The meaning of "missional"

[Gailyn Van Rheenen]

I appreciate James Nored beginning this internet forum to create discussion and connecton about missional outreach. One of our initial questions is "What do we mean by the word "missional"? Words set the parameters of meaning. When we discuss "missional" renewal of local churches or "missional" church planting, what do we mean?

[Daniel Whalen]

Hi all,

I nearly got tossed out of Seminary in the late 80's for suggesting that one day we might look back on the decades of the church growth movement and find that far more harm than good was done to both the body of Christ and the church's station in western culture. Now it's 2010 and many are wondering: how much bang did we get for our buck and how's that working out for the traditional church?

Alan Hirsch in The Forgotten Ways, states: "Christology determines missiology, and missiology determines Ecclesiology. This is just a smart-aleck’s way of saying that in order to align ourselves correctly as a missional movement, we first need to return to the Founder of Christianity and, having done that, recalibrate our approach from that point on. Christian mission always starts with Jesus and is defined by him. Jesus is our constant reference point—we always begin and always end with him. It is Jesus who determines the church’s mission in the world. Therefore our sense of purpose and mission comes from being sent by him in to the world." (Alan Hirsch. The Forgotten Ways. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006, 142.)

The difference between 'church growth science" and the 'missional movement' is like which comes first - the cart or the horse? For decades the church has been asking what kind of church do we need (want) to be to grow and pay the bills? The missional church is asking what forms do we need to adapt/adopt in order to seed and embed the gospel in the surrounding culture to which God in Christ calls/sends us?
The great danger is that once again the entrenched church will adopt all the ‘buzz’ words and nothing will really change.

If Jesus is Lord over all things for the church (including ALL relationships, not only the church’s internal relationships) then why do we so tenaciously hang on to forms that are clearly failing? Perhaps the question is no longer "WWJD" as if he were absent and not active in the world today, but rather the question for missional followers is what is Jesus doing and can we get in on it without hijacking HIS mission for our own purposes?

I'm convinced Hirsch's little formula goes to the heart of the issue and challenges (if not threatens) much of what is known as church today.

[Daniel Whalen]

Great omnilink! Everything you ever wanted to know about 'missional church' but were too afraid to ask. Thanks Tanner! I'm going to spend the next year checking out the links there and I'll get back to you. Seriously Thanks.

Tanner King said:

One of our members at North Davis sent me this resource: http://jrwoodward.net/2008/11/a-primer-on-todays-missional-church/

[Gailyn Van Rheenen]

Thanks for your compilation of videos and resources. These are helpful.

Gailyn

Daniel Whalen said:

Great omnilink! Everything you ever wanted to know about 'missional church' but were too afraid to ask. Thanks Tanner! I'm going to spend the next year checking out the links there and I'll get back to you. Seriously Thanks.

Tanner King said:

One of our members at North Davis sent me this resource: http://jrwoodward.net/2008/11/a-primer-on-todays-missional-church/

[James Nored]

Daniel, you were ahead of your time in the 1980s! As you say, asking, How can I grow this church to pay the bills? is not a good question. How can we reach adapt our forms to reach people for Christ is a good question.

There is indeed a great danger of churches just adopting missional language without changing forms, structures, and hearts. Indeed, despite the fact that I give missional church seminars, I fear that the word has lost its meaning for many. It is still a good term, as it points back to the biblical-theological concept of being sent.

One of my concerns with the missional movement is the lack of focus at times on conversion. This is an over correction. We need to not only serve and be in proximity with people--something lacking in the past--but we also need to share Christ.
Daniel Whalen said:

Hi all,

I nearly got tossed out of Seminary in the late 80's for suggesting that one day we might look back on the decades of the church growth movement and find that far more harm than good was done to both the body of Christ and the church's station in western culture. Now it's 2010 and many are wondering: how much bang did we get for our buck and how's that working out for the traditional church?

Alan Hirsch in The Forgotten Ways, states: "Christology determines missiology, and missiology determines Ecclesiology. This is just a smart-aleck’s way of saying that in order to align ourselves correctly as a missional movement, we first need to return to the Founder of Christianity and, having done that, recalibrate our approach from that point on. Christian mission always starts with Jesus and is defined by him. Jesus is our constant reference point—we always begin and always end with him. It is Jesus who determines the church’s mission in the world. Therefore our sense of purpose and mission comes from being sent by him in to the world." (Alan Hirsch. The Forgotten Ways. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006, 142.)

The difference between 'church growth science" and the 'missional movement' is like which comes first - the cart or the horse? For decades the church has been asking what kind of church do we need (want) to be to grow and pay the bills? The missional church is asking what forms do we need to adapt/adopt in order to seed and embed the gospel in the surrounding culture to which God in Christ calls/sends us?
The great danger is that once again the entrenched church will adopt all the ‘buzz’ words and nothing will really change.

