Hamo has a good post on Incarnational v Attractional Mission, which is linked by Van S and linked and discussed by Justin Baeder, following up has post, From Congregation to Aggregation Ecclesiology. His post is also duplicated at Emerging Evangelism. Hamo has some great discussion going lately, and this post with the attendant comments and related blog posts is no exception.

Still in this vein of various writings on ecclesiology, last week I found a couple of older posts, What is the church supposed to be? and A new way is emerging, which are more of an initial-stage discussion of how church ought to be different from what we’re seeing… but how should it look?

Elsewhere lately, Si Johnston blogs on “emergen-cy ecclesiologies?” After noting that the latest meme out there is categorizing views or models of church, he writes quoting Avery Dulles,

a synthesis is unhelpful and that a super-model ecclesiology doesn’t exist so don’t go looking for it. Rather, we are to ‘characterise the church as essentially a mystery, a divine self-gift, expressed and incarnated in a rich diversity of ways’.

This observation seems particularly appropriate.

Now, if you can stand to be scathed a little, there are John Frye’s comments, which include, in part:

In my opinion the USAmerican evangelical church as “salt” has exchanged it’s “saltiness” for power, for family values clout in the political arena. …What do poverty-ridden migrant workers think when a gang of evangelizing Christians show up in a caravan of SUV’s and dressed in LL Bean and tell about one Who had no home or place to sleep at night of his own? Is the medium really the message, Mr. McLuhan? Please, hear me, I’m not condemning owning SUV’s or wearing LL Bean clothing. I’m saying that the gospel can smell really good or ghastly stinky and the way we live as Christ-followers is the preservative salt.