What Does it Mean to Be Missional?

Shannon,

I don’t leave the SBC for the same reason I don’t leave lots of relationships wherein I am capable of seeing both the good and the bad. But thanks for proving my point about introspection.

I really do not know where to begin to try to formulate a response to your last post. Your conviction is admirable, but I simply find your argumentation incoherent. I keep looking for warrants and other substantive statements to back sweeping claims and assertions, yet I search in vain. So I’ll try to respond to a few points as best I can.

First, I think you COMPLETELY missed my point for bringing up eschatology. I wasn’t making a comment about the merits of dispensationalism per se, or the silly novels. Rather, I was attempting to explain to PastorSBC that one of the reasons that “missional” (rightly used, not how you seem to be using it) likely won’t ever catch on in the SBC because most in the SBC blindly accept dispensational eschatology. While missional isn’t overly concerned with eschatology, it is very much concerned with ecclesiology, and really isn’t compatible with any system that sees the church as little more than a parenthesis in redemption history. Given SBs attraction to dispensationalism (and modernism and triumphalism…therefore the rest of my paragraph above), one wouldn’t think they (we) will embracing “missional” en masse any time soon.

Also, I made the distinction between “emergent” with a small “e” and “Emergent” with a big “E” because “Emergent” is an organization (And therefore a proper noun, hence the capital letter.) headed by Brian McLaren. He and his organization don’t represent the broad spectrum of voices involved in the missional conversation any more than you speak for all Baptists in the Midwest. Regrettably, because of what he named his organization, many people fail to notice the distinction (some notice it, but simply refuse to acknowledge for the sake of polemics). There ARE people creeping—even sprinting—towards relativism in the emerging movement, especially those closely aligned with Emergent, the organization. But they do not represent the whole.

As to why people would want to be associated with language that can confuse them with heterodoxy, I think that is why you will find most conservatives preferring the word “missional” or going to great lengths to clarify “emerging” (small e) versus McLaren’s organization. But, still, I must ask…why must the onus be on them? Why should not those making the critique be the ones to do the homework to learn the differences in terminology?

As far as your concerns about pastors adopting whatever “gets results”, I don’t know what to say except that you’ve grossly misjudged the missional conversation if you think it’s about “results”. Perhaps you’re equaing “missional” with seeker-sensitive, purpose-driven, etc. That’s a mistake. Theoretically, a church could be extremely traditional in its worship style and programming and be “more” missional than a seeker church if the congregation in the traditional church understands themselves to be a sent community, called by God, sent by Christ, and led by the Spirit as a foretaste of the Kingdom to witness to the gospel and “seek and save that which is lost” as an extension of Christ’s incarnational mission on earth. It has little to do with worship styles or program structures and everything to do with philosophy of ministry, ecclesiology, and missiology.

Friend, I share your concerns about pragmatism. The sad fact is that if you want to see some of the most egregious examples of pragmatism run amuck, then you need to look no farther than some of our “flagship” churches, none of which claim to be “missional” and all of which claim to believe in inerrancy and espouse conservative theology.

Contextualization unrestrained could very well lead to syncretism. I suppose one could also argue that Arminianism unrestrained leads to Openness of God theology and that Calvinism unrestrained leads to Fatalism. Thankfully, we have the bounds of Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit to RESTRAIN. I don’t know where you have read anybody advocating for unrestrained contextualization. Certainly not in any of the primary sources.

I’m sorry, but I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say with, “BTW, your (sic) ignorant if you haven't read articles from Emergent Church leaders as well as Church Growth people along with the dudes that put out the Leadership website, materials etc...” No offense, but I believe it is probably apparent to anybody reading this thread who has and who hasn’t read the preponderance of pertinent materials on this particular subject.

 

Pastor,

If possible, start with Stetzer. He writes from the perspective of a Southern Baptist, he does a good job of lining out the various streams of thought and divergent voices, yet he still "gets it."

From there, the Guder article in International Review of Mission and the the Hunsberger article in Reformed Review are pretty good, too. Both journals are accessible online through ATLA through your seminary library, so you can read them easier than trying to get the bound volumes sent out to you.

I don't expect that you'll agree with everything they write. I don't. But even that with which I don't necessarily agree is thought provoking. And it's always good to be familiar with primary (or secondary in Stetzer's case) sources...

 

Hi RandR. I thought some of your analyses were pretty fair although I am probably more sympathetic of McLaren and folks who you identify with a big "E" Emergent. Which leads to my question: What is this big "E" Emergent organization that Brian McLaren heads, www.emergentvillage.org? I never thought of any emergent group as an "organization" and I've never heard of Brian McLaren as the "head" of any organization.

Thanks.

 

emergent village has within the last year named a director so they can have some organization.

But Ed Stetzer is the right place to begin for anyone who wants to understand missional within a inerrantist context. Ed is thoroughly committed to inerrancy and not only writes about being missional, he models it also.

