What is "Missional"?
“Missional” is a common buzzword in ecclesiology today. You don’t have to read very much to realize that there is a lot packed into this word. But not all agree on what should be packed into it, or more precisely, how it should be played out in the church. “Missional” involves varying views of the Kingdom of God and varying views of how the church is related to the kingdom. It has to do with how God is at work in the world, what God is doing and how people should be involved in that work.
There is a tendency among some to judge the value of a word or idea by looking at who predominantly uses the word or idea. Some are hesitant to use the word because of who else uses it. In this case, “missional” is a word frequently used among the “emerging” type of churches and ministries. It is frequently connected with a lack of orthodoxy and a heavy emphasis on social justice. It is also frequently connected to what is known as “incarnational ministry,” the idea that believers are to “incarnate” the gospel just as Jesus did when He came to earth. This, too, makes some wary of the word.
The idea of missional
Yet I think that the idea is pretty simple and useful, even if we don’t like the word “missional,” and even if we do not agree with the doctrinal aberrancies and the social emphases of some who use it.
The idea of missional is based on the idea that God is a missionary God. This incorporates a number of elements that center on the fact that God is active in the world through both His incarnation and His people. Missional thinker Alan Hirsch says “By his very nature God is a ‘sent one’ who takes the initiative to redeem his creation.”1 Gibbs and Bolger say “God is a God who redeems, a God who seeks and saves…. [T]here is only one mission—God’s mission.”2
Mission embraces an even larger point. It is not simply that God sends, but that God is at work (on mission) accomplishing His purpose which is to bring glory to Himself through the redemption of sinners, the building of His kingdom, and the restoration of creation. In His mission, God has taken the initiative to come to man to reconcile Him, and now God calls man to join Him on His mission.
Fundamentally, our mission (if it is biblically informed and validated) means our committed participation as God’s people, at God’s invitation and command, in God’s own mission within the history of God’s word for the redemption of God’s creation.3
To be missional means to participate with God in God’s mission.
The biblical theology connection
Mission is closely connected to the biblical theology movement which emphasizes the storyline of the Bible: Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration (or sometimes consummation). Since God’s mission is redemption with a view to restoration, the disciple’s mission is to participate in God’s work of redemption in anticipation of the ultimate restoration. In this sense, mission emphasizes the Kingdom of God and is consequently inseparable from eschatology. Yet at the same time, missional thinking does not demand a particular eschatological view. Though most missional thinkers embrace some form of the “already/not yet,” virtually all agree that the church is living in and speaking to the “not yet.”
This agreement is evident in the common theme in missional writing of living in a post-Christian era—a time and culture in which the Christian worldview is no longer dominant. Many trace this theme to Leslie Newbigen, who returned to England after years of missionary work in India to find that British culture had drastically changed. The change meant that Christians must now be missionaries to their own cultures, just as “foreign missionaries” formerly went to a new country and learned a new language, new customs, a new culture, then preached the gospel into that culture in such a way that the message could be understood.
Christians are, therefore, to live in their culture as a missionary redeemed by God and sent by God to a particular historical and geographical context to be used by God in His work of redeeming and restoring His fallen creation to Himself. In this, everything that the Christian does is a part of mission. For the believer, to live is to live on-mission for God and the gospel. The church is to equip and encourage believers to live on-mission, doing life together in the mission of God for the sake of the “not yet” which surrounds them.
But what does “missional” mean?
One of the key issues in the missional conversation is the idea of mission itself. In fact, it is probably the key idea. And simply put, it means “going out.”
The problem is that missional means different things to different people. Missiologist Ed Stetzer likens it to a Rorshach test (the one where they show you a random inkblot image and ask what you see in it). As Stetzer says, what you see in “missional” depends on your theological commitments. It is, in some strange irony, the hermeneutical union of authorial intention with post-modernity. When someone says, “I’m missional,” I ask “What does that mean to you?” or “What do you mean by that?”
