missional church...iii (conculsion)
A few weeks ago I began writing about the emergence of the "missional church" movement (missional church...i, missional church...ii). As I reflected on the use of the term "missional" and the way I often saw it presented, I began to wonder if it was slowly becoming just another way to reinforce a law mentality. In other words, we exhort people to DO something missional because it's what Christians should do and what the Institutional Church has failed to do. So, instead of being a church full of Sunday school teachers, children's workers, and ushers, we become a church full of job training instructors, volunteers in big brother/sister programs and Habitat for humanity workers. Now, I'm not suggesting that is a bad thing, but I am wondering if we've missed the deeper issue.
I don't believe the answer to the churches maladies are answered by simply trading a nursery apron for a habitat hard hat.
The fact is, I think the church is in desperate need of a new FOCUS. In a comment a few weeks ago, Bob suggested that the issue was not one of focus but one of scope. I agree with him to a point, but I think the way our scope is changed is by having the right focus. I think the church is focused on the wrong things. Things like: transformation, biblical instruction, practical tips for living, advancing God's kingdom in the world, serving in the church or out of the church, etc., etc..
We go to church on Sunday and hear all about what God wants us to do, and often, we hear with that how we have failed to do it, and how God is going to make it possible for us to really do it this time if we just try harder or trust him more, etc. It's rare to go to church on Sunday in evangelical America and hear all about HIM - who He is, and what He has done for us. Yesterday, in church, I heard a pastor say something rather profound. He said this - "The best thing you can do for God is be thankful for what He has done for you!" This was at the end of a sermon where he had focused us upon the faithfulness of God and joined that to a beautiful presentation of the Gospel from the book of Ruth. Instead of focusing on what we needed to do, he focused on God and what He had done for us that we could NEVER do for ourselves. Unfortunately, that kind of preaching is rare in evangelicalism. (footnote: this coming from a church that, IMHO, is very "missional")
I was reading Isaiah a few weeks ago, and I came to Isaiah 6. After reading it, I began to think that this passage should be the epicenter for all missional preaching. In order for Isaiah to be prepared to serve, three things had to happen - and all were a matter of focus: 1) he had to see God for who he was, 2) he had to see himself for who he was, and 3) he had to receive the forgiveness that was given to him through no merit of his own. Only after these three things happen does Isaiah HEAR the voice of God, and it is a voice CALLING him to a mission. His focus changed his perspective.
I want to suggest that our FOCUS is all wrong. We are focused upon ourselves on the one hand, and what we need to do to be better Christians/people, or, on the other hand, we are focused on the world and what we need to do to advance God's kingdom to bring peace and justice into a broken world.
I would suggest that our focus needs to be on God and the Gospel. What our people are starving for are not more mission projects or more tips on how to be a better Christian. Our people, as John Piper said, are starving for the greatness of God. When was the last time we left church amazed at who HE is? Why does it seem so hard for churches to make church about Him and not us - especially that hour on Sunday a.m. when we gather to "worship"? Why are our hearts no longer moved by the Gospel? It isn't that the good news isn't good anymore - it is - but something has changed in US. When was the last time you were in a church that reveled in the Gospel - you know what I mean - a place where people had genuine, almost uncontrollable affections for God because of what He had done for them? When was the last time you left church just exulting in the greatness of God who did EVERYTHING to rescue you and bring you into His kingdom?
I think a missional church is born out of the right focus: God and the Gospel.
When we become God admirers and Gospel revelers, we will become a missional people. It is this focus that gives the only lasting context for missional calling.
fr'nklin
12 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (12)
As you know, this is something that I continue to wrestle with. I agree completely that any missional impulse should flow first out of knowing God's love.
Having come from a realm where this was the focus, yet there was little to no missional result, it seems that there is still a need to teach missional intention. Ideally, it would be a natural outflow and expression, but my experience has been that without teaching, this is not true.
The important being, that if we teach missional living, we not lose the focus that missional impulse flows naturally out of our relationship with God rather than being performance or obligation.
