The debate continues. For the last two weeks, opinions have been fast and furious on the definition and validity of “missional” churches. It all began with Dan Kimball’s post about 

Alan Hirsch considers himself a "missional activist".  This article from LeadershipJournal.net is a helpful read aimed at bringing definition to what being missional really means.  I think it's a good reminder that churches that use an "attractional" weekend service are becoming less and less effective as the pace of cultural change increases.  Do you have any examples of churches that prove or disprove the theory?  Love to hear your thoughts.  Follow the link for the full article.

Defining Missional | LeadershipJournal.net.

The attractional model, which has dominated the church in the West, seeks to reach out to the culture and draw people into the church—what I call outreach and in-grab. But this model only works where no significant cultural shift is required when moving from outside to inside the church. And as Western culture has become increasingly post-Christian, the attractional model has lost its effectiveness. The West looks more like a cross-cultural missionary context in which attractional church models are self-defeating. The process of extracting people from the culture and assimilating them into the church diminishes their ability to speak to those outside. People cease to be missional and instead leave that work to the clergy.