I think you've summed things up real well. The problem with comparing emerging with missional is that emerging is such a broad movement, which depending on how you look at it, could include missional communities.

I think you've laid out a good framework for understanding the different paradigms that an emerging church may function under.

I think you also made clear that the comparison is not do distinguish one as better than the other, but as a means to understand eachother and be able to communicate and collaborate with eachother. top

I like this post and feel you have the beginnings of a very good clarification of the true difference between a missional community and a traditional/emerging church. The IMA/ADH value sets are super and a good way to remember the difference.

Where did you pick up the concept of the two-fold practice of LISTEN & OBEY. Its perfect! Going to have to incorporate it into my vocabulary.

I'm putting a link to this post on "Friend of Missional." top

Thank you both for your input on these thoughts.

The phrase: "LISTEN & OBEY" is something that arose from my meditations. The idea is certainly nothing new or different... I'm sure that you'll agree that this concept is found throughout Scripture.

Brevity of rhetoric is of great value to me and I'm trying to practice this more and more... the phrase LISTEN & OBEY was born out of my desire to "boil down" the classic Navigator Wheel into something less rigid and more universal.

In meditating further on this model, I've discovered that it opens up a lot of doors of discussion... Example: If your goal is to be more and more in step with the Spirit in your everyday life, is listen & obey a meaningful way to break this down? What are the alternatives to listen & obey? To listen and not obey? What about obeying without listening? Is this possible? How? What are we obeying when we don't listen to the Spirit first? Flesh? Dogma? Tradition? Popular Opinion?

If the first step to a life with Christ is LISTEN, then why do we focus on telling each other WHAT to do? Shouldn't we be starting first with WHO to listen to and HOW? I've discovered that my role is less and less getting people to believe certain things or do certain things.... but my role in the human race is to help people to slow down and experience a personal encounter with God.

I could go on and on..... LOL!

Peace,
-topher top

Thanks for this, it gives some helpful clarification. top

I have never heard it put this way before. It makes a lot of sense. I would really like to see a breakdown comparing all three. I don't think you can lump emerging and traditional together, even though an emerging church could be more missional or more traditional. Maybe that is the problem. Maybe emerging church is simply not a category, but more of a transition. top

From my own limited thought and exposure, it seems to me that the terms "traditional" and "emerging" deal largely with the issue of "forms," though I realize (as I soon as I write it) that this is overly-simplistic. Yet, in this simplistic form, it appears that nearly all "emerging" churches are seeking ways to be missional. On the other hand, a few traditional churches (not many, and not with much success--though I would love to hear of more) are trying to make the transition from attractional to missional. Thus, is it overly-simplistic to say that "all/most" emerging churches are missional, but not all missional churches can be described as emerging? top

It seems to me that this word "missional" is the new exciting buzz word that everyone wants to use when describing their church. I see churches claiming to be missional when they are NOT, WHATSOEVER. There is really no such thing as a missional church that is not fully IMA in their understanding of God.

Because people can not let go of the ADH paradigm, they would rather just derive certain elements from the missional communities, then overlay certain practices onto their church services and VuuuALA! Missional Church! Yet I enter into these communities and quickly realize that what they really meant is "we're the same as every other church, except we tell our people to go be missionaries and reach their friends, then bring them back to the church" or "we decided that instead of a purpose-built sanctuary, we're going to meet in a purpose-built coffee house! Then we'll call it "God's Coffeehouse" and put up a big sign out front that says "Got God?" I'm not making this up. I've been to these churches. They all claim to be "missional." I get so frustrated that I can't sit through a service without screaming "what are you doing? This is nuts! Why are we buying into this paradigm?"

No matter how edgy, creative, cool, hip you are..... No matter how alternative your meeting spaces are.... No matter how down-to-earth your pastor is.... No matter how active your small group ministries are..... No matter how much outreach to the community you are involved in.... If you are still operating on an ADH paradigm, then I'm sorry, but you are not what I would call a "missional church" because clergy/laity, extractional, dualistic paradigms are directly opposed to the Missio Dei.

