Living into the missio Dei in a globalized world. --by David Wesley
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Ed Stetzer and David Fitch on The Missional Church
The following is an interesting perspective of the missional church from a perspective that is somewhat distint from that of GOCN, and yet has many things in common.
This clip is great! I'm always up for a good conversation! I would be interested to see the other parts to this series.
I think that one thing that I really enjoyed/pulled from this clip is that the church should be attractive without becoming an attraction. This really has great impact on the church-growth/mega church movement.
Wow- lots to digest in this short clip! I was especially struck by Ed Stetzer's comment, "The Jesus mission defines us and then we become truly missional." Dave Fitch's comment later echoes the same, " Justice without Jesus isn't justice. . .(and vice versa)."
Obviously what is a common theme in these is identity in JESUS CHRIST! The church is not the church without Jesus. There is no mission without Jesus. . .
What is needed is NOT us beating our brains out trying to find strategic ways to 'fix' our post-modern culture (or fix the church for that matter.) What is needed is a keeping in step with the Holy Spirit who is already at work, so that we can truly engage in incarnational ministry just like Jesus did. That comes through good ole' prayer, time in the Word, and loving on people. There's no way of getting around that, even with all our 'missional church' discussions and valiant efforts to make the Christain life and church 'attractive.'
They definitely leave you hanging with the ad for Part 2 - whether or not the megachurch can be missional. When are they going to post that clip?
In David Fitch's three points he brought out the idea that the Church should be incarnational - engaging in culture, being present, letting the Gospel speak to it and transform it. It seems to me that this is a much better way to be "contextual" than the attractional model.
A couple things come to mind after watching this clip. First, is a relation to the thought that there has become a distinction between 'witness' and 'evangelism.' Unfortunately evangelism has come out to have negative connotations in the modern western world. I even find myself cringing a little when I hear of people going out to evangelize because of such connotations.
This brings me to the next point. I wonder if there really is such a large gap in the receptivity time of those hearing to recieving the gospel. I agree with many of the methods given by Dave Fitch, but hope that they do not truly take 5 years on average to turn around.
I know this is just an approximate number or a guess however, if it is anywhere close to an accurate average, I worry about the future generations and the expansion of such a gap.
Great conversation! I really like what Fitch was saying about being incarnational (made me think in part about the uniqueness of Christ). I also really appreciated the comment the church should not be attractional but attractive. I think this really helps to take the focus off of us.
Dave Fitch's Attractional vs. Attractive and Evangelize vs. Witness points struck me the most powerfully and articulated what I have been trying to put to words for a while -- What was so great about the Acts Church was that it was attractive because of the Church's witness. I like that "evangelizing" should and MUST include the holistic elements of doing, being, and sharing, especially in this "post-Christian" world, as Ed Stetzer said.
I also enjoyed the discussion on missiology as a sub-point to theology, rather than as the controlling element for the way we do church and understand the Gospel now. We would all decide that missiology was speaking different priorities. I was beginning to think of missiology in this way, that it WAS theology, perhaps, instead of it beginning with theology and what we can say about God. I'm glad to be straightened out!
First of all, I love this format. Throughout the video, I felt like both sides were equally contributing and having an honest dialogue while showing mutual respect. Great witness to what they are talking about...
Anyway, I really appreciated the discussion concerning epistemological foundations. These gentlemen were correct in their recognition of the varying foundations concerning spiritual things in our current context. I wonder if that is part of the current tension: some have a foundation of Christian content while others have no exposure whatsoever to things of Christ, and of course there are those in between who know just enough to be dangerous or immune. I think a part of our challenge is to learn to be bi-cultural. How do faithfully communicate the Gospel to people functioning in different frameworks? The Bevans/Schroeder book is obviously a great source for this question. I am certainly going to be thinking about this tension.
I think this clip was definitely interesting and would like to see more in the future- especially concerning mega-churches and mission.
The idea of the church being present really stood out to me and I greatly appreciated the focus it takes for the church to be intentional in the community- to live and breathe and be among the community instead of expecting the community to come to it, so to speak. The idea of it taking 5 years to walk and disciple people into the status of believer, convert, or disciple (whichever title is preferable) is really practical in the sense that Jesus ministered for 3 years.
The church is called to be faithful above pragmatic... we are called to be a part of God's mission and I do believe God's mission is broad and that it can be carried out in many ways through the church- no church should be a carbon copy of another- but there should be faithfulness to what God has called each church to do through the deliverance of the gospel.
