There has been a movement in this country for more than 15 years: Christians emerging from conservative, traditional, institutional churches into a new way of being and doing church, shaped by, and relevant to, the current cultural values, mores and interests of young adults. Some of these “emerging” churches (not all and not inevitably) are also “missional”. I am here interacting with the latter group: emergent missional churches. They are a relatively small proportion of all churches, but growing in number and influence. It has become increasingly common to read and hear that these churches are the future; indeed, they supposedly are the only hope for churches to survive. The claim is that only missional churches are relevant to today’s culture; all others will become marginalized (Interestingly, I have read others who insist the future belongs to churches that are Roman, Orthodox or Pentecostal and located primarily in the Global South. American Protestant churches will become marginalized, as they are now in Britain and Western Europe.) Advocates of the missional churches see this coming and are saying Protestant churches have a choice: become missional or marginal.
But being missional is far more than a pragmatic move for survival. There is a very definite Theology involved. When missional churches are described, we hear a lot about incarnation and cultural immersion and community and friendships and sharing and walking together on the journey of life, especially with the poor and marginalized. I certainly agree with all of that. But, behind all this, driving it, is a concept called the Mission of God (“Missio Dei) “Missional” does not mean “missions” or mission-minded in the traditional sense. It is not about a church sending out vocational Missionaries to distant places, reaching lost people with the Gospel of Grace. The Theology is that God is active in the world. He is on a mission of loving, caring and serving all people and thus redeeming their lives and the world and consequently, extending His Kingdom on earth. We do not do missions, we are “missional”. To be missional is to be committed to carrying on this mission of God, or better, to be the instrument through which He fulfills His Mission, working with Him. This is what every single Christian, the entire Church (the People of God, not any particular institution), is called to do. Being missional is a mind-set, an identity: who we are and what we are all about: working with God on this mission to share His love in very practical ways, seeking to help others to also become missional (“passing it forward”). We do it, advocates say, by incarnating the Good News of God’s presence and redeeming love in how we are, how we live and relate to others, everywhere we live and work, all the time. Words are futile or ineffective or counter productive apart from the incarnation of God’s love and mercy and grace in our lives, in the world. The life of Jesus, as they see it, is the Model for Missional.
Ideally, we are this way among the poor and marginalized- many of the advocates and practitioners of missional living are intentionally located in urban or inner city areas. There is a strong bent here toward progressive, “liberal”, social and political activism. (The reality is most of us live among people of the same economic and social status as ourselves, where ever and whatever that might be. Most of us are also committed to “moving on up” in our economic and social status).
I disagree with the concept of “Missio Dei”. It sounds so good, so positive, so life-affirming, and so “Christian”- how could I not agree with it? The people I know who advocate being missional, and are doing so in their own way, are caring, good-hearted, idealistic people, seeking to follow Jesus (as they understand that). How could I not support them? I will try to explain.
Yes, the Creator is directly involved in preserving His Creation and, yes, all people experience His common grace (even when they do not realize it). I believe in a strong Doctrine of Providence. I also believe that God has raised His Son, Jesus, to the Throne, in a literal Heaven, from which He now rules as Sovereign over all. I do not follow the Nazarene, I worship and serve the risen Lord. This is a major difference in focus and allegiance. It leads to a very different understanding of the Christian life. I believe that King Jesus is now reigning over the current events of the world. He is working out His purposes, directing all things to fulfill the Plan He has for Humanity and History to glorify His Name. One day all of the peoples and nations of the world will see and acknowledge Jesus to be God’s Prophet, Priest and King. History will end with all bowing at His Feet, before His Throne. Making this happen is God’s mission. I further believe that God sent Jesus to atone for the sins of the Elect. The purpose of the Incarnation was to enable God to become Man, one of us, in order to die as our Representative on the Cross. That was His Mission. Throughout all the centuries since, God has been actively calling the Elect to salvation, thus creating His Covenant People, for His Name’s sake. That is His Mission. Yes, we should be living daily in terms of this mission, all of us, every Christian; but, I’m afraid none of this is what advocates of “missional” churches have in mind.
Missional Christians say and believe they are orthodox, although they generally eschew Statements of Faith and seek to be very inclusive and ecumenical. Determining exactly what they believe is very difficult. I have honestly tried. Seeking harmony with all kinds of Christians and refusing to discriminate between “us and them” and trying to be non-judgmental, it is difficult to get them to articulate exactly what doctrines they adhere to. They seem to claim something from every Denomination and Tradition and from other Religions, as well; being systematic and dogmatic goes against their grain. All of that makes me question how “orthodox“, let alone evangelical, they actually are. I have read dozens of lengthy articles written by many advocates of missional churches and reviews by advocates of books written by advocates. I have read innumerable relevant Blogs and websites, both pro and con, in order to learn and develop some opinion about this Movement. I recognize that there are many variations of “missional” and various Pastors and writers are selective in what they adopt or reject from all of this. Even though I disagree with and am really disturbed by much of what I have read, nevertheless we can and must learn and benefit from its advocates. They raise important issues, justified criticisms of evangelical churches, and valuable insights about our American culture, which we dare not ignore. I share much of their assessment and dissatisfaction with contemporary churches. I really do! I think I have read enough to form a fair understanding of what the “missional” church is supposed to be about.