Almost all who use the word “missional” use it with reference to the missio Dei, the mission of God. (I say “almost all” because there are probably some who just see certain big names using it and jump on the bandwagon with no clue of the actual meaning—because it sounds cool.) Some see the missio Dei as predominantly social in nature—the reformation of societal structures of injustice, oppression, and poverty. For them, this is largely unconnected to the church and the “word of the gospel” (as opposed to the supposed living out of the gospel through working for societal change). For them, this is the working out of the Kingdom of God apart from the church. They emphasize the horizontal relationships and see salvation as more corporate than personal—the redemption of societal structures that reconcile people to each other rather than the redemption and reconciliation of lost sinners to God through Jesus (e.g., Brian McLaren).
Others see this as primarily (or at least equally) proclamational in nature, that the gospel must be proclaimed, not just lived. They would reject the saying, “Preach the gospel; use words if necessary.” They would say, “If you haven’t preached the gospel, then you haven’t preached the gospel.” Words—the message of salvation in Jesus alone—are inseparable from the mission. Most would quickly add that words alone are insufficient for the gospel and point out that the preaching the love of Jesus to the lost without living the love of Jesus around the lost is hypocritical and is not missional living (e.g., Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller). Such living ultimately hampers the proclamation.
The Kingdom of God
Some of the historic evangelism conferences of the 20th century addressed the issue of the relationship of the church and the Kingdom of God. T.V. Philip offers a brief summary of some of these conferences here. One example from this chapter: At Madras in 1938, there was a strong emphasis that “church and mission are inseparable.” Missionary E. Stanley Jones objected to this on the grounds that it removed an “absolute conception” from which to live and serve in the world. For him, the Kingdom of God was absolute (perhaps ultimate) and the church was relative. The usefulness of this in understanding the issue is that most missional thinkers see the Kingdom of God as having priority over the church. The church is the sign or the instrument of the Kingdom of God (cf. Stetzer). It is not an end unto itself. It is a tool for something bigger.
I say that to say that a large part of “missional” deals with the conception of the Kingdom of God. In this sense, missional thinking is very similar to (though, in my opinion, not identical to) incarnational ministry: “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
Missional thinkers typically look to Jesus as the model for ministry (an idea I believe is significantly flawed—which I will argue for later). We are at work in the world with God (on-mission with God) to bring about the Kingdom of God just like Jesus. The mission is to work with God to bring about the Kingdom in some limited or small way now, looking for the consummation when God finishes the job, so to speak.
Thus, we are to live in the world like Jesus did, “showing and sharing” the love of God like Jesus did in His ministry. This incarnational focus becomes one of the driving forces of missional for many people. This relationship between the Kingdom of God/life of Jesus and the church age is one of the major factors in missional thinking that has been given insufficient thought, in my estimation.
Being sent
But let me go back to the beginning of this post. To be missional is to be sent. I think that is an entirely biblical concept—that the church has been sent into the world to preach the gospel so that the church is built of the people whom Jesus purchased with His blood. The reason that the church must go to all nations is because Jesus purchased people from all nations (cf. Matt 28:18-20; Rev 5:9).
The irony is that missional thinking is “new,” but in some ways really isn’t all that different from what many believe the church is supposed to be: a group of believers that comes together for worship, instruction and fellowship, and scatters for evangelism.
Missional thinkers typically reject seeker driven models of ministry. The contrast they draw is between attractional and missional. The church, they believe, should be missional—going out to them; not attractional—asking them to come to us.
Alan Hirsch says it this way:
Missional represents a significant shift in the way we think about the church. As the people of a missionary God, we ought to engage the world the same way he does—by going out rather than just reaching out.
Notes
1 Alan Hirsch, “Defining Missional,” Leadership Journal (Fall 2008), http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2007/winter/2.34.html?start=1, accessed 6 June 2010.
2 Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), p. 50.
3 Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), p. 23.
Larry Bio
Larry is married to Jan and has three children. He has served as pastor of Grace Baptist Church in River Rouge, MI since 1999. He is a graduate of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and is currently pursuing a DMin from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He blogs at Stuff Out Loud.
- 25 views
[Steve Davis] For the mission, Father, Son, and Spirit send the Church into the world.Steve, would this be your understanding of John 20:21? If not, what would be your basis for the Trinity “sending the church into the world?”
