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

By: jrrozko

jrrozko — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:04:40 +0000

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

By: Sam Andress

Sam Andress — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:58:12 +0000

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.

By: Pastoralia » Weekly Round Up

Pastoralia » Weekly Round Up — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:03:00 +0000

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

By: jrrozko

jrrozko — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:16:27 +0000

Thanks Marty

By: jrrozko

jrrozko — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:16:27 +0000

Thanks Marty

By: marty jones

marty jones — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:04:08 +0000

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.

By: Friday Roundup | Matthew's Table

Friday Roundup | Matthew's Table — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:14:17 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: jrrozko

jrrozko — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:46:08 +0000

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

By: matt

matt — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:05:07 +0000

Excellent Post!

By: jrrozko

jrrozko — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:23:52 +0000

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.

By: @sonjaquilts

@sonjaquilts — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:20:20 +0000

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.

By: jrrozko

jrrozko — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:43:10 +0000

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.

By: @seebriansbrain

@seebriansbrain — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:22:40 +0000

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.

By: jrrozko

jrrozko — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:22:16 +0000

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.

By: @sonjaquilts

@sonjaquilts — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:57:12 +0000

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.