Attractional vs. Missional?

If you read much about missional church, you'll sometimes find it contrasted to what's called the "attractional model."  The missional church is supposed to be "incarnational" whereas the evangelical church, especially over the past 30 years or so, has tried to be "attractional," which has led to a consumerist, vendor of religious goods and services mentality.  The question that's been in my mind, and that was asked at a General Assembly Workshop a couple of years ago, is are incarnational and attractional really opposite models?  Does being missional mean being "unattractive"?  Erwin McManus has a challenging blog post on the topic: http://theimn.com/church-planting-2/the-truth-about-the-attractional-model/.  Take a look and let us know what you think.  Thanks to Fred Lian for pointing me to this post.