The Second word I want us to see and understand is Missionary. Why use the word Missionary? When we say Missionary, we mean that we are to be mission minded. We are to witness with a purpose. We are to preach with a purpose and we are to live with a purpose and that purpose is to bring honor and glory to the Lord Jesus Christ and to see people saved for His glory. It is God’s will for His people and His New Testament Baptist Churches to be missionary. To preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every creature. When we are Missionary this also acknowledges what the Bible says about mankind. That we are lost and without hope and need to be saved from our sins.So what is the necessity of ‘missional’ as a new buzzword/catch phrase? My first instinct is that someone is channeling http://www.whedon.info/Slayer-Slang-The-Rosetta-Stone-of.html Joss Whedon to appeal to Generation Y.
When we say the word Missionary, we use it in the sense that we are to preach Jesus Christ to a lost and sinful world and that by hearing the Gospel, they will be saved. Mark 16:15 says, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”
Then of course when we use the word Missionary; we also mean by that as Missionary Baptists, we are to start New Testament Bible believing, Bible preaching, and Bible practicing Baptist Churches.
I’m thinking that people just like new terms. The word “missional” sounds ever so much more “contemporary” than “missionary” or “missionary-minded”.
[Larry] It is pretty common in missional thinking to make a difference between between mission and missions. Typically, missions is a subset of mission.At first I was ambivalent, but now I am confused. What is the difference between mission and missions? The only thing that I can think of is one is the command and the other is the implementation…? Is that what you mean by ‘subset’?
I don’t see any significant difference between the traditional use of ‘mission-minded’, ‘missionary’, and ‘missional’, except that the latter is in a shiny new package.
For context…
[Aaron] So which of these (if either) is true?And later….
a) The church has been off track for millennia and is now discovering it needs to be “missional”
b) The faithful church has sought to be obedient since the Ascension and does not need a new understanding with new labels
[Charlie] Third, it assumes that new labels cannot aptly express old concepts to a new generation.I was thinking on the whole topic while doing some driving yesterday and something sort of like the above emerged from the fog.
That is, with the “b” part of my hypothetical either-or, I meant to ask if folks talking missional are really not advocating anything new, in which case there is not much to say other than, hey, let’s do what the faithful church has always done.
But then how do you get a new generation to do something an old way? Or how do you get an old generation to return to more clarity about something that is actually old but has become a neglected or just fuzzy concept?
Answer to both (at least in part): re-articulate.
So I believe I am seeing a crack in the door for some value in a “missional emphasis.”
Not quite there yet. But I’m warming.
In my own case, if I felt a need to re-articulate what the faithful church has always done, I might try to come up with my own new-sounding buzzword so I don’t have to deal with other folk’s semantic baggage. Easier said than done I suspect.
How about, instead, just telling folks “Hey, we’ve kind of lost sight of some things…. I’d love to give these things a new name and make sound like we just discovered these ideas yesterday, but they’re actually a couple thousand years old. How about if we pretend they’re new and get excited anyway?”
That may sound cynical, but that’s not my intention. I really do understand the need human beings have for the New. And we do have to work with that.
But reading Steve’s posts, I’m still not sure if his particular idea of missional is a recovery of something ancient tried and true (but re-articulated) or something genuinely novel and new. Steve… maybe you can help me there?
(Guess that didn’t turn out as hurried as I intended)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] So I believe I am seeing a crack in the door for some value in a “missional emphasis.”Embrace it Aaron. Feel the warmth.
Not quite there yet. But I’m warming.
But reading Steve’s posts, I’m still not sure if his particular idea of missional is a recovery of something ancient tried and true (but re-articulated) or something genuinely novel and new. Steve… maybe you can help me there?
I don’t think I’m advocating anything really novel, although it might appear new in some sense to many who seem to be hearing it for the first time. I’ll go more toward your re-articulation in a new context. What might seem new is how to live the Christian life and do ministry now that the church in the West no longer holds a privileged position and cannot demand a hearing and how to engage society in order to make Christ known. We preach Christ but to whom are we preaching?
