Interesting Take on "Being Missional" and Relation to Young Evangelicals

(Shifting to the First Person)

I came across this paper quite by accident.  It is from an essay written in 2009 by the dean of Evangelism and Missions at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.  This source was surprising to me and peaked my interest in reading the piece.  It is quite academic and heady, but I have included several excepts from sections of the article below.  I think it provides both some good definition regarding what "being missional" can mean and some good criticism of these concepts.

• "Missional” used simply to describe the church turning outward to respond responsibly to "the fact that the days are gone when one can simply presume the general public has a basic familiarity with core Christian thought giving rise to problems within the church if it continues as if a Christian consensus still prevails". (Newbigin, 2006)
• In the words of Webber (2002, Younger Evangelicals), “The church is not the same as the predominant culture. It is an alternative culture that points to the kingdom of God and the reality of the new heavens and the new earth.” Faith must thus be lived out, not only or primarily argued and reasoned…
• Emergent leaders and young evangelicals tend to jettison “naive realism” in favor of “a more discerning and dialogical approach . . . both to foster confidence in God’s Word and to address legitimate questions and concerns.”
• The translated effects of this alternative approach to theology and to ecclesiology specifically is an aversion to (1) individuality, (2) program orientation, (3) preoccupation with numbers, (4) passivity, and (5) resistance to change. (Engel and Dyrness, 2000)
• Relational outreach is more sensitive and transformational in nature, hence it is elevated in value within a missional model. Yet, what one gives up in the one is sacrificed in the other. To build relationships without first determining that there is definitely True truth to convey that has an eternal impact on the hearer will likely end in a meaningful friendship that is too valuable to jeopardize by introducing absolute truth and presenting the challenge to the newfound friend that “You must be born again!” 
• To jettison a “conversionist” view of theology, that is the need for people to be genuinely saved from a real eternity without Christ, is to lose the ultimately important meaning of missions, mission, or even missional.

I think the paragraphs below, also taken from the same article, pretty well sum up where we currently are in out thinking.  Now where do we go?

New ideas shape actions and eventually they stream into new agendas. Over time they morph into a new status quo. Being “transformational” emerges as the rediscovered focus of missionary activity and fills in the functional meaning of the term “missional.” It is supposed to be more comprehensive than the historic use of the term mission or missions. It is “holistic,” “incarnational,” “environmental,” and “global.”

Generally missional values are being defined by the emerging church leaders' agendas in reaction to at least four core values which are currently defined by the status quo church, and are deemed as holdovers from the modernist, rational era. The first is a reaction to the idea that truth is static and comprehensive. The postmodern fixed value of fluid truth permeates much missional thinking. Secondly, there is a desire to rework the aim of mission work to be likewise fluid, open to “messy” relationships, less concerned with right beliefs and more concerned with right actions. Thirdly, right actions are associated with holistic concerns for social justice and engagement as a prophetic agent of change. Fourth, what it means to be “church” in such a context is to feel more communal and relational, less bureaucratic and institutionalized. Denominational structures are deemed passé and in need of dismantling.