To sum up: I have never heard any of my friends from missional communities refer to themselves as "emerging," though I suppose, if they did- I would see that they are an IMA emerging church and I would be ok with it. But just about every ADH church these days is wanting to be emerging and missional, so they use that language when they look nothing like missional community. For an emerging church to become missional, I think that wisdom shows that they would have to disband and spend a period of time completely stripped of a building, pastor, and even christian friendships. They would have to find another tribe. A tribe in their city that is not christian. They would have to go through the process of becoming an authentic member of that tribe. They might do this with a few other IMA minded christians, or maybe not. But over time, these people would be able to deprogram their ADH language. Then, when enough time has passed, they might be able to join together with a band of IMA folks who will commit to one another to share similar rhythms of keeping an eye out for what God is doing in their tribe. They will then be a missional people, expressing their various gifts, discipling, nurturing, accounting to one-another, sharing their lives with one another, and all members of the city tribes. After enough time passes, they will look at the church buildings with sadness, and wonder how they ever spent so many years trying to "become" missional from within those walls. top

ZOOMUSE: I HAVE TAKEN THE LIBERTY OF CUTTING AND PASTING TOPHER'S COMMENT SO THAT I CAN RESPOND TO SOME OF HIS PARTICULARS IN CAPITAL LETTERS. WHILE I AGREE THAT ALL HUMANS TEND TO ADOPT (AND SEEK TO ADAPT) TO NEW TERMS AND MOVEMENTS. wE HAVE CERTAINLY HAD OUR FILL OF SUCH THINGS AS SEEKER-SENSITIVE, GEN-X, ETC, SOME OF WHICH WERE MERELY TITLES OVERLAID ON A VERY TRADITIONAL HEART FOR MINISTRY. YET, THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM IS SIMPLY USING THE TERM WITHOUT THOUGHT.

TOPHER: It seems to me that this word "missional" is the new exciting buzz word that everyone wants to use when describing their church. I see churches claiming to be missional when they are NOT, WHATSOEVER. There is really no such thing as a missional church that is not fully IMA in their understanding of God.

ZOOMUSE: I AGREE WITH TOPHER, THOUGH NOT WITH THE SAME LEVEL OF DOGMATISM. I REALLY QUESTION WHETHER A TRADITIONAL, ATTRACTIONAL CHURCH CAN EVER TRULY SHED ITS INITIAL DNA. IT CAN ADD THINGS AND SUBTRACT THINGS, BUT AT THE ORGANIC DNA LEVEL, I AM NOT SO SURE. I HAD ONE OF THOSE "DUH!" MOMENTS RECENTLY: IN ORDER TO HAVE A MISSIONAL CHURCH OR COMMUNITY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE MISSIONAL FOLLOWERS OF JESUS, EVEN IF NOT ALL OF THEM ARE PRECISELY ON THE SAME PAGE AND AT THE SAME LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF WHAT IT ALL MEANS. A CHURCH IS NOT MISSIONAL BECAUSE IT HAS A "MISSIONAL" VISION, STRATEGY OR PURPOSE. IT IS NOT MISSIONAL BECAUSE SOME PORTION OF THE CHURCH WANT TO GO THIS DIRECTION. IT IS NOT MISSIONAL UNTIL THE MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO MAKE UP THE COMMUNITY ARE LONGING TO AND LIVING MISSIONALLY.

topher: Because people can not let go of the ADH paradigm, they would rather just derive certain elements from the missional communities, then overlay certain practices onto their church services and VuuuALA! Missional Church! Yet I enter into these communities and quickly realize that what they really meant is "we're the same as every other church, except we tell our people to go be missionaries and reach their friends, then bring them back to the church" or "we decided that instead of a purpose-built sanctuary, we're going to meet in a purpose-built coffee house! Then we'll call it "God's Coffeehouse" and put up a big sign out front that says "Got God?" I'm not making this up. I've been to these churches. They all claim to be "missional." I get so frustrated that I can't sit through a service without screaming "what are you doing? This is nuts! Why are we buying into this paradigm?"

