(Disclaimer:  I am responding only to this post and Mark’s handout, not to the books from which the concepts are drawn.  Like all seminar/class handouts, there is a lot of detail left out.)

I like where Mark is going here (even if the “1.0/2.0/3.0” thing is a little too academic even for me).  I do have a problem with his definition of church as “loving your Christian brothers and sisters” and distinguishing the parachurch as excluding that; I definitely do not believe that parachurch in general excludes love.  What it excludes are the organizational structure and the “normal” activities of church.  The problem is in Mark’s “Defining Terms”, I think.  Maybe better definitions would be:
1. Gospel - Jesus loves the world
2. Culture - the world around me
3. Church - Christ followers

Though not as alliterative as Mark’s definitions, I think these retain the important distinctions in his subsequent “Distinguishing Teams”.  (Is it Teams - as in the handout?  Or is it Terms, as in the post?)

As for the definition of Church 3.0, I like the breadth of it, but I think it would be good to better define what “glocal” means.  That is still a fairly new concept in missions, and probably one that warrants discussion here at MMI.  To say that in Church 3.0, missions is glocal does not sufficiently differentiate it from missions in a 1.0 or 2.0 context.

Man this is good stuff Todd.... I believe a good name for this would Be “The Meat & Tater’s of the Gospel” Gospel + Culture + Church = Missional Church that is good. If you don’t mind a suggestion: I would do it like this…

Gospel+Culture+Church= Church on Mission for God

This is my first time posting in this forum… But I have to disagree with Mark’s categories of “Church 1.0, Church 2.0, and Church 3.0,” because a lot of churches could be “2.0” are not really because they are not seeker-sensitive, and do not have those kinds of earmarks.  I think the “1.0, 2.0, 3.0” is also rather limiting, because a lot of churches I know have aspects of 2 or 3 of the different categories.  Plus, many churches that might be considered “2.0” are generally resistant to moving into a “3.0"-styled church, but are still doing a lot to reach the young people through an unusually active youth group, etc.  Just my thoughts

Lost me on the: Church + Gospel - Culture = Fundamentalism. Sorry but as a fundamentalist, I am very culture aware. The changing of the culture from the 1.0 to the 2.0 church back in the 1900’s and now early 2000’s is something I haven’t seen in my neck of the woods. The “seeker sensitive” church doesn’t exist here. Either you are Fundamental or you are liberal, and culture has a lot to say about that.

The Missional Church needs definition for me, are they missions minded?, or are they on a mission to be a church for the 21st century? The term doesn’t click here. And what is Reformission REV? I really must be out of the net.

Sounds like something out of the bad 60’s.

I don’t want to put words in Driscoll’s mouth, but my hunch is that when he uses the term “fundamentalism” he is not speaking of fundamental theology (i.e., orthodoxy), but rather is speaking more of legalism and methodologies; e.g., a strong opposition to anything that looks at all like contemporary culture.

Omar,

Mark isn’t saying that we should embrace everything the culture says and believes. For example, in The Radical Reformission he writes, “We have the various cultures in which people live their lives (for example, ancient Jews and Gentiles; modern, urban homosexual artist; modern, rural heterosexual farmers). Our lives shape, and are shaped by, the culture we live in, and the gospel must be fitted to (not altered for) particular people, times, and circumstances so that evangelism will be effective” (pg.19-20). In other words, the gospel should be carried by Christians into the world’s various cultures in a way that is understandable. Keep in mind what you are looking at is but a worksheet and probably not enough information to developed an informed opinion on what Driscoll is saying if you haven’t read his previous books.

The key to this being a great idea or not is what you mean by “+ culture”. There is much in our culture that should not be “+”. I assume “+ culture” means “the ability to relate to people within the culture.”

First, this is a handout, and I am sure the rest of the dialogue surrounding these equations is more valuable than what I see here.  With that said, I disagree that the characterization of “parachurch” is gospel + culture - church.  After being involved on both “sides” , church, and parachurch, I couldn’t disagree more.  Parachurch is the church. I believe the parachurch has been on the leading edge of actually reaching people and walking alongside them as they grow in their faith, being the church.  I am not sure even who came up with the ridiculous word of parahurch. Maybe more time should be spent understanding church than the rest of the words that were put out there.