Comments on: The Missional Church: Video CliffsNotes http://garbcquest.org/?p=880 A Network of Young Regular Baptist Leaders Sun, 29 Apr 2012 05:22:29 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Brian http://garbcquest.org/?p=880&cpage=1#comment-881 Brian Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:23:03 +0000 http://garbcquest.org/?p=880#comment-881 Very helpful video. I appreciated it and also have appreciated much of what the "missional" churches have been saying concerning engaging the lost. The only "rub" I've had with this whole thing is a slight sense of frustration from hearing about a "total overhaul" on how we must "do church" every 5 to 10 years. I'm only 28 years old and I'm already starting to weary of the whole "forget everything you've been told - here is how you have to do it!" I'm all about churches trying new things, learning from what we have done in the past that hasn't worked and constantly evaluating their philosophy in light of scripture. However, isn't it true that what this video says essentially explains what the old "fuddy duddies" who didn't like the seeker sensitive movement have been saying all along? Perhaps the major difference is the missional church encouraging people to engage the lost instead of cloister in our church programs, schools, and social events. I suppose this is something of which we could be accused. Another question I have is, is their no merit at all to the whole invite your friends to an event model? My understanding is even the quite conservative, very non seeker-driven Metropolitan Tabernacle spends time and money on promoting various events. Should we who are "missional" throw that away all together? Is there a place for modeling cooperatively, what you hope your congregation is doing individually? Very helpful video. I appreciated it and also have appreciated much of what the “missional” churches have been saying concerning engaging the lost. The only “rub” I’ve had with this whole thing is a slight sense of frustration from hearing about a “total overhaul” on how we must “do church” every 5 to 10 years. I’m only 28 years old and I’m already starting to weary of the whole “forget everything you’ve been told – here is how you have to do it!” I’m all about churches trying new things, learning from what we have done in the past that hasn’t worked and constantly evaluating their philosophy in light of scripture. However, isn’t it true that what this video says essentially explains what the old “fuddy duddies” who didn’t like the seeker sensitive movement have been saying all along? Perhaps the major difference is the missional church encouraging people to engage the lost instead of cloister in our church programs, schools, and social events. I suppose this is something of which we could be accused. Another question I have is, is their no merit at all to the whole invite your friends to an event model? My understanding is even the quite conservative, very non seeker-driven Metropolitan Tabernacle spends time and money on promoting various events. Should we who are “missional” throw that away all together? Is there a place for modeling cooperatively, what you hope your congregation is doing individually?

]]> By: David http://garbcquest.org/?p=880&cpage=1#comment-844 David Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:45:40 +0000 http://garbcquest.org/?p=880#comment-844 Chris, That first part of the video is describing an attraction model of church growth, and it is offering an alternative that focuses on each member a missionary. I don't think it is a reaction to the pulpit driven ministries characteristic of "harder-edged, conservative Fundamentalism" as you put it, but rather a reevaluation of the seeker-sensitive and felt-needs model of church growth. I don't believe the "old fogies" as you describe them were ever known for trying to put on the best and greatest event. I think the video is pretty clearly describing a very different church than the one you are picturing. Greg posted a pretty good article on the missional church by Ed Stetzer that might prove helpful. Thanks for your interest in the site and your input on the video. David Chris,

That first part of the video is describing an attraction model of church growth, and it is offering an alternative that focuses on each member a missionary.

I don’t think it is a reaction to the pulpit driven ministries characteristic of “harder-edged, conservative Fundamentalism” as you put it, but rather a reevaluation of the seeker-sensitive and felt-needs model of church growth.

I don’t believe the “old fogies” as you describe them were ever known for trying to put on the best and greatest event. I think the video is pretty clearly describing a very different church than the one you are picturing.

Greg posted a pretty good article on the missional church by Ed Stetzer that might prove helpful.

Thanks for your interest in the site and your input on the video.