ZOOMUSE: I UNDERSTAND THE FEELING. FOR MY WIFE AND I, IT'S THE LONG, FACT-FILLED, TOP-DOWN, MONOLOGICAL TEACHING SESSIONS THAT DROVE US FROM TRADITIONAL CHURCH, SCREAMING, "TOO MANY WORDS! TOO MANY WORDS!" YET, WHERE ARE THE BLINDSPOTS OF MISSIONAL CHURCHES? WHAT CAN'T WE SEE BECAUSE IT IS HIDDEN FROM OUR SIGHT BUT CLEAR TO OTHERS? WE NEED, AS ONE BLOGGER SUGGESTED, A HUMBLE MISSIONAL STANCE.

topher: No matter how edgy, creative, cool, hip you are..... No matter how alternative your meeting spaces are.... No matter how down-to-earth your pastor is.... No matter how active your small group ministries are..... No matter how much outreach to the community you are involved in.... If you are still operating on an ADH paradigm, then I'm sorry, but you are not what I would call a "missional church" because clergy/laity, extractional, dualistic paradigms are directly opposed to the Missio Dei.

ZOOMUSE: I AGREE. I HAVE JUST SCANNED TWO BOOKS WHICH ARE MARKETED AS FOR MISSIONAL CHURCH, YET IT STILL COMES WITH A GOOD DEAL OF PROGRAMMATIC, BRING-EM-IN METHODOLGY AND ETHOS. IN ONE THERE IS BUT A SMALL PARAGRAP HOR TWO ON LIVING INCARNATIONALLY.

topher: To sum up: I have never heard any of my friends from missional communities refer to themselves as "emerging," though I suppose, if they did- I would see that they are an IMA emerging church and I would be ok with it.

ZOOMUSE: THE BOOKS WHICH ARE CONSTANTLY MENTIONED AS THE "MUST READ" TITLES FOR MISSIONAL CHURCH (LIKE "SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME") DO USE THE TERM EMERGING IN REGARDS TO TRULY MISSIONAL COMMUNITIES. EMERGING, I THINK, IS SIMPLY A DESCRIPTIVE, SORT OF THE PLACE OF LIMINALITY, WHERE THE OLD IS FADING AND SOMETHING NEW IS COMING, THOUGH IN SHADOW FORM TO BEGIN WITH.

topher: But just about every ADH church these days is wanting to be emerging and missional, so they use that language when they look nothing like missional community.
For an emerging church to become missional, I think that wisdom shows that they would have to disband and spend a period of time completely stripped of a building, pastor, and even christian friendships. They would have to find another tribe. A tribe in their city that is not christian. They would have to go through the process of becoming an authentic member of that tribe. They might do this with a few other IMA minded christians, or maybe not. But over time, these people would be able to deprogram their ADH language. Then, when enough time has passed, they might be able to join together with a band of IMA folks who will commit to one another to share similar rhythms of keeping an eye out for what God is doing in their tribe. They will then be a missional people, expressing their various gifts, discipling, nurturing, accounting to one-another, sharing their lives with one another, and all members of the city tribes. After enough time passes, they will look at the church buildings with sadness, and wonder how they ever spent so many years trying to "become" missional from within those walls.

ZOOMUSE: I AM NOT AS READY AS YOU SEEM TO BE TO GIVE UP COMPLETELY ON THE OTHER PARADIGM (NOT FOR MYSELF, BUT FOR THE SEGMENT OF SOCIETIES WHICH WILL STILL BE REACHED BY THE ATTRACTIONAL FORM. IF DOING SOME MISSIONAL THINGS HELPS THEM BE MORE EFFECTIVE IN THEIR OWN WINESKIN, I WANT TO BE LIKE PAUL WHO SAID, "WHO CARES WHY PEOPLE DO THINGS. SO LONG AS THE GOSPLE IS PREACHED" (BAD PARAPHRASE OF PHIL 1). YET, I AGREE THAT SOME LEVEL OF DETOXIFICATION, SOME LEVEL OF DNA TRANSPLANT (WHICH INVOLVES SOME SORT OF READICAL SPIRITUAL CHEOTHERAPY) HAS OT OCCUR TO SEE REAL CHANGE AT THE LEVEL OF DNA.

THANKS, TOPHER, FOR "LETTING" ME BOUNCE OF YOUR THOUGHTS. top

I'm impressed by your comments, ZOOMUSE. Thank you for your thoughts. I apologize for my dogmatic stance in my last comment. It is a stance that needs to be challenged. I imagine that we are coming from different backgrounds and different environments and I'm thankful that our blogs may allow us to dialogue on this.

