Ten Missional Myths

A couple weeks ago, Steve Knight took notes during a talk I gave at the Funding the Missional Church conference, and he’s posted them on his new Patheos blog, Missional Shift. Here are the first 5; click thru to Steve’s blog to see the rest, plus my theological reflections on “missional.”

10. Missional is trying to put the conventional church out of business — Not so, says Dr. Jones.

9. Missional is anti-denominational — Many of us were surprised to hear Tony say this, but he clarified his personal position: “I am anti-denominational, for theological reasons.” But what Tony thinks is not what typifies all of the missional church, thank God! (grin)

8. Missional is a new way to “do church” — “Missional is a thorough-going theological re-evaluation, a thorough-going rethinking of church, what it means to be a disciple of Christ. … Everything should be re-thought in view of missional church.”

7. Missional has a spokesperson — Tony affirmed the broad spectrum of theological voices in the missional church conversation, which is the philosophy of this blog, as well.

6. Missional doesn’t appreciate church history — “Missional is more of a pastiche, a mosaic, a re-appropriation of church history in a different kind of fashion.”

Read the rest: 10 Myths About the Missional Church.

The Emerging Church Is What It Says It Is
Study Shows Emergent Is Not As Liberal As You Thought
Some Thoughts About Mark Driscoll
Is Rob Bell This or That?
About Tony Jones
  • http://workingonmyrewrite.blogspot.com/ bob c

    At some point, the “white guys decrying this NOT being a white guy” things seems a bit like a Christopher Guest mockumentary.

    That said, your insights on theological implications were fabulous. Wish you’d spend more time there, Tony – and less time fire-bombing.

  • http://www.knightopia.com/blog Steve Knight

    I took good notes, eh Tony? :-)

  • http://www.knightopia.com/blog Steve Knight

    BTW — This comment was posted over on my blog: “So looking at #6, I am a little unsure what this means. It is a ‘re-appropriation’ of church history. Does this mean that the practices up of the church until now were flawed and thanks to the missional movement they have now been corrected? Or is it a different but equal approach? Not sure what to make of this.”

    Care to pop over and comment/reply to this question, Tony? Thanks.

  • http://facebook.com/marshall.peace Marshall

    All the theological “implications” are questions except the one about the secular/sacred boundary being thin everywhere. An apophatic theology for an ineffable church?

  • http://matybigfro.blogspot.com Matybigfro

    really “There ‘Aren’t Thin Places”