Isn't Dan missing the core idea of "attractional / extractional" when he equates it with the idea of being "attractive"? I think everyone agrees that the gospel is the best news anyone has ever heard.. It's definitely attractive. But doesn't "attractional / extractional" refer more to the idea of cultural distance?

Hi PK -

What I was trying to say, is that we are using terms lately like "attractional" that were used to say that if we have an "attractive" worship gathering or event people will come into our world. That isn't the case today, where people aren't as interested in coming to a church meeting... so we are living missional lives.

But was I was trying to stress, was that our lives (Jesus in us) would be the "attraction" and the Spirit moving through us to draw people to be interested in Jesus. If our lives were immersed in other people's lives outside of the church and we were demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit, perhaps more people would be "attracted" to explore what it means to follow Jesus.

And at the same time, in every person I have known that has become a Christian in our church - there was the eventual invitation to the larger worship gatherings. So at that time, I hope we aren't embarrassed by what we do in terms our worship gatherings are, the teaching etc.

I am wondering if we go so "anti-attractional" that it can become an excuse for more passive evangelism and I still believe people want to be in a larger community. Our church is made up of many 20-somethings and I have been to so many churches who have have hundreds and even thousands of 20-somethings who were not Christians before and the church gatherings have music, preaching etc. So I am not seeing that post-Christians won't become part of a small or large church gathering, after they have trust built from people being in their world. But eventually they do become part of a larger Christian community and worship gatherings.

Hope this makes sense...