If I may venture a response to your question for Adam, as I had a similar thought to his.

No, I don't think self-sacrifice is all that attractive given the framing story of consumeristic America. But, it is incredibly attractive from inside a different framing story, namely that of the gospel, which is from where Christ calls people to follow him, or so it seems to me. I think the gospel is attractive, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. When we embody Christ's way in the world, I believe we are a living prayer that those with whom we engage would have just those ears and eyes. So the question could be not only conversion to what, but also attraction to what?

And I have to admit I'm a little puzzled. So, rather than jump in directly and try to address this head on when I admittedly don't believe I understand the dynamics or core issues, I'm going to comment tangentially from my own experience and understanding. If it doesn't seem to the rest of you to be relevant to the topic, I apologize.

The post-Christendom West is not really the same as the early (or even present-day) pagan cultures Christianity has engaged. While my formative years cannot be reduced to a sentence or two, post-Christendom is certainly one label that could validly be applied to them. And it would be difficult to find anyone formed within a post-Christendom context who does not have some awareness of Christianity. I say that to say that this does make it different from those initial forays into unevangelized 'pagan' contexts. I don't often hear that aspect raised and perhaps it should be explored a bit more than it is.

Even so, I stand with one foot still standing in the culture which formed and shaped me and another standing within the culture of the Kingdom of this strange God by which I am trying to be reshaped, and as I look at the history and nature of the Church, I'm not sure anything has substantially changed in what we ought to do and how we ought to live. (How's that for a run-on sentence? Yes, that reflects how thoughts form in my mind if I simply let the words tumble out.)

Our work when we gather is to worship God and to instantiate as much of the glory and beauty of his Kingdom, of the 'real' and 'true' reality, as we can. And as we work together to ourselves be nourished and equipped and strengthened by God. We are engaged in actively creating a 'thin place', a place where the veil between the reality of heaven and the reality of earth is scraped away. The time and place become an intersection where the heaven becomes present, the past (especially the Incarnation, Cross, and Resurrection of Jesus) becomes present, and the future (esp. what we call the 'Second Coming') rushes back to meet us. And by living together in that moment, we are shaped into the Body of Jesus, and equipped to live. Or at least, I can see no other reason given in Scripture or history.

So I'm not sure that such a meeting has ever been or even can be focused toward those who do not yet follow Jesus. Now, it is true that some may be intrigued, awed, or drawn to the beauty of our worship (which begs a question for any tradition which is not and which may intend not to be beautiful), but that is not the focus of what is happening. (I'm reminded of the stories of the impact the Hagia Sophia had on slavonic envoys once upon a time.) Nor is what is happening merely to 'feed' (a strange term I hear a lot) or equip the followers, though that is part of it. It is not merely something we receive, but part of our work in our present reality.

It is from the heart of that worship that the people of God, the body of Christ, the Church are sent out to live moment to moment in that reality. We acknowledge that we live under the rule of Jesus and obey his commands as we proclaim that he is in fact the Lord of all. I think how that looks has and will end up looking somewhat different for each of us based on who we contact in our daily lives.

If we live and work primarily among those who do at least say they agree with us that Jesus is Lord and God, then it seems we will primarily be involved, as we obey Jesus' commands, in being people who, by working out our salvation in all seriousness, are also among the tools the Spirit will use in helping others work out their own salvation.

If, on the other hand, we live and work primarily among those who do not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord, then as we obey the same commands of Jesus in the manner in which we interact with them, some will be drawn to the one we call Lord. Jesus is fascinating and the life of his followers when they obey his commands is hard to understand from any other perspective. But love — true love — is compelling. It always has been.

But I'm not sure we ever adapt to a particular context or 'contextualize' as I've heard it put. There's something about that which strikes me as horribly inauthentic and manipulative. Rather, we are always people shaped by a culture striving to be reshaped by the culture of the Kingdom of God. We don't somehow lose our formative culture because we follow Jesus. (I'm not sure that's even possible.) But our new culture begins to alter and change those parts of our old culture that don't fit in the Kingdom.

I'm not sure where in this discussion that places me. What I see and understand doesn't seem to really fit either 'side'.

Following Dan Kimball's Missional vs. Megachurch conversation

http://www.andyrowell.net/andy_rowell/2008/12/following-dan-kimballs-missional-vs-megachurch-conversation.html

lisa – I fully agree, new models of church are needed. the old structures are just easier to fall into, but they force us into paths that aren't always best.

linda – you're right – to many missional just means evangelism, or how we can get more butts in the seats instead of an entirely different perspective on what it means to be church. It is a trendy words, but it is also a reminder of much of what we have lost.

rick – thanks for the encouragement. and yes, sometimes just doing it is the best path to follow.

gary – that's story is sad. the idea of being in competition with other churches is absurd.

Mark B-W – yes – missional and emerging can mean different things, heck emerging itself means various things. And you make a good point in the distinction that Dan was challending the critiques of attractional churches. Missionals say that attractional ploys don't rightly represent the gospels, so he pointed out that attractions are growing faster and so must be better. so my response at least is – that doesn't necessarily follow. of course they grow faster, but that doesn't make them better especially if the real nature of that growth is examined.

Dianne – I think the church isn't the place for such discussions or creating us vs them camps. the church should just do. unfortunately there are going to be people pushing for numbers (the denomination) and members wondering why the church is spending so much money on servive projects and not on bells and whistle kids programs for their children. They are going to ask the pastor to "feed them more" and stop pushing them to serve. At some point the basic philosophy of church will have to be discussed.

matybigfro – fantastic analogy

Trey – the whole names and stories thing versus numbers is the tension. its convincing those with a consumer mindset of that which is proving to be difficult.

Chuck – great line "Lots of ways to drive the numbers. Not many ways to follow Jesus."

Dan – yes there is good in both and traditions (good and bad) have come out of both. I think though that dismissing churches that are serious about following christ because they aren't multiplying misses the point and harms the body of christ.

Adam – I would love that too. but do you really think that we will ever reach a point when self-sacrifice becomes attractive to the average american?