They arent - Im far more traditional than emerging yet Im very missional.
I believe every church should be missional, because actively participating in God's redemptive work is everyone's role.
So when I see the number 2 entry in Google for the keyword missional so messed up like it is here it really frustrates me. There is a bias and an agenda with some of the contributors.
The fact that the word has been around 100 years doesnt seem to matter. Only thing that matters is source cites that meet with their approval.
Let's be real here folks - there's little that is nuetral in the statements made there.
In this usage "missional" has rapidly entered the lexicon of the growing emerging church movement whose participants have co-opted the term for their own use, enabling participants in this movement to recognize each other across denominational lines. Different emergents may use the term with different nuances and connotations, but the term persists as essentially a postmodern alternative to the ecclesiology and missiology of Evangelical Christians. The practical outworking of emergent, missional living does not coincide with the emphases on propositional evangelism, teaching, and holiness found in historic Christianity. Missional believers are more inclusive than exclusive, refusing to identify boundaries that could be perceived as an "us vs. them" mentality. Within this atmosphere so-called missional believers seek to enhance the lives of all postmoderns regardless of their belief system or lifestyle.
Co-opted? from what? emerging and missional are not the same. Missions and missional are not the same.
What say you to helping Brother Maynard set the record straight?
missional, missional church, Missional Living, Leadership,
