right Tony, I’m sure there’s more to the conversation, but I have long agreed with what you are saying. I’ve been around long enough to see words like missional, community, incarnational, justice, etc come and go and come and go again. Well, they are back and yet the church has all this time remained the church. No doubt we should be out in the community taking Jesus to real people in coffee shops, but eventually a point of gathering is needed. Like a family meets for dinner, so the community gathers for worship. And what’s for dinner matters!
This is great publicity for Skye’s book, is it not?
[...] by donknoup on January 10, 2010 Check out this post from Tony Morgan as he comments on a book by Skye Jethani. In my opinion church should definitely NOT [...]
Not only that I thought this was supposed to be a “boring” blog, don’t call out other ministries, ministers.
joey, actually, i highly recommend folks buy and read Skye’s book. i think we can learn a lot from people who think differently, don’t you?
Wow!
Talk about a conversation starter.
Not coming from a churched background I celebrate Tony’s (& Tims) books. They speak in a language that I understand. Unlike many Christian Leaders. Thanks Tony (& Tim) for your influence down under in Australia. Our church staff have read your books. Keep writing!
I think as long as the message remains the same, the methods can change.
We have to get away from “Missional” = all that is good with the church and “Mega” = consumerist church. It can never be that simple.
If all that is attracting people is the glitz, then Syke is right. However, I think the Holy Spirit uses many and varied methods, channels, and means to draw people to Jesus. While I have my personal preferences about worship style and methods, the only thing that matters in the long run is whether people are hearing and responding to the Gospel.
If people leave any worship experience unchanged, something is wrong with the worship experience; something has stifled and interfered with the Holy Spirit. That something could be lights and smoke, or it could be deadly dull people going through the motions.
I don’t think we have the ability to prevent God from moving. He may choose to use or not use any given church body, and His choice is going to be based on the people involved. If they are sold out to His purpose and listening to His specific call to their church, lives are going to be changed and hell will be denied market share, regardless of their worship style.
I would agree with Anne that “dull & boring” is subjective. Our church is part of a conservative and traditional denomination. One where the typical worship would by some be considered “dull & boring” At our church do do more modern worship. No organ. No choir. Full band. We worship in what used to be an IMAX theatre so our building looks nothing like a church. But, when I have conversations with people about what they like about our church and why they come back it has little to do with worship style. The top 3 things on their list are usually I feel at home here – I’m accepted as a sinner and offered grace; there is a sense of family and community, & I hear a message that is strong and Biblical. Further down the line will fall music style or the screen. But the message and the relationships are what keep them coming back. After all, there are other churches in town who have “more entertaining” worship with bigger productions.
My point? I think we put too much emphasis on worship style. Let’s do the style we do well that God may be glorified and make room for multiple styles to reach multiple types of people.
P.S. – Here is a post from Skye related to this
http://www.skyejethani.com/what-should-worship-look-like/552/
Tony,
I wonder about our attention and focus. It seems that all agree Sunday mornings aren’t the end goal. However, I wonder how much of our time and energy is used in planning the Sunday morning compared to the other aspects of spiritual transformation? What does this say about how we value Sunday mornings vs. the other programs that foster growth?
For some strange reason I ran across this blog AND this skye guy’s blog… only after re-reading this blog again did I realize they were connected.
I’ve never read either book, but I initially thought your post was a bit unfair and it seemed like a tit for tat argument…
I just don’t see why Skye would be arguing for a ‘dull’ worship service when, in the quote you provided, he expressed his concern for “Manufacturing experiences and meticulously controlling staged environments”. And after reading Skyes explaination I find myself understanding his reasoning better than presented at this blog.
but I do agree that this is an interesting conversation
I view the worship service of my church (pastoral staff), through the lens of how it impacts others.
My personal preference for is Pentecostal / charismatic songs from the mid 70′s to mid 80′s.
Why, they resonate within me. But I reserve those songs for private worship. My private preferences are irrelevant for public worship. I gladly worship any way that connects with people today.
I refuse to condemn people to a Christless life and eternity due to selfishness. If the worship experience I attend doesn’t actually move people towards relationship with God then its selfish no matter how meaningful it is.
I consider myself to be intelligent and thoughtful and have had many moving experiences intellectually and emotionally through traditional expressions of worship. But church isn’t about me it’s about drawing other people to Jesus.
“joey, actually, i highly recommend folks buy and read Skye’s book. i think we can learn a lot from people who think differently, don’t you?”
Yes, Tony, so much so that I just ordered his book on Amazon.
I couldn’t be happier that this was the first TOny Morgan Live Blog I read. I agree completely too!