This could really backfire on me.
I created a chart recently to include in our handout for Element's Vision Night that was meant to aid me as I unpacked what it meant for our community to be missional. One intrinsic problems with creating a contrast like this is that it can communicate an "us vs. them" sentiment, which is not really what I had in mind (honestly). It can also communicate Element's ministry philosophy and practice as merely a reaction to another form, and while we do find ourselves in rebellion to some aspects of "cultural Christianity," Element doesn't exist to be what other churches are not.
This is a revised version of the chart. The original was less "nice," and after running it by some pastor friends of mine, and having them confirm my already existing unease with the one-sidedness, I was encouraged to make it more evenhanded.
There are a few more disclaimers I could add, but I'll only offer one more. I've done the attractional worship paradigm for fifteen years, as a staff member, as a church member, and as an apologist/proponent. I get it. And while I no longer think the attractional paradigm as typically implemented is sufficiently biblical (or even successful), I know those who work it have the best of motives (and even some verses). I don't offer this contrast as a "bad vs. good."
Also, the missional paradigm I'm presenting here represents a specific stream of worship models within the missional movement. This is essentially what missional means for Element; it isn't meant to illustrate the broad spectrum of missional ecclesiology.
So here it is . . .
If anyone would like, I would be happy to elucidate what is meant by any of these contrasts (or illustrate them as pertains to Element) in the comments.