Emerging and Missional
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
jerry
February 27, 2007 at 6:27 pm
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.
gavin
February 27, 2007 at 7:10 pm
I could better follow your posts if you would supply supporting scripture in context with the topics.
Thank you.
Bob R.
Robert Robbins
March 8, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Bob – Thanks for the comments. I will keep that in mind in future posts where it would be relevant. Thanks!
Andrew
Andrew C
March 8, 2007 at 8:23 pm