If Jesus is Lord over all things for the church (including ALL relationships, not only the church’s internal relationships) then why do we so tenaciously hang on to forms that are clearly failing? Perhaps the question is no longer "WWJD" as if he were absent and not active in the world today, but rather the question for missional followers is what is Jesus doing and can we get in on it without hijacking HIS mission for our own purposes?

I'm convinced Hirsch's little formula goes to the heart of the issue and challenges (if not threatens) much of what is known as church today.

[Daniel Whalen]

My dad always said that I was born about 20 years prematurely. The forms ‘church’ takes are always negotiable! It was ‘hanging onto the traditions for the fathers’ that seemed to give Jesus of Nazareth heartburn. The issue of ‘Forms’ goes to the very heart of incarnation – God becoming flesh and blood and moving into the neighborhood. When Jesus is represented and experienced, everything changes. The very way we ‘know’ the Father through the Son is the greatest change and changing factor the world has ever had to come to terms with.
A few years ago, I worked with a church agency to develop their ‘mission statement’. It ended up as “Providing resources that build churches that change lives.” It was theirs and they were happy with it. Still, something didn’t sit quite right about it with me. Today I realize it was all ‘attractional’ intended to preserve the status quo. It is the inverse of what I know to be the right ‘formula’ for Missional ecclesiology, namely that Jesus provides the recourses (his person, his Spirit and gifts) in order to change lives with which to build his ‘church’.
It is all about conversion! But, it is Jesus who does the converting, not the church. The question confronting the church today is whether we trust Jesus enough to lead and direct HIS church.


James Nored said:

Daniel, you were ahead of your time in the 1980s! As you say, asking, How can I grow this church to pay the bills? is not a good question. How can we reach adapt our forms to reach people for Christ is a good question.

There is indeed a great danger of churches just adopting missional language without changing forms, structures, and hearts. Indeed, despite the fact that I give missional church seminars, I fear that the word has lost its meaning for many. It is still a good term, as it points back to the biblical-theological concept of being sent.

One of my concerns with the missional movement is the lack of focus at times on conversion. This is an over correction. We need to not only serve and be in proximity with people--something lacking in the past--but we also need to share Christ.
Daniel Whalen said:

Hi all,

I nearly got tossed out of Seminary in the late 80's for suggesting that one day we might look back on the decades of the church growth movement and find that far more harm than good was done to both the body of Christ and the church's station in western culture. Now it's 2010 and many are wondering: how much bang did we get for our buck and how's that working out for the traditional church?

Alan Hirsch in The Forgotten Ways, states: "Christology determines missiology, and missiology determines Ecclesiology. This is just a smart-aleck’s way of saying that in order to align ourselves correctly as a missional movement, we first need to return to the Founder of Christianity and, having done that, recalibrate our approach from that point on. Christian mission always starts with Jesus and is defined by him. Jesus is our constant reference point—we always begin and always end with him. It is Jesus who determines the church’s mission in the world. Therefore our sense of purpose and mission comes from being sent by him in to the world." (Alan Hirsch. The Forgotten Ways. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006, 142.)

The difference between 'church growth science" and the 'missional movement' is like which comes first - the cart or the horse? For decades the church has been asking what kind of church do we need (want) to be to grow and pay the bills? The missional church is asking what forms do we need to adapt/adopt in order to seed and embed the gospel in the surrounding culture to which God in Christ calls/sends us?
The great danger is that once again the entrenched church will adopt all the ‘buzz’ words and nothing will really change.

If Jesus is Lord over all things for the church (including ALL relationships, not only the church’s internal relationships) then why do we so tenaciously hang on to forms that are clearly failing? Perhaps the question is no longer "WWJD" as if he were absent and not active in the world today, but rather the question for missional followers is what is Jesus doing and can we get in on it without hijacking HIS mission for our own purposes?

I'm convinced Hirsch's little formula goes to the heart of the issue and challenges (if not threatens) much of what is known as church today.

[James Nored]

Daniel, the church's mission statement that you mention is typical of the thinking in most churches. Most churches do not say quite so explicitly that they are seeking to provide resources to build up the church.. They usually say they are trying to reach lost people, but their actions often show that this is not really the top priority.

There is such an inherent self-centeredness to us all. It is hard to love others as we love ourselves. And it is hard for churches to love the lost as much as they love themselves.

