<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What is the new &#8220;chortle?&#8221; &#8211; Missional?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.toddlittleton.net/2010/03/16/what-is-the-new-chortle-missional/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.toddlittleton.net/2010/03/16/what-is-the-new-chortle-missional/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:51:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Todd Littleton</title>
		<link>http://www.toddlittleton.net/2010/03/16/what-is-the-new-chortle-missional/comment-page-1/#comment-17031</link>
		<dc:creator>Todd Littleton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:50:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.toddlittleton.net/?p=1718#comment-17031</guid>
		<description>Rick,
I found this to the point, &quot;who divide a group of two into small groups for more participation.&quot; I recently spend time with a group who is looking at &quot;missional theology&quot; and I am very certain some who want to define the word would not consider including said group.

Further, &quot;equally amorphous&quot; does signal the kind of ambiguity that is often scorned by the more rigid. There is a place for ambiguity if we are considering creative contextualization, or its process. But, I am also confident groups attempting definition are the same who would eschew &quot;any&quot; ambiguity in the process.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rick,<br />
I found this to the point, &#8220;who divide a group of two into small groups for more participation.&#8221; I recently spend time with a group who is looking at &#8220;missional theology&#8221; and I am very certain some who want to define the word would not consider including said group.</p>
<p>Further, &#8220;equally amorphous&#8221; does signal the kind of ambiguity that is often scorned by the more rigid. There is a place for ambiguity if we are considering creative contextualization, or its process. But, I am also confident groups attempting definition are the same who would eschew &#8220;any&#8221; ambiguity in the process.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rick davis</title>
		<link>http://www.toddlittleton.net/2010/03/16/what-is-the-new-chortle-missional/comment-page-1/#comment-16982</link>
		<dc:creator>rick davis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:22:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.toddlittleton.net/?p=1718#comment-16982</guid>
		<description>I am ready for missional to go away. It never meant anything. It means less now. It is a word invented by people who play with crayons and stretch bands, who divide a group of two into smaller groups for more participation. 

I am ready for missional to go away. The only reason to keep it around is the fear that the same deep thinkers who foisted this one off on the religious world will come up with something &quot;new&quot; and equally amorphous to take its place.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am ready for missional to go away. It never meant anything. It means less now. It is a word invented by people who play with crayons and stretch bands, who divide a group of two into smaller groups for more participation. </p>
<p>I am ready for missional to go away. The only reason to keep it around is the fear that the same deep thinkers who foisted this one off on the religious world will come up with something &#8220;new&#8221; and equally amorphous to take its place.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
