For Hirsch, "Missional" is much more than a buzzword. It's nothing less than a Gospel-orientation in all of life that pushes the church out to the margins, way beyond comfort zones of buildings and programs, into recapturing an apostolic ethos for the good of the Community of Christ Followers as well as the host community being reached.
The Emerging Church needs to hear what this guy is saying...
Speaking of the "Emerging Missional Church" he says:
"The absolutely vital issue for newer emerging churches will be their capacity to become genuinely missional. If they fail to make this shift, then they too will be another readjustment of Christendom. A mere fad. As we will see throughout this book, new and emergent forms of church are the result of being missional, not the other way around. I therefore present the same challenge here to my brothers and sisters in the emerging church as I do to the established church: if you don't just want to be another church fad, don't just make the service and spirituality suit a postmodern audience, start at another place- put the M in the equation first, and the EC will follow."
Alan Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways
Hey Bob...I think many in the emerging church have read Hirsch and are swimming in that same river. In fact I think its an emerging theology (like that chornicled in the book by Gibbs and Bolger) that fuels a missional ecclesiology.
I don't think many see emerging and missional as separate things.
Posted by: Sam Andress | October 05, 2007 at 03:58 PM
Well, Frost and Hirsch do. Frost (in conversation with me) has described "emerging" and "missional" as kissing cousins.
I have no doubt that many in the emerging church, particularly those who read and enjoy this blog :) might sense the connection- but many won't.
My fear is that many in the emerging church are, in fact, walking down a universalistic road where the Gospel is merely a life-style to be lived as opposed to that PLUS news to be announced.
If evangelism (no matter what we call it- even if we don't use that word) isn't a part of our ethos as a community (and there are some emerging churches where it isn't) , then "missional" is just an empty word in that case. The real "missional" churches are concerned about living out the mission of God in this world-and that means redemption, not just of systems but people.
Posted by: Bob Hyatt | October 05, 2007 at 04:11 PM
Bob, I hear what Hirsch is saying, but is the answer to FOCUS on Mission - getting out into the world to do missional work? This sounds so much like what I've heard for years about what I should do IN the church. The only difference I'm hearing is to focus OUT THERE instead of IN HERE.
I think the issues we face are much more fundamental. The issue I think we need to address is the area of FOCUS. We need to FOCUS on the the GOSPEL = who He is and what He has done for us in Jesus Christ!
It seems that what I hear Hirsch saying is focus on doing Missional stuff. I think that misses the mark (if I hear him right). Focus on God and the Gospel and then follow through with where that leads us...mission.
Posted by: franklin | October 05, 2007 at 04:53 PM
No- that's not what Hirsch is saying, I think.
Though most likely because many others spend their whole theological careers focusing on it, he allows others to expound more on the Jesus part, it's definitely at the center.
The diagram on pg 79 of Forgotten ways makes that clear- right at the center is "Jesus is Lord" with "missional-incarnational impulse" being just one of five things revolving around that (disciplemaking, communitas, organic systems and apostolic environment being the others)
But I can understand why it may sound like you describe- that fact is, few are talking about the things Hirsch does, so his emphasis may seem out of balance... I tend to think it's BALANCING to the rest of the discussions happening around it...
Posted by: Bob Hyatt | October 05, 2007 at 07:51 PM
Bob, thanks for the comment. Most of what I've read @ Hirsch is via the blogosphere. I have read one of his books but not the one you mentioned...so, I'll pick it up. Peace.
Posted by: franklin | October 06, 2007 at 07:10 AM
Frost and Hirsch are both at my seminary today doing a conference. Got to speak to both of them for a a few minutes and hear them elaborate on some of the same stuff you seemed to have talked to them about. I am glad for the hearty distinction on missional not just being another fad. Anyway thanks for the post Bob got me thinking about some stuff in my context.
Posted by: ryan | October 06, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Hirsch said something very similar when he was out here in Chicago with us last week. I agree that the EC needs to be missional (and I would agree with Sam that most emerging folks see emerging and missional as inseparable things... in fact Tony Jones said as much to me this past week in Glorieta), and yet I think Hirsch ought to realize that it works the other way too. The Missional Church cannot do without the EC. Without the emerging (i.e. kingdom) theology underlying it, "missional" is far too easily co-opted to mean just more of the same-old "prayer the prayer" evangelism with a new label. In fact, "missional" to me is the part that lends itself more to "faddishness" and becoming merely about ministry methods and other stylistic tweakings.
In fact, I think Hirsch might have the order backwards. In my experience, emerging theology comes first, and that leads one to become missional as a consequence. I don't even know what it would mean for it to work the other way around as Alan suggests. That doesn't make any sense to me.
Posted by: Mike Clawson | October 07, 2007 at 12:06 AM