• We Need WAY More Missional Conversations: A Response to Ed Stetzer

    February 2, 2010

    I regret that I’ve never med Ed Stetzer face to face.  I’d like to believe we’d be fast friends who share a mutual passion for people coming to know Christ and joining in God’s mission in the world.  At the same time, we’d disagree about a lot.  For starters, a blog post he published yesterday critiquing the need for missional (among other) conversations.

    Ed seems worried about missional conversations that don’t…

    involve men and women being redeemed, changed [sic], and transformed by the gospel.

    I read that and think to myself, “What?  Where in the flip is he getting his definition of missional and who is he talking to?  These are the things that are at the very center of missional theology and ecclesiology.”  I have worked hard over a healthy number of years to stay involved in every way I can imagine in the missional conversation and outside of the very fringes that you find in any population, I simply don’t know of any missional people or groups that would merit this kind of concern.

    Ed says,

    It is never a good thing to be defending our lack of converts to Christ while we are busy converting people to our cause. To me, it is the difference between complaining and creating a new (and better) way.

    He goes on to say,

    I don’t want missional to mean attacks on mega and fast growing churches who are reaching people “wrongly,” while missional churches are reaching few “rightly.”

    I think I get Ed’s heart here, but these statements are FAR too simplistic. One of the main reasons for the lack of converts in missional and emerging churches is the popularity of churches who are, in fact, “reaching people ‘wrongly’.” For those who embrace missional theology and are trying to cultivate missional communities, especially in contexts where Christendom still exists, we are fighting an uphill battle… and wearing a 100 lb. pack… and it’s raining… and we’re barefoot… and…  You get the point.  In a culture which still features the cheap grace of individualistic salvation and consumeristic church involvement, guess what – the message of dying to yourself, submitting yourself to a community and joining in God’s Kingdom mission that will, in all likelihood, threaten your identity and lifestyle is pretty unpopular.  When given the option, would-be converts will of course respond,

    Thank you very much, I think I’ll just attend St. McDonald’s where I get saved by raising my hand, I can disappear in the mass of people, and the entertaining music & speaking gives me warm fuzzies every time I’m there.

    The fact of the matter is that those who identify with missional theology engage in this fight for the very reasons mentioned above – because the converts made by the dominant expressions of Christianity in the US are in no meaningful way redeemed, changed or transformed. I doubt many people are more aware of the crisis of nominal Christianity in the US that Ed, so I find this a surprising oversight.  So, albeit with the character and concern of Jesus, I think this is very much a biblically justifiable fight for missional people to be engaged in – the fight for biblical faithfulness and fulfilling of the command to make disciples.

    Ed goes on to say,

    I am not willing to say that a lack of converts is a sign of unfaithfulness. But, I am willing to say that too many change movements are not seeing lost people’s lives changed.

    Fair enough, but this reality is far more poignant and dire when we consider the lack of disciple-making happening in long standing traditions that aren’t thinking about change at all!

    Stetzer rounds out his post by saying,

    So, let’s continue conversations about being “missional” or whatever, but let’s not do so if it distracts us from the mission. Instead let’s talk about these issues but not let them distract us from our main focus–showing and sharing the love of Jesus to a desperately lost world that needs a message of hope.

    To this I say a quick and hearty AMEN!  But I am also quick to resist Ed’s false dichotomy by pointing out that having “conversations about ‘missional’ or whatever,”  aimed at the faithful practice and witness of the church is VITAL to the manner in which we show and share the love of Jesus.  Not having these conversations, or having them poorly, is far more dangerous than seeing them as a distraction.

    Between the promise I believe missional theology and ecclesiology hold for the trajectory of Western Christianity and how incredibly misunderstood both remain, I submit that we need WAY more conversations, not less.

    Posted in: christendom, missional, western culture

Recent Comments

  • Jon Gibson said...

    1

    JR.
    I think the part i focused most on about eds article was the fact i need to be more passionate about sharing Christ with others. Thats why i also agree with you about having more conversations with people. In my expiercnce i have learned that people dont want to be talked to but with. You may be aware of this but something i usally find helpful is a group called off the map. Check them out at offthemap.com. Thank you for your insights as well.

