I found an interesting interview from Steve at World Changers with Alan Hirsch published here.
I particularly found this quote to be noteworthy
“Question: What’s the difference between “Emerging church” and “Missional church”?
Answer: I’m moving away from Emerging church as a term. I think it’s been hijacked by side debates. Emerging is about contextualizing church and the Gospel in a postmodern world.
Context is a subset of missions. Missional church sees ourselves as a missional agency of God in the world. All churches have to be missional. Not all churches need to be “emerging”. Established church can be missional. Emerging churches can be non-misisonal and intenally focused.”
I think that Alan is right on with these notes. This response helps to more clearly define terminology. The emerging movement within the Christian church is not necessarily a return to effective ministry, but instead a way to live out being the church in a particular context – namely the postmodern culture.
I agree
Missional is about function
emerging is about form
i don’t know if i’d say emergent is about form or mission is function as jerry mentions. it might be symantics, but i’d say emergent is about mindframe and mission is lifestyle.
i do like alan’s distinction that every church should be missional, but not all need emergent and that there is a difference between the two. i think it’s good for many to know, but not necessarily leave “emergent” behind, that emergent is hijacked by all kinds of debates, that are not necessarily relevant.
I could better follow your posts if you would supply supporting scripture in context with the topics.
Thank you.
Bob R.
Bob – Thanks for the comments. I will keep that in mind in future posts where it would be relevant. Thanks!
Andrew