Truthfully, I am still struggling for resolution in these matters. I have seen the fruit of both ADH and IMA paradigms and I feel that although "Christ is preached" in both contexts, the character of the Christ that is preached is quite different. I cannot see biblical evidence for a ADH Jesus, and that is the crux for me.

Whatever humility might look like in this situation, I am still lost on it. I don't think that it would consist of me focusing on differences and being self-righteous... but I also don't think that it would consist of condoning a false teaching of Christ.

I like your "duh" moment. Maybe it's stating the obvious, but profound none-the-less.

I also like the way you phrased "emerging" church as a liminal expression of the church. That's a great way to look at it. It's not that I am against redemption of the church, it's that I don't think that it is practical for an ADH church to try and become IMA simply by updating itself. The radical change that would be needed would imply to me that the wisest approach would be to start from the ground up with a new community.

Christ did not try and focus on the synogogues when he began his ministry.. but instead he established something which was completely different, and which was not compatible with a religion of priests and buildings... it's not that he was against reaching the Jews... it's that he preferred to reach them by inviting them to join him "on the road." If they wanted to stay in the building, then he did not seemed concerned with staying for their sakes but would continue on his way.

What do you think? How does this relate to us now? How do you see your role in the emerging scene? top

Sorry for once again butting and pasting. I find I need your comments close at hand to remember what it is I am trying to say. i think it is called getting old!

topher: also like the way you phrased "emerging" church as a liminal expression of the church. That's a great way to look at it. It's not that I am against redemption of the church, it's that I don't think that it is practical for an ADH church to try and become IMA simply by updating itself.

ZOOMUSE: I REALLY DO AGREE WITH YOU. I LAUGHED AND CRIED WHEN I HEARD MY MOTHER-IN-LAW DESCRIBE THE $1,000,000+ BUILDING PROGRAM HER PASTOR PUSHED THROUGH. HE REALLY DID THINK THAT NEW PEWS AND CARPETS, PLUS A GYM WOULD ATTRACT ALL SORTS OF NEW PEOPLE. THEN, AS SOON THE BUILDING WAS COMPLETED, HE LEFT, LEAVING THEM ALL TO PAY THE DEBT INCURRED.

OVER THE YEARS I HAVE RETURNED, TIME AND AGAIN, TO 2 CORINTHIANS 2:14 THROUGH CHAPTER 7 WHERE PAUL DESCRIBES THE NATURE AND ETHOS OF HIS OWN MINISTRY, THE MINISTRY OF THE NEW COVENANT. CHAPTER 3 CONTRASTS THE OLD AND NEW COVENANTS IN TERMS OF THEIR IMPACT ON PEOPLE. THE OLD COVENANT DEALS WITH THE OUTSIDE, WITH APPEARANCES, WITH THINGS EASY TO CHANGE THAT DO NOT LEAD TO AUTHENTICITY. ULTIMATELY THE OLD COVENANT LEAVES BEHIND DEATH AND CONDEMNATION. i REALLY AGREE THAT AN EXTERNAL TWEAKING OF THINGS WILL NOT MAKE AN ATTRACTIONAL CHURCH ATTRACTIVE, AT LEAST NOT TO THOSE WHO LONG FOR SOMETHING MORE. BUT THERE WILL CONTINUE TO BE PEOPLE WHO ARE ATTRACTED AND IN THE MIDST OF IT ALL EXPERIENCE JEASUS IN REAL WAYS.

The radical change that would be needed would imply to me that the wisest approach would be to start from the ground up with a new community.
ZOOMUSE: AGAIN, I REALLY DO AGREE WITH YOU. THAT IS WHAT MY WIFE AND I ARE SEEKING HERE IN SOUTHERN ENGLAND, LONGING FOR REAL CONNECTION WITH PEOPLE.

Christ did not try and focus on the synogogues when he began his ministry.. but instead he established something which was completely different, and which was not compatible with a religion of priests and buildings... it's not that he was against reaching the Jews... it's that he preferred to reach them by inviting them to join him "on the road." If they wanted to stay in the building, then he did not seemed concerned with staying for their sakes but would continue on his way.
ZOOMUSE: GOOD POINT.

