Comments on: Missional, Attractional, and All Points In Between http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/2008/12/21/missional-attractional-and-all-points-in-between/ it's a good thing I like to dance Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:12:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Michael Krahn http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/2008/12/21/missional-attractional-and-all-points-in-between/comment-page-1/#comment-2364 Michael Krahn Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:37:51 +0000 http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/?p=323#comment-2364 Warren, I do see where you're going here... of course you wisely stayed clear of the "upon this rock" passage. ;-) This fragmentation of the Protestant world is one of the main things that used to cause me disillusionment. I'm not saying that's totally resolved at this point - I still grieve the fragmentation - but I have come to terms with it. Warren,

I do see where you’re going here… of course you wisely stayed clear of the “upon this rock” passage. ;-)

This fragmentation of the Protestant world is one of the main things that used to cause me disillusionment. I’m not saying that’s totally resolved at this point – I still grieve the fragmentation – but I have come to terms with it.

]]> By: Michael Krahn http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/2008/12/21/missional-attractional-and-all-points-in-between/comment-page-1/#comment-2363 Michael Krahn Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:32:00 +0000 http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/?p=323#comment-2363 I do agree... we should try to be pioneers sometimes rather than followers. I do agree… we should try to be pioneers sometimes rather than followers.

]]> By: Warren http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/2008/12/21/missional-attractional-and-all-points-in-between/comment-page-1/#comment-2361 Warren Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:40:47 +0000 http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/?p=323#comment-2361 Incidentally, I think you and I are poking similar holes in Stetzer, here, I'm actually in agreement with what you say. I tend to have rather stodgy views on anything "Emergent" except when it haplessly imitates orthodoxy. :-) Warren Incidentally, I think you and I are poking similar holes in Stetzer, here, I’m actually in agreement with what you say. I tend to have rather stodgy views on anything “Emergent” except when it haplessly imitates orthodoxy. :-)

Warren

]]> By: Warren http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/2008/12/21/missional-attractional-and-all-points-in-between/comment-page-1/#comment-2360 Warren Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:34:32 +0000 http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/?p=323#comment-2360 What are the Scriptural hallmarks of the Church? The Church as shown to us in the Bible, is clearly visible, clearly one, and clearly apostolic and hirearchical in its constitution. The Church is the Bride of Christ, and is clearly a visible (not invisible) presence in the world, very clearly under the authority of Christ, who in turn has given this authority in Scripture to his Apostles. The cognitive distance between that, and the daily reality of my own formation in the "Jesus and me" type of evangelical worldview, reduced Church to "the gathering of Believers" rather than seeing the "Body of Christ". In other words, saying "Church is less important than Christ" is only a statement that could be made by someone who sees the Church as something less than the Body of Christ. One cannot pit the two against each other any more than husband against wife, which is the other analogy used in Scripture (the bride of Christ). If the Bride is invisible and legion, rather than visible and one, then so must Christ be invisible, theoretical, and diverse. What do you think? Warren What are the Scriptural hallmarks of the Church? The Church as shown to us in the Bible, is clearly visible, clearly one, and clearly apostolic and hirearchical in its constitution. The Church is the Bride of Christ, and is clearly a visible (not invisible) presence in the world, very clearly under the authority of Christ, who in turn has given this authority in Scripture to his Apostles. The cognitive distance between that, and the daily reality of my own formation in the “Jesus and me” type of evangelical worldview, reduced Church to “the gathering of Believers” rather than seeing the “Body of Christ”. In other words, saying “Church is less important than Christ” is only a statement that could be made by someone who sees the Church as something less than the Body of Christ. One cannot pit the two against each other any more than husband against wife, which is the other analogy used in Scripture (the bride of Christ). If the Bride is invisible and legion, rather than visible and one, then so must Christ be invisible, theoretical, and diverse. What do you think?

Warren

]]> By: Dan Rempel http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/2008/12/21/missional-attractional-and-all-points-in-between/comment-page-1/#comment-2355 Dan Rempel Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:49:38 +0000 http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/?p=323#comment-2355 I really appreciated the article in that Jacobsen avoids the "out with the old" mantra found in most emerging literature while advocating for creative forms of following Jesus in community. <b>Play Dough Model:</b> I wonder if we should be creative with church models knowing that many of the models will fail. That is the model might fail, but the church - the people - will not. If we wait for enough data that Barna and Stetzer can clearly indicate which model works in a specific context, we will always be behind. If we allow for creative church plants that require minimal overhead and are committed to Jesus and living the kingdom life he describes, some of them will find their mark in our secular community. Models that fail can be clumped back together and remolded. Of course this creates some of its own issues... I really appreciated the article in that Jacobsen avoids the “out with the old” mantra found in most emerging literature while advocating for creative forms of following Jesus in community.
Play Dough Model:
I wonder if we should be creative with church models knowing that many of the models will fail. That is the model might fail, but the church – the people – will not. If we wait for enough data that Barna and Stetzer can clearly indicate which model works in a specific context, we will always be behind. If we allow for creative church plants that require minimal overhead and are committed to Jesus and living the kingdom life he describes, some of them will find their mark in our secular community. Models that fail can be clumped back together and remolded. Of course this creates some of its own issues…

]]> By: hellen http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/2008/12/21/missional-attractional-and-all-points-in-between/comment-page-1/#comment-2326 hellen Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:18:28 +0000 http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/?p=323#comment-2326 I think you are correct in that it is not an either/or rather the finding a balance. I was actually looking for a quote by Elmer Towns about the balance between the Word and the Spirit in our dealings. I did not find it but I found another which I will quote here: “Too much church strategizing is like exhorting a plant to grow, or giving it artificial and possibly toxic nutrients, or placing it into an artificial environment or worse, manipulating and artificially shaping its growth and conjuring up a grotesque hybrid form of the church – rather than letting the church grow into the vine that God intends, subject to the nurturing and pruning that God brings.” Elmer Towns in Evaluating the Church Growth Movement. I think you are correct in that it is not an either/or rather the finding a balance. I was actually looking for a quote by Elmer Towns about the balance between the Word and the Spirit in our dealings. I did not find it but I found another which I will quote here:

“Too much church strategizing is like exhorting a plant to grow, or giving it artificial and possibly toxic nutrients, or placing it into an artificial environment or worse, manipulating and artificially shaping its growth and conjuring up a grotesque hybrid form of the church – rather than letting the church grow into the vine that God intends, subject to the nurturing and pruning that God brings.” Elmer Towns in Evaluating the Church Growth Movement.

]]>