Missional refers to the primary interaction of Jesus-followers with not-yet-believers to take place where they (not-yet-believers) are. The word ‘attractional’ refers to the opposite: removing churchy barriers that turn people off like pews, organ music, and ties; or providing great programatic services like children’s programs, youth groups, women’s teas and so on, so that not-yet-believers come and find Jesus. [I guess a 3d group would be 'separational' characterized by a KJV only, suit-wearing, hard-preaching fundamentalist.]

Now my own 2 cents… the apparent difference to me is the purpose/structure/liturgy of the weekly meeting. One group says come and see, this is both for us and you. The other group says this weekly service is for the formation of believers, check it out if you want.

It’s pretty rare for church leaders not to desire/expect/dream that their flock takes the gospel to the world, so that’s why I pose my description of theoritically what should take place in ‘secular’ space, but practically what takes place on Sunday morning.

I’ve been out of the loop here because of some writing and family obligations over the 4th of July holiday. Meanwhile this has been a lively debate which I have just finished reading and much of which I find compelling.
It seems that one thing to learn is just how vastly people are using the word “missional” and “attractional” for that matter. And I must admit not having the staying power to engage in these kind of debates although they most certainly are worthy. For now, with all apologies due, I have to maintain that the original synchroblog was over how the term missional could be saved from meaning everything to everyone. How we who work out of a theological defining of that term can hold on to it. How we can maintain the theological/ecclesiological girth as defined by the authors and the movement that follows in the traditions spurred by those authors.

In summary, the church of course should always be attractive … but our methods as defined by the word “attractional” need to change if we would be missional in the sense as defined above.

Peace .. I want to specifically addess Craig Carter’s question in my next post (hopefully today) — thanks Craig and good to hear from you!

So the issue becomes, What is it about “Church” that ought to be, and is, “attractional”? The obvious response ought to be: everything. That is, nothing should be “distractiional”. And because different people are genuinely distracted by different things, culturally different churches are necessary–including those reflecting differing socio-economic cultures. Of course, without the absolute non-negotiables, like mutual love and good works (not to mention the proclamation of the whole, true Gospel!), none of the other “attractions” means a thing. And don’t get me wrong–there are many churches who neglect the former and expend an inordinate amount of energy and resources on the latter. But their sin is not in pursuing “excellence”, but rather in abandoning the Gospel and its implications. Our rebuke is out of place. Correct the real issues and the others will fall in line.

It is being part of the work of God to bring the Good News of Christ to people in ways that are eternally significant.

It is of course relational because God is personal.

It is of course incarnational because Christians are called to offer the truth of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit to people in ways that develop and grow deep.

It also is attached to the mystical truth that God is worshiped in spirit and in truth, none of us can get our definitions around it.

It is also an act of obedience to Christ who commanded that we live missional lives.

Now if we want to talk about the missional brand or emergent brand or seeker brand we will be talking about something quite different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_et_lumi%C3%A8re_(show)

and craig…you addressed your comment to fitch…but the following touched a nerve:

My point, to be up front, is that the Church as a whole takes different forms in different situations. Overall, the Church must be missional, but can the Church include both cathedrals and also monastic orders? And can contemplative orders co-exist peacefully alongside missionary orders?

this touched a nerve for me becaus i’m an architect. comparing medieval cathedrals to the son et lumiere of the megachurches is like comparing marilyn monroe to bono. the men think monroe is sexy and the women think bono is handsome…but we’re talking about two very very very different folks…to the point where no one would even really think to compare them i mean to the point where they are even two different geners! yes, the gothic cathedrals and the mega-church machinery are/were both expensive, but still, its just totally different. one is well ordered icon (well ordered physically and spiritually) meant to be a door into the worship of God, and one is just a chaotic sensory overload with the intention of leading you into worship but really just conjures up a bunch of hormones (unless your are just annoyed and bored, in which case it just does nothing at all, or even makes you angry).