I found a page with a few short, easy-to-follow videos of John Franke (Biblical Seminary) discussing the terms “missional” and “emergent.” Feel free to check those out (I had some trouble getting the last one to play, just so you know).
One of the points Franke makes is that the idea of mission, of being missional, is not simply God’s response to an Option B, fallen Creation; actually, mission is Edenic and is a component of God’s character. God has always been missional, and it has everything to do with a God who is present and incarnate. Mission is not simply a response to the need for rescue; it is the personality of God.
Franke also indicts (rightly, in my opinion) those churches that have become “missional” in the same way that they were once focused on “church health,” “seeker sensitivity,” and so forth. He acknowledged that “missional” has become the new program – the new one-and-only-model for doing church – and said that we should think beyond all programs. He contrasted that outspoken missional-as-program with a church whose missionality reflects mission as a characteristic of God, that is, always speaking and always moving just as the world is always shaping and changing.
From what I gathered, Franke believes that churches should be growing and emerging in method and message alike. He describes a truly missional church as necessarily emergent (in the lower-case sense). If I’m understanding him correctly, he’s suspicious of the notion that a church could be missional and not emergent.
There are certainly many churches out there that want to re-package their heritage, and whatever theology their heritage has cryogenically frozen (whether that tradition is Protestant liberal, Pentecostal, Reformed, Mainline, Evangelical, etc.), seemingly thinking that we were once in a process of questioning and figuring things out, until their tradition’s founder or theologian of choice came to deliver all of us into a final, once-and-for-all orthodoxy. (Mini-messiah?) Their idea of missional is really their “orthodoxy” with an added emphasis on social gospel. If those churches wish to lean into a social gospel, that’s okay – but it’s not missional, let alone emergent!
If we aren’t seriously putting our theology through a test of current epistemology, or, if, on the other extreme, no theology – old or new – is actively encouraging and convicting us into a stronger engagement of God’s Spirit and a radical pursuit of holiness, then we lack either fluidity or seriousness (depending on which extreme is our pitfall). And I think there are a lot of Jesus-believing people who find themselves lacking one of those two elements (often times I’m probably one of those people).
Personally I sense that I’m best responding to God – His unchanging character, and the way He is moving today in our monumental time – when I am willing to challenge and poke at supposedly-orthodox theologies while simultaneously allowing my pursuit of Him to transcend the academic/intellectual and become an embrace of mystery, an appreciation for the grandeur of God, and a call to be holy like God is holy. It’s only in that balance that I begin to feel that I’m living out my calling as a member of God’s emerging Church.