- Leaving a comment here.
- Taking the questions at the end of the posting and using them in a local leadership group
- Starting other lines of discussion in a forum in the Z-4:10 group on EPC Community (http://epc.socialgo.com/ - use the access code EPC1981 to start an account).
- Come back each Tuesday for the next seven weeks for a new posting - and in between to read and leave your comments.
"I don't like the word 'missional.'" I've heard that since I began reading about the missional church in 2005. I heard it in a conversation last week. Sometimes the comment runs along these lines: "'Missional' is just the latest fad. First it was church growth, then it was church health, now it's missional church. What's the next thing going to be?" By titling his book, Missional Renaissance, Reggie McNeal is saying something very different. If the missional church is a "renaissance," then the missional church is not a fad. Instead, it's a way of thinking about the church that will change the way we think of ourselves as God's people and the way we do things:
Missional church...is not church growth in a new dress...it is not about church renewal...it is not a fad, the next big thing. Missional thinking and living changes the game completely (Reggie McNeal, Missional Renaissance, p. 16).
I agree. Because the missional church is rooted in theology instead of methodology, it's here to stay. We may change our terminology as time goes on, but if we leave behind the principles wrapped up in the term "missional church" we will lose something of central importance. At its core, the missional church has taken us back to our biblical theology of the church and alerted us to the blinders we've been wearing in a culture in which the church has been at the center. In Western society, the church is increasingly on the periphery looking in. Because of that new situation, we can see biblical truth with a new set of eyes. Missional church calls us to think again, to think long, and to think biblically about the nature of the church before we "do" church.
If the missional church it isn't biblical and if there is no application beyond the West, we could safely dismiss it. I've had two opportunities to put that to the test recently by leading seminars with seminary faculty and students in the Central African Republic and teaching a class on Ecclesiology in Mexico. The concepts of the missional church ring true in those settings. In Mexico, I taught a course on Ecclesiology, beginning with the biblical words and images for the church, then working through the doctrine of the church as we have in the creeds, the Reformation, and the Westminster Confession, and closing with a section on what the missional church contributes. When I got to that final section, I framed it in terms of three big themes (picked up from Alan Roxburgh): the mission of God, the church as a contrast community, and our cuture as a mission field. To my own surprise, I found I had little new to say when I reached the final section of the course. All of those themes had addressed in the Scriptures, creeds, and confessions.
The missional church is not a fad. It is here to stay. In some ways it's nothing new. The concepts of the missional church are rooted in the Bible and expressed in our creeds and confessions. But in other ways it is new and fresh. It makes us aware of some of the blinders we've inherited, it bundles together some important concepts with one term, and helps us communicate the importance of what God is doing in fresh ways in our time.
Join the conversation:
- What do you think: Is the missional church a fad or something more?
- Is "renaissance" the right word to apply to "missional"?
- What struck you from your reading of Chapter 1 of Missional Renaissance?
Posts
Ed,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the missional church is not a fad. The first century church was missional, and we are being challenged to return to our roots by people like Roxburgh and McNeal among others. I forget who it was who said that if the church isn't missional it is no longer a church, but I agree completely. For too long the church in the US was at the center of many people's lives. Now that isn't the case, and we don't know what to do. People sit around wringing their hands wondered why people aren't beating down their doors like they used to do. The church was never intended to be a magnet drawing people to it; it was intended to go into the world and minister to the people, and in doing so draw them to Christ.
I am glad the church is having this conversation about becoming a missional community, but I am afraid it will take a long time to turn this ship around. I was a pastor for 20 years before accepting a judicatory position. A couple of years ago I told some people that if I returned to pastoral ministry I could not pastor as I did for 20 years, but at the same time I wasn't sure I could pastor in the way I would want to. Missional ministry is not part of my experience and training, and I wonder how effectively I could lead a truly missional church. I think it would be exciting, but I just wonder if I could do that. I doubt that I am the only pastor who wonders about that.
As I look at some of the younger pastors just starting out I get excited. I know some of them can be scary to some of us older judicatory leaders, but they bring a freshness to ministry that the church needs. They understand missional ministry, and some of them are leading their churches to do some really exciting things in their communities.
I look forward to reading all eight weeks of this discussion.
Ed—excellent blog article, brother.
ReplyDeleteYou are right on target when you write, “Because the missional church is rooted in theology instead of methodology, it's here to stay . . . At its core, the missional church has taken us back to our biblical theology of the church and alerted us to the blinders we've been wearing in a culture in which the church has been at the center.” Of course, McNeal’s chapter 3 on the Missional Manifesto discloses the major theological underpinnings but what clinches it, in my mind, are his sections on “From Attractional to Incarnational” (49-53) and “From Member Culture to Missionary Culture” (54-56). It seems to me a synonymous way to define missional is to use the phrase “an incarnational ministry” in accords with John 17:18.
In any event, I applaud you for beginning this discussion where it should start—on the infallible foundation of biblically derived theology.
Thanks, Ed! I too am in agreement with you that McNeal is on to something. I believe the term "renaissance" is well-chosen, given the need for a long-term renewal. The real challenge as I see it is to bring this out of the theoretical realm and make it practical. McNeal begins to do this in the third chapter, and I can hardly wait for us to get there. It's one thing to say "He raises good points and I'm in agreement." It's another to actually carry it out!
ReplyDelete