    02/2/10 5:49 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    2

    Thanks for stopping by Jon. Yeah, I'm familiar with Off the Map.

    02/2/10 6:12 PM | Comment Link

  • geoffholsclaw said...

    3

    JR,
    for me, and this is reading "me" in this post, he was talking more a swipe at the "emerging church conversation" which usually talked theology and the need for change, but more often than not just ended in "continual conversation" rather than the continual conversion of the church.

    But with that said, I also love the above points.

    02/2/10 6:17 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    4

    Maybe. But it was a "Missional Monday" post and "missional conversation" receives the bulk of his attention in the post.

    Even still, between the reasons I mentioned above and the impact and influence that the EC conversation/movement has had in contexts which are further along in terms of the demise of Christendom, I'd say Ed's critique is off base.

    Like salting sidewalks before the snow has come or building an ark in anticipation of a flood, there are those who see what's coming before its time is fully here. They look like fools and their labors seem to bear little or no fruit, but in time that just might be reversed.

    This is no excuse for lots of talk and no action, but like I said above, I think the numbers of people for whom that's true are so minute that to focus on them is a complete waste of time.

    02/2/10 7:02 PM | Comment Link

  • geoffholsclaw said...

    5

    yeah, I think Ed is probably conflating his EC interactions and Missional ones, or perhaps we are trying to make a distinction that he doesn't. For sure, I've been much more interested in Missional conversation, exactly b/c they are more than conversations! I dropped out of blogging for awhile exactly b/c I didn't have time after being in a missional community.

    02/2/10 7:40 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    6

    Totally in agreement that there are questions of gospel and salvation that lie at the heart of this issue. All the more reason to be serious about the conversations we are having. Now somebody go let Ed in on this so I can get the last 2 hours of my life back ;)

    02/2/10 8:00 PM | Comment Link

  • Ty Grigg said...

    7

    From my own experience, I have been critiqued because of my reservations with the Bridge diagram. The critique would be that if you don't like the Bridge use something else but do something! The diagram may change, but the mindset remains. I took away from your post that converts are cheap if we lower the bar. We need to be more concerned about the quality of the disciple than the number of converts. If we are being a faithful community which bears witness to Christ with our lives and in our conversations, can we be discharged from the duty of keeping quotas?

    02/2/10 8:02 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    8

    Precisely why we need to make room in our lives for blogging as a spiritual discipline (http://lifeasmission.com/blog/2005/11/blogging-as… ;)

    02/2/10 8:05 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    9

    "converts are cheap if we lower the bar." Well said.

    "If we are being a faithful community which bears witness to Christ with our lives and in our conversations, can we be discharged from the duty of keeping quotas?"

    Excellent question. Sadly, in a world where churches seem to be every bit as market-driven as the rest of the world, increasing numbers, rather than increasing stories of wonder, will remain the predominant evaluative criteria.

    02/2/10 8:18 PM | Comment Link

  • Larry Newman said...

    10

    do we really thing God is better served by one method of publicly identifying counting converts than another? The criterion for counting converts is as varied in the history of Protestantism as in the EC's, as someone has said, not least because of disagreements regarding the gospel.

    Also there is roiling controversy about subtraction of individuals from the total. The desire to "raise the bar" is an attempt to say, "if I just make the bar so high for considering that someone is a Christian, then such people will surely not force me into doing subtraction later concerning them.

    02/2/10 9:33 PM | Comment Link

  • Ben Sternke said...

    11

    Well said, JR.

    I'd add, too, that many mega-churches are actually talking about discipleship, dying to self, sacrifice, etc. But because of the mediated culture of any institution that large, one can easily feel one is "participating in" that reality merely because they attended an event and resonated emotionally with the content. We think we're missional because the speaker is so passionate about it and we listen to him every Sunday, and we volunteer in children's ministry.

    That to me is the real danger of the mediated culture of mega-church (or any size church where "belonging" is measured merely by attendance and giving)… we get inoculated to the real thing because we believe we're already participating in it. "Yeah we're a missional church… we do a series on it every year."

    (But then again, like Jason, perhaps I am cynical ;)

    02/2/10 9:43 PM | Comment Link

  • Michael Rudzena said...