Being truly missional is gospel-centered. Preaching Christ crucified, baptizing and discipling believers, seeing the Lord of the Harvest do what only He can do. Missional looks for ways to engage lost people in the conversation of Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration. There must be encounter before engagement otherwise we are preaching into the air. Missional does lean toward an already/not yet understanding of the kingdom as Larry pointed out – but not a bringing in the kingdom but bearers of the kingdom
Novelty is not in my blood. I’m fairly simple and uncomplicated in many ways. I like meat and potatoes, ride a 1998 Harley Road King, married to the same women for 32 years, live in a simple two-bedroom apartment, drive a 1998 Grand Marquis given to me by my mother-in-law, and want to see Christ honored in my life and others transformed by the good news of the gospel, good news for all people, bad news for those who resist and remain rebels. Novelty, nah, I’m not quick to jump on the novel or avant-garde if I were I’d be driving a new BMW :-) - not a bad idea if my mother-in-law ever has one to give away.
Blessed New Year
This is why I’m really confused as to what the meaning is. Steve, when you mention your definition of missional as bringing the gospel to those who don’t understand it, etc. How is that different from what missionaries have been doing for decades? I read the Jungle Doctor books and the dr. (Paul White) has to explain the gospel in really simple terms—using what they know as allegories and explanations for spirtual concepts. How is what is being described now different from what was happening in missions 50-60 or 100 years ago?)
If this isn’t what missions is supposed to be about, what has been happening? Is there some sort of assumption that “missions” hasn’t been been “missional”? If not, what is happening when a missionary goes to a field like Papua New Guinea or the jungles of South America where there is no understanding of Biblical truths?
[Becky Petersen] If I remember right the whole reason that this came up is because NIU said something about them being missional. Haven’t they always been missional (as in being concerned with seeing the lost come to Christ—??Larry has more to come on this I’m sure. I’ve also written some on my blog - urbanmissional.com. This all predates the NIU controversy.
This is why I’m really confused as to what the meaning is. Steve, when you mention your definition of missional as bringing the gospel to those who don’t understand it, etc. How is that different from what missionaries have been doing for decades? I read the Jungle Doctor books and the dr. (Paul White) has to explain the gospel in really simple terms—using what they know as allegories and explanations for spirtual concepts. How is what is being described now different from what was happening in missions 50-60 or 100 years ago?)
If this isn’t what missions is supposed to be about, what has been happening? Is there some sort of assumption that “missions” hasn’t been been “missional”? If not, what is happening when a missionary goes to a field like Papua New Guinea or the jungles of South America where there is no understanding of Biblical truths?
[Steve Davis]No problem. I’ll be glad to wait. Lots going on in real life…
Larry has more to come on this I’m sure. I’ve also written some on my blog - urbanmissional.com. This all predates the NIU controversy.
How is that different from what missionaries have been doing for decades?It’s not, in many ways. See my comments in teh article about Leslie Newbigen and living in a post-Christian culture. One of the points of the missional idea is that we are living in a post-Christian culture, just like missionaries who go to foreign countries. They say we have to learn a new language, so to speak (no pun intended). We have to learn to relate to people who do not share our Judeo-Christian worldview.
I have written some more, and they will show up on my blog when I get done polishing them.
[Larry]They say we have to learn a new language, so to speak (no pun intended). We have to learn to relate to people who do not share our Judeo-Christian worldview.IOW, we need to get out of our comfort zone and actually talk to people who are atheists, homosexuals, and liberals? :)
Actually—a few weeks ago I started a Bible study with a lady who just stared at me in disbelief that I actually believe that God created the world. When I told her that I thought it was easier to believe in a God who planned it all than to believe our whole universe exists “by accident”. She said, “Whoa…I never really thought of it that way.”
“Think about it”, I said…”if someone didn’t plan it—then everything is an accident. The fact that all those explosions happened and that we exist at all is one great big cosmic accident.” She said she needed to think about it again. Now that Christmas is over, I’m planning on heading back to her house weekly to have a “Bible study” which isn’t really the right term. We’re doing an apologetics study on “How do we know God exists” (book purchased at the BJU bookstore—by John Ankerburg, or something like that—)—more or less preliminary to a Bible study since she doesn’t believe in God.
