DISQUS

I see what you're saying, I would probably have to see how it worked out in the actual curriculum though. If there were a combination of accredited and non-accredited degrees, then you may risk having basically two seminaries in one organization. I also balk at the idea of having a distinction between "scholarly" students and those focused on "ministry." In the end, we can't throw the baby (theological education) out with the bathwater (accreditation), even though the bathwater is extremely filthy and full of various diseases. Wait, it's got to be your baby...

I see what you're saying, I would probably have to see how it worked out in the actual curriculum though. If there were a combination of accredited and non-accredited degrees, then you may risk having basically two seminaries in one organization. I also balk at the idea of having a distinction between "scholarly" students and those focused on "ministry." In the end, we can't throw the baby (theological education) out with the bathwater (accreditation), even though the bathwater is extremely filthy and full of various diseases. Wait, it's got to be your baby...

I see what you're saying, I would probably have to see how it worked out in the actual curriculum though. If there were a combination of accredited and non-accredited degrees, then you may risk having basically two seminaries in one organization. I also balk at the idea of having a distinction between "scholarly" students and those focused on "ministry." In the end, we can't throw the baby (theological education) out with the bathwater (accreditation), even though the bathwater is extremely filthy and full of various diseases. Wait, it's got to be your baby...

Wow, Dave, you really are surly if you can't think of any reforms that happened from within the church system. I'm thinking of one right now...some people even refer to it as the Reformation. Anyway, if a scholar were supported by a community and recognized as having valuable knowledge, then he wouldn't have to find a job as at a seminary or university and perpetuate the system. As someone who plans to be at the top of the pecking order in your diagram, I have to say that after spending the amount of money I will spend (and time) gaining knowledge, it's pretty impossible for me NOT to get a job teaching and perpetuate the separation of the church.

Wow, Dave, you really are surly if you can't think of any reforms that happened from within the church system. I'm thinking of one right now...some people even refer to it as the Reformation. Anyway, if a scholar were supported by a community and recognized as having valuable knowledge, then he wouldn't have to find a job as at a seminary or university and perpetuate the system. As someone who plans to be at the top of the pecking order in your diagram, I have to say that after spending the amount of money I will spend (and time) gaining knowledge, it's pretty impossible for me NOT to get a job teaching and perpetuate the separation of the church.

Wow, Dave, you really are surly if you can't think of any reforms that happened from within the church system. I'm thinking of one right now...some people even refer to it as the Reformation. Anyway, if a scholar were supported by a community and recognized as having valuable knowledge, then he wouldn't have to find a job as at a seminary or university and perpetuate the system. As someone who plans to be at the top of the pecking order in your diagram, I have to say that after spending the amount of money I will spend (and time) gaining knowledge, it's pretty impossible for me NOT to get a job teaching and perpetuate the separation of the church.

I guess I still have a lot of problems with strategic consumerism. (1) We're basing evangelism around where we buy things, not necessarily who we expect to meet. (2) Like you said, we don't normally make friends in public places. (3) One may be foregoing personal taste in favor of location, but a person still buys things according to personal taste, making it a form of affinity-based evangelism. (4) Poor people are less likely to frequent businesses that rely on customers with discretionary income (restaurants, coffee shops, bars, etc.), the very businesses that encourage congregating. (5) In the end, a strategic consumer's options for meeting people are limited to other regulars. If I visit a coffee shop every day, the range of people I may get to know doesn't include everyone in the coffee shop. It includes every who frequents it nearly as much or more than I do. In addition, if I'm trying to draw that person into my neighborhood focus, they also need to live in my neighborhood. So the list is shortened to regulars who live in the neighborhood (who are there the same time I am).

It's not that I'm rejecting the idea outright, it's just that I find it to be quite unnatural and troubling in the details.

I guess I still have a lot of problems with strategic consumerism. (1) We're basing evangelism around where we buy things, not necessarily who we expect to meet. (2) Like you said, we don't normally make friends in public places. (3) One may be foregoing personal taste in favor of location, but a person still buys things according to personal taste, making it a form of affinity-based evangelism. (4) Poor people are less likely to frequent businesses that rely on customers with discretionary income (restaurants, coffee shops, bars, etc.), the very businesses that encourage congregating. (5) In the end, a strategic consumer's options for meeting people are limited to other regulars. If I visit a coffee shop every day, the range of people I may get to know doesn't include everyone in the coffee shop. It includes every who frequents it nearly as much or more than I do. In addition, if I'm trying to draw that person into my neighborhood focus, they also need to live in my neighborhood. So the list is shortened to regulars who live in the neighborhood (who are there the same time I am).


It's not that I'm rejecting the idea outright, it's just that I find it to be quite unnatural and troubling in the details.

I guess I still have a lot of problems with strategic consumerism. (1) We're basing evangelism around where we buy things, not necessarily who we expect to meet. (2) Like you said, we don't normally make friends in public places. (3) One may be foregoing personal taste in favor of location, but a person still buys things according to personal taste, making it a form of affinity-based evangelism. (4) Poor people are less likely to frequent businesses that rely on customers with discretionary income (restaurants, coffee shops, bars, etc.), the very businesses that encourage congregating. (5) In the end, a strategic consumer's options for meeting people are limited to other regulars. If I visit a coffee shop every day, the range of people I may get to know doesn't include everyone in the coffee shop. It includes every who frequents it nearly as much or more than I do. In addition, if I'm trying to draw that person into my neighborhood focus, they also need to live in my neighborhood. So the list is shortened to regulars who live in the neighborhood (who are there the same time I am).