It was very interesting to see these two men interact. It is apparent that both have much to say. There are a couple of things that really caught my attention while watching this video. 1)The church as the junk drawer-- I'm still a little fuzzy as to how they are using the phrase, but gives an incredible mental picture for us who are part of the church. We have become a little bit of this and that. But as he said in the video, just trying to fix one thing does not make us a missional church. We are a missional church as we chose to follow and fall in love with a God who is in very nature missionary. 2)Foundations take awhile-- This is something that seems obvious, but is taking a while for us to realize as a whole church. Relationships and reconciliation do not happen overnight. More often then not, they take many years. Not only do they take years, but part of that is because we as Christians can no longer assume an existing Christian background. People come from all walks of life and may or may not have any clue what you are talking about if you begin to talk about Jesus. For many people I have come to know, what they know of the church they do not like and they do not understand. Being incarnational is a pilgramige. Oh, but what a blessed joy!!!
I’m glad to know that important people out there are also using the phrase “Joining God’s Mission.” I chose that as the “tagline” on my prayer card to emphasize that it’s not about me, or even about our particular denomination, but it is about what God is doing, and I am joining God through the Church of the Nazarene. I heard those same thoughts echoed in the Stetzer/Fitch conversation.
Concerning the church as attractional, we need to make sure the attraction of the church is genuine changed lives reflecting the Gospel, rather than a superficial show which is performed reflecting our consumeristic culture. Our authenticity will be the attraction of the church.
I totally agree that the term missional is becoming overused. I do not know if it is generational of cultural, but we tend to latch on to words.
I also think the problem of being attractional instead of attractive and adding to the consumerist church market not only deals with the problems of bringing in new people but also add to the problem of church hopping.
I think what caught my attention the most in this article was the use of ecclesiology. It seems to me that they are calling for a rethought our and better developed ecclesiology, one that they admit cannot be soley developed by missiology. I hear in them both a willingness to admit that the ecclesiology we have now is struggling and that we would need to lean heavier on the Biblical understanding, the incarnational understanding and also on the actual presence of God (the missio Dei- that is the living and active presence of God). What would all of what they discussed do to transform our understanding of our doctrines of the Church and it would be cool to see how the ecclesiology of our tradition would dialogue with this idea of missional.
"I think what caught my attention the most in this article was the use of ecclesiology. It seems to me that they are calling for a rethought our and better developed ecclesiology..." sorry this last post was mine- melissa Watte
13 comments:
This clip is great! I'm always up for a good conversation! I would be interested to see the other parts to this series.
I think that one thing that I really enjoyed/pulled from this clip is that the church should be attractive without becoming an attraction. This really has great impact on the church-growth/mega church movement.
Wow- lots to digest in this short clip! I was especially struck by Ed Stetzer's comment, "The Jesus mission defines us and then we become truly missional." Dave Fitch's comment later echoes the same, " Justice without Jesus isn't justice. . .(and vice versa)."
Obviously what is a common theme in these is identity in JESUS CHRIST! The church is not the church without Jesus. There is no mission without Jesus. . .
What is needed is NOT us beating our brains out trying to find strategic ways to 'fix' our post-modern culture (or fix the church for that matter.) What is needed is a keeping in step with the Holy Spirit who is already at work, so that we can truly engage in incarnational ministry just like Jesus did. That comes through good ole' prayer, time in the Word, and loving on people. There's no way of getting around that, even with all our 'missional church' discussions and valiant efforts to make the Christain life and church 'attractive.'
~Alison Weinstock
They definitely leave you hanging with the ad for Part 2 - whether or not the megachurch can be missional. When are they going to post that clip?
In David Fitch's three points he brought out the idea that the Church should be incarnational - engaging in culture, being present, letting the Gospel speak to it and transform it. It seems to me that this is a much better way to be "contextual" than the attractional model.
A couple things come to mind after watching this clip. First, is a relation to the thought that there has become a distinction between 'witness' and 'evangelism.' Unfortunately evangelism has come out to have negative connotations in the modern western world. I even find myself cringing a little when I hear of people going out to evangelize because of such connotations.
This brings me to the next point. I wonder if there really is such a large gap in the receptivity time of those hearing to recieving the gospel. I agree with many of the methods given by Dave Fitch, but hope that they do not truly take 5 years on average to turn around.
I know this is just an approximate number or a guess however, if it is anywhere close to an accurate average, I worry about the future generations and the expansion of such a gap.
-Joe Goodwin-
Great conversation! I really like what Fitch was saying about being incarnational (made me think in part about the uniqueness of Christ). I also really appreciated the comment the church should not be attractional but attractive. I think this really helps to take the focus off of us.
