incarnational versus attractional
Hamo (with 1 'm') puts the case for incarnational rather than attractional church:

"The theory goes that the more professional the service is, the funkier the music, the better the coffee, and so on… the more likely the punters will come, hence the term ‘attractional’.

I would argue that this ‘attractional mission’, while effective for a few, is actually a case of putting the cart before the horse. Deciding on a form of church and then trying to make it so that people want to come is mission in reverse.

Perhaps the question we ought to ask ourselves is ‘why do we think they would want to come to church?’

Little Bo Peep evangelism (leave em alone and they’ll come home) is fast running out of steam as the Christian story ceases to be the dominant framework...

By contrast the incarnational approach to mission is refreshingly simple. It requires us to live amongst the people in our communities, love them, share the good news of the kingdom both in action and in speech and then as people become followers of Christ to form up indigenous communities of faith that reflect the specific context."

Read full post

posted by alexander @ 4:12 PM    0 comments

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

---