"Missional" Defined
As noted in a recent post, Dan Kimball's Out of Ur article has generated significant discussion and prompted numerous, in-depth responses from theo-blogians. Andy Rowell is tracking these (Thanks, Andy!), but I wanted to post here a link to Michael Frost's Out of Ur video discussion, posted yesterday, "Defining 'Missional'".
Also of note are Brother Maynard's responses, "Missional Misgivings, or Missional Misunderstandings?" (Tues) and "The Missional/Attractional Divide: Dan Kimball Unpolarized" (Fri), which are more nuanced, I feel, than Dave's treatment of the issue (on which he is consistent).
Of particular help are BM's comments in yesterday's post:
That concurs with Tim Keller's response at Dave's blog that, ultimately, numbers are not determinative of effectiveness in mission. At most, the size and model of church ought to appropriately correspond to factors of mobility, population density, and cultural dispositions of its surrounding community.
Also of note are Brother Maynard's responses, "Missional Misgivings, or Missional Misunderstandings?" (Tues) and "The Missional/Attractional Divide: Dan Kimball Unpolarized" (Fri), which are more nuanced, I feel, than Dave's treatment of the issue (on which he is consistent).
Of particular help are BM's comments in yesterday's post:
But the point is this: while we have multiple cultures waxing and waning, we need both styles of church. And both styles of church need to be asking questions about effectiveness. Such questions should not be allowed to threaten the very model itself, as both have been proven theoretically and experientially in their own contexts.
That concurs with Tim Keller's response at Dave's blog that, ultimately, numbers are not determinative of effectiveness in mission. At most, the size and model of church ought to appropriately correspond to factors of mobility, population density, and cultural dispositions of its surrounding community.
nice blog, I looked it up because I appreciated your post on the Fitch-blog. You asked some questions that I would have wnted to ask if I could get my mind around things.
ReplyDeleteTo me it seems like things have been falsely boiled down to a "attractional" and "missional" dichotomy. Therefore if your style is not attractional then it must be missional. Likewise if you choose not to make the same mistakes as megareligion, then what your are doing is "working", disciples or not.
And too often we as Christ's people spend too much time asking if somebody else is doing it right instead of soul-searching to see if our own (plural) efforts are really making disciples.
Seriously! I think both sides of the debate overemphasize model and method, as well as fail to rigorously evaluate the outcomes of our own ministry.
ReplyDelete