Attractional or Missional?

Tim Keller weighs in on the attractional vs. missional church debate at David Fitch's site:

My conclusion is that --in the final analysis--neither approach to church is better at growing spiritual fruit, reaching non-believers, caring for people, and producing Christ-shaped lives. I said 'in the final analysis' because each approach to church--the smaller, organic, simple, incarnational church, and the larger, organizational, complex, attractional church--has vastly different strengths and weaknesses, limitations and capabilities. The two constants to effectiveness are: a) getting the gospel right (not moralistic or antinomian, not individualistic or collectivistic) and b) contextualizing the whole church to the culture around (not over-adapted or under-adapted.) To think that the key is in the methodology (organic/incarnational vs organizational/attractional) is a mistake that comes, I think, from a lack of experience. There are great and terrible examples of all these methods and models. All kinds are thriving and all kinds are failing.

Comments

[len]

daryl, Bill Kinnon has an extensive post discussing all this around the frame/issue of a consumer culture.. http://www.kinnon.tv/" rel="nofollow">http://www.kinnon.tv/