    12

    Ben, you beat me to the punch. Ditto. Good thinking JR.

    02/3/10 12:49 AM | Comment Link

  • Jason Coker said...

    13

    Nicely done.

    I may be a cynic, but I think this was aimed directly at smaller, missional movements that don't emphasize a classically evangelical form of conversion and, as such, is just one more indicator that there are still fundamental disagreements about theology in the missional conversation.

    I've run into this a few times from pastors of larger attractional churches. We talk missional and the standard comeback is, "Right, but who's baptizing more people?" Huh? Are we having the same conversation? No…and that's the problem.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we're still deeply divided over the question, "What is the gospel?" which leads to deep division concerning "What is missional?" The reason everyone is still arguing over the latter question is because whether we know it or not we're still in disagreement about the former question.

    In that sense, I think Geoff is right: there is in Ed's comments a residue of critique aimed toward Emerging, because questioning the definition of the gospel was a fundamental task in the EC, and it wasn't really ever resolved – everyone just went their separate ways, either toward missional evangelicalism, missional reformed, missional mainline, missional political activism, etc.

    02/2/10 7:34 PM | Comment Link

  • Jonathan Brink said...

    14

    Way to speak up JR. I shared much of your concern with the simplistic nature of the post.

    02/3/10 4:04 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    15

    Thanks Jonathan. Read your comment on Ed's post and thought it was really helpful. As Jason said above, there is some real "missing each other" going on and the paths to correct that are really tough in person let alone by way of electronic communication.

    02/3/10 5:29 PM | Comment Link

  • @sonjaquilts said...

    16

    I wonder if it's the wrong question entirely.

    I don't see that God is concerned about number of souls anywhere in the Bible … or what I should say is this, I see that S/He is just as concerned and celebrates as wildly over one as S/He does over 3,000. So why are we measuring numbers? or qualifying "good" disciples v. "bad" ones? Does any of that really matter? Really?

    I think if most of the men around here (by "here" I mean the various E and M conversations) would stop looking over their glasses at each other and competing over who has the biggest (ahem) or rightest or mostest church, we could get back to what we're actually concerned with … the people and their real live souls. Measuring converts is a lousy matrix … no matter how you slice it. And … church is not a business. We are not supposed to measure what we do and report back to shareholders for heaven's sake. Get over it.

    Converts are not a measure of how right (or wrong) your theology is … Branch Davidian? Mormons? Jim Jones? Anyone can be hoodwinked by a charming speaker. So good theology will not necessarily mean you have a bunch of converts.

    Love might though. And that cannot be quantified or qualified.

    02/3/10 5:57 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    17

    Thanks for your comment Sonja.

    I think I get what you are coming from, but between Jesus spending his entire adult life teaching and shepherding disciples and the fact that those disciples subsequently gave their lives up for the sake of shaping a people who would faithfully embody God's Kingdom, I think we have plenty of justification for evaluating the extent to which we are continuing in this tradition both faithfully and fruitfully. So yes, it does matter, really.

    Yes, we are easily distracted into projects and discussions that are not central to what God has called us to. Yes, church is not a business – amen and AMEN!

    You are absolutely right – converts are NOT a measure of how right or wrong ones theology is. In fact, I was just commenting to a family member today that "I think Kingdom fruit is always a better way to judge the faithfulness and orthodoxy of people and communities." And I couldn't be more on board with the centrality a of love as a demarcation of the right kind of Kingdom fruit.

    Thanks again.

    02/3/10 6:22 PM | Comment Link

  • @seebriansbrain said...

    18

    I, too, am perplexed by Stetzer's general comments. While I believe that a constructive conversation about missional communities constantly inviting people into the faith and life of Jesus Christ, I sense that this is coming from a different place. Is this about defending "traditional" evangelical practices to some degree? Is this about drawing a line in the missional sand?

    This tone undercuts my whole understanding of the missional movement, which I understand as being most concerned with being a sign of the coming reign of God and inviting others to experience that reign in their own lives.

    In my more cynical moments, it's easy for me to see Mr. Stetzer being happy to simply make waves in the missional pool.

