From ekklesia:
The attractional approach and the incarnational approach aren’t two complementary approaches: they are two different foundations for doing church. Incarnational churches start with the assumption that they must go to where people are at. Attractional churches may do some incarnational things, but they are ultimately trying to bring people in. You can not have a church effectively built upon both approaches
I know that it's hard for attractional churches to think in missional ways. I'm not sure yet about the above assertion. Both/and?
Incidentally, I'm meeting with some local guys to talk about how this works out in our context. We are all Fellowship pastors and trying to unpack a different model from the "come to the church to find Jesus" approach. More of the "go into the world and show them Jesus" approach.
Glendon Thompson gonna be there?
No, but I'd like to meet him one day.
I feel so left out.
Ken:
You can come if you'll put up with us! I'll tell you all about it.
The best book I have read on the subject of attractional versus incarnational church is "The Shaping of Things to Come," by Frost and Hirsh. They dig pretty deep into this subject. I found it very helpful.
That's actually the book we're studying when we get together, although I suspect they take more of a revolutionary approach than an evolutionary one. Looking forward to discussing it - it is well worth reading.
Thanks for the mention. The quote is from the Next Wave article that I link to in my post.
The author does say that it's possible for an "attractional" church to do some missional things - in fact, I believe many already do. But there is a fundamental difference between the two ways of thinking and you may come across some resistance from people wanting their particular program staffed, promoted, etc. when you shift to an incarnational/missional approach. At least that's what I think the author of the quote is alluding to in part.