David

]]> By: Chris http://garbcquest.org/?p=880&cpage=1#comment-836 Chris Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:31:28 +0000 http://garbcquest.org/?p=880#comment-836 David, The video spends an entire minute describing how church "used to be done." The type of congregation detailed is obviously doing things wrong - i.e. not-missional. The premise of missional thinking is, at its very core, reactionary. It is a response to perceived wrongs from the past (or present, if applicable). Older techniques are ill-conceived, poorly-executed and generally inferior. That is the entire point of the video! If seeker-sensitive churches were motivating these thoughts I could gladly jump on board. However, I think many of the people singing this tune grew up within a harder-edged, conservative Fundamentalism. In it, two week tent meetings and an emphasis on the pulpit would have been common. This video portrays a reaction and simultaneous, implied criticism of someone. If it is liberal, felt-needs churches, sign me up. Otherwise, I'll stick with the old fogies. Chris David,

The video spends an entire minute describing how church “used to be done.” The type of congregation detailed is obviously doing things wrong – i.e. not-missional.

The premise of missional thinking is, at its very core, reactionary. It is a response to perceived wrongs from the past (or present, if applicable). Older techniques are ill-conceived, poorly-executed and generally inferior. That is the entire point of the video!

If seeker-sensitive churches were motivating these thoughts I could gladly jump on board. However, I think many of the people singing this tune grew up within a harder-edged, conservative Fundamentalism. In it, two week tent meetings and an emphasis on the pulpit would have been common.

This video portrays a reaction and simultaneous, implied criticism of someone. If it is liberal, felt-needs churches, sign me up. Otherwise, I’ll stick with the old fogies.

Chris

]]> By: David King http://garbcquest.org/?p=880&cpage=1#comment-823 David King Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:44:01 +0000 http://garbcquest.org/?p=880#comment-823 Greg, Thanks for that article from Ed Stetzer. That is a great article that I can use for an upcoming paper! You're the man. Greg,

Thanks for that article from Ed Stetzer. That is a great article that I can use for an upcoming paper! You’re the man.

]]> By: David King http://garbcquest.org/?p=880&cpage=1#comment-822 David King Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:40:43 +0000 http://garbcquest.org/?p=880#comment-822 Hey Chris, That video was in no way meant to fire shots at anyone, but to give a quick synopsis on what some believe "missional" means. The model they are contrasting is the attraction model that would be more seeker-sensitive and felt needs oriented, not the "crotchety" conservative churches you were standing up for. This missional idea is not anything new, but as to this video it describes a focus of the church being intentional in reaching the lostness of their community through their daily personal evangelism and not through a mere invitational, attraction model of evangelism. Thanks everyone for your comments. Hey Chris,

That video was in no way meant to fire shots at anyone, but to give a quick synopsis on what some believe “missional” means. The model they are contrasting is the attraction model that would be more seeker-sensitive and felt needs oriented, not the “crotchety” conservative churches you were standing up for.

This missional idea is not anything new, but as to this video it describes a focus of the church being intentional in reaching the lostness of their community through their daily personal evangelism and not through a mere invitational, attraction model of evangelism.

Thanks everyone for your comments.

]]> By: Joel Shaffer http://garbcquest.org/?p=880&cpage=1#comment-813 Joel Shaffer Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:29:22 +0000 http://garbcquest.org/?p=880#comment-813 I do like the concept of missional. However, often "missional" churches focus so much on the embodying or incarnating the love of Christ in ways such as serving the poor that they don't do a very good job of making disciples of those whom they serve. They may do a great job in hanging out with the "sinners," but they are not intentionally calling them to repentance, which Jesus was all about too. In a classic Ed Stetzer article, he wrote this: "Simply put, I am not interested in a "missional conversation" that does not involve men and women being redeemed, changed, and transformed by the gospel. Yes, it is more than that (and I will write on that in depth over the coming week), but it must include a heart for those far from Christ. We are called to share and show the love of Christ and the beauty of the gospel-- both matter." http://www.edstetzer.com/2010/02/today-i-start-back-blogging.html I do like the concept of missional. However, often “missional” churches focus so much on the embodying or incarnating the love of Christ in ways such as serving the poor that they don’t do a very good job of making disciples of those whom they serve. They may do a great job in hanging out with the “sinners,” but they are not intentionally calling them to repentance, which Jesus was all about too.

In a classic Ed Stetzer article, he wrote this: “Simply put, I am not interested in a “missional conversation” that does not involve men and women being redeemed, changed, and transformed by the gospel. Yes, it is more than that (and I will write on that in depth over the coming week), but it must include a heart for those far from Christ. We are called to share and show the love of Christ and the beauty of the gospel– both matter.” http://www.edstetzer.com/2010/02/today-i-start-back-blogging.html

]]>