The how and the why is a long story for which I blame Jamie Arpin-Ricci, but I’ve been nosing about a couple of Wikipedia articles for the past few days. The entry for Emerging church movement has just had a significant update. I’m not sure that I entirely like the definition, but a big improvement has been the deletion of the list of “prominant” people in the emerging church. I say “deleted,” but it’s actually just been moved off to a separate list-article of its own. This has the overall effect of making the list less of a joke as an appendage to the entry on the emerging church movement. It is hoped that this is going to help end the spamming of Wikipedia that had been going on with respect to this particular list. This has been going on for a while now, and for the most part, those actually involved in the emerging church movement seem to have given up on the Wikipedia entry.
The entry I probably care a bit more about would be the one for Missional living, which has just been moved back to that title after having been titled Missional Christianity, which was a re-titled merger of Missional church and Missional. At least the article is in the proper place now. Unfortunately it sounds rather like a reaction to evangelical ecclesiology and missiology… other than that, the entry is a bit thin on the actual meaning of “missional” and the distinctives sought by those within that aspect of the movement. This is actually something I’m hoping to do some more writing on in the coming days and weeks. A more thorough definition and exploration of the missional ideal has been on my mind lately, but it’s been brought to a bit of a head by the current issue of Leadership Journal — which again I blame Jamie Arpin-Ricci for the fact I was reading it, as he had recommended it. After reading Gordon MacDonald’s article on “Missionalism,” I decided LJ was editorially irresponsible and didn’t have a hot clue about what missional is. I did find some good stuff in there though, so I’m glad I kept reading. More to follow.
In the meantime, I’m curious… does anyone recognize the emerging church movement or the missional church from the descriptions afforded by the Wikipedia entries? What changes should be made to best reflect each one? Or frankly, is it worth the effort?
I am so glad your tackling this!
I am so incredibly frustrated with the wiki article on missional. It sounds to me like a reaction by someone with a specific theological agenda.
It’s actually sad to see something thats supposed to be oblective and informative give such a slant to what missional is.
They also attempt to slap it in the category of emerging. I will always contend that emerging is a form of church and missional is a function of all churches.
Thanks so much for mentioning this, I was beginning to think that there was not many people outside of DaveDv paying attention to it.
Jerry,
I’m not sure how closely or for how long I’ll work on it… I think it definitely needs doing, but my limited Wikipedia experience so far suggests that it could potentially be a frustrating thing. I won’t stay engaged with it if it turns out to be a back-and-forth argument about what it is or isn’t… especially if they start referring to the current issue of Leadership which doesn’t get it either. At that point, more editors’ voices commenting about what missional is would help (it’s free to join!). If it turns out to be unproductive, I could probably do better writing my own definition and posting it on my blog ;^)
Well … I’ve just now skimmed the articles in question. I have not read them carefully. With that caveat in mind, here are some quick thoughts.
All of them seem to have been written by people with a bias against the emerging conversation. There seems to be just enough familiarity expressed for expertise to be established. But whoever was writing is not engaged in the emerging conversation.
I found the list of the prominent people to be insulting because there were no women on it. Not to mention no Canadians. ;-) This may be indicative that the article(s) might be authored or sponsored by those of a more fundamentalist sway … they aren’t looking for women, or don’t see them when they are there. I can think of a handful of prominent women with half my brain tied behind my back … not to mention prominent Canadians ;-).
This statement in the article on Missional living was stunning:
In this usage “missional” has rapidly entered the lexicon of the growing emerging church movement whose participants have coopted the term for their own use, enabling participants in this movement to recognize each other across denominational lines.
I really didn’t know what to make of that. It kind of felt like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick … especially after what I wrote on my blog last night about searching for heaven. I think most people in the emerging conversation are more genuine and intentional than this makes them out to be.
I think Wikipedia is a great tool. I think it has great potential to define and expand the discussion and understanding of missional activity. However, several recent changes have linked everything “missional” with the emerging church movement. I believe this is a mistake.
One suggestion would be to have a section on “Emerging Understanding of Missional” that explains its meaning in the emerging church conversation. The article doesn’t need to be all about the emerging church or include criticisms of the emerging church movement under the same heading.
Another suggestion is that the entry itself ought to include quotes/references to the ideas in the writings of Bosch and Roxburgh and Guder and others. In my opinion, it needs to be solidly connected to the “missio Dei”.
I look forward to seeing what changes you make. (I’ve listed a variety of quotes regarding the mission of the church which you may enjoy reading on Wikiquote under “Missional.”)
Bro. Maynard, I think you can surely do something to improve this:
“Social activism
This is expressed most vocally in environmentalism
and other “liberal” causes.”
Hey Bro, I’ve attempted to change this wrong headed Wiki entry about three time now, and each time it get changed back. Someone has an agenda! The statement is wrong and needs to be corrected. I mentioned this to Ed Stetzer last month and we talked about launching a campaign to do just that. How can I help?
Thanks. I do have an account and will find the time to participate. A rewrite is exactly the way to go! It also needs to be “unlinked” from any emerging movement discussion, other than that missional is a core value of EM. The way it now sounds is that missional is all about emerging.
Great idea. I could easily recruit two or three others to participate. Lets go for it.