Developing missional churches is one of the great challenges facing modern church leaders who live in a consumerist world system.

By missional I mean prioritizing the pursuit of the Great Commission, Jesus’ marching orders to the church. This article will address two of the major obstacles to achieving this missional goal.

Tension #1: Attractional vs. Equipping

In the United States, we live in a pronounced consumer culture, in which people are trained from an early age to view life from a “what’s in it for me” vantage point.

This consumerist mindset has infected the church, too, resulting in many people having rather shallow reasons for attending or not attending a local church.

The culture has molded our people to look for a church that provides the most return on their investment, which is often measured by how a particular church blesses them personally. Unfortunately, because we are mostly selfish in our orientation, we gravitate toward those churches that are attractive, comfortable, and impressive. To put it another way, people will “shop” churches to find the one that offers the best programs, facilities, worship experience, preaching, and other benefits, such as being a place to network with other successful people in the area. Not surprisingly such a search often leads consumer Christians to the biggest and most successful churches in the area. This is to be expected because the church growth movement that began in the 1980s taught leaders how to market their churches to the masses. This leads us to a very important point that has proved to be a disaster in many cases.

Churches that want to attract Christian consumers must choose to provide the things for which people are shopping.

Consumers need to be attracted, which has led to the development of the attractional model of doing church. This way of operating tries to present the very best Sunday service possible in order to attract the largest number of seekers and church shoppers, as well as provide a great experience for its members in order to retain them. The disastrous aspect of this model is that many leaders have compromised the gospel to “keep ’em coming.”

In stark contrast, Jesus taught his disciples that they must be willing to lose everything for his sake, which is a direct attack on consumerism.

So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:33 (ESV)  

The opposite of the consumerist church is the disciple making church, which prioritizes training and equipping its members to do the work of the ministry.

Comparing attractional churches to equipping churches is like contrasting going to a concert with going to school. It’s pretty easy to guess which one most people will choose. Disciple making churches cannot be consumer oriented by definition. The two ways of doing things are diametrically opposed.

Strong disciples are built through teaching them self-denial for the sake of the mission, which will alienate consumers, whose purpose in life is to consume blessings for themselves.

What draws consumers will pull disciples off track.

Leaders who wish to prioritize the Great Commission will have to face the giant of consumerism and choose to turn their backs on its allure in order to make disciples.

Tension #2: Modalic vs. Sodalic

A writer named Rob Yule, from New Zealand, wrote: “A modality is the static or geographical form of the church, the church as a local or regional community. A sodality is the mobile or missional form of the church…” Another, perhaps, better way to conceive of the difference is that modality is a function of the pastoral ministry of the church to its own people; whereas, sodality is its outward (missional or apostolic) thrust toward those who do not yet know Christ. This second definition is how I use the two words in this article.

Church leaders, because of calling, gifting, training, and/or personality, usually emphasize either modality or sodality in their ministry. These two ways of seeing and practicing church seem to be in opposition to each other, creating some tension in the church world.

Jesus launched a worldwide missionary organization called the church, whose marching orders are found in the Great Commission.

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19  "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20  teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matthew 28:18-20 (NASB) 

He promised his disciples that the gates of hell would not be able to withstand its missionary advances. (Matthew 16:18) The preaching of the Gospel turned the world upside down in a very short time, as bands of early disciples, often led by apostolic (sent) ministers, went forth with the sole objective of preaching the good news of Christ’s resurrection and lordship and establishing churches whenever groups of disciples responded to the message.

But just as a conquering army must organize and consolidate its gains, the church found that tending its new converts tended to be a full-time occupation.

The Apostle Paul probably spent more time tending the newly formed churches than he did in active evangelization of unreached people. Nevertheless, he never lost his zeal for and commitment for taking the Gospel to unreached areas. (Romans 15:20) He used established churches as bases from which to launch and sustain his ongoing missionary endeavors. (Romans 15:24) In terms of a conquering military army, churches can be viewed as outposts from which greater advances can be made while maintaining conquered areas.

Both the pastoral (modalic) and the apostolic (sodalic) callings are fairly all-consuming. Paul was one of the few, it seems, who was able to keep both front and center in his life.

It is my belief that true apostles have this calling and ability. They are essentially missionaries who care deeply for and maintain a pastoral relationship of some nature with the churches they help start.

Unfortunately, however, many churches are led by pastors who may unintentionally stray from the Great Commission and settle for being modalic self-absorbed institutions. This is because it is difficult to maintain both sides of the equation – mission and pastoring.

The tension between the pastoral and apostolic calling is a second challenge in developing missional churches.

Most church leaders I know are in favor of reaching out with the Gospel to those who still do not know Christ, but fewer feel the need to devote their resources and energy toward motivating, equipping, and launching their members into the harvest field. Those who have prioritized mission are divided between using an attractional model or employing the equipping model. Which is better at making disciples? Which is better at bringing in new converts?

Two questions will be addressed in the following articles in this series.

• Should church leaders equip the entire church (modality) to become members of a Great Commission harvest team, or should the Great Commission be delegated to specialized sub-groups (sodalities) in the church?
• Should churches rely on drawing people to evangelist-led attractional meetings or focus on equipping average followers of Christ to competently penetrate their neighborhoods and relational groups with the gospel in order to make disciples?

I hope you will stay with me as I look at these two questions in the next two articles.