What do you think? How does this relate to us now? How do you see your role in the emerging scene?
ZOOMUSE: AS I HAVE SAID TO SEVERAL CLOSE FRIENDS IN RECENT DAYS. I FEEL ALL DRESSED UP WITH NOWHERE TO GO. GOD HAS GIVEN ME GIFTS AND MANY YEARS OF MINSTRY EXPERIENCE, SOME OF WHICH MAY MAKE IT THROUGH THE FIRE! I WANT TO INVEST MY REMAINING YEARS IN GETTING TO KNOW GOD BETTER SO I MIGHT BE ABLE TO INFLUENCE A FEW OTHERS.

I AM THOROUGHLY ENJOYING THE INTERACTION I AM ABLE TO HAVE VIA BLOGSITES. I AM ALSO STARTING TO CONNECT WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE SEEKING TO LOVE PEOPLE IN AREAS OUTSIDE MY COMFORT ZONE. MY WIFE AND I ARE TIRED OF TALKING THE TALK, SO WE ARE STARTING TO FIND SMALL WAYS TO WALK THE WALK MORE FAITHFULLY.

GRACE TO YOU TODAY!
RICK top

Oops, I really didn't butt and paste. I thnk I meant cut? but who knows. top

It's a pleasure to discuss these things with you. I can understand how frustrating it is to be all talk and no action. Thanks for sharing your heart. Keep us updated as the Lord leads you in fresh paths.

A prayer that was recently shared with me:

May God bless you with discomfort
At easy answers, half-truths, and superficial relationships
So that you may live deep within your heart.


May God bless you with anger
At injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people,
So that you may work for justice, freedom and peace.


May God bless you with tears
To shed for those who suffer pain, rejection, hunger and war,
So that you may reach out your hand to comfort them and
To turn their pain into joy.


And may God bless you with enough foolishness
To believe that you can make a difference in the world.
So that you can do what others claim cannot be done
To bring justice and kindness to all our children and the poor. top

Thanks. I am enjoying it as well. Right now, however, I am putting my feet up, enjoying a glass of wine with my wife and watching Liverpool play Bordeaux in the Chapions League.

Cheers top

May I use the poem sometime in my blog? Is there a name I can use for attribution?

Also, I would appreciate it if you would have time to take a look at my primary blog and give me any feedback you might have in terms of how it could be used more effectively. http://zoodad.typepad.com

Also, Liverpool is ahead 1-0. I was certain you'd be interested.

regards top

The poem is a traditional Franciscan Benediction and I'm sure that you're welcome to share it on your blog. I'm at work right now, but I bookmarked your blog and would be happy to sit down with it later today if possible.

And thanks for the update on the game. CURSE THE FRENCH!!! top

Thanks for tackling the job of clearing the waters from all is being thrown in. I believe you have clarified things well. I wonder if there is not another category which many would still call Contemporary which attempts to add some new approaches yet is not Emerging or necessarily Missional. top

Here's my distinction:
Churches or communities that like to think of themselves as openly 'emerging'/'emergent' tend to be more liberally minded, willing to reconsider even some major doctrines of the church, where churches that refer to themselves as missional tend more often to be doctrinally very solidly evangelical, often even 'reformed/calvinist' in nature, and simply have thrown off the idea of being 'seperate', but instead take their orthodoxy into the heart of a lost world to live among those people as a light. During my time in both movements, that's been my personal experience of those catch-phrases. A good example:
Emerging/Emergent: Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, & to some degree, Rob Bell --- Missional: Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, Ed Stetzer. top

Hi thanks for all this info. But in addition I'd like to know if most missional and emerging Christians/people believe a universalist type or Christian mystic type belief of: God is in all & if sincere other religion adherents will go to heaven. I'd appreciate some clarity on these things. What do you define Missio Dei as? top

Jesus Freak-

Missio Dei is a latin title for God. It literally means "sending God." The Bible is full of stories of God sending himself into creation. In the same way that God sent his Son, his Son sends us to the lost with the help of the Spirit, which he has also sent. You get the idea...

The idea of the Missio Dei is what struck me most dramatically when I first heard the gospel and what set apart Christianity from all other religions. All other religions are about people doing things to get to God. Christ came to us, not the other way around. And God has not ceased in sending himself into the world that is is working to reconcile to himself. What I've realized is that Christianity doesn't even fit into the category of religion. It is anti-religion. Christ transcends religion.