    02/3/10 8:22 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    19

    Thanks Brian. I'm in agreement with what Jason commented above. I think the source of your/our being perplexed stems from the fact that there are some core differences in missonal theology and traditional evangelical theology. Unless these differences are wrestled with, the sort of dichotomies present in Ed's argument are bound to persist.

    02/4/10 1:43 PM | Comment Link

  • @sonjaquilts said...

    20

    I would think that evaluating your own people (or ministry) would be a good thing. It would probably even be a good thing to invite someone in from outside as an objective observer once in a while, to give some helpful advice or constructive correction on where one is headed. It certainly never crossed my mind to imply one should never evaluate one's life or ministry against the example that Jesus has left for us.

    What is bothersome to me is the constant sniping by outsiders and the calling of this church or that movement "not enough" based upon what exactly? In this case, Ed's got an axe to grind and turf to protect. That's not what the Apostle Paul called us to, nor did Jesus. Both specifically called us to put aside those differences and encourage one another to good deeds. Petty criticisms and long fruitless discussions about the meanings of words are not encouraging each other to good deeds. For those who are out doing, it can be downright discouraging at times.

    02/4/10 2:20 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    21

    I really do think I get your heart on this Sonja and am inclined to say I'm totally with you, but want to make make one comment for the sake of clarification.
    Jesus was critical, even condemnatory, of the Pharisees as well as those who sought to hijack the character of his Messiahship. Paul corrected believers who acted in immaturity and selfishness. He flat our denounced Judaizers and those who proclaimed "a different gospel." So, when our words and actions are rightly motivated there is certainly a place for taking stands – even against those who profess to worship the same God. But yes, when these stands turn to pettiness and the protecting of turf (I am not necessarily saying I think this is true of what Ed was saying), you're absolutely right, we've lost sight of what God has called us to – and we need someone to take a stand and correct us.

    02/4/10 3:23 PM | Comment Link

  • matt said...

    22

    Excellent Post!

    02/4/10 6:05 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    23

    Thanks Matt. If the titles of our respective blogs are any judge we seem to have some similar perspective ;)

    02/4/10 8:46 PM | Comment Link

  • Friday Roundup | Matthew's Table said...

    24

    [...] post prompted some well thought out push back from JR Rozko. However, I do feel that JR missed the intent of Ed’s article which only touches on one small [...]

    02/5/10 7:14 AM | Comment Link

  • marty jones said...

    25

    Great blog post J.R. I like how you commented on specific quotes that Ed had made. It was very effective in getting your point across. Like you said, Missional is basically becoming engaged in this lost world. Most churches have so much dialog on labels and procedures that they never get out of the pew, and outside of their four walls of their church to bring salvation and healing to a broken and lost world.

    02/5/10 7:04 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    26

    Thanks Marty

    02/5/10 8:16 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    27

    Thanks Marty

    02/5/10 8:16 PM | Comment Link

  • Pastoralia » Weekly Round Up said...

    28

    [...] Ed Stetzer fired a bit of a shot toward Missional folks this week and JR Rozko thoughtfully pushed back. [...]

    02/6/10 9:03 AM | Comment Link

  • Sam Andress said...

    29

    Excellent post and push back Dave. The problem with Ed Stetzer is that he swims in the large-attractional church. The difference bettween attractional and missional is huge and vast. For one, the "Gospel" is understood quite differently–in a wholisitic–no consumerist individualist way–in missional communities. So ecclesiological and soteriological differences are vast and not just surface or symantic issues.

    What gets me is, so many of these mega-church gurus and ceo pastors were clamoring to use "emergent," "post-modern," and "missional" until they recently fully realized that these movements were birthed as prophetic critiques of their own churches and prophetic witnesses to what God is doing newly in "post-Christian" America.

    But no matter how convincing one is on this, as long as these guys are getting paychecks and big ones from there massive gigs, don't expect them to take the critique of the missional movement well.

    I also find it intersting how small businesses in America are spurned for massive big-box corporations…

    I believe there is a direct correlation to the rise of Wal-Mart and Home Depot and the Mega-Church in America.

    02/16/10 9:58 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    30

    Dude, who's Dave?! Let me know when you write a blog post/article/book on that last comment. I wanna read it!

    02/16/10 10:04 PM | Comment Link

Leave A Comment

Mail (will not be published) (required)