Comments for This is Church

Comment on by Chris Shannon

Chris Shannon — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:39:32 +0000

Thanks for making a difference in the world by being an obedient disciple Mike!!! Awesome video of more fruit coming into the Kingdom!!

Comment on This is Church? by Josh

Josh — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:08:39 +0000

I find the polarization of missional V attractional a false dichotomy. Jesus was obviously incarnational, meeting people where they were at, connecting, healing but he was also incredibly attractional. He sent workers ahead of him to scout, word was spread and the crowds came to see and hear him. To be heal etc.

Jesus is the head of the Church but his mission was not the establishment of the church in its standards, eldership etc beyond the obvious fact he raised the Apostles who then did such a task. Paul in particular gave us most of the standards for what Church looks like, and how it operates internally.

It might seem to surprise some people but the red letters are not more inspired then the letters from Paul. We need both the incarnational lives and communities that are always going and the attractional factors in those lives and communities that declares his Glory and in doing so is attractional. (which does not simply mean lights etc but lives)

Josh
Canberra

Comment on This is Church? by Cale

Cale — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 18:59:25 +0000

In response to the production value: while it’s considerably better than most I still thought it was generic, artistically uninspired and could have been much cleaner animation wise.

As for the content: I think it’s an excellent video by the simple fact that it clearly illustrates the core principle(s) behind the “missional” movement in such a short video. If anything, I would brand it more as a teaser trailer because the concepts definitely deserve more time to be developed and explained. One part I especially appreciated (1:16) was when it said “We made more disciples” and then it had each member of the five-fold ministry: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. That concept alone is a huge shift in church culture and leadership.

I think the critique the video is trying to make, and rightly so, is against the existing business model structure of the attractional church where it’s run like a company. You have your venue on the weekend and the “pastor” is the CEO. Having left my old attractional church in favor of a missional community I can say the biggest shift has been the prioritizing of relationships over all else. It’s no longer about how well the service went but whether or not people were drawn closer into the family.

I’m not sure visual arts will ever be very effective at communicating visually intangible concepts like “relationship” so I can see why it appears to be more of an attack on the seen, the church buildings, etc.

Comment on This is Church? by Tim Courtois

Tim Courtois — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 02:29:22 +0000

I feel a little skeptical upon watching the video: It rightly points out a struggle that many committed Christians have encountered: Church involvement can come to feel like just a lot of busyness, stress, and meetings.

But I don’t feel the video really hits its mark. i.e., it devalues going to a church building in favor of going into homes. But both of them are buildings! A church is just a big building that holds more people. The video devalues leading worship from a stage in favor of… leading worship with an acoustic guitar outdoors (apparently). And it devalues meetings in favor of… other meetings that take place in different locations.

Nevertheless, I do long for authentic relationships, spontaneous times of togetherness, and the kind of connections (with people and God) that can’t be pinned down to a schedule or a program. So, in spite of the concerns I mentioned, I think the video stirs my longing for those things.

Comment on This is Church? by Amanda

Amanda — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:51:54 +0000

I think the video is a good example of what we need to do to be fishers of men, however, that cannot happen as effectively without the support of a church community. You cannot expect everyone to be good evangelists without having basic, critical knowledge that comes from being a part of church. Similarly, without building a strong, loving, and supportive community, there is not as powerful of an example of God’s love for others to see. They could believe the gospel, but if they saw a strong group of others acting on it, they’d be more likely to join in.

This is applicable on our campus because a single person can be an excellent evangelist and light, but that can be strengthened significantly by the evidence of love in a community built to reflect Christ’s love. And building that community inevitably requires time, effort, planning, meetings, leadership, etc. Its all about the balance.

Comment on “Church Relevance” Has Got to Go by Kelly McMichael

Kelly McMichael — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:38:48 +0000

No matter what changes we may be speaking about, when we mention “church”, we’re talking generally about the conventional, congregational structures where believers have traditionally gathered together. It is difficult to imagine such an institution, with its architectural limitations, budgetary and political expectations, staff-led environment, and its contemporary music (which has become, yes, even “conventional” in ityself) to be consistently relevant. Movements here and abroad are indicative of many believers taking a hike from this model because of all the above. If they do not find it relevant themselves, how could it be for those who don’t believe?
I agree with Kent in that we need to “understand someone’s deepest needs and minister to them.” That means “we”, as individual Christ-followers, not the church as an institution. His mention of “authentic connection” is really what the culture has always wanted: a genuine individual who accepts me as I am, loves unconditionally, doesn’t take himself too seriously, and has a deep, unmistakable faith and relationship with God, and engages consistently with others on a one-to-one basis. If Christian communities are not encouraging Christians to be that and forge those kind of relationships that adapt without adopting, then we don’t understand the gospel. What those kind of communities look like is a topic for another conversation, bit I’d like to be known as peculiarly provoking, loving and accepting of my non-Christian colleagues and friends.

Comment on This is Church? by Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:52:05 +0000

I liked the video, well produced, however, I find that the best way to promote the principles and ideas outlined in this video is to lead by example with ministry that shines a ridiculous amount of light into both the christian and secular world. Although I like the video, I feel it won’t be incredibly effective without leading by example. And maybe the video isn’t meant to inspire others but rather to just share the mission of the church who made it. I find no harm in it, and agree with the ideas. Let’s just find an effective way to promote it across the christian faith, coughmultiplicationcough

Comment on This is Church? by karen

karen — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 04:51:54 +0000

I’m not saying I disagree with the content, but I can’t help but point out the irony… This video itself seems to be a product of the type of church that is able to hire a professional video person. There is a lot that goes into producing something like this, including budget/production meetings/deadlines/etc (some of which are things listed in a seemingly negative light in the video).

Comment on This is Church? by J Ewasyshyn

J Ewasyshyn — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 22:32:42 +0000

I REALLY like this video. I think it does a great job of saying that our action is needed in the world. However, is does not negate the need for Christian community (ie. when they left the church but (it seemed to me) to go into each other’s homes and continue to build into each other’s lives.

Comment on A Gospel Worldview Part 5: A Theology of Vulnerability by Tim Courtois

Tim Courtois — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 18:58:05 +0000

Thanks for the shout out Mikey! Love this. Especially, “anyone who ever talks about something good or true or beautiful without demonstrating its origins in the cross of Jesus will be incomplete”. That’s a keeper.

What do you think about this thought: There seems to be a catch-22 inherent in vulnerability: “I can’t show you my deep brokenness unless I’m sure you’ll accept me / I can’t be sure you’ll accept me unless I show you my deep brokenness.”

So, while knowledge of the Cross is sufficient *philosophical* support for vulnerability, vulnerability remains terrifying and difficult.

So we can informationally *choose* to believe that God loves us unconditionally, as he proved by the Cross; but every time we cross a new threshold of vulnerability in our lives, our belief in that fact has to go deeper.

In any case, it’s clear to me that the Gospel does lead to vulnerability, because Christians are consistently the most vulnerable people I know. But it’s more than just *informational*. We have to *experience* it.

(And this, too, is the Gospel. For the Incarnation tells us that truth can not simply be known; it has to be experienced.)