People, being fallible human beings, can fall into the trap of simply sitting back and thanking God for what He has done without doing anything. Sometimes we need to be taught how to flesh out our response to God's grace. It's too easy for us in America to forget that ther are people out there in need of both Christ and material goods.
I agree that we cannot assume that missional action will spontaneously be produced merely by apprehending the goodness of God. New creation? Yes. Altered life? Yes. Concrete actions? Not so much.
But I think I'm much more of a modeling person than a teaching person. I think people who have had this transformation need to be actively (and intentionally) living this life out with and before others. Watching their lives and being watched by them in return. Then we can "teach" in ways that are individualized and much more effective.
Of course, like Rich said, this kind of instruction doesn't happen at a conference, seminar, or in a non-living book. It also takes a life time rather than an afternoon of "focused attention".
Do you think it is accurate (or even necessary) to label the churches that do the things you outline above with the tag "missional"?
Having said that, I also think that what is going to happen is that as the IC co-opts the "missional" tag...we will end up replacing one set of programs for another - as Rich points out.
Now, to Bob's question. I'm not much of a "tag" person anymore, but your question is one to consider. I think "yes". When I look at the OT or NT, it seems very clear to me that missional impulse comes from a focus on God and the Gospel. Was Paul intentionally teaching people to be missional? Was Jesus? I think the answer is "yes"...but, of course, I have a definition in my mind of what "missional" is...and it may not fit the definition you or others have.
Make sense?
I honestly prefer the term "incarnational". Christ incarnated the Gospel and perfected the Law, became man in order to redeem all of creation. In that he draws us into Himself (flesh and divinity) as a groom draws his bride. This means that my entire life (not just what I do with it) is absorbed in Him.
In that, as His son and a member of his Person, I am called to incarnate (make present) the Gospel in all I do--eat, work, play, rest--to all I meet in every way possible.
Maybe it is just a scope thing...
That said, "incarnational" doesn't fully express it either (because it misses the redemptive, creative, and eschatological threads) but for me it conceptually represents a larger scope.
I just think the tag "missional" is misplaced based on what Fr'nklin is outlining here.
Perhaps the term "incarnational" would better serve to keep us from limiting the Gospel to just a ticket out of hell, while at the same time keeping us from focusing on our own works.
"Missional" is becoming, imho, a "tag" that is not necessarily based in the Gospel. I think this is because the FOCUS - not with the Hirsch's, etc. - of the movement is becoming what we do. Okay, let me try that again.
If you wanna be "cutting edge" today, you need to be running a missional business and maybe link a missional church to that business. Or, it's doing the community service thing with your people. Cutting edge is no longer flashy videos and rocky music. You know what I'm saying.
I think the problem here is one of scope and focus (concession Bob...if only partial). Bob outlines the SCOPE issue very well, but I still want to hold onto the whole issue of FOCUS. I do think that as we FOCUS on God and the Gospel the context is set to understand the SCOPE of incarnational/missional/Gospel-driven ministry.
Honestly, I've visited TONS of churches in the Rock Hill/Charlotte area in the last two years, and I would say a small handful are GOD FOCUSED and GOSPEL DRIVEN (my new terms). Most of the ones I visit - from missional to traditional -do NOT focus on God and the Gospel but focus on US and our RESPONSBILITITES.
Lots of exhorting "to do" or "to be", but little EXALTING of Him and reveling in His Gospel. The MOTIVATION for missional / incarnational living is God and the Gospel. It begins (and never leaves) by being OVERWHELMED with Him and what He has done...from that position I can hear God's question: whom shall I send and who will go for Us?
BTW - one of the big complaints with CCM is the overuse of the "I" word. Those of us who plan worship utilizing contemporary music and visuals have an awesome responsibility to truly make it God focused. It's a different world when one tries to be both relevant and God centered. We have to find ways of reaching out without dumbing down. We have to lift people out of their self-centeredness and help them experience the incredibly true adventure of love without a safety net.