In my time in the contemporary church, I’ve experienced several different ecclesiological models and have come to notice that most churches follow (perhaps unknowingly, in some situations) a very simple model  to facilitate both mission and discipleship. I have found it helpful to diagram these models for the sake of better understanding them, and am still in the process of drawing conclusions, at least in some respects. While these diagrammed models and their explanations are largely based upon my personal experience, I want to be clear that I am not criticizing any particular church; if I am critical of a certain model, I do not want people to think I am slamming the Body of Christ. I am trying to figure this out as much as anybody. So, for your consideration, I submit my three diagrams along with the insights I’ve had, in the hope that by sharing my ideas, I may benefit from the critiques and comments of others. 

1. The Linear (“Seeker-Driven”) Model

This model is by far the most common in the contemporary church today, but it is also the model I disagree with the most. Under the “seeker-driven” model, people are drawn to a weekly event (that is, a church service) through attractional “ministries” such as gourmet coffee, high quality music, and various entertaining gimmicks. The idea behind this model is to get as many people to come to a Sunday church service as possible and then try to herd them into small groups, where discipleship takes place. Thus, the mission of the church consists, for the most part, in this attractional method of marketing and promotion. Sunday services are mostly about reaching out to visitors and less about discipling the congregation; therefore it is common to hear topical sermons which are often watered-down from Scripture. This is done intentionally to make visitors feel welcome, in the hope that they may join the church and eventually plug into small groups where they will (ideally speaking) experience spiritual growth.

While this model is effective in bringing in large numbers of people, it also has many flaws, in my view:

• Spiritual growth is viewed as an assembly line, except the machinery often breaks down late in the process; this often means many churchgoers but few who are discipled.
• There is an overall view of “church” as a weekly event, rather than a community of people.
• Visitors to a service are often treated as numbers making up an audience of consumers rather than real people.
• Mission and discipleship are viewed as two separate processes which generally take place through well-orchestrated programs.
• Because of these things, church easily becomes a mere additive to a person’s life, rather than being central to all things.
• As a result, it is more difficult to stir members to participate in evangelism and discipleship; various programs, which try to fix this problem, thus become the lifeblood of the church. 

2. The Cyclical (“Missional Community”) Model

The “missional community” model, however, is a radically different alternative to the “seeker-driven” model of a church. Church is rightly viewed as a community of people rather than a mere event; Sunday services receive much less emphasis and become more like celebrations of family than altar calls. Within the larger church community, however, there are smaller “missional communities” which in many respects are microcosms of the church as a whole, being more than just small groups while still submitting to authority and leaders of the larger church (therefore remaining a little less than house churches). Thus, instead of treating people like consumers, this model treats them like neighbors and seeks to bring them into the community by means of interpersonal relationships, not bells and whistles. This requires that the members of the church take ownership of their faith and responsibility to make disciples, which may prove to be difficult. However, the idea of people reaching people is attractive. Furthermore, discipleship and mission are essentially understood to be two sides to the same process; both are accomplished by preaching the Gospel, which is the necessary curriculum both for believers (members) and unbelievers (non-members). In this way, the “missional community” model of church is cyclical in nature; as people are brought in to the community of faith by means of relationships, they also bring others into the community in the same manner, and the Gospel is preached to all as the source of spiritual growth. 

I feel like this model is pretty solid; I hesitate to say that there are “weaknesses” to it, but I do think that this model makes some things more difficult:

• The success of this model relies heavily on the church members rather than programs or systems. This means that if the community is not active in pursuing relationships and preaching the Gospel, it will become inward focused and fail to grow.
• Also, it is important to remember that society still generally sees Sunday as “church day,” and therefore we should be considerate of first-time visitors in our weekly services. 

3. The Overlapping (“Funnel”) Model

One other model which is perhaps viable is what you might call the “funnel” model, in that both weekly events (services) and small groups are designed to “funnel” new people into the church community, where discipleship takes place. This model takes a two-pronged approach and is, in some ways, a combination of the two previous models; it utilizes both attractional ministry (i.e. marketing) and relationships, although perhaps to lesser degrees than the other models. Mission and discipleship may be somewhat distinct from one another, but they are not nearly as disconnected as they would be in the “seeker-driven” model. Both occur in weekly events, as well as in small groups. You will see that I used a Venn Diagram to illustrate this. Also, like in the “missional community” model, the Gospel remains central to the discipleship process and is preached both to believers and unbelievers as the A-Z of the Christian faith. 

In many cases, I find that this model is followed by people who initially pursue the “missional community” model but (perhaps due to a lack of church growth or pressure to perform) end up only partially adopting the cyclical, “missional community” approach (they may even call their small groups “missional communities,” but they do not fully function that way; true missional communities are not an extension or ministry of the church but the very composition of the church). My question is whether or not this model is legitimate; does it achieve the best of both worlds or compromise between good and evil?

As of now, my feeling is that this third model is, in fact, legitimate; as long as the Gospel is the center of both mission and discipleship, I think it is viable. While I am not a fan of marketing, I do not think its use automatically disqualifies this way of doing things, as long as one is careful to avoid “selling out” in respect to attractional ministry. Furthermore, it seems that with this model, the health and growth of the church is less dependent upon the members of its community doing their job to evangelize, but at the same time, it is not completely rooted in programs or systems, either. This perhaps puts more stress on the leadership to disciple people, but an ample numbers of diverse leaders should be able to do the job. Then again, should the health and growth of a community not rely primarily upon its members? Does this model run the risk of hindering communal life? And is it really just trying to escape failure by putting its hope in structures and systems, or are the added structures and systems valid organizational tactics which aid in the cause of the Gospel? 

I don’t think that I would personally choose this third model over the “missional community” model, but I would much rather see churches follow this model fall victim to the seeker-driven craze. In many respects, I am still pondering all of this, and I continually find myself having more questions than answers. For this reason, I would appreciate any feedback. Feel free to alter my models, offer additional alternatives, or shoot down everything I’ve said. And in the end, may God—not any particular model for “doing church”—receive glory.