I am a Christian with a background in well...Christian life, missions, and “seduction.” :) First of all, I think it’s important to point out that all seduction in Christendom isn’t created equally and that “religious missionaries” is as almost as broad a stroke as “irreligious atheists.” In other words, when it comes to the “cross-domain application” of the discipline of seduction, I am not of the opinion that these approaches are the right way. They just happen to be the ways that I’m sure have been observed by this community. Here they are (these are my own words—I’m sure that other more academic terminology are used by Tim Keller, Mark Driscol, John Piper, DA Carson, Matt Chandler, and the like).
Risk-based or the “Turn or Burn” Technique—It’s this approach that emphasizes the risk to not becoming a Christian—hell.
Reward-based or “Heaven Bound” Technique—It’s this approach that emphasizes the reward to becoming a Christian—heaven.
Relationship-based or “Coffee Shop” Technique—This approach tries to emphasize that you and I are both in need of a restored relationship with each other and ultimately God. This approach is often called “incarnational”
Rock-n-roll-based or “Cool Guy” Technique—This approach does much to emphasize the same as 1-3, but does so under the guise that you and I are both cool and therefore you don’t become uncool when you’re are a Christian. This approach is often called “attractional.”
There is scriptural relevance to each of these approaches and any one practitioner of any technique can be overly focused on results. Then, of course, you have to ask the question, “what are results?” or “how do you know when you’ve Jesus-ed someone to the point that they are now a God-follower?” More on the “what are results?” if you’re interested, but not now...
There is definitely generational significance with regard to which approach is more effective. For example: the post-modern, doesn’t really respond to the “I’m a sinner” idea. Since their response would be something like “sin is socio-culturally imposed ideologies and therefore isn’t a religious problem, but more one of culture and context.” Therefore #1 and #2 work less well on the post-modern than than they did on the modern or previous generations, who had to at least deal with the “problem of sin.” The post-modern is more accepting of the idea that, if God exists, then he’s been telling as story of creation-fall-restoration-redemption in mankind and through Jesus. Which of course, lends itself more toward #3.
With regard to #4, let me say that it usually “attracts” anyone who finds the church exclusionary or non-accepting. Usually, though, within a younger demographic (less than 60) only because they are methodologically “hip”—literally using rock-n-roll, rock climbing walls, and mini-circuses to attract the un-churched community.
To bring up my previous comment though, there are definite spectrums even within these four groups—both in their approach and how they themselves define efficacy?