also – i have been struck by the simple reminder that it is for freedom we have been set free; and where the spirit of the lord is, there is freedom; though we should not use our freedom as a cover up for evil – all of which would be simply and naturally attractive…a breath of fresh air at every turn.

Great question on "attractional vs. missional" – that was next on my list. I am actually planning another post on that exact issue. I heard Alan Hirsch say that he sort of regretted coining the term, because there is a healthy "attractiveness" that ought to characterize communities of faith. So I'll talk a bit about the difference between "attractional" and "attractive."

It ends up being the same kind of thing as consumer church: it matters what we're consuming (and if that's all we're doing). In the same way, it matters what "outsiders" are being attracted to.

Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that" (Luke 22:24-25).

Like with most things, we create terms to abbreviate an enormous amount of thought. Of course, the term itself is not able to take into account everyone else's understanding, biases, and overall context and this is one of the many reasons we have 20,000 denominations in American evangelism (and as a fan of plurality, I think we may have gone a bit extreme there. So ironic that even though the last two generations that were so rooted in modernity were able to "accomplish" that" but I digress).

I agree with you, and Winn about the idea of something actually being consumed (As recent as Sunday, I talked about how we must be consumed in our worship of the Lord.) Further, I agree with Bob, that the church (the Kingdom) does need to meet people's needs If Bob is not right, how else would we account for Jesus' ministry and much of the teachings contained in our Scriptures? So no argument there.

I even like your comment here replying to Adam's helpful pushback; yes, "transactional church" vs. "gift economies" is a wonderful concept and an excellent set of terms. But to cut to the chase, I think at some point we would have a fellow blogger posting on the oversimplification of the transactional church because in some sense, the giving of our praise is a response towards God's grace is in some sense a "transaction".

All that said, it is very helpful to continue to explain what we mean we throw around the term "consumer church" as I still see that as one of the greatest threats to suburban Christianity today.

Curious to how you feel about the term "attractional" model versus the obviously overused term, "missional" model?

Essentially I was trying to say that there is a "receiving" that happens when the church gathers, so it's an over-simplification to say that we don't "come to church" to receive. We do receive. But we also give.

Perhaps a better thing to say we're against is "transactional church," where the dominant consciousness of the market causes us to calculate things in the life of the church as commodities to be obtained at the lowest possible price.

By contrast, churches ought to function as "gift economies" where the exchanges are gifts given and received that create bonds that draw us closer to one another, as opposed to transactions of goods and services that create distance, cultivate isolation, and demand independence.