I had a “twitter chat” with Todd Gragg a few days ago. His blog post in my opinion missed the point so I thought it would be nice to chat about it. I skimmed the post and tweeted him. He responded and you can see the short chat here:
I still think he is miss defining the word attractional for this context in his post. Attractional is a strategy that draws people into your church in order to accomplish evangelism and discipleship. Attractional in this context does not mean attractive incarnational living (living like Jesus). And, really, incarnational living is not always attractive to everyone, just to ‘the called.’
“but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:23–24, ESV)
At the same time, the number of those who follow Christ grows even under heavy persecution. The person who lives the missional incarnational life attracts those who are called. To Todd’s point, it will naturally make a church using an attractional strategy grow. But I believe that this only impacts a minority population in the American society. According to Alan Hirsch (see him describe this here on QIdeas.org) it is a large minority of about 35% to 40% and shrinking.
We should live attractive lives, clearly living like Jesus, but I do not think we should have a church strategy that is attractional or better said extractional where we extract people from their normal context and bring them into our exclusive Christian culture.
Interesting? So, read Todd’s blog post watch this video. What do you think?