What Does It Mean to Be Missional?

What does it mean to be missional? This question is one that is increasingly on the minds of pastors and followers of Christ in general. Understood very simply, the emphasis that missional church or missional Christianity highlights an outward focus in our ministries and lives as followers of Jesus. We don’t follow Jesus out of the world but into the world. That shift alone, from in to out creates some difficulty for many people. But understanding the nature of the following into the world is where the real heart of the missional shift lies.
Among the strands of the tangled web of reasons why churches may hesitate or fail to engage missionally is the fact that the concept of missional engagement is not, presently, clearly understood apart from some very traditional understandings of the word “mission” as used in evangelical circles. The word mission, from which the concept of missional emerges, has a limited range of meanings in the life of the church. Wright (2006) has noted that the root of the word mission means “to send,” which for many people is the whole of what mission or any variation of the word means. People are sent by the church into the world both near and far (though primarily far) for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel. In the context of the Evangelical Congregational Church, the nature of the sending that is done is for the purpose of evangelism.
The problem is made more complex because evangelism, like mission, has a narrow expression in the context of many evangelical churches. The narrow expression of evangelism is the verbal proclamation of the gospel with the intention of converting an individual to faith in Jesus Christ. But there is a growing consensus among missional thinkers and a suspicion among some followers of Jesus that while evangelism as simple verbal proclamation is important and valuable, it is an insufficient expression of the mission of God.
Among those who hold that evangelism is a sufficient expression of the mission of God there is little argument that evangelism can and should have a component other than verbal proclamation. Therefore practices like feeding the hungry, building schools and hospitals, liberating the oppressed or serving one’s neighbors and countless other acts of service are simply evangelism with more depth and the new word for this is missional. However, this broadening of the understanding of the nature of evangelism still places verbal proclamation and individual decision to become a Christian as the only non-negotiable and truly significant component of the gospel and mission. To state it in other terms, all activity other than verbal proclamation only serves to enable more effective verbal proclamation.
But if what was just described is not missional what then is missional? Christopher Wright defines missional as “…our committed participation as God’s people, at God’s invitation and command, in God’s own mission within the history of God’s world for the redemption of God’s creation”(Wright, 2006, p. 23). This definition includes evangelism but is so much bigger than simply getting people saved to go to heaven. Missional is about the participation with God in the redeeming of the entire creation! If Wright is correct, then all of our activity as followers of Jesus has significance for the ushering in of the kingdom of God.
Walter Raushenbusch (1991) said it well, "No man is a follower of Jesus in the full sense who has not through him entered into the same life with God. But on the other hand no man shares his life with God whose religion does not flow out, naturally and without effort, into all relations of his life and reconstructs everything that it touches. Whoever uncouples the religious and the social life has not understood Jesus" (p. 48).

What say you?

In the next post we will talk about missional and its relation to what it means to be the church.

Rauschenbusch, W. (1991). Christianity and the Social Crisis. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Wright, C. (2006). The mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s grand narrative. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Creation War (again-see May, 2011)

See the latest on the creation debate at http://christianitytoday.imirus.com/Mpowered/book/vchto11/i6/p2.  Are evangelical scientists and biblical scholars going too far afield?  How figurative can we see Adam and Eve in light of, say, Romans 5:12-19?  What should we be teaching our children in light of these further discoveries and as they face evolution in the public schools?  Should we now be more open to it?  How does this affect teaching creation in your church?  Or, should we keep this kind of thinking among ourselves?  Can the church discuss this in a civil manner?

Leaving the Church (Building)

I am sometimes confronted with cloistered nature of the typical evangelical church.  Three examples: As pastor of church plant required to set up every Sunday, we sometimes run short of necessary supplies.  Not too long ago I ran to Home Depot at about 9:30 AM on a Sunday morning for some duct tape.  Never having been to Home Depot on a Sunday morning, I was at first simply glad they were open and didn’t expect much in the way of a crowd.  I was astonished to find a packed parking lot.  An employee I know casually later confirmed, “Yeah, Sunday is usually our busiest morning.”  When I mentioned this to a friend at church a week later, she puzzled over it a moment and then replied, “It’s hard to comprehend that the rest of the world just goes on doing its thing without us on Sundays.”

A single mom visited on Sunday.  From the parking lot of the school where we meet, I could hit her house with a softball and a good line-drive.  In conversation she mentioned that she never knew a church was meeting in the school until she ran into our street-corner Night in the Light table on Halloween night. (It took her 6 months to muster the courage to actually visit.) We’ve been in this location for 5 years.  We put out portable signs each week.  We’ve delivered invites door-to-door at least a half-dozen times.  But our presence was a mystery to a young lady for 260 Sundays until we invaded her territory.

            In the fall of 2010, our middle & high school youth group ventured out to find and then feed some of the homeless people who live in semi-hidden homeless camps around the city.  It was obvious the kids were afraid when I discovered some brought pepper spray and they began asking questions about knife attacks.  Camps were found and people were fed.  We all survived. When we returned home to debrief, the kids were ecstatic and begged to do it again.  (We’ve continued with monthly trips to the camps.)  That evening one kid told his parents, “That’s the first time I ever felt like I was doing something Jesus would do.”  Good news… except this particular child has been part of church since diaper days and it took this long for his real-life WWJD moment.

            This isn’t a new predicament for many church leaders.  We know, I think, that God modeled an incarnational ministry model.  We want to make a kingdom-difference in our communities.  But somehow mobilizing our churches to actually invade the neighborhood extends as far as the seven people on the Outreach Team.  Strategically, I’ve never found a better approach than to tell stories of other churches and then hope it’s contagious.  And, in truth, I think the desire to make a local impact is contagious.  But putting a working strategy into place has been much more difficult. 

