Talk:Missional community

Sections on the biblical and sociological basis

Surely these sections have to go. The first section quotes Dunn using the phrase "missional community" but is he really using it in the sense of the article? The mid-size group is hardly unique to missional communities - it would apply just as easily to cell groups, so this is hardly a biblical basis for the distinctive concept. And the way it concludes, "Clearly..." shows that it's really just an essay. The second section is pure original synthesis. There is no indication that Hall, or even Myers, had missional communities in mind. StAnselm (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The bibilical and sociological basis is explaining why the phenomenon that is Missional Communities have succeeded to the degree to which they have. Dunn's use of the word "missional community" is important in that he argues that the early church were households of extended families that attended to the same things that these Missional Communities attend to. Whereas the New Testament used the word "oikos," MCs simply use a different vernacular: Missional Communities. It is a return to "congregational community" as it was found in the NT as the average church had maybe 40-60 people in it (Jerusalem and Antioch being the notable exceptions). StAnselm is correct in saying the way it concludes with "Clearly..." is more essay. This should be changed. However, the fact that Hall or Myers weren't speaking directly about Missional Communities doesn't invalidate why Missional Communities work: It's because they exists in the sociological "social space." Which is why this section is needed because Cell Groups are found in the Personal Space, which are group of 6-12 people. All that to say, changes are being made now to clean up the article. Thanks for the help and contributions! WheatonGuy18 (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)WheatonGuy18

If you think that the phenomenon has succeeded, you need to include a reliable source claiming this. Any speculation as to the reasons why must also be backed up by a reliable source. But the other thing is that lots of churches have 40-60 people, and they are not missional communities. StAnselm (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In 2004, the Church of England released a report, with the forward by the Archbishop of Canterbury, called "Mission Shaped Communities" and has now morphed into an initiative within both the Anglican and Methodist church in England called 'Fresh Expressions.' Would this be considered a reliable source? As for the size of 40-60, there are distinctives to Missional Communities. 1) They don't meet in church buildings. 2) The group isn't re-creating a worship service, which a regular church of 40-60 would. 3) They have rhythms of communal life which attract people to them, rather than a worship service. 4) Smaller churches of 40-60 use the sociological space of Public Space for the worship service even though the space dynamic suggests they need to be in the social space. 5) Smaller churches of 40-60 would be looking to grow the worship service, increasing the number of people. In a MC, when it reaches 50, the group multiplies. These are very real differences in function and intentionality. If you'd like, I can write it more cogently to make this point. Thoughts? WheatonGuy18 (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)WheatonGuy18

All of the requested changes have been made in the past 2 months, so I'm going to remove the additional reference, original research and personal essay tags from the beginning of the article. WheatonGuy18 —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC).

This post has been cleaned up and changed under the advisement of the comments above. Am removing issues marked at beginning of article. WheatonGuy18 (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)WheatonGuy18

Have the issues been resolved since the article was tagged? I suggest that you notify the individual who added it to review and ask to remove. If no action in a month, then remove. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolving Multiple Issues

Would enjoy working on the multiple issues, but I would appreciate some feedback on which claims need citation or suggest original research. And I agree there could be more work on the POV, but I did edit out some glaring examples. What other area(s) need the most attention in regards to POV? Jeffmsmith70 (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It was StAnselm who added the tags, so it might be worthwhile to add a {{talkback}} template to his talk page if you want his opinion. I would argue that any statement, or at the least, paragraph, that does not have a reference should have one. The ideas are key. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Having a look at the again, most of the OR issues are pretty obvious. For example,

In practice MCs do tend to certain things pretty regularly, albeit in slightly different ways according to their context, including: *Food - ideally sharing a meal together *Socializing/ laughing/ having fun...'

Now, this also strikes me as POV - Missional Communities are obviously great places to be. There is a lot more POV in the article - another bit that caught my eye was

Since Missional Communities are meant to be “lightweight and low maintenance” and led by laity, running the community is spread throughout the group so it isn’t only 2 or 3 leaders doing all of the work. This is a key ingredient and one of the main benefits of these mid-sized groups. People don’t approach it as consumers but as participants.

Hope this helps. StAnselm (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Your comments point to an overall weakness in the article, namely, that it needs more substantial contributions from other sources besides 3DM. It certainly looks like the concept originated from St. Thomas Sheffield, and took hold in the U.S. via 3DM. But there are now other expressions of missional communities, similar yet distinct from 3DM (Soma, Austin Stone, Missio, etc.). If other sources were considered and cited as well, I think then some material that seems to be original research would show up as commonalities between the various expressions. Jeffmsmith70 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, but what we really want is independent sources - that is, people who are not members of MCs writing about them. StAnselm (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we really want WP:SECONDARY sources. A lot of people who write about the subject are not members of missional communities, but are opposed to it. While they would prove useful to a criticism section, they are similarly WP:PRIMARY sources in a way. The real problem is that not many have taken a critical view of the movement without being negative about the movement. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Condensing the Intro / Synopsis / History

There was a lot of repetition between the introductory paragraphs and the Synopsis. Plus, there was material there that would easily fit under "History," and some of it was repeated as well. Therefore, I reworked the intro and synopsis into a short lead and "General Characteristics", and worked the historical info into the "History" section. I don't believe I lost anything crucial in the process, and it reduced the amount of words to communicate the same ideas. Jeffmsmith70 (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Very Anglocentric bias

The whole article is very Anglocentric. An example being this quote

"Also, the European Church Planting Network picked up on this approach and hundreds upon hundreds of churches were planted as a result. Between 2006 and 2009, over 720 churches were planted across Europe.[6] This was the first time this had been done in European church history."

What happened for the first time in European history? The planting of several hundred churches? Or the approach of small groups reaching out with the Gospel?

Obviously hundreds of churches have been planted across Europe in many movements through history Communities similar to missional communities have been used extensively by European movements: Pietist, early baptists, Moravians, etc. Eskil S (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Missional community. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120526221532/http://somatacoma.org/mediafiles/soma-life-missional-communities.pdf to http://somatacoma.org/mediafiles/soma-life-missional-communities.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.csuniv.edu/ministries/sync.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130213054939/http://somatacoma.org/gatherings/missional-communities/ to http://somatacoma.org/gatherings/missional-communities/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sttoms.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)