Traditional vs. Missional?

5 Responses to “Traditional vs. Missional?”

1. Bill Cummings says:

   January 13, 2009 at 4:23 pm

   I love this. Thanks to Rick for putting this together and to you for putting it out there. The phrase in parenthesis next to “Missional Churches” could also say “Believing comes through Belonging”. Just a thought…
2. Jonathan Brink says:

   January 14, 2009 at 1:01 pm

   As much as I would like to say, “Absolutely,” I know that traditional does not fall into such defined, exclusionary references.

   I think that is what so many people are wrestling with. How do we restore the traditional without demonizing what people once held dear.
3. Tyler says:

   January 18, 2009 at 11:12 pm

   Love this. Fair for both sides and well put.
4. Brett Marko says:

   January 22, 2009 at 8:13 pm

   I have to agree with Jonathan Brink on this one. I have a bit of a problem with this though I understand the premise. I have seen many churches that are traditional that are very inclusive in their love.

   I wholeheartedly agree with the boundaries aspect.

   Where I would say on the first one, is that traditional churches define themselve based upon how they do things (their traditions). This as a whole is not a bad thing as long as the motive is right. Whenever the tradition becomes more important than the relationship or (belonging) then these churches go afoul quickly.

   Missional churches are more about why they do things (the relationship), yet missional churches have their own traditions too and are not without traditions. They can fall into the same trap as the older more established churches.

   Just my two cents.

   Brett
5. Fortuitous Bouncing « man.of.depravity says:

   January 24, 2009 at 5:18 am

   [...] Bryant has a post on traditional vs. missional. He sums it up pretty [...]