Are We Attractional or Relational?
For years, I have used and loved my PC, but back in my seminary days, the school provided me with a new MAC. As you may know, the two computer systems are similar but differ significantly—and the difference between the two was frustrating me. I am an older, pleated-pants kind of guy and was tempted to give my MAC to someone else. I was sure a young, creative person would treasure it.
Just as the PC and MAC operate similar but different systems, similarly, congregations typically employ one of two models or ‘systems’ in their efforts to seek and save the lost. For the sake of this conversation, I label them “attractional” and “relational.”
The attractional model hopes to attract people to Christ through programs, such as a Sunday morning service. Once inside the doors of the church, the church invites its guests to take additional steps in their journeys. This model is especially popular in program-driven, “seeker-sensitive” congregations with weekly attendance of over 300.
The relational model hopes that its members will attract people to Christ through genuine relationships with unchurched individuals in the community. From the strength of these relationships, non-Christians are invited to take additional steps in their journeys. The initial steps often take place outside of the Sunday morning service. They take the form of small group studies, service projects, and interest groups. You will find this approach advocated by both small, established congregations and by small but new “missional” congregations.
While it is not uncommon for proponents of either model to get into a “rockem-sockem” boxing match, both models share many admirable qualities. Both share a commitment to follow the example of Christ by seeking to save the lost by leading people to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Both share a measure of the other: the attractional has a relational component, and the relational has an attractional component. Both speak to the inner need of humanity to find harmony and hope for life in the Creator. Both have been used by the Lord to make disciples. Both resist the temptation to become inwardly focused. Finally, both must work hard at being honest with seekers: following Christ is not always attractive, nor is it easy on relationships.
While the attractional and relational models may share those similarities, they differ significantly:
The attractional model is campus-based, while the relational model is community-based.
The attractional model leads to relationships, while the relationship model is built on relationships.
The attractional model works better for large congregations with an extensive menu of opportunities, while the relational model works better for small congregations whose members are active in the community.
The attractional model can lead to consumerism and the relational model to navel-gazing. With the attractional model, for example, we go to church much like we go to a restaurant: to be served and to consume. With the relational model, in contrast, we go to church much like we go to a country club: to hang out with people we know, only to become so infatuated with our relationships that we don’t invite others into our close-knit circle.
The attractional church tends to operate like a business, while the relational functions like a family. Correspondingly, the lead pastor of the attractional tends to function like a CEO, while that of the relational church tends to function like a shepherd.
The attractional model was very popular towards the end of the 20th century (as in the mega-church movement), and the relational model appears to be the popular model in the early decades of the 21st century; it gained momentum during and since the COVID pandemic.
Surely, my list of differences between the attractional and relational models offers broad generalizations to which there will be exceptions. Overall, however, I think you will find the list representative of the tendencies of each approach. But why is this important?
First, your preferred model for ministry represents a congregational value. As such, it holds great power to shape the ministry of your congregation. If we embrace an attractional model, we will minister in one way. If we embrace a relational model, we will minister to another. For example, a large attractional congregation will discover the need to move people from attenders to members, to servants. In response, they may develop an internally focused small-group ministry. In contrast, a small relational congregation will discover the need to develop strategies that move people, with their tight-knit relationships, from the sanctuary to the community.
Second, by failing to recognize the difference between the two models, congregations will fail to develop effective strategies for fulfilling their mission. For example, a small and older congregation of 50-100 people (which by nature is relational) will most likely fail to impact the community for Christ through an attractional model. This type of congregation simply doesn’t have the resources to out-attract the large congregations in the area. Yet, many small and older congregations believe the key to their futures is attractive programs. So, they launch a program and six months later shut it down. A better strategy is one that doubles down on the relationships members have with the unchurched in the community.
Third, the preferred model for ministry will influence a congregation’s response to numerical growth. In the best-case scenario, a congregation that has embraced the attractional model will respond to numerical growth with more services, additional staff, and new construction. A congregation that has embraced a relational model will respond to numerical growth by planting a new congregation, one that also embraces the relational model. In the worst-case scenario, the attractive model church welcomes numerical growth by any means possible, and the relational model resists growth because it strains relationships.
Like mid-sized businesses and schools, those in mid-sized churches struggle to identify strategies to make more and better disciples. They often default to providing attractive programs for children and youth while, at the same time, developing initiatives for their adults, which invite them to engage with the community. The challenge these churches typically face is finding volunteers for the former and willing participants for the latter. One remedy is for congregational leaders to recognize that attractive church-based programs require excellent managers with the gifts of encouragement and shepherding. Excellent community-based programs require adults with gifts of evangelism and networking; they are entrepreneurial. The APEST Assessment helps leaders discover adults in the congregation for each strategy.
Where do we go from here? First, recognize that most communities will have a large, attractive church, and every community will have numerous relational congregations whose weekly worship attendance is under 150 people. Second, recognize that both may prioritize the mission of the church to make more and better disciples. One is not better than the other; they are simply different. Finally, answer this question: “Are we attractional or relational?” Then develop strategies for making disciples consistent with that answer.