Isaac Miller
Dave Fitch's Attractional vs. Attractive and Evangelize vs. Witness points struck me the most powerfully and articulated what I have been trying to put to words for a while -- What was so great about the Acts Church was that it was attractive because of the Church's witness. I like that "evangelizing" should and MUST include the holistic elements of doing, being, and sharing, especially in this "post-Christian" world, as Ed Stetzer said.
I also enjoyed the discussion on missiology as a sub-point to theology, rather than as the controlling element for the way we do church and understand the Gospel now. We would all decide that missiology was speaking different priorities. I was beginning to think of missiology in this way, that it WAS theology, perhaps, instead of it beginning with theology and what we can say about God. I'm glad to be straightened out!
First of all, I love this format. Throughout the video, I felt like both sides were equally contributing and having an honest dialogue while showing mutual respect. Great witness to what they are talking about...
Anyway, I really appreciated the discussion concerning epistemological foundations. These gentlemen were correct in their recognition of the varying foundations concerning spiritual things in our current context. I wonder if that is part of the current tension: some have a foundation of Christian content while others have no exposure whatsoever to things of Christ, and of course there are those in between who know just enough to be dangerous or immune. I think a part of our challenge is to learn to be bi-cultural. How do faithfully communicate the Gospel to people functioning in different frameworks? The Bevans/Schroeder book is obviously a great source for this question. I am certainly going to be thinking about this tension.
I think this clip was definitely interesting and would like to see more in the future- especially concerning mega-churches and mission.
The idea of the church being present really stood out to me and I greatly appreciated the focus it takes for the church to be intentional in the community- to live and breathe and be among the community instead of expecting the community to come to it, so to speak. The idea of it taking 5 years to walk and disciple people into the status of believer, convert, or disciple (whichever title is preferable) is really practical in the sense that Jesus ministered for 3 years.
The church is called to be faithful above pragmatic... we are called to be a part of God's mission and I do believe God's mission is broad and that it can be carried out in many ways through the church- no church should be a carbon copy of another- but there should be faithfulness to what God has called each church to do through the deliverance of the gospel.
Those are my thoughts.
Joy,
Sarah E. Weems
It was very interesting to see these two men interact. It is apparent that both have much to say.
There are a couple of things that really caught my attention while watching this video. 1)The church as the junk drawer-- I'm still a little fuzzy as to how they are using the phrase, but gives an incredible mental picture for us who are part of the church. We have become a little bit of this and that. But as he said in the video, just trying to fix one thing does not make us a missional church. We are a missional church as we chose to follow and fall in love with a God who is in very nature missionary.
2)Foundations take awhile-- This is something that seems obvious, but is taking a while for us to realize as a whole church. Relationships and reconciliation do not happen overnight. More often then not, they take many years. Not only do they take years, but part of that is because we as Christians can no longer assume an existing Christian background. People come from all walks of life and may or may not have any clue what you are talking about if you begin to talk about Jesus. For many people I have come to know, what they know of the church they do not like and they do not understand. Being incarnational is a pilgramige. Oh, but what a blessed joy!!!
I’m glad to know that important people out there are also using the phrase “Joining God’s Mission.” I chose that as the “tagline” on my prayer card to emphasize that it’s not about me, or even about our particular denomination, but it is about what God is doing, and I am joining God through the Church of the Nazarene. I heard those same thoughts echoed in the Stetzer/Fitch conversation.
Concerning the church as attractional, we need to make sure the attraction of the church is genuine changed lives reflecting the Gospel, rather than a superficial show which is performed reflecting our consumeristic culture. Our authenticity will be the attraction of the church.
I’m looking forward to the next part.
I totally agree that the term missional is becoming overused. I do not know if it is generational of cultural, but we tend to latch on to words.
I also think the problem of being attractional instead of attractive and adding to the consumerist church market not only deals with the problems of bringing in new people but also add to the problem of church hopping.
Julie Hanson
I think what caught my attention the most in this article was the use of ecclesiology. It seems to me that they are calling for a rethought our and better developed ecclesiology, one that they admit cannot be soley developed by missiology. I hear in them both a willingness to admit that the ecclesiology we have now is struggling and that we would need to lean heavier on the Biblical understanding, the incarnational understanding and also on the actual presence of God (the missio Dei- that is the living and active presence of God). What would all of what they discussed do to transform our understanding of our doctrines of the Church and it would be cool to see how the ecclesiology of our tradition would dialogue with this idea of missional.
"I think what caught my attention the most in this article was the use of ecclesiology. It seems to me that they are calling for a rethought our and better developed ecclesiology..."
sorry this last post was mine- melissa Watte
Post a Comment