5 Things we Got Wrong in the Emerging Missional Church, by Mark Sayers
1. FAILED TO DEFINE WHAT WE MEAN BY ATTRACTIONAL
2. FAILED TO DEFINE WHAT WE MEAN BY INCARNATIONAL
3. BEING OVERLY DEFINED BY A REACTION TO MASS CULTURE
4. FAILING TO UNDERSTAND LOW FUEL TANK FAITH
5. WEDDING OURSELVES TO GEN X CULTURE
Jonny points to Mark Sayers post on 5 things we got wrong in the emerging missional church. Please note that Mark is "not referring to the newer American Emerging Church movement which I think is a very different creature to what we have here in Australia" but rather is talking about the Aussie movement from the early 90's to the present. As someone who was involved in the early part of the Australian process, as well as an occasional meddler in the current Aussie EMC scene, I insist on adding another 2.
6. WE FAILED TO DEFINE WHAT WE MEAN BY EMERGING
We did a good job on "missional" and its now well accepted around the world. But even today, very few pro-emerging or anti-emerging leaders have picked up a book on emergent theory, emergent principles in business, emergence in biology, etc. Some of us tried to push Steven Johnson's Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software but we didnt try hard enough. It would have helped people understand what was going on and that the term was about cutlure, not theology, as Mark says in his post.
7. WE NEGLECTED THE HISTORY THAT GAVE BIRTH TO THE MOVEMENT
We were infatuated with the changing present and the potential future. We got giddy. We neglected to point backwards to the fathers of the movement and the earlier structures that made the way easier for us: Early monastic houses in Melbourne in the 1970', the missiology of Alan Tippet, the legacy of John Smith, the radical example of Scripture Unions beach missions, John Mallison's small group emphasis, etc. This would have helped the older church movements to feel more connected.