What in the world does “missional” even mean?
Part of our vision for this blog is that it would be a medium for all of us to be a missional presence online.
But what does that mean?
For some, being missional equals being “seeker sensitive,” or discussing only the very basics of the gospel. For others, it means crossing the globe to bring the gospel to a culture very different than one’s own. Since this term can be used a myriad of different ways, I will seek to define it for all future use on this blog, and hopefully leave out many of what I perceive to be the past misuses of this term. I’ll begin with the difference between “evangelism” and being “missional.”
At my alma mater, one of the local churches regularly hired open-air evangelists to “preach” in the middle of campus. I never figured out to whom they were preaching, since most students took a wide path around them. While the evangelist preached, volunteers handed out tracts with Jonathan Edwards’ sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” or stories about Noah’s flood with pictures of people flailing about in the water next to the ark. Now, it is entirely possible that God would choose to use this method to speak to the hearts of those passing by, and I do not doubt that this man sincerely loves Jesus, but we also must recognize that we live in a post-Christian culture. The majority of passers-by reacted with varying degrees of disgust, amusement, or apathy. A problem with this strategy is that it is focused on short-term conversion without the essential foundation of relationship.
Being missional means being in it for the long haul. It means loving your neighbor as yourself regardless of if they become a Christian. If they do, great! If we love our friends and family, then we will of course want their lives to be changed by the transforming love of Christ! But if that does not happen, we are called to both willingly and eagerly love them anyway (Matthew 5:43-47). One problem with “evangelism” is that it often unnaturally divorces love from conversion. When conversion doesn’t occur according to our expectations and timetable, the responsibility to continue pursuing love falls by the wayside. Being missional places love first, because conversion is just one facet of the kind of love that God shows the world.
A professor of mine at Covenant Seminary became a Christian in college. He was the first believer in his family and since then, every member of his family has come to believe that Jesus is Lord. But a few of them literally took their entire lives to come to the faith. His abusive stepfather did not become a Christian until six months before he died, but when he did, it transformed those last six months into the best six months his wife had ever known with the man. My professor spent decades loving him without results, trying to build a relationship with him for the sake of love and with the hope that he would someday be reconciled with the love of Christ. This is an example of what it means to be in it for the long haul and to love unconditionally.
So really, being “missional” is more of a movement to get back to a God-intended form of evangelism, which has been warped and twisted, often unintentionally. Thus, I can certainly see the benefits of using a new word and avoiding some of the “baggage” that comes with the term “evangelism.”
Scott Sauls and Tim Keller have developed some questions to gauge whether a church, program, or activity is missional within a given community. Thus we ask ourselves, and our readers the following questions to examine whether we are being a “missional presence” in the online community:
- Is this something that causes the community around us to significantly notice us and conclude that we are good for the community at large?
- Is this something that causes people in the community to be intrigued about “why we are the way we are” and want to know more because we have something special that people feel they are missing in their own lives and experience?
- Is this something that eventually brings people into conversations about Christ and the Gospel?
- Is this something that consistently gets Christians relating with non-Christians?
- Is this something that works its way into the mainstream of our community and not merely the fringes of our community?
As we engage the blogosphere in a variety of topics, these are the questions we will strive to constantly ask ourselves. We also ask that you would hold us accountable to these questions and give us feedback as we go to help us refine and hold true to our mission.
Recommended Reading:
The Heart of Evangelism, by Jerram Barrs
Apologetics to the Glory of God, by John Frame
Radical Reformission, by Mark Driscoll
The Mission of God, by Christopher Wright
Posts
I love your definition…being in it for the long haul and loving our neighbors as we do ourselves even if those neighbors have a different color of skin, speak a different language, live on the so-called wrong side of the tracks, or smell a little funny.
In addition, I think it involves living lives of integrity day in and day out whether people are around to observe us or not…and no matter whose company we are in. In other words, we wouldn’t laugh at an off-color joke just to fit in. And I might add that we don’t need to be self-righteous prigs about it. If we do, then no one would want to be like us, and we’d be doing more harm than good.
“So really, being “missional” is more of a movement to get back to a God-intended form of evangelism, which has been warped and twisted, often unintentionally.” - After reading your entry, it sounds like “missional” is a movement to get back to what God intended in general: with love and peace in your heart.
You really summed it up with: “A problem with this strategy is that it is focused on short-term conversion without the essential foundation of relationship.” - such has long been my beef with evangelism. It seems to focus on conversion, membership numbers, and money too much for Jesus. Or for any enlightened uber-being, really.
You’ve made some good points here, Brad, but I have a beef. Why the word missional? Why words like emerging? The issue I have is that many people automatically dismiss things like Acts 29 (like some of the older people at my church) simply because they equate this kind of language with the McLaren/Pagit/Sandlin PoMo crowd. Now I know the differences, and you know the differences. But what about those who don’t know? I know from experience that many Christians- and I mean legitimate, fruit-bearing, God loving Christians- look at things with a jaundiced. I got railroaded more than once defending Darrin Patrick from all the misinformation in the papers and false accusations. Should we require these people to sift through tons of material on the internet just to understand the differences between what you mean by missional and what Brian McLaren means by missional? Because make no mistake, you’re no McLaren (which is a good thing, by the way).