            That’s changed.  At the recent Wesley Forum held at the Evangelical Theological Seminary, I heard Drew Williams reveal how ‘mission-shaped communities’ (MSC) have revolutionized his church (St. Andrews Church Chorleywood, England).  Something like 90% of the congregation is engaged in neighborhood-invading projects and ministries.  Drew is now repeating the process in Connecticut and freely admits to borrowing the concept from other churches in England.  The foundational concept is to organize the entire church round these mission-shaped communities (bigger than a small group, smaller than a congregation).  It’s brilliant, I think, and biblical as a bonus.

            Simply defined, a mission-shaped community has a defined purpose (say…feeding the homeless), it has a name, clear leadership, and a size-limit (no more than 50).  Congregants gravitate to MSCs that align with their particular passions and interests.  MSCs meet regularly outside of the church location in order to plan, worship, disciple, etc.  If a particular group in an MSC wants to branch out or develops a more specific interest (housing the homeless, for example, in addition to feeding them), a new MSC is formed.  In the book you’ll discover that some MSCs meet on their own three Sunday mornings out of four and participate in the larger congregation once per month.

            Drew and fellow pastor Mark Stibbe tell the story in the book, Breakout, which is fun reading.  Some of the nuts & bolts get lost in the telling so a companion book by Mike Breen, Launching Missional Communities, might be a good follow-up read.  However, once you get the story, the concept is pretty easy to understand.  I checked and you can’t get Breakout on Amazon so you’ll have to pursue the book through the UK distributor at the following link: http://www.authenticmedia.co.uk/search/product/productPowerSearch.jhtml?keywords=breakout  Or, Google ‘Authentic Media UK’ and you can find it.

            Frankly, the story and the concept have inspired in me one grand thought: There’s hope.

11 Trends for 2011

If you’re wondering why you are so confused, check out http://www.outofur.com/archives/2011/01/eleven_trends_f.html  for the recent trends for 2011.

Creation War

About a year ago, Old Testament scholar Dr. Bruce Waltke resigned from Reformed Theological Seminary over comments he made about creation and evolution. Unfortunately for Dr. Waltke, the video statements were lifted out of context, and placed on the internet for everyone to see. He appeared to be supporting evolution. He later released a video defending his more conservative views on Genesis. RTS still let Waltke leave as many of their donors holding very literal interpretations of Genesis 1-2 were upset. For detail on the incident and other links, see http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/june/1.14.html.
In a bit of a twist this year, Answers in Genesis (AiG) founder, Ken Ham (young earth, literal 24hr. day), was disinvited from the Great Homeschool Convention for remarks made about the convention and other speakers at the convention who do not hold his view. Brennan Dean, organizer of the Great Homeschool Convention, said Ham’s remarks were “unnecessary, ungodly and mean-spirited,” in addition to being “divisive at best and defamatory at worst.” One can only imagine the name-calling as Ham’s exact words are not known. For this story and other links (including a defense from AiG) see, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/marchweb-only/kenhamhomeschool.html.
With some losing jobs over their views on creation and others being “disinvited” for name-calling, it seems the “creation war” is on. Much of what Ken Ham has to say (http://www.answersingenesis.org/) is directed toward The BioLogos Forum (http://www.biologos.org/) and in particular, Dr. Peter Enns. They are at opposite ends of the creation spectrum. There are, of course, a number of interpretations of Genesis 1-2 held by the best minds in evangelicalism. In addition to the “young earth/24 hr day” view, we have the “framework,” “day=age,” “day followed by an age,” “analogical,” “functional,” and “theistic-evolution” interpretations. There are, no doubt, other interpretations as well. We must understand that all these views are held by men and women who are born again, hold a high view of inspiration and affirm the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, etc.
If there is a “creation war,” most of the shooting (the loudest voice anyway) comes from Ken Ham and his “intolerant” followers. The AiG blog states, “The position of Answers in Genesis is that when it comes to biblical truth, there is only one truth, and we are called to be intolerant of all other opposing claims to truth. AiG is therefore, at least willing to admit our ‘intolerance’ in this area.” For Mr. Ham, if you are not a “young earth/24 hr. day” interpreter, then you are a “compromiser.” That is, you compromise the authority and truth of Scripture in favor of modern scientific views. The same was probably said to Copernicus and Galileo.
We understand following scientific "fact" is dangerous as scientific fact may change through further testing and discovery.  However, science can be a Christian endeavor and checking our interpretations against discoveries in the arena of general revelation is not evil.
Mr. Ham is well within the scope of evangelicalism with his view, but so are the other interpreters, and calling them “compromisers” (or worse) of God’s Word, insisting AiG alone has the truth is truly intolerant. And, because this intolerance may also seem unreasonable, arrogant and unchristian, it will get you “disinvited.”
Although we can admire one’s passion for truth, a more civil approach is in order. For example, in his systematic theology (p. 308), Wayne Grudem closes his chapter on creation with, “Progress will certainly be made if . . . Christians will be more willing to talk to each other without hostility, ad hominem attacks, or highly emotional accusations . . . and without a spirit of condescension or academic pride, . . . for these attitudes are not becoming to the body of Christ.”
If there is a place for tolerance, patience and understanding, it is here. There is much to learn from one another as we dialogue on the Word, treating our brothers and sisters in Christ with the respect they deserve. Don’t let this attitude of intolerance over the doctrine of creation infect your church. This is not a reason for division in the family.