Missional Journal Vol. 2 No. 4 and No. 5 – Missional, Emerging, Emergent: A Traveler’s Guide

Well, what do you think about this “Traveler’s Guide”?  Is it helpful?  Is it fair?  Does it need to be refined or refocused?

10 Responses to “Missional Journal Vol. 2 No. 4 and No. 5 – Missional, Emerging, Emergent: A Traveler’s Guide”

  1. Don George Says:

    I also am wary of drawing lines but I also see the need to understand the dynamics of a group before I am willing to be identified with it. It is not to be judgemental but for the sake of being clear where I stand. I found this article very helpful. It is true that Brian M’Claren can leave one guessing. There is a great interview with him on the Allelon site.

  2. len Says:

    David, helpful I think, and I’m interested in asking one more question as a consequence. In short, I’m interested in the confluence of three streams: missional, emerging and monastic. It seems there is a synergy here, and if Homer-Dixon is right about the power of synergy to bring dynamic change, we have an interesting ride ahead :) If I have time tonight I’ll write a blog entry pursuing this one..

  3. andrew Says:

    its great Dave. REally appreciate it. probably no comments here because we had forgotten (or didnt realize) that you have a blog. i will put a link to it now.

  4. Keith Says:

    Dave,
    I think you did a very good job of showing the differences. The one point I would make regarding those in the emergent movement is not only are the reacting the liberalism-fundamentalism poles of the 20th cent. I believe they are also reacting against the more Calvinist-Reformed theologies.

    When I listened to several of the leaders of the emerging church, a few years ago at the Emerging Pastors event in Nashvile, I noticed most of the conversation/reaction was to a Calvinist mindset. As a Methodist within the Wesleyan theological area I found them to be addressing issues/concerns that we have not faced. (I’m not talking worship syle here; but issues of social outreach, etc.)

  5. Dave Dunbar Says:

    Keith,
    Thanks for a helpful comment. I think you are right in your observation.

  6. Dave Dunbar Says:

    Len,
    You are probably aware that our friends at Allelon are working on developing a missional order patterned somewhat after the Northumbria Community. So, yes, it could be an interesting ride.

  7. len Says:

    Dave, yes, in fact I posted a lengthy update on the ALLELON journal on the progress toward a missional order .. out of conversation with alan r.. just about a week ago. And then a couple days ago I posted a response to your “Travelers Guide” on the Missional Journey blog :o )

  8. len Says:

    Dave, yes, in fact I posted a lengthy update on the ALLELON journal on the progress toward a missional order .. out of conversation with alan r.. just about a week ago. And then a couple days ago I posted a response to your “Travelers Guide” on the Missional Journey blog :o )

    Here is the link.. http://www.allelon.org/missional_journey/?p=115

  9. len Says:

    A little more thought on this last night and I’ll post another update on Thursday..
    http://nextreformation.com/?p=2239

  10. Patrick Says:

    Thank you for this helpful post. I like your distinctions.

    A question (for reflection or discussion): Where do trinitarian ecclesiologies fit into the mix? While not a direct response to postmodernity, trinitarian theology and ecclesiologies coincide with the relational turn (in philosophy, theology, anthropology, etc.), which affects our understanding of person, soteriology, and church.

    I’ve pondered a slightly different version: (1) missional, which includes sociological and theological/missiological (i.e. missio Dei, etc.) strands; (2) emerging/ent, which includes philosophical strands (it is these people that tend to interact with Derrida, etc.); and (3) Trinitarian (esp. social trinitarianism) strands, in which relational categories are fundamental (diverse here: Barth, Bonhoeffer, the Torrances, Volf, Grenz, etc.).

    In light of your post, I need to re-think (2). But, I’m wondering: how do you account for (3)?

Leave a Reply