Daniel Whalen said:

My dad always said that I was born about 20 years prematurely. The forms ‘church’ takes are always negotiable! It was ‘hanging onto the traditions for the fathers’ that seemed to give Jesus of Nazareth heartburn. The issue of ‘Forms’ goes to the very heart of incarnation – God becoming flesh and blood and moving into the neighborhood. When Jesus is represented and experienced, everything changes. The very way we ‘know’ the Father through the Son is the greatest change and changing factor the world has ever had to come to terms with.
A few years ago, I worked with a church agency to develop their ‘mission statement’. It ended up as “Providing resources that build churches that change lives.” It was theirs and they were happy with it. Still, something didn’t sit quite right about it with me. Today I realize it was all ‘attractional’ intended to preserve the status quo. It is the inverse of what I know to be the right ‘formula’ for Missional ecclesiology, namely that Jesus provides the recourses (his person, his Spirit and gifts) in order to change lives with which to build his ‘church’.
It is all about conversion! But, it is Jesus who does the converting, not the church. The question confronting the church today is whether we trust Jesus enough to lead and direct HIS church.


James Nored said:

Daniel, you were ahead of your time in the 1980s! As you say, asking, How can I grow this church to pay the bills? is not a good question. How can we reach adapt our forms to reach people for Christ is a good question.

There is indeed a great danger of churches just adopting missional language without changing forms, structures, and hearts. Indeed, despite the fact that I give missional church seminars, I fear that the word has lost its meaning for many. It is still a good term, as it points back to the biblical-theological concept of being sent.

One of my concerns with the missional movement is the lack of focus at times on conversion. This is an over correction. We need to not only serve and be in proximity with people--something lacking in the past--but we also need to share Christ.
Daniel Whalen said:

Hi all,

I nearly got tossed out of Seminary in the late 80's for suggesting that one day we might look back on the decades of the church growth movement and find that far more harm than good was done to both the body of Christ and the church's station in western culture. Now it's 2010 and many are wondering: how much bang did we get for our buck and how's that working out for the traditional church?

Alan Hirsch in The Forgotten Ways, states: "Christology determines missiology, and missiology determines Ecclesiology. This is just a smart-aleck’s way of saying that in order to align ourselves correctly as a missional movement, we first need to return to the Founder of Christianity and, having done that, recalibrate our approach from that point on. Christian mission always starts with Jesus and is defined by him. Jesus is our constant reference point—we always begin and always end with him. It is Jesus who determines the church’s mission in the world. Therefore our sense of purpose and mission comes from being sent by him in to the world." (Alan Hirsch. The Forgotten Ways. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006, 142.)

The difference between 'church growth science" and the 'missional movement' is like which comes first - the cart or the horse? For decades the church has been asking what kind of church do we need (want) to be to grow and pay the bills? The missional church is asking what forms do we need to adapt/adopt in order to seed and embed the gospel in the surrounding culture to which God in Christ calls/sends us?
The great danger is that once again the entrenched church will adopt all the ‘buzz’ words and nothing will really change.

If Jesus is Lord over all things for the church (including ALL relationships, not only the church’s internal relationships) then why do we so tenaciously hang on to forms that are clearly failing? Perhaps the question is no longer "WWJD" as if he were absent and not active in the world today, but rather the question for missional followers is what is Jesus doing and can we get in on it without hijacking HIS mission for our own purposes?

I'm convinced Hirsch's little formula goes to the heart of the issue and challenges (if not threatens) much of what is known as church today.

[Daniel Whalen]

Right on target, James. The Gospel is about Jesus, his mission in seeking and saving the lost and his kingdom. Only by the grace of God do any of us participate. "How dare God engage in 'evangelism' without seeking our OK." God uses the humble; the poor in spirit, Yet Jesus still seeks and saves the lost. Sometimes he lets the 'not so lost' (i.e. those endeavoring to follow him) in on what he is doing and in the words of Karl Barth we might even have an opportunity to "prompt a response". That's very different from how I 'learned to do evangelism' from the church I grew up in. I think finding the ballance, neither exagerating nor minimzing the role the church (his disciples) might play, is key.

James Nored said:

Daniel, the church's mission statement that you mention is typical of the thinking in most churches. Most churches do not say quite so explicitly that they are seeking to provide resources to build up the church.. They usually say they are trying to reach lost people, but their actions often show that this is not really the top priority.

There is such an inherent self-centeredness to us all. It is hard to love others as we love ourselves. And it is hard for churches to love the lost as much as they love themselves.

Daniel Whalen said:

[James Nored]

Daniel, your comment about the church reminds me of the missiological saying, "It is not so much that the church has a mission, but that the mission has a church." God initiated the mission, sending his Son, and the Son sent the Spirit and us. God is already at work in the world. It is we who follow in his footsteps, seeking to discern who is responding to his call and providing an incarnational witness.

