The church is not immune to the constant evolution of the English language. In recent years, several new words like “emerging, seeker, and missional” have entered and become part of the ecclesiastical conversation, resulting in confusion and debate regarding the meaning and implications of the concepts represented by these words.

Likely, history will judge which of these words have staying power and how these words are understood in coming generations. For now, we need to be discerning in our use and gracious in our understanding of how these words are used. My intent is not to produce the de facto definition of “missional church”, but rather to present my understanding of this evolving term.

It should be noted that "missional" is not synonymous with "emerging/emergent". Not every missional church is emerging, and perhaps suprisingly, many emerging churches are not missional. And even though elements of the missional church may seem to be in juxtaposition to the attractional church1, there are many attractional-type churches who have taken giant steps toward being far more missional in their approach to ministry and particularly evangelism.

At the heart of the missional church is a decision to take Christ seriously when he said, "AS YOU ARE GOING, make disciples." Missional churches have decided not to rephrase Matthew 28 to say, "As they come to you, make them disciples"; but rather to assume Jesus meant what He said, and that we are to be in the business of making disciples 24/7 in every aspect of our lives, not just when we gather.

Of course, who would object to this?

Typically, no one objects to the idea that we should “go” and make disciples. Most objection to the idea of a “missional” church comes from those who are slow to adopt new words, or who suspect the use of different language may be a more sinister method to disguise liberal theology for a new generation.

Some have raised objections to the idea of missional churches, suspecting that this new terminology is simply a way to refer to a method of ministry which neglects the proclamation of the gospel in favor of a “social-gospel” only approach. Later, I’ll address the validity of this concern, however, I would point out that some people have a tendency to cower when presented with a new idea or change. The truth is, "being missional" is almost never a strategy to keep the gospel out of the picture, and as such, arguments like this which seek to marginalize one view are significantly harmful to honest discussion.

A more disturbing argument against “missional churches” is raised by those who suggest that it is the role of the church to simply “proclaim the Gospel, teach the Word, and let the Holy Spirit draw people to Himself”.2 At first glance, these three steps seem to be highly appropriate and theologically sound. However, notice what is missing. "GO". It seems that many opponents of missional church hide behind the importance of "doctrine" and "theology" and "teaching" to avoid having to "go". In a deeply ironic twist, these are the people who rail most loudly against the Willows and Saddlebacks of our world... yet they clearly embrace the attractional model of evangelism! The result is that church has become a place, an event, and sometimes a bit of a club; instead of being a community of sent out people.

These objections point to a caricature, a one-dimensional church which find itself at the end of a spectrum. The true missional church needs to find a middle ground, balancing Christ’s work of redemption with Christ’s work of relief, neither at the exclusion of the other.

I do have some concerns. Like any good thing, missional living and churching can get out of balance. I see at least two potential dangers for the missional church to constantly be wary of:

   1.  In an effort to be "in the world", there is a constant temptation to become indistinguishable from the world. John, in his first epistle, draws thick lines between the lifestyle of the children of God and the lifestyle of the world. One must be careful that in pursuit of relevance, the true distinctives of the church are not lost.

   2.  Because a part of missional living requires loving the people in the world, particularly those who are "hard to love", it can be easy to get so caught up in social causes that the gospel is lost. It is right, appropriate, and incumbent on the church to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoners, and comfort the oppressed. However , it would be better for those people to enter the kingdom hungry, naked, and captive than for them to be full, clothed, and free but miss the kingdom. The other side of this coin is that the church can sometimes in an effort to bring change to the world become so politically entrenched that the lines between God's kingdom and the political parties become impossible to see (this happens on both sides!). The church must take great care as it seeks to enact the mission of Jesus, that it not lose the Gospel of Jesus!

I believe the template for the missional church is found in 1 Peter 2:11:

Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.

Peter instructs the church to abstain from sinful desires. He also instructs them to live among the pagans (in the world).

In an ongoing cycle of over-reaction, the church has regularly struggled to get this equation right, often reversing the missional formula.

Sometimes, in an effort to be true aliens and strangers, the church abstains from the Pagans (the world). And sometimes, in an effort to be truly in the world, the church finds itself living among the sinful desires.

We need to learn to live in the world, as aliens and strangers. We are representatives of our King and our Kingdom. We are residents here, and ought not retreat into the safety of our fortress-like churches. However, we must not so embrace our identity as residents here that we forget our true citizenship and our true purpose. We are not to buy the world's system "Wanting your own way, wanting everything for yourself, wanting to appear important..." Rather, we are to be a city on a hill, a light not under a bushel, salt retaining its uniqueness (saltiness)...

The missional church:

    * Understands its identity -- Aliens and Strangers

    * Embraces its location -- in the world

    * Lives Appropriately -- abstain from sinful desires

    * For the sake of the Kingdom -- they may...glorify God on the day he visits us.

The key here is that we abstain from sin, not the world. That is the heart of missional living.

2 Both of these arguments are taken from the post and comment section at the TeamPyro blog. While they are not indicative of the concerns raised by all regarding the “missional church”, these sentiments would be echoed by many.  See http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/04/glad-you-asked.html for more.

---

David Rudd is a pastor in Muskegon, Michigan.  He has two beautiful children and is married to Marianne (not from Gilligan's Island).  He believes the church can be a beautiful bride for Christ!