3 Comments
User's avatar
Leon J O'Flynn's avatar

There is a great deal going on in this response, really helpful, and I like what I am reading.

As I was reading your response, as you were defining terms, and doing good hermeneutics, I had a question and an observation. The observation is that all creeds are products of the times and issues of the day. The big ones are the same; some have more legs than others, but all fall short. I love that in the Apostolic Creed we get specific details about Jesus, and "I believe in the Holy Spirit," either not an issue, as everyone was on the same page or maybe not even thought about. Who knew that "Happy mothers day" was a political statement- I didn't when I was a kid. I wonder what the next creed will have in it? Something about AI?

The question I have is, did we have growth or just numbers? Willow Creek (the big dogs when I was starting for growth) came out and said their programme did not get to discipleship. So we might have got people coming to a meeting because of hell (If I gave out half a $20 bill and said come to my church and get the other half- I would get a crowd), but did we make disciples?

Greg McKinzie's avatar

No, we did not make disciples! Making converts or members is one thing. Making disciples is another. To be fair, I don't know who "we" is, exactly. I don't think a church model rules out disciple-making in principle. But many attractional models do in practice. I'm not convinced it can be otherwise.

Leon J O'Flynn's avatar

I suppose in this case it is the royal we, or at least it was meant be.