As for universalism and other unorthodox beliefs, I can't say whether any given community, whether emerging or missional, believes this or that. There is no head office, no singular credo, no set dogma that links them together.

But I can make some guesses- (note: these are my personal guesses based off my limited exposure to these broad-sweeping, multi-faceted movements, so hear me out and see if any of my thoughts resonate with you)

Emerging communities are more often than not, formed hierarchically, meaning that a small group of leaders take it upon themselves to form the framework upon which the community is formed. This framework would often include a place to meet, vision for the community's involvement in the kingdom, and some sort of dogma or credo or doctrinal statement. Since this is a hierarchical system, centered around a few men or women and their framework, "lay people" are discouraged from challenging or altering the framework. As much as people would like to deny this, saying that their church is open to the voice of the people, I have never heard of a church changing it's framework without significant intervention, which is rare and difficult to realize. If beliefs like universalism are written into the community's credo at the genesis, they are likely to go unchallenged by the "lay people" and such ideas can infect the community's consciousness. If ideas like universalism are not written into the community's credo, but left unaddressed, the "lay people" will likely believe any myriad of things that they choose to, and will not likely mature in their understanding since they rely primarily on the leaders of the community for understanding in the form of teaching.

Missional communities are generally formed much more organically. They are communities centered on Christ. Each person in the community is looking to Scripture, prayer, credos, other believers, and personal experience and they are growing and learning individually, while joining together to share ideas equally. While there is more perceived danger of letting in heresy with the absence of a singular credo, or centralized human authority, there is at the same time a system of checks and balances where challenge is offered and appreciated, and each point in the system has a direct connection to Christ. Those with greater maturity are recognized by the members of the community, and they are given a place of respect as they offer their wisdom as a gift, not as a mandate.

That said, I have never met a missional community that resonated with the ideas of universalism, while I have met many emerging communities that do. I think there is a good reason for this.

As far as the doctrine of universalism is concerned, the Bible seems to be clear, but we cannot be completely sure what God's plan is for those who have not heard Missional believers live their lives with the goal of making the gospel known to people who would never get near a church. They live as if Christ is the only way, engaging this scary idea by making sure they do all they can to help people slow down enough to truly receive the message. Emerging communities, on the other hand are focused on maintaining the church through services and programs, so the scary idea of what might happen to those who don't ever hear the message is much more troublesome, so I can see how emerging types would turn to answers that universalism hold because it sort of lets them off the hook and justifies their ingrown tendencies.

Of course I am not omniscient and I'm not capable of knowing that these things are true in all instances. These thoughts are more so impressions of what I have gathered from much time in both emerging and missional communities, and I think that the connections that I've observed are significant and seem to explain a lot of what I've noticed.

What do you think? top

Hey guys,
Our church is just starting to explore the notion of what it means to be missional. I wandered across this post as I was reading up on this whole thing. I really like the descriptions given here. Some of you seem a bit hard core and rigid in your definitions and judgements of the different paradigms. I heard Tim Keller describe the difference between attractional and incarnational living, he said each is part of a circular process. One often leads to another. It is difficult to judge one based on where they may now reside on the circle because we don't know where they entered. Let's be graceful and give each other credit for GROWING and moving along the process at all. We are at the very first step to dynamic change which is evaluating where we are and determining where we need to be. We pray for wisdom.
Thanks. top

I don´t really know if there is a difference between an emerging and a missional church. Most or all emerging churches would say, that they are missional communities. And emerging church are definitely not the same a traditional or attractional churches. What our compared was more traditional churches (along with seeker churches) aganist emergins or missional churches. top

Questions:
Why is the term most often used "community" rather than "church," as in God's Word?

How these disciplines fit in with the N. T. description, modes, values, and emphasies like with Timothy and Titus following Paul's instruction.

I see the difference between IHA and ADH, but which are traditional, emergent, and missional known by?

In reading the difference between IHA and ADH, is it necessary to compartmentalize them, or are all elements of both seen, implemented, and valued in the NT church?

I am still trying to draw conclusions. Some of missio dei is confirming to what I believe and teach, yet other parts seems to focus more on intellectual "conversation" rather than biblical perspective, and that part scares me ("vain ballings" as it were).

Help me out please. top