It's not that I'm rejecting the idea outright, it's just that I find it to be quite unnatural and troubling in the details.

Why would you expect there to be a church of less than 2000 in a list of the 50 most influential churches? I can't imagine a church of 80-100 or even 200-300 people having nearly the influence that a mega-church does. I don't think their influence is entirely bad either (e.g. #12's generous support to familiar fledgling church plants), nor do I think it's indicative of arrogance/self-aggrandizement when a pastor/church leader puts his mug on display (e.g. posters, flyers, websites, etc.)

Why would you expect there to be a church of less than 2000 in a list of the 50 most influential churches? I can't imagine a church of 80-100 or even 200-300 people having nearly the influence that a mega-church does. I don't think their influence is entirely bad either (e.g. #12's generous support to familiar fledgling church plants), nor do I think it's indicative of arrogance/self-aggrandizement when a pastor/church leader puts his mug on display (e.g. posters, flyers, websites, etc.)

Why would you expect there to be a church of less than 2000 in a list of the 50 most influential churches? I can't imagine a church of 80-100 or even 200-300 people having nearly the influence that a mega-church does. I don't think their influence is entirely bad either (e.g. #12's generous support to familiar fledgling church plants), nor do I think it's indicative of arrogance/self-aggrandizement when a pastor/church leader puts his mug on display (e.g. posters, flyers, websites, etc.)

The only caveat I would give is that you're describing a culturally defined way of doing mission. Moving into an area and observing is an approach to reaching people who are in a concentrated urban area, whose jobs are probably in or near that neighborhood, who fit a certain sub-culture of being present enough in the neighborhood for you to reach them. This approach would not, for example work if your mission was to travelling salesmen, or flight attendants. Less drastically, it might not be as meaningful to people in a suburban area, or to certain groups of people in an urban area (college students, recent immigrants with ties to well-entrenched, second-generation immigrants.) But maybe I'm jumping the gun, maybe you were going to talk about that in one of the coming posts.

The only caveat I would give is that you're describing a culturally defined way of doing mission. Moving into an area and observing is an approach to reaching people who are in a concentrated urban area, whose jobs are probably in or near that neighborhood, who fit a certain sub-culture of being present enough in the neighborhood for you to reach them. This approach would not, for example work if your mission was to travelling salesmen, or flight attendants. Less drastically, it might not be as meaningful to people in a suburban area, or to certain groups of people in an urban area (college students, recent immigrants with ties to well-entrenched, second-generation immigrants.) But maybe I'm jumping the gun, maybe you were going to talk about that in one of the coming posts.

The only caveat I would give is that you're describing a culturally defined way of doing mission. Moving into an area and observing is an approach to reaching people who are in a concentrated urban area, whose jobs are probably in or near that neighborhood, who fit a certain sub-culture of being present enough in the neighborhood for you to reach them. This approach would not, for example work if your mission was to travelling salesmen, or flight attendants. Less drastically, it might not be as meaningful to people in a suburban area, or to certain groups of people in an urban area (college students, recent immigrants with ties to well-entrenched, second-generation immigrants.) But maybe I'm jumping the gun, maybe you were going to talk about that in one of the coming posts.

I do, and it's not necessary what I meant. We drew people in because of how we meet, I wonder if we should modify that accordingly. I also think the mission needs to be better defined before we can do anything effectively.

I do, and it's not necessary what I meant. We drew people in because of how we meet, I wonder if we should modify that accordingly. I also think the mission needs to be better defined before we can do anything effectively.

I do, and it's not necessary what I meant. We drew people in because of how we meet, I wonder if we should modify that accordingly. I also think the mission needs to be better defined before we can do anything effectively.

It does sound beautiful, I think we should do what you're suggesting, and drop anything that doesn't look like what you're suggesting.

It does sound beautiful, I think we should do what you're suggesting, and drop anything that doesn't look like what you're suggesting.

It does sound beautiful, I think we should do what you're suggesting, and drop anything that doesn't look like what you're suggesting.

So, if I can deduce an answer to my question in your reply, you consider it a matter of degree rather than of kind in regard to the conduct of Christians that ought to engender persecution. In other words, you think people are doing the right things, just not to the proper degree.

So, if I can deduce an answer to my question in your reply, you consider it a matter of degree rather than of kind in regard to the conduct of Christians that ought to engender persecution. In other words, you think people are doing the right things, just not to the proper degree.

So, if I can deduce an answer to my question in your reply, you consider it a matter of degree rather than of kind in regard to the conduct of Christians that ought to engender persecution. In other words, you think people are doing the right things, just not to the proper degree.

I got a 10, mostly because I'm a delivery driver and that jacked up the amount of time I drive alone and the amount of time I spend driving each week. Without my job, I would have scored a 7. As a vegetarian, I shaved 2 full points off my score. Still you would need an extra planet for everyone to live like me. Pretty convicting.