Sometimes I feel like Driscoll and Co. keep around their buzzwords and labels (i.e. ‘emerging’ as opposed to ‘emergent’) because they want that right, and by golly you’d better get used to it. Newsflash: they’re just words. We’re not talking about theological terms or Biblical definitions. I guess what I am trying to say is I sometimes wish that, for the sake of better cooperation (ie with older less informed folks), many ‘missional’ and ‘emerging’ folks would create new words to fit the same definitions, so there’d be less confusion and broader lines drawn. Essentially, ‘missional’ already has its own baggage.
Probably a little bit unclear, and maybe not the time or place, but I’ve been thinking about that quite a bit. Oh, and Tim Keller’s still the man, even though I am beginning to hate the word missional.
Kyle,
I very much agree with you. The things that you mention: conversion, numbers, tithing money, but as when we make anything an idol and prioritize it over the “enlightened uber-being” (love that term, actually), it becomes horribly twisted. God is love. It’s high time we start living in that reality.
Besides, what more powerful evangelism is living out that which you believe? It just doesn’t make sense otherwise, and has always felt like a bit of a cop-out.
Chuck,
What’s up Chuck? (sorry! I couldn’t resist for old-time’s sake!
)
Your concerns are very valid. Driscoll and Co. have actually been trying to distance themselves from the term “emerging” for some time now. Unfortunately, they don’t have much of a choice in the matter. Writers from all perspectives have latched onto the word, along with “missional,” and do not allow them to call themselves anything else. Every time someone comes up with a new, theological, or biblical term, those who want to ride the bandwagon and twist it to their ends will ruin it for everyone. Seriously.
I do actually appreciate the Gospel Coalition’s more frequent use of “Gospel-Faithful” ministry, however, and it is new enough and used consistently enough to not be confused with something else (yet). I would also say that being “missional” as I have tried to define it here, is very much included in that.
Truly, we can use whatever label we want, but it is the fruit we produce that testifies to our faith. While I understand that these terms bring a ton of baggage (indeed, that is why I wrote this!), it is the responsibility of those who seek to judge to look at the entire body of evidence.
Having not grown up in a church, and having very very few family members who are Christian, I am not well educated about the generational gaps in understanding things like this, so I appreciate your insight. In short: I feel that if the effort is made to clarify and explain in truth and love, the term can be used for good.
Oh, and thanks MarlaJayne for coming by! I agree, and Jesus died for all people, and the Gospel is open to all, regardless of demographics. Thanks for the encouragement!
Brad,
Do you think being “missional” is a new concept?
Hi Brad -
I know it’s been a while since we talked, but I’m interested in what you have to say here, in an academic sense. I appreciate that you are trying to build a learned discourse on Christianity and spreading the gospel. I may watch for a while to see what kinds of things you and your fellow writers have to say on the topic, because, as you note, the efforts of those to spread Christianity frequently fall short. I’m not informed enough on any religious topic to be useful in discussion (at least I don’t think so) but if you don’t mind another lurker….
The Werk,
Hehe… a very good question. In short: no. I think there has always been a smaller group within Christianity that has understood what this means and has lived it throughout history. Indeed, being “missional” is really nothing more than living the gospel out on all days in addition to Sunday. Considering the great commission, and the missional revelation of scripture itself, it is an essential part of what it means to be Christian at all.
Veronica,
Thanks for reading! We definitely do not mind the “lurker.” And the beauty of what we are trying to do with this place, is that you don’t have to be “informed enough” to contribute. I encourage you to ask questions, comment, and jump in as much or as little as you like.
Chuck,
Interesting to hear a slightly different take. I’m concerned about some of the words here in the comments (”hate” the word missional seems a bit harsh). I guess I kind of see most of the people using the word as people who have a passion to know Christ more and to live that out daily, so yeah we might disagree but surely we can be loving in the way we communicate? And to the point about creating new words, I’m seeing a lot of effort amongst some people to try and narrow down on some definitions on words.
Brad,
I agree with yours and Chuck’s point that the word has become so widely used (and “cool”) that it has almost become meaningless. I think I have seen 2 ways mainly of the word being used:
1) Generally: Being missional is described as the living out of the Missio Dei (this definition satisfies a lot of people but doesn’t actually tell you what missional is and then just gets you on to the question of what the Missio Dei is)
2) More specifically. This is where people move to the focus of the church being outwards, not just inwards. That we are hands eyes and feet of Jesus and called to live out His mission. That means “being” the gospel through authentic Christian living, as well as “speaking” the gospel. Many people who speak of missional see that an element of that is living out God’s heart for restoration, which leads onto a Micah 6:8 type of lifestyle.
I found some of the writings here (http://www.subversiveinfluence.com/wordpress/) helpful.
Yes, it’s an over-used word, lacking a lot of meaning. But in my opinion, there’s a lot of good intentions behind it. Question is, how can we get a definition and clarity without major disagreement and split?
Duncan