The Institute (協会)

How about Democrat or Liberal?? I know most people living in their Christian bubble (or in NM, we call it the Barrio) would never use that word as something to describe themselves. And heaven forbid they ever have to hang out with "those" types!!!

Los

Wow. I blogged about this topic just a couple weeks ago, and it sparked some VERY interesting discussion on just that question:

http://seminarianblog.com/2007/08/15/what-in-the-world-does-missional-even-mean/

My conclusion? I don't know if coming up with a new word is the answer... Once that happens, and people catch on, it will be caught, misconstrued, and abused as well. Jesus seemed to recognize this problem when he said that many will claim to do great deeds in his name, but he will not know them. Anything that "we" come up with, will have the same vulnerability.

Would constantly defining and standing by the term as Keller does produce results? I don't know. It works for him, but then again, he IS the 4th member of the Trinity. ;-) (totally kidding)

BTW, that pic is the weakest model for "church" I have ever seen. Did they consult scripture?

I'm tired of people who think that Christianity and the Christian life are about what's inside a building. I'm tired of people who think that "full-time Christian ministry" is something special that preachers do. (and i'm not talking about people who only practice Sunday Christianity, i'm talking about people who elevate the building and the preacher to some alternate plane of sanctity.) But then, I'm also tired of labels and all they imply. Christ said to follow Him, to be His disciples. That our every action is to be ministry--a glory-bringing to God. Maybe we should used "imitating Christ" as our label. Of course, that would probably end up attracting baggage, too. sigh. Perhaps, there is no way to be as clear as we want to be in this fallen world.

The difference between Missional and essentially what is "Christian acquisition" is that between signing a free agent and teaching a neighborhood kid what a baseball is and how to through it.

When we equate church growth with evangelism we've lost sight of what the gospel is and what we're supposed to be doing here in the kingdom.

Pardon me for not getting it, but I don't understand all this 'missional' church business. Aren't all churches missional because they give the gospel and support missions at home and abroad? Isn't missional church redundant? Or am I MISSionaling something?

Sorry, guys - couldn't resist. Just had my coffee. :)

Blanca, all churches are called to be missional but when this gets lost when it only becomes a place to re-indoctrinate those who already have heard and responded to the gospel it is less than it should be. Yes, the pulpit may still be preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ but if it only falls onto the ears of the saints is it really giving the gospel or merely reminding the saints within that congregation of the faith they already hold?

A good church can and will grow by drawing the saints to it, but this should go hand and hand with a consistent presentation of the gospel to the lost.

Okay, now I get it. Thanks, Stelmodad.

Hey anthony, Have you heard of a ministry called "church dynamics"?Their ministry works on equipping the church to become what it was designed to be. So they are into changing all the structures and taking the focus off "the worship service". I think the statistic they use is that the traditional church spends 90% of their time, money, and resources on the Sunday service, whereas 90% of life transformation, growth and development happens in one on one settings of things like discipleship and mentorship. Please check out "church dynamics" and let me know how it fits in with the missional paradigm.

When I think about “being missional” (a term that I’m growing to dislike more and more) I think about the two great commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind and Love your neighbor as yourself.
I believe many evangelicals today have mistakenly added to the second part of that verse (either consciously or subconsciously) by thinking that we only love people so that they will become Christians. But the text doesn’t say that or even imply that. Christ does not call us to love people with an agenda. He just calls us to love them.
Certainly we should desire others to know the mercy, grace and forgiveness of Christ, but that’s not why we love them. On the contrary, we should love them simply because they too were made in the image of God.
Consequently, at our little church plant we encourage our members to show Christ’s love by caring for their neighbors regardless of who they are or what they do. We ask them to show their love for our community and its citizens through their own involvement in the schools, little leagues and other community organizations.
We don’t want to create another church that busies its people with church activities from Sunday to Sunday. On the contrary, we want to create a church that encourages its people to get involved in the community so that the citizens of community might see that we came to serve, not to be served.
That’s what I think “being missional” is all about: Engaging the community so that the church will be seen as an asset and not just another tax exempt liability.

Sorry to ramble.

Darden- I totally understand where you're coming from on the agenda thing... Have you seen Rob Bell's nooma called "bullhorn"? You might like it.

However, the thing we have to be careful about in speaking about agenda-free evangelism is understanding what we mean by that. Because in the first place, you always have an agenda of some kind. Everyone does. Normally it's just trying to gain the approval of the person they're with. Our agenda as Christians should be to love people, period. This means if they show no interest in the gospel or don't "convert" right away, we still love them.

That said, it's easy to say "I won't have an agenda," then go into the relationship and never speak about the gospel b/c you're so afraid of them thinking that you're trying to convert them. That obviously is not helpful either. I don't think agendas are bad in themselves, they're bad when we have the wrong agenda. After all Paul quite unashamedly admits to having an agenda with Agrippa in Acts 26.

A perspective on the word "missional" is given by advice I was given when writing down my journey to faith as a "personal testimony"; avoid jargon or "God-speak," because it doesn't mean anything to those you're trying to reach, and it means different things at times to those who are reached.

Like others, I have misgivings about using the word for this reason and others. That said, I'd agree with our gracious host that the term is (not surprisingly) being adopted and distorted by others out of fashion.

That's why "missional" living is the inculcation of a lifestyle, not a vocabulary, no?

Jake,

Good comments and I agree totaly. As humans we always have an agenda and that's as it should be when we preach, evagnelize, worship and even just as we live. But as you rightly state, Christians should love people, period. I guess that in an of itself is an agenda, but not in the sense that I'm speaking (agenda= ulterior motive).

Furthermore, I agree that in our attempts to love w/o an agenda, we cannot be afraid to speak the truth of the gospel in love. Nevertheless, I do not believe that we always have to use words in order to share the gosepl. Our actions often speak louder than our words.

After all, there are a lot of Christians out there who believe they have "shared the gosepl" when they've exhorted someone to give their lives to Christ. But as James 2:15-16 reminds us, the Gospel is more than the words we speak.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts. As iron shaprens iron.

Anthony: I think that this is really a world view issue. Kinda like all the TR folks in the PCA; while they may be Reformed from a soteriological perspective, they don't have a Reformed world view.

Like most things, actions speak much louder than words. You can tell a missional church because they preach the Gospel instead of religious moralism and they welcome messy people into their lives because they are messed up too.

Sometimes I'm not sure which is the greater danger - secular humanism or the freaky "Christian" subculture that we have developed over the past 50 years that has nothing to do with the Gospel. I'm leaning towards the latter being a greater danger.