 

Thanks I didn't know that.

Tony Jones is the Coordinator of Emergent Village.

John Berryhill is chief director of the Emerging Church Network based in Texas and focused on that area.

Spencer Burke is the creator of The Ooze and I'm having trouble finding who the primary editors are for emergingchurch.info both of which are websites and not organizations. The Underground Railroad is a forum which apparently has a director but I couldn't find a name.

I don't know of any other really prominent emergent groups that could constitute as an emergent church organization that is headed by Brian McLaren. There are plenty of emergent christians and churches that read from many authors including Brian McLaren. I am one of them and really enjoy his articulate way of describing the journey of faith many Christians are going through in this postmodern era that we live in.

Never heard of Ed, but thanks for the recommendation.

 

Dragon,

You caught me making a misstatement. (Frankly, I was quite tired and probably wasn't being careful because I figured the person to whom I was writing wouldn't bother to read my post anyway.) I know that Tony Jones is the coordinator of Emergent Village. But McLaren is closely associated with Jones and the network and is Emergent Village's most well-known and widely-read personality, and I've always figured that he's actively involved in its leadership. I'll go back and correct the post if the mods will let me.

Also, I use the term "Emergent" instead of "Emergent Village" because on the EV website, they refer to themselves as "Emergent", as if it is a proper noun.

Regardless, I stand by my assertion that Jones, Padgitt, McLaren et al. don't represent the entirety of what it means to be missional nor are they the sole arbiters of its definition. And when critics of missional use those guys as the standard, and thereby dismiss the rest of the missional conversants as heterodox, they're doing the kingdom a great disservice.

 

Fair enough. While I don't see McLaren playing an active role at all in Emergent Village, we can assume that his writings do influence those in leadership of EV. Which leads to my next question: What do you see as problematic with the EV understanding of missional that you feel they have co-opted from a more "orthodox" defintion of missional, if there ever was such a thing?

 

Missional is something that every church can and should be. It denotes that you are mission (goal) oriented (not purpose driven in Rick Warren's concept). Of course, the proper mission for the church is the mission that Christ gave her. Missional should be coupled with value-centered with the values defined by the Bible. This should not be anything goes goal orientation.

By the way, for any who are interested, there are some mp3's on ABWE's site on the subject of post-modernism and the 3rd one does touch on this concept. The recording were made at one of their pastor's conferences and the speaker is Dr. James Grier.

 

Dragon,

I don't mean to imply that EV has co-opted anything from an "orthodox" meaning of missional. Rather that McLaren, Jones, et al. are flirting with a less than "orthodox" version of Christianity.

It isn't just me that thinks that. Mark Driscoll is a one-time close associate of those guys who has "parted ways" with them on several theological points.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

I am aware of many who are critical of McLaren and his views. I have read A New Kind of Christian and A Generous Orthodoxy. Many seem to look at A Generous Orthodoxy as a treatise on McLaren's and Emergent theology, making some uncomfortable. I have no problem with folks being critical of McLaren's views, but often folks don't understand the context he writes in.

Yes McLaren does deal with many theological positions in A Generous Orthodoxy, but I saw it more as a celebration of the positive contributions of the various Christian traditions to the whole of Christianity and how emergents can learn from them. I find his observations to be similar to many of my own observations that I made before I ever picked up his book. In fact, I found A Generous Orthodoxy to be quite disappointing because I felt many of the ideas he presented were not new at all to me.

What I did find interesting was his introductory chapter that most of his critics probably ignored. He spent a significant portion of the book trying to encourage folks to stop reading the book, if they would be offended, especially with the appearance of "less than orthodox" ideas. Of course this probably had the opposite effect of attracting his critics to continue reading.

Anyway, my point is that while I understand the criticism of A Generous Orthodoxy, I find that most critics of the book tend to be folks who read these things with the intent of picking apart with things that they disagree with. And McLaren already acknowledged the critics beforehand by saying they should never have read the book in the first place since he expects them to be unhappy with what he has to say and he isn't out to start theological battles with people. God knows we have enough of those already.

I would be interested in hearing Driscoll's disagreements with McLaren.

 

I quickly read the issue between Driscoll and McLaren.

Out of Ur : Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question: Finding a Pastoral Response

Out of Ur: Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question 3: A Prologue and Rant by Mark Driscoll

I find myself identifying with McLaren and appreciating Driscoll's humble apology.

 

Dragon,

In Driscoll's new book, he explains the history of his relationship with those guys. And while not in the context of that relationship, he makes a point of affirming substitutionary atonement, literal hell, homosexuality is a sin, etc.

If I get some time later, I'll give quotes and page numbers.

 

Maybe we can take this to another thread since the Driscoll-McLaren relationship isn't about the term missional. Thanks for looking into this topic.

BTW I agree with all of those positions as well.