Talk:Missional living

message: I proposed a merge with Missionary just simply because there is really no instance where the words couldn't be interchanged. I think the distinction is a slim one at best. What does a Missional church do that a Missionary church does not - or a missionary believer v.s. a missional believer?Brian0324 17:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk Before the Merge

message: While there are times that the words could be used interchangeably, there is a large number of places where the words are used with distinction. There are also a growing number of blogs and websites and churches that are using this term - and even quoting this page - to explain and define their activities. I believe that the pages should not be merged. DaveDV 22:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do Not Merge

message: I agree that 'missional' can be seen as different from 'missionary'.  But I do think a merger with 'missional living' would help this article comply with the  What Wikipedia is not article that says 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary'.  These are two of the same concept, and I think they should (and could very easily) be merged. Jwiley80 21:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe such a merger makes sense for the reasons Jwiley gives and I propose we go forward with it if no legitimate objections are offered soon.Will3935 21:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recommended merge to Missional Living

message: It would seem that from an encyclopedic standpoint - it might be better to merge both articles into a new heading like Missionality since that is an overarching theme of both entries. In reading about merging on wikipedia, it suggested...For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability. DaveDV 16:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "missionality" sounds too much like newly-invented jargon/gibberish. "Missional Living" seems like a better option to me.  Will3935 20:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I somewhat agree that "missionality" sounds newly-invented. I know what you, DaveDV, mean by Flammability, but that is a common term while the subject here is still being defined.  In strictly encyclopedic terms, you might be right, but as per Will3935's comment, I lean on the "Missional Living" because it is an established term on the topic.  On the topic of flammability, Will3935 - thank you for not flaming here... Jwiley80 22:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee. No one has ever accused me of "flaming" before. Most people think I look and act quite straight. Anyway, I am heterosexual. Hope that doesn't disappoint you, Jwiley.Will3935 23:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that it makes more sense to include "missional" and this confounded "missionality" subject under the heading of "missional living". I do think, however, that it would be a good idea to have a redirect from "missional", since that word is more likely to be used and linked from other articles than "missional living". JimMiller 18:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge both into new entry "MISSIONALITY"

message: Just an obeservation, but the lack of context and the Christian-ese language that is used in this article directly contradict the "missional" way of thinking referred to. Wikipedia is a neutral point of view encyclopedia. It is kind of like its own postmodern culture online. If there is a case for an article like this to be noteworthy enough to be entered into the database, a missional Christian by definition would seek to make it as contextual to the culture of WIkipedia as possible, right? Food for thought.
For example:
Quote:"A Missional Church is a church that seeks to align all their activities according to the redemptive mission of God, rather than identifying it with the traditional understanding of missionary work." This sentence is full of phrases that are only understood in a Christian context: "redemptive mission", "traditional understanding of missionary work". I know what the author is trying to say, but I seriously doubt if the average Wikipedia user would be able to decode it.
"exploring and rediscovering what it means to be Jesus' sent people" more Christian-ese language.
"willing and ready to be Christ's people in their own situation and place" this sounds like a definition of Christianity - is it more?
"engaged with the culture (in the world) without being absorbed by the culture (not of the world)...intentionally indigenous" more Biblical references with no context. Sorry but I think this needs a thorough re-write!Brian0324 16:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the problem you have identified is postmodern tendency to confuse sophisticated sounded jargon with true understanding and expertise. An encyclopedia is a "modern" venue in which objectivity and accuracy are valued above subjectivity. You may appreciate the following entry from my userpage:
A Short Course in Creating Postmodern Jargon (by me)
1) Take an existing word and add prefixes and/or suffixes. See the examples below:
"television" ... "televisional"
"stereo" ... "destereoization"
"history" ... "rehistoricalized"
2) Graft another word onto the existing one.
"televisional broadcasticity"
"factized destereoization"
"rehistoricalized narrativeness"
3) You must then use your jargon frequently for it to gain credibility.
"Televisional broadcasticity causes a new, missional matrix."
"All efforts to impose one's own narrative on another person are subject to factized destereoization"
"All propositional absolutations are subject to the deconstruction inherent in the rehistoricalized narrativeness discovered in new community paradigms."
4) You must also use your term in false antitheses:
"Instead of radioized waveness we can only advertise through televisional broadcasticity."
"Either one engages in factized destereoization, or they will live apart from the benefits of authentic narrative."
"Tyrannical, absolutized approaches to narrow, community post-paradigms are no longer valid in a model that engages a more generous, rehistoricalized narrativeness."
After you have followed the above four steps you will be awarded the authentic, postmodernal, gold star of hypersophisticatedness!!Will3935 11:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger -- Talk from "Missional Church

message: (The entry below is taken from my userpage [Will3935]).
I have found that sometimes unqualified people weigh in on Wikipedia articles, reducing the accuracy and quality of these articles in spite of their good intentions. Based on my experience, I believe these editors genuinely believe they are improving the articles they contribute to. The phenomenon reminds one of the deluded contestants who try out for American Idol and only end up humiliating themselves. When the judges offer sound criticism to these conterstants they tend to respond quite angrily. So it is, I have found, at Wikipedia. Being honest with these editors sometimes results in hard feelings on both sides. Perhaps I can prevent some of these hard feelings by sharing with you the criteria I try to abide by and subsequently expect of other editors. Before contributing, ask yourself the following questions:
1) Am I qualified to write? That is, do I possess a sufficient mastery of English to make a worthy entry in an encyclopedia? Am I aware that writing for an encyclopedia requires a set of skills not needed on a blog? If you are not a good writer consider running your proposed edits past those who do possess such skills before you make changes to an article.
2) Have I mastered the subject matter I am writing about? Reading a few books and articles about a subject does not necessarily make one sufficiently knowledgeable to address an issue in a reference work. This mastery of the subject must involve a thorough reading of many books and articles that express various views. Spending time talking to one's friends on a blog does not qualify one academically to contribute to an encyclopedia.
3) Am I willing to accept correction on matters of substance and style? Wikipedia articles are constructed by the consensus of a community of editors. Individual contributors can not expect to bypass this community and they must be willing to accept correction or criticism without getting angry and bitter.
4) Am I sufficiently confident in my edits that I do not believe I need to resort to sock puppetry or other violations of policy for my edits to stand?
5) When engaged in an editing conflict with someone is my goal accuracy or victory? Wikipedia's purpose is to inform its readers not to boost the egos of its editors.Will3935 11:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Before Contributing...