The major advocates do not believe in the traditional, Pauline, Book-of-Romans, Reformed, Calvinist Gospel of Grace. They seem to be ignorant of, or misunderstand, or repudiate, or have radically changed the meaning of, all five of the key Calvinist Doctrines (TULIP), as well as the 5 Solas of the Reformation. Most glaring to me, in what I read, is the omission of the “Fall”, the Doctrine of Total Depravity, the Bondage of the Will, the Antithesis and Curse and the need for Regeneration and that, by prevenient and irresistible Grace. Rather, there seems to be great optimism about human nature and great value put upon freedom (and ability) to make choices. They do not believe that the Church is to publish and propagate the (Reformed) Gospel around the world, bringing this Truth to Peoples who do not have Truth. To them, just saying that is presumptuous and arrogant on my part. They reject the concept of absolutes and propositional Truth (defined as correspondence, rather than coherence), let alone that the Bible contains it. (Thus, they reveal academic, post modern roots) In fact, everything I have just said above, that I believe, is nonsense or offensive to the main persons who speak for this Movement or else is simply ignored by them, not on their screen at all.
To them, above all, God is Love (grounded in the nature of the Trinity) The Triune God’s love is missional- it reaches out, seeking and calling everyone to Himself. If I understand them correctly, all people are on a journey to God or Jesus, whether they realize it or not. Our mission is to befriend everyone we can, walk with them on their Journey, and help them to recognize God, or Jesus, already in their lives (recognize His call and love) and help them to follow Him further, if they so chose. This is best done in Community. In fact, belonging to a Community of people, who are each helping the other on their respective journeys to Jesus, is the best way of finally becoming the person God intends for each of us to be, a person who will incarnate the love of God and intentionally pass it on, keeping the mission going.
The Reformed approach is different. Sinners are called and regenerated by the Spirit of God, through hearing and believing the (Reformed) Gospel. Thus, at that moment in their life, they become justified in Christ and the adopted children of God. Consequently, they belong to the Faith Community, known as the Church. [They become one of us] Through its Sacraments, Preaching/Teaching, Discipline and Fellowship these justified Believers will then grow in grace to become the persons God intends for us to be. Such persons will be righteous. They shall seek to know and walk in the Spirit, according to the Law of God.
This is the missing component in most churches. Christians often do not incarnate the grace of God in their daily lives (walk the talk) and often do not seek to live by the Principles of His Kingdom. The latter is a major problem I have with all kinds of evangelical churches- emergent, missional or traditional, charismatic and Reformed, too. Across the board, they all talk about the need to love others and to be involved in works of compassion and mercy. Increasingly, from every quarter, I read and hear about the need for evangelical Believers to engage their culture and the social issues of the world, especially Poverty. But what defines these actions? What standard is used to determine what God wants in these matters? The talk should be about Righteousness and Justice. These define what it means to Love. And the Law (Torah) defines what God means by Righteousness and Justice. The principles of the Kingdom are not selected from the teachings of Jesus in the synoptic Gospels (especially the Sermon on the Mount). They are found in the Law (Torah), interpreted and applied in light of the teachings of the Prophets, Jesus and the Apostles (through out the New Testament).
The Great Commission has never been cancelled. Obeying it is the Scriptural way to be “missional”. The Church, all Christians, should make it their responsibility to publish and share the Gospel about repentance and the forgiveness of sins in the Name of Jesus to all people groups (ethnicities and cultures) and make disciples of those who believe that Gospel, by baptizing them (into the Church) and teaching them (in the Church) to obey the Commandments.
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/567.htm
http://www.friendofmissional.org/reading_list.html
http://www.friendofmissional.org/
http://www.redeemer2.com/resources/papers/missional.pdf
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/11.57.html
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/0802843506/brianmclarenn-20/ref=nosim/
http://www.theofframp.org/about.html
http://www.challies.com/archives/000710.php
http://www.coolchurches.com/news/2005june.htm
http://www.nextreformation.com/wp-admin/reviews/secret1.htm
http://www.theofframp.org/emerging.html
http://thebolgblog.typepad.com/thebolgblog/2006/06/lesslie_newbigi.html
http://www.urbana.org/_articles.cfm?RecordId=993
http://www.theofframp.org/missional_comm.html
