Missional Blogs

kinnon —  July 3, 2007 — 15 Comments

We are in the process of launching new blogs @ Allelon, as well as turning the Roxburgh Journal into one.

The main site is back to Beta as we streamline it a little more and add Google-powered search to it.

Roxburghjournaltopbar_2

Check out the latest Roxburgh Journal in blog format, Conversations and Reflections on the Missional Order. You can listen to Al’s podcast with Martin Robinson (of the UK’s Together in Mission) there or grab it (with graphics & chapters) from iTunes.

Movingintotopbarjuly1_2

Also check out Moving into the Neighborhood, a blog Mark Priddy will be hosting.

UPDATE: Brother Maynard stepped into the fray and cleaned up some of the Beta issues with the blogs. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

kinnon

Posts

A television editor, writer & director since 1978. A Christian since 1982. More than a little frustrated with the Church in the West since late in the last millennium.

15 responses to Missional Blogs

  1. I was so excited to see “Moving Into The Neighbourhood”, but alas, it is about missional engagement in the suburban context. Not that that is bad by any means, but intentional relocation to community living in the urban context is a passion of mine and was hoping Allelon was going to interact with it there. Oh well, maybe next time. Great developments, Bill!

    Peace,
    Jamie

    Reply
  2. Jamie,
    Why don’t you write one that can be used there. It’s a blog that is open to others. (Mark is the host of the blog.) Moving into the Neighborhood…make that Neighbourhood for we Canucks, would be something you could definitely write about! And teach about, as well.

    Reply
  3. The essence of missional living is to begin where you are in your everyday life… you shouldn’t have to relocate to do that, hence missional in the ‘burbs is an important and relevant topic. (Will and Lisa Samson are coming out with a book on Justice in the Burbs as well btw.) Urban areas need missional engagement as well of course, but if people are living in the burbs, it is perhaps more missionary than missional for them to have to relocate?

    Reply
  4. BroMay,

    I actually disagree with. Some MUST relocate to be missional. It is part of the heart of the Gospel itself. Yes there needs to be missional Christians in the suburbs, but there is a clear imbalance of people living their lives together with the marginalized. I have said it many times, but I am convinced that far more people are called to relocate than those who are doing it.

    Peace,
    Jamie

    Reply
  5. Wow, my last comment is proof that you should read your comment before you hit send. Let me try to clear that up a little.

    While I agree that being missional begins where one is at, and while I agree that there is a great need for missional engagement in the suburbs (now more than ever, perhaps), I think relocation is an essential aspect of being missional. I also want to reiterate what I said in my first comment. There is NOTHING wrong with the blog- I never suggested it wasn’t important or relevant.

    To say that relocation is missionary more than missional is problematic in my perspective (frankly, I am not convinced the distinction works very often at all). In the incarnation Jesus not only relocated His life to live among the poor, but even in His condescending into human form it was a prime example of relocation.

    The issue is too big to reply to within a comment (maybe I’ll blog about it), but I am more convinced than ever that in our towns/cities, relocation is an aspect of missionality that is not getting due attention and practice.

    Again, however, this does not at ALL reflect negatively on Allelon or the new blog, as I have every respect for them/it. It was simply that I was hoping the blog would have it as a theme. After all, with a name like “MOVING into the Neighbourhood”, an expectation for relocation doesn’t seem like a stretch.

    Peace,
    Jamie

    Reply
  6. Jamie,
    We’ll just hijack Bill’s comments for a discussion, eh? We’re getting together next week anyway…

    But on the discussion, I don’t misunderstand what you’re saying about relocating or Allelon, I don’t think. Sure, missionary/missional, whatever. Yes, the inner city definitely needs more people relocating, and people need to be called there. But I don’t think it’s fair to criticize (even implicitly) suburban missionalism simply because it isn’t urban. Put plainly, I don’t think you would do so – but the tone of the original post (and the followup) leaves it in the air that way. The truth is, people who become engaged where they are are more likely to later make a move to the inner city… don’t despise which for some is the beginning of a journey.

    I’m also very sensitive to the notion (implicit or explicit) that one calling is higher, better, more important —whatever— than another. Again, put plainly I don’t think you’d say that, so I think we’re getting off the rails.

    As for Jesus… check John 1:14 in The Message – it says something like, “God became a man, and moved into the neighbourhood.” That’s incarnational. As for “going” to live among the poor, Jesus was probably poor from birth… the poor were “his people” – but that’s a whole ‘nuther kettle of fish!