message: I do not know why some emergents contest the assertion that "missional" is ec jargon. If any of the editors on this article would like more data on that assertion (which I am convinced is correct), contact me on my userpage. I would be happy to discuss this further. An encyclopedia should be nothing more than an accurate reflection of the truth. Truth should never be censored from its pages to serve anyone's agenda. Furthermore, I don't see where the public exposure of facts about the usage of "missional" can hurt EC, especially since knowledgeable readers will already know this to be the case.Will3935 06:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that the term "missional" did not begin with the emerging church movement any more than "generous orthodoxy." Nevertheless, both terms have been coopted by emergents and have become almost exclusively associated with them in common, current usage. Furthermore, the few non-emergents who may use these terms do so in a way consistent with emergents. I think an entry that expands the article would be quite helpful. Nevertheless, since usage determines meaning I believe emergent usage has effectively "hijacked" the term. Do ask yourself, "What does "missional" denote and connote that "mission," "missionary," and disciple making do not"? If one is only speaking of "reaching out" why resurrect and "enslave" a little used term for concepts that are as old as the New Testament and have commonly been referred to by commonly accepted terms for a very long time? Simply put, "missional" is postmodern jargon. To the extent that Gruder and and Van Engen (not familiar with Hunsberger -- would be grateful if you list a title or two of his) use the term they use it to indicate a more postmodern approach. This postmodern approach has come to be known as emerging or emergent since "missional" churches see themselves as engaging with postmodernism in a more meaningful way. Just because the authors you cite are Reformed does not exclude them from being labelled "emergent." Mark Driscoll, for example, claims to be "emerging" (but not "emergent"). While "missional" and "emerging church movement" are not synonyms they are inseparable. Identifying "missional" with ec in this article does run the risk of appearing too simplistic, but I think it helps confused readers get to the bottom line. Though the article can use much tweaking, I believe the fundamental association with the emerging church movement is valid and cuts through some confusing aspect of this jargon's contemporary usage. Will3935 17:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thought ... we really do need someone to flesh out the theological roots beneath "missional." It seems to me that "missional" came into contemporary vogue (yes, I recognize the irrelevant fact that the word has a more distant etymology) along with the rise of postliberal, narrative theology, and that the distinctives of "missional" (as opposed to Evangelical "mission") can't be fully understood apart from a look at its roots. HOPE YOU DON'T MIND BUT I'M MOVING THIS TALK TO THE AFTER MERGE SECTION.Will3935 07:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You make a good case for moving the article to "Missional Church." I merged "missional church" and "missional living" together under an overarching title, but I understand your concern. I would be in favor of moving the article to "Missional Church." I'm not sure if there will be a technical difficulty to overcome since "emerging church" is the title of what is now considered an earlier article. I would support you completely in such a move though, and I would appreciate your being the one to do it. As to not having time at the moment to contribute more developed edits, it does sound like you have your plate full. Nevertheless, the article will still be here during seasons in the future when you have more time!Will3935 03:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bromaynard 22:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the confusion you note is due to the sloppy way I handled the merge (did it the best way I knew). It had long been proposed to merge "Missional living" and "Missional church" into one article. Everyone seemed to agree about the merge but no one seemed to know what to call the merged article. One prominent proposal was "Missionality" which I thought to be a poor choice. So the current status is taht this is the merged article. The only discussion that remains about its title is whether it should now be moved to yet another name. I don't mind anything reasonable though I do think "Missionality" sounds like theobabble.Will3935 00:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bromaynard 05:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with your proposal. From past experience I believe some editors would suggest that "missional church" had the advantage of connoting community whereas "missional living," while a valid choice, has a more isolationist connotation. My alternative, "missional christianity" (which, I think maintains at least some of the connotations of both terms since it is more comprehensive) has the weakness that it is, in itself, a novel term. I favor anything but a return to two articles or a move to "missionality." If no else is interested enough to discuss this with us, I propose that you make the move you consider best. I'll support you.Will3935 08:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bromaynard 14:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Emerging Church Movement and "Missional"

message: This section of the article seems very inappropriate, insofar as it does not represent general critiques of topic, but critiques from a very specific segment of the Christian community.  Can this section not only be retitled, but also broadened to include a more inclusive spectrum of sources?  Further, most of the critiques appear to be specifically about the emerging church movement and not specifically about the listed topic. Jamiearpinricci 23:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If there is not an objection, I recommend removing the critique section since it is really focused on issues with the ecm. DaveDV 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Evangelical Critiques? 

message: The word "missional" has about as many meanings today as groups and individuals using it. This Wikipedia article relies heavily on the idea of missional = missionary lifestyle. But the word "missionary" carries so much baggage and varied usage that derivatives (missional=missionary) promote an almost opposite meaning. I think today's usage of "missional" describes a significant disruption of Christendom from inherited missionary dualities (us/them, saved/unsaved, Christian/non-Christian, lay/clergy, etc..) to an almost radical inclusiveness of the "other" as modeled by the radical inclusiveness of Jesus. Personally, I think this page is far more misleading than helpful. 216.57.68.135 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion