I've been going to write for awhile about why I prefer the term "emerging" when describing church instead of "missional." But.... it just hasn't happened, so here's a random rambling. If you're not familiar with either term you can check out Scot McKnight's Five Streams of the Emerging Church, or Ed Stetzer's Understanding The Emerging Church, and the Friend of Missional site.
Actually, I have no problem with the *meaning* of either term. My preference for emerging over missional has more to do with perception. And I'm not speaking for anyone else, but IN MY MIND, when I hear the word "missional" it conjures up mental images of *doing something.* Even when people speak of "being a part of God's mission" (or however you want to say it), I understand and agree with what they're saying, but it still seems to be about *me* *doing* *something.* And while I agree that most, if not all, Christians do need to do more in living out their faith, it's not just about doing. I also think for many people the term carries with it some negative energy. For some it can make them feel guilty ("I'll never be able to do enough"), or defensive ("I don't want to go to Africa and be a missionary"), or it can even (unintentionally) lead some into a works-based theology ("God already did his part now it's our turn to do ours"). So while I believe it is a good concept, I just feel the word is much too narrow in perception to fully define its intent.
Of course it's not like the word "emerging" isn't without baggage of its own. But again, FOR ME PERSONALLY, I like this word. When I hear "emerging" or think of my faith as "emerging"... I have this sense of GOD doing something in me, and through me; and as a result of that I am working WITH God and becoming something more. It's makes me think of becoming more Christ-like; being transformed into the image, made into; being ...SANCTIFIED, and set free. So it's more of a 'me and God and church' everything-working-together sorta thing.
At any rate, I realize this is rather simplistic but I wanted to get something down before I forgot about it entirely. And it's not like it really makes a difference, but... it's my blog and I can write what I want to! If you have any thoughts on the subject I would certainly like to hear them. For instance: Do you prefer the word "emerging," or "missional," or something else? Lemme know.
Peace out; peace in.
14 comments:
Actually, I dislike "missional" just because, while it is a real word dating back to the early 20th century, it just sounds/seems "off" somehow. Clumsy.
I think I agree with what you're saying, although I'm still trying to understand the word emerging (I like the graphic of the plant growing in the dirt of someone's hands that is often used with the term).
I agree with what you say about 'missional'. I associate it with going somewhere overseas. I know it means much more than that but I were asked to write down the first thought that comes to my mind when someone flashes the word in front of me it woudl be something along the lines of vacination shots and AIDS.
One thing I've been interested in lately is the responsibility of the receiver during communication. The sender of any message has this responsibility to articulate what they mean. On the other end, the reciever has the responsibility of interpreting what the sender means. I don't think we as people do a very good job at that. For example, if you were to say to me, "Carrie, are you part of the emerging church?" it is my responsibility to make sure that I know what you mean and your responsibility to tell me what you mean.
By no means do I want to undermine the importance of the sender. That's the first step - and it's important to understand that not everyone's interpretation of a word or a group of the words is the same as ours.
This is the second time I've rambled on about something today. I'll be done.
Get the horses! We've gotta find some way to stop that runaway comment before it gets to Union City!
Interesting... my understanding of the word "missional" is exactly the opposite, namely that it is fundamentally about the "being" of the church rather than the "doing" of the church. In that sense it is intended to be the opposite of the old style "missionary" paradigm that put the emphasis on the missions (doing) of the church. I can quote many sources in this regard.
This is where Dan comes out and says "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard! You're completely wrong!"
'cuz you know how he gets.
Jim,
Thanks for jumping in first, and for being honest.
Carrie,
I think you're right - a lot of people have no idea what either word means. And part of the responsibility does fall on the listener. However, I think the simple truth is... the average "person in the pew" has no clue about these words and is therefore going to interpret them based on the mental image they perceive. That's why I don't really care for the term "missional." Thanks for pointing out that we all need to be a little more responsible in the communication game though (What was your major?). :)
Jannie,
Thanks for sharing. I can't believe someone would think the opposite of me! :) (kidding). I would be interested in seeing some of your sources if you get a chance.
I am going to abuse the fact you're on my blogroll and ask you to promote an idea I've had for helping local charities. I would appreciate it if you could help spread the word.
For the record: I was not stating *missional* facts here. I was stating mere feelings.... impressions if-you-will. I know what I have described isn't what *missional* is about, and it isn't what *emerging* is either. Maybe it was a lame attempt at generating some conversation. I was just thinking out loud.
Oh, and, thanks for those sources Jannie. ;\
thanks for your reply dan h, and sorry it took me a while to get back. the sources i referred to are the work of craig van gelder on "the essence of the church" and "the ministry of the missional church." his work is influenced by the gospel and our culture network that emerged from the work of lesslie newbigin, david bosch and others. since the willingen mission conference in 1952 it became common to focus on the missio dei rather than the mission(s) of the church. then missional is primarily a description of the BEING rather than the DOING of church. God is the primary subject and missional means a way of being in the presence of God and God's mission in the world.
Jannie,
I appreciate the follow-up, and I couldn't agree with you more about what missional means. And I am all for that. But it doesn't change the fact that that's not the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear or see the word, and what's more, I don't think that's what comes to mind when Joe Pew hears it either. And if it's a matter of spending time trying to define it over and over and over again to everyone, then maybe we ought to think of a better way to try to convey the meaning. Does that make sense?
Anyway, thanks for reply.
makes a lot of sense. and i have first hand experience of how true it is what you say. that is why i am involved in processes with local churches that help them discover what missional means in their particular contexts. it is called PARTNERSHIP FOR MISSIONAL CHURCH, a process of an institute called CHURCH INNOVATIONS. we work with churches here in the usa, in the uk, germany and south africa. it is a long journey of adaptive rather than technical change to transform a church culture to be missional
I just wanted to say, that if I CHOSE to post a comment right now (as it seems I am), the word verification I would have to type to get it posted is: zoigz
Shaggy would be proud.
Jannie,
Well, why didn't you say so in the first place. :) Sounds interesting. May God bless you in your work.
MR,
Scoobie-doobie-dooooooooooooo
since you were not asking about what people in the pew understand or not. you were saying what YOU prefer :)
god bless you too!
Post a Comment