    Missional to me is about incarnating the message, embodying it… and on that basis, location doesn’t matter. The inner city is of course a concern and needs people to embody the message there, but that’s not the same issue. People need to act/engage missionally. End of sentence. We might suspect that this will lead to people realizing a call to the inner city, but we can’t confuse the two — the inner city is a calling. Call it missionary or not… but it’s a calling, and while we might posit that every calling should be missional/incarnational in the way it’s walked out, we cannot actually say the reverse… iow, if we’ve got that far, we cannot infer the nature or location of the calling in any way simply by saying it’s to be walked out in a missional/incarnational manner. It sounded like that’s where you were going, but let’s have lunch next week, shall we? Email on the way…

    Reply
  7. Are you reading the same page as me? In no way do I “criticize suburban missionalism” implicitly or explicitly. I have read and reread my comments several times and it just isn’t there.

    We do disagree, however, on location being more important to missionality. No big deal, we probably disagree on a whole heap of things. But my disagreement says nothing about suburban missionalism. Be careful not to read criticism where there is none simply because we don’t agree on a peripheral issue.

    See you next week.

    Peace,
    Jamie

    Reply
  8. Jamie,

    I’m going to have a nap for a few hours and read it again. Something didn’t jive with what I read and what I know of you anyway. :^) Like I kept saying, I’m sure you wouldn’t say “…”, but perhaps I was reading it wrong. Sometimes I can take a statement, follow it through to a conclusion, and critque the conclusion… probably what’s happening here, I’m connecting thoughts that you haven’t – would have to discuss in person to figure that out.

    Reply
  9. I continue to miss where that might happen. I don’t think your conclusion is a fair result of my statements, by any stretch. Oh well…

    Peace,
    Jamie

    Reply
  10. Jamie,

    Maybe this is the rub, when you said, “I think relocation is an essential aspect of being missional.”

    We’re off talking about “location” and are generally agreed, but what you said here was that “relocation” was necessary. Perhaps you didn’t mean to connect that to your preceding statement, “intentional relocation to community living in the urban context is a passion of mine”, but I’m starting to piece together how this got off track.

    As for how location matters, I’ve been mulling it over and I think we’ve glossed over a distinction of whether it’s linked as a prerequisite or as an outworking. I’m looking at my statement above that location doesn’t matter and thinking about how/why I would say that here when I’m elsewhere saying that it does matter… and the distinction of prerequisite or outworking is where the difference lies, I think. Down to brass tacks, we may actually agree on both points.

    I’ll bring those thoughts on Tuesday, and I think I’ll drop the online conversation until then since it seems to add confusion the more we “clarify.” Perhaps we’re close to understanding, but I’d like to do that in person to be sure we hit that particular target.

    Reply
  11. BroMay,

    I can see where that might have distracted. That is why I intentionally used the word “aspect”, as in one “characteristic to be considered” (Princeton WordNet). To say that relocation is essential to missional would clearly be too strong. I think that helps clear things up a bit.

    I am still curious as to whether you think location (not relocation) is inherent to missionality, but let’s save that for Tuesday.

    Peace,
    Jamie

    Reply
  12. Jamie,

    I would say that “location is [……] to missional.” There’s a sense of the word “inherent” that fits and a sense where it is very wrong, and that’s what got confuzzled. Will bring all of it to the table on Tuesday. As a preview, the way that it’s wrong is not what I think you’re saying, and what I think you’re saying is the way I agree with.

    You’ll like what I came up with, it fits in well with (but does not require) theosis. ;^)

    Reply
  13. Oh yeah, wrt “aspect” yes, good… but the way it stands in the sentence “I think relocation is an essential aspect of being missional” means that that relocation is an aspect (i.e., one facet) of missional which is an essential aspect. iow, the addition of the word as it is doesn’t clarify the way you wanted. (Sorry, KTS/Architect, remember?) Just helps illustrate how things can come over differently than we intend – nothing like face-to-face!

    Reply
  14. BroMay,

    LOL! I need to start intentionally screwing with words in my emails to you, just for entertainment purposes (wink). As an INTJ, precision is important to me, but less having to do with the finer details as much as the bigger picture. Interesting…

    As for “inherent”, I am REALLY looking forward to hearing your reasons for why it is wrong. I see some more blog posts coming!

    Peace,
    Jamie

    Reply
  15. By way of update, the foregoing conversation was continued and extended on Jamie’s blog, and now, a week later as I promised elsewhere, I’ve now published something on this. First, Location & Missionality: Prelude to a Thesis, which is an explanation of where this conversation when wrong between Jamie and me, and how we missed one another, got pitted against each other, didn’t mean to disagree with each other, and eventually explained it all to each other. It also starts to explain how I think missional is important and is irrelevant at the same time. To that post, I add the (imho important) followup, “How Location is Affected by Missional Engagement” which is just what the title suggests, but is also what I hope will become a conversational exploration of missional mechanics. It ends with an opener on the transformation of missional participants, and I’m hoping that we can have some good discussion as we unpack some of those themes.

    Reply

What do you think?