OK, so the title of this post is both very revealing and at the same time illusive. I used the word beautiful to make clear from the beginning that I consider the development of this concept to be very helpful. I chose modern to suggest, also from the beginning, that the concept is nonetheless a modern invention and is not found explicitly anywhere in the Bible.
So what does it mean to be missional? Well, for starters, it means that you’re on top of the latest thing in church circles (which is not a bad thing!). If emerging and organic weren’t enough to describe postmodern approaches to doing church, now we have missional. I honestly celebrate this– don’t let my facetiousness deceive you (I have a purpose to writing this way, which will be apparent later). But back to this paragraph’s original question; we must settle on a definition. Since there isn’t much controversy surrounding the term, allow me to define it from memory, with no references. To be missional means to do ministry with particular attention paid to proper contextualization of the Gospel and engagement of varying cultures. For a better understanding of this, see this video by Tim Keller and read Confessions of a Reformission Rev. by Mark Driscoll.
I love that we can put a label on a particular approach to ministry. It helps keep the church honest; it helps us measure success and failures; it helps us have meaningful discussions that move us forward. Missional churches, much like “missionaries” who do cross-cultural evangelism, are really good at engaging ideas from different people groups. The most culturally heterogeneous areas are universities and cities. That’s why urban communities are really good at relating the Gospel message in a way that engages different theology, philosophy, politics, art, literature etc. So, to draw attention to this important need in today’s church is of vast importance (the need to be missional)!
My only quibble is that this is in fact a modern concept! That is not to say it is harmful or unbiblical, but it is most definitely not taught in Scripture. In fact, the word “mission” is only used in the New Testament once! And even in this instance, it refers to the act of being involved in a purposeful, particular event (Acts 12:25). Furthermore, the ministry of “missionary” is not found anywhere in Scripture either, whether one wants to think of it as a gift or office. Biblically, the closest thing to missionary is that of evangelist.
The point of this post is to call certain leaders back to a more honest position. It is unfair to speak of “missional” churches as holding a monopoly on effective contextualization. Also, it is unwarranted to posit missional churches against other labels such as “seeker.” Seeker and missional are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, it is a bad move to contrast being missional with evangelistic. “Evangelistic” is a biblical term used of the church; I wouldn’t want to distance myself from this word. Finally, let’s ‘fess up and recognize that some people have an unfair stigma toward labels like “purpose-driven,” but all too readily accept other labels like missional. This demonstrates pure hypocrisy.
Adopting missional in our vocabulary would be a great step forward in making disciples of all the nations! I already have, and it’s helped me better my ministry. At the same time, be honest with yourself while being charitable with others. The fruit of your character and labor will be much sweeter.
I don’t quite see this. Could you elablorate with examples? Last phrase is rather strong / with implications…
“Finally, let’s ‘fess up and recognize that some people have an unfair stigma toward labels like “purpose-driven,” but all too readily accept other labels like missional. This demonstrates pure hypocrisy.”
Wasn’t this a missional lifestyle described in the Bible?…
Acts 11:
19Now those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews. 20Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. 21The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.
Yes, it was missional activity (though the word itself is nowhere). As it was also purpose-driven activity. This is an example of them aligning themselves with the purposes of God (see Ephesians for numerous use of that word). My point is that we have adopted, starting from the 90s, this new word to be what we want our churches to be characterized by. And for some reason, when another word is used (such as purpose) to communicate the same truth, those who don’t like a certain figure or church model/strategy refuse to accept it.
Hmm, I’m guesing you might be refering to Rick Warren’s popularizing of “Purpose Driven”. I just haven’t heard of critics that are still demonstrating/suggesting faithfullness to the mission call. The only critique I read centered around the employment of “business concepts” and personal attacks. Sounds more like envy of the success God gave Saddleback.
Nevertheless, the fruits of this work are evident in the impact it’s had outside the church, like no other Christian publication I know this century (or last one). And those 5 purposes are so simply communicated, I can’t think of any orthodox Christian rejecting them. Just wondering: was his other book, “Purpose Driven Church” more easily accepted by the church?