This week I have a Q video for your viewing enjoyment.

A missional imagination is not about the church; it’s not about how to make the church better, how to get more people to come to church, or how to turn a dying church around. It’s not about getting the church back to cultural respectability in a time when it has been marginalized…. This [missional] imagination turns most of our church practices on their head. It invites us to turn towards our neighborhoods and communities, listening first to what is happening among people and learning to ask different questions about what God is up to in the neighborhood. Rather than the primary question being, ‘How do we attract people to what we are doing?’ it becomes, ‘What is God up to in this neighborhood?’ and “What are the ways we need to change in order to engage the people in our community who no longer consider church a part of their lives?’ This is what a missional imagination is about. —Alan J. Roxburgh and M. Scott Boren, “Introducing the Missional Church,” Baker Books, 2009, page 20.
@ The Blind Beggar (emphasis added)

In a recent post, Bill Easums called for us to drop buzzwords.

“missional, incarnational, attractional, organic, externally driven, purpose driven, and the ever present emergent”

I realize that these words can have the possibility of having some confusion as different people and groups use them differently, however, they are descriptive and thus can help us understand one another. After all, would we also want to drop the other buzz words? – evangelical, charismatic, protestant, or orthodox. Or how about right wing/ left wing, conservative/ liberal, or modern/ post-modern? Should we drop them all? Or should we work at coming up with some standard definitions?

I don’t necessarily like buzz words either but we do need some way to set up markers that help others understand were we are coming from. So with that said, I will label myself post-charismatic, missional, maybe even a liberal conservative.