Daniel Whalen said:

Right on target, James. The Gospel is about Jesus, his mission in seeking and saving the lost and his kingdom. Only by the grace of God do any of us participate. "How dare God engage in 'evangelism' without seeking our OK." God uses the humble; the poor in spirit, Yet Jesus still seeks and saves the lost. Sometimes he lets the 'not so lost' (i.e. those endeavoring to follow him) in on what he is doing and in the words of Karl Barth we might even have an opportunity to "prompt a response". That's very different from how I 'learned to do evangelism' from the church I grew up in. I think finding the ballance, neither exagerating nor minimzing the role the church (his disciples) might play, is key.

James Nored said:

Daniel, the church's mission statement that you mention is typical of the thinking in most churches. Most churches do not say quite so explicitly that they are seeking to provide resources to build up the church.. They usually say they are trying to reach lost people, but their actions often show that this is not really the top priority.

There is such an inherent self-centeredness to us all. It is hard to love others as we love ourselves. And it is hard for churches to love the lost as much as they love themselves.

Daniel Whalen said:

[Joe Palmer]

This may be a seperate thread or question. But in reading about missional I just understand it to mean a disciple or a Christian, and collectively a church. So why do we need the term?

It sounds to me like you are asking the question I asked two decades ago. "How would we structure a church if we were formulating it to fit the world we live in today? That question has no relationship to theology, or the churches official leaders elders, deacons, etc. For me that was a question about how we do, and what we do, when we meet. It is not about changing the truth.

[James Nored]

Joe, I've been out of town. Sorry for the delay on getting back to you on this question. I have embedded a video from Michael Frost on the missional church that you may find helpful.

Why do we need the term missional? Good question. First, I would say that it is a biblical concept. The word missional comes from missio, which means "sent." And the concept of sending and being sent is found throughout the Bible (e.g., Jn. 20:21). It is profoundly theological, not merely a matter of form. God sent the Son, he sent the Spirit, and now he sends us into the world. The theology of the missional movement is its strength.

Second, I would say that the term is helpful and needed (though it could be stated in different way) because the church has by and large failed to see itself as sent. The unspoken practice and theology of most churches is that the church exists for its own sake. Mission is seen as a (often small) part of the church's task, rather seeing the church as being fundamentally missional.

Third, seeing the church as missional does affect how we understand structure and leadership. Hirsch states that Christology determines missiology determines ecclessiology. In other words, by looking at Christ, we see what mission is all about. And since the church is the body of Christ, this informs our church practice, structure and leadership.

So...what questions does this bring up?

Joe Palmer said:

This may be a seperate thread or question. But in reading about missional I just understand it to mean a disciple or a Christian, and collectively a church. So why do we need the term?

It sounds to me like you are asking the question I asked two decades ago. "How would we structure a church if we were formulating it to fit the world we live in today? That question has no relationship to theology, or the churches official leaders elders, deacons, etc. For me that was a question about how we do, and what we do, when we meet. It is not about changing the truth.

[Joe Palmer]

James is this a liberal / conservative term?

Some of his terms are concerning? social justice? liberation theology? I am all for justice but that wasn't Jesus mission and it's not ours.

It is also scary that we are promoting a guy, who promotes going to a bar and drinking.


I agree that the true christian/church see the world, Christ, and the church differently.

Isn't the term missional church redundant? Can we be the church if we aren't on a mission? Is this just an effort to get people to understand that?

[James Nored]

Joe, no, missional is not a liberal/conservative term. It is a theological term.

While I would not make "social justice" the extent of the gospel, the idea of helping those who are in need is found throughout the New Testament. The "social gospel" and "individual gospel" cannot be separated. Check out the following passages:


Luke 9:6 6 So they set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel and healing people everywhere.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. electronic ed. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1996, c1984, S. Lk 9:6

Matthew 4:23
23 Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. electronic ed. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1996, c1984, S. Mt 4:23

Matthew 9:35
 Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. electronic ed. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1996, c1984, S. Mt 9:35

Matthew 14:14
14When Jesus came ashore, he saw a large crowd. He felt deep concern for them. He healed their sick people.
New International Reader's Version. 1st ed. Zondervan, 1998, S. Mt 14:14

Matthew 15:32
32 Jesus called his disciples to him and said, I I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way.”
The Holy Bible : New International Version. electronic ed. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1996, c1984, S. Mt 15:32

John 3:11-14
11 John answered, “The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.”
12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”
13 “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.
14 Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”
He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”
The Holy Bible : New International Version. electronic ed. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1996, c1984, S. Lk 3:11

Galatians 2:9,10
9 James, Peter c and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

What do you think of these passages? Also, as to going to a bar and drinking, was this not what Jesus was criticized for?

34 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.”’
The Holy Bible : New International Version. electronic ed. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1996, c1984, S. Lk 7:34

What do you think of this passage and model of Jesus?