Musings About Missional

February 17, 2011

I was sitting at my local Fivebucks a few days ago enjoying my over-priced coffee and conversing with a new friend about my frustrations over the on-going Missional vs. Attractional conversation. He challenged me with a question that has forced me to come to terms with why I hate this divisional debate so much. He asked: “Is it because you think your right, or you think-they think your wrong.” Good question? Do I dislike this debate because I feel threatened? No, was my quick answer.

It became obvious to me, at that moment, I needed to clearly define my opposition or simply be labeled as a malcontent with no substance behind my ramblings. Which, by the way, has been known to happen. “Squirrel!” (Sorry you had to have seen Pixar’s movie UP, to get that.)

So, here are my musings about missional. Four quick issues I have with the debate. One is personal, one behavioral, one practical, and one biblical.

Personal:

Over the last few years I have been involved in planting (what many call) highly “attractional” churches. Through these churches we have seen literally 1,000’s come to Christ, grow in their faith, and become life-changing agents in their communities. But since these new churches do not fit into the new paradigm of “missional”, those saved from these ministries are at best marginalized as shallow, and at worst illegitimized as not really saved. Why? Good question? One I can’t answer, but one that gets me fired up! BTW: those aren’t my thoughts, read some of the rhetoric about fast-growing, large, or mega-churches. See if you don’t come to that conclusion. Funny how every pastor prays for revival or growth, but if it happens at another church, it is either watered-down, worldly, or of the devil.

I agree with, and have experienced the same as my friend Geoff Surrat. (I love to name drop, makes me feel important.) He wrote in his blog, “I've never seen a purely attractional church. Every church I've been connected with is deeply concerned with helping people become disciples of Christ… I'm sure that there are churches in America who care only about making the turnstile spin on the weekends, but I've never experienced one.”

Behavioral:

I hate division in the church. It seems like church leaders are good at picking fights with one another. Don’t get me wrong, some things are worth fighting for. The orthodox foundations of our beliefs about God, salvation and Jesus must be defended. However it seems we more often fight over what we perceive as orthopraxy more than orthodoxy. (Ooooh, big words! See I can sound intelligent even if I’m not.)

Practical:

What defines a “missional” church? Size, action, preaching style, cool dressing preacher? It would seem to me that being “missional” has put on social justice clothing. Admirable, and necessary, but not distinctly Christian. Anyone, whether Christian or outright pagan, can fight poverty, clothe the naked, give a drink of water, set slaves free. In other words, do good things to people. I have a couple of atheist friends that give more of their time and talents and act nicer than most Christians I know.  

Being missional is more than just doing “stuff”. It is about being holy as Christ is holy. Living out of a deep relationship with Christ in a way that permeates every aspect of our lives and compels us to love God and love others as God loves us. John Wesley stated that once we fully understand God’s grace, we cannot do anything other than reflect His glory and live a life pleasing to Him?

Biblical:

Here is where I think this debate rubs me the rawest. (If President Bush can say strategery, I can invent a word – rawest). Being missional is the normal call on every believer’s life. Yet, it seems to have been hijacked and reduced into a model of “doing” church. The implications are huge. Calling a model “missional” and stacking it against another model “attractional” implies one way is biblical, and the other isn’t. I suppose you could put it another way. Your church is either “missional” or by the nature of not being missional, you are “anti-missional”. I know some of you may not agree with me, but that is the implication. It wouldn’t be so bad if “attractional” was put against “organic” or some other biblical neutral term. But to use a biblical mandate and reduce it to a model causes division by its implication.

Likewise, if you are “attractional” does that mean “missional” model churches are anti-attractional? You see how silly this is? Any church truly living on mission will become very attractional. Try and stop it!

Make no mistake, I believe the church in America needs to re-connect with the mission of Jesus. We need to become more missional in our own communities, and we are! All in all, I simply don’t see any prescribed methodology in Scripture. There are not “Thou shalts” about how to do church. We are all called to be on mission, called to be Christlike, and even called to be sacrificial. But, we are not called to a specific model of how to “do” church. Two things, in my opinion, are the only metrics for a church model: Are they Great Commission and Great Commandment churches?

 I don't want this blog to sound negative, not my intention. Just my thoughts on the use of the term "missional". But let me finish this way. The solution is to pour our energies into ushering in the Kingdom of God in our communities. Live in the skin God created for you and how he designed you to do ministry. Everyday is a new adventure and new stories arise about how lives are being changed for the glory of God. In spite of differences in ministry models and philosphies, we are winning battles one life at a time. In that we rejoice becuase God is glorified! Let's find a way to set aside our difference, focus on the war at hand and storm the gates of Hell!

Posted 2/17/2011 in Stephen Gray | 2 Comments - Add Comment

Comments:

     All I can say is...Hallelujah! I have finally met another leader who has the EXACT same issue with this whole "division" painted in a 'righteous" color! God bless, and AMEN!

     Stephen, I think I'm pretty much on the same page, but I might be even a step further. I think people hide behind the term "missional" to justify why their churches are not growing. "Missional" (as I understand it) simply refers to a church that is out there proclaiming the gospel a la Matthew 28:18-20. Some will accept, many will reject. If we're doing our job, the church should grow. It's not up to us to try to figure out how deep or shallow their conversion is. Our job is to love them where they are. Anything else is Pharisaical. Under that framework, the churches that hide behind "missional" because they aren't growing are defying they very sense of the Biblical definition. Bottom line: I think it's a stupid distinction that's being hijacked by people pissed off at the church just like a little kid who is mad Johnny didn't invite them to their birthday party. I'm all for serving the poor, but a little therapy and owning their own problems of why they're pissed off might do them even better. I wholeheartedly believe the term won't even be around in five years. That's just me...