As I interpreted Foster's 4 Educational Tasks, I saw the words (in #1) "vocation," (in #2) "in the world," (in #3) "mission," and (in #4) "exercise ['practice,' 76-78] of the imagination" (pp. 125-6). These are very 'outward focused,' missional terms.
For me, the both/and part comes in to view when we recognize that our responsibility is to both the world and to believers. The Great Commission commands us to "go and then to "make disciples" and then to "teach." So we must have avenues (programs!
) that help us to accomplish both these tasks. I think the key questions are "when," "where," and "how" will we accomplish these in ways that are best suited to the purpose of our mission and the program. For example, I don't necessarily think that for most churches Sunday mornings are the best time for fomal liturgy (for some churches, yes, but for most, I don't think so). It may be more educationally appropriate to accomplish liturgy in small discipleship groups (or another discipleship format) that are more intimate and more 'inward focused' - so to speak. In my experience, most people outside the church are either unaware of liturgy or unmoved by it. In this way, Sunday mornings (as a primary "open door" program for inviting/engaging newcomers) are probably not the best times for this. The task, then, as I see it is to nurture that newcomer into a group or program where liturgy can be explained properly and experienced significantly. We need to nurture and escalate people from one level of "seeing and hearing" to the next (55-61). Liturgy, as you noted, is just one example we can plug into this conversation for spiritual growth. There are certainly many others, but I view the process as similar.[Appended] When I said 'liturgy' I was thinking in a more narrow and formal sense of the term - as in 'Liturgical.' That is not the only way to think. In fact, the whole movement of a worship service is in itself a form of liturgy and teaching. The order in which we structure our services teaches people something about who we are, who God is, and what we believe about him. The content and hidden assumptions of our worship services also teaches (for good or for bad). One example, offering, begs us to evaluate what we are teaching people when we collect the offering. How can we use the offering collection as a teaching tool or meaningful experience to both the believer and the visitor? Or, should we eliminate the offering from our service altogether because it doesn't fit our mission of the Sunday morning service? Either way, however we handle the offering teaches something to people - so what do we want them to learn? (Rhetorical question).
I was never a big fan of the term 'seeker sensitive' - but I have used it just like everyone else. Again, I think we can conduct our worship services in ways that both provide the depth and richness of an encounter with God and still reach 'seekers.' In fact, the more authentic and meaningful the experience, the more likely visitors will come back. People want/need/crave authenticity and depth. They need to see people who are fully committed to their faith, who have depth of transformation in their relationship with God, and who genuinely love and care about other people. That's the best liturgy of all! Rote services do little to enliven and invigorate people. I guess our conversation has turned back to touch on elements of Foster's Flaws #'s 3-4 in the church (27-33 - especially "cultural captivity," pg. 31).