Anyway…if this just simply means getting out there and interacting (and attempting to give the gospel to/explain the concepts of Christianity) with people “unlike yourself”—then it’s a message long needed. More people who are NOT in full time service probably already do this more than pastors and others working in the Christian school movement, though—though I’m not sure about this—it seems like the extreme home schooling movement makes people retreat and not interact much with these types—. The non-full-time workers have more time to rub shoulders with “the world at large” than those dealing with infractions of dress codes or detentions or making sure the offering is counted and deposited.
Anyway…if this just simply means getting out there and interacting (and attempting to give the gospel to/explain the concepts of Christianity) with people “unlike yourself”—then it’s a message long needed.It is more than this, but not less than this. There are some sloganistic type sayings that characterize parts of it, like “Show before you share” meaning you have to live the gospel around people and love them before you talk to them about the gospel because your acts of kindness and mercy are the currency that buys you a hearing with them. Of course this is similar to “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” There certainly is some merit to the idea that our lives need to demonstrate the love of Jesus to others. The relationship between word and deed can get slippery though. Some plainly say that deed is more important than word. Others hold them equally but always together. Some hold them equally but separate. Some hold word as more important than deed. And some hold Word without deed, and some deed without word. (How’s that for some options?)
Another slogan is “belong before believing.” This means that people should be welcomed into the community so that they can learn about Christianity before believing. It tends to blur the “in vs. out” line.
I actually think there is some good in both of these that I don’t have time to explain fully now. I also think there is some danger.
Take the second: Belong before you believe. I think one reason we have so many apparently false professions is that people didn’t know what they were “signing up” for when the professed faith. It was what one unmentionable person called a “shotgun wedding to Jesus.” Then when they found out what Christianity actually was all about, they weren’t in for that. By belonging before believing, people can come and experience life in the church while not being a formal part of the church and see what it is like. I have often said that I want our church to be a safe place for people to come and explore, to sit and listen and learn, to ask questions. Come for six months or a year. Figure out what it’s all about. Don’t pray some prayer when you don’t know what you are doing.
There are some other slogans or ideas that are pretty common.
But for most missional types, your statement above is a very surface statement. They take it much deeper, in some good ways and in some bad ways, IMO.
More people who are NOT in full time service probably already do this more than pastors and others working in the Christian school movementI think this is probably true. I remember Mark Dever talking about this in a series of messages on evangelism. If a pastor doesn’t love to be out with unbelievers, he should not be a pastor. Too many pastors just want to hole up in their study with books, instead of being out with people. That’s certainly my tendency, though I am much better about it now than years ago. (You know you are getting old when you use “years ago” to describe something in your own life.) Being out with people engaging them in conversation is one of my continual pursuits to get better at.
One of our family ‘missionary’ efforts is volunteering for charitable organizations outside of church- we are a foster puppy family for 4Paws that trains service dogs for the disabled. This not only gives our kids some pretty intense responsibility caring for, training, and socializing their dogs (and these dogs go for upwards of $10Gs), but we interact with other volunteers, the staff, and the families that are seeking a service dog. We also draw a crowd wherever we go- it takes 45 minutes just to get a gallon of milk because everyone wants to see the cute little puppy in the store! And then to top it off, the kids have to give up the dog they have bonded with and trained for 10 months to someone else.
The point is, if we want the next generation to have a missionary spirit, then we have to actively teach them compassion and not to objectify folks- as in pointing at people in the grocery store like it’s visiting the zoo- “Ooh, look at all those lost people- they are dying and going to Hell, don’t you feel sorry for them? So- do you want pizza or hot dogs tonight for dinner?”
I think I’m just inclined to rearticulate differently given the constant pressure toward social gospel that is part of our evangelical environment… along with other factors (a curmudgeonly aversion to anything that looks like it might be a fad? ;) )
But it all has me thinking alot.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion