As churches attempt a move in a more missional direction one of the major issues involves rethinking church “measurables” or “scorecards.” David Fitch offers several good ideas on this topic in chapter one of The Great Giveaway. He contends that there is still a need to measure, but the things we “count” will be very different. When speaking on my favorite measurable Fitch writes:

Let us also turn from measuring the size of buildings to the number of new churches planted. Let us count the number of local congregations each church has formed outside itself instead of the attendance figures on Sunday morning or the increased size of the worship facility. We must ask, Why is it that pastors of large churches are more willing to build bigger buildings than empower a group of forty to fifty people to plant another living body of Christ? If indeed the facts are true that the greatest conversion growth occurs in churches when they grow from fifty to two hundred people, why is it that we insist on building bigger churches after they reached one thousand?

What does it say about our assumptions for church growth when we plant churches that already start with two hundred people? Does it say that a church is not really a “successful” church until it reaches a thousand? But if we accept our new conditions in a post-Christian culture, pastoral success and the success of a church will not be measured by simple numbers alone, but by church plants, the spurring on of missional congregations that can display a witness visibly to the new life in Christ before a watching and lost world.

If what we have said above is true, evangelicals should seek a vision of the world that is populated with local bodies of Christ, not megachurch centers. Instead of huge religious arenas for private individuals to come eat, shop, and see a religious production, let us evangelicals pursue a world where one can no sooner go to a Starbucks, a Cineplex movie theater, or a local tavern without also being confronted with an alternative center for life, a life centered under the lordship of Christ, the visible local body of Christ. If this is what it means to be a physical body of Christ in North America, then the ultimate sign of church success will be “the number of churches you have planted,” not how big your church is in terms of attendance, decisions, or church facilities.

As presented in an earlier post, Christianity in North America has experienced a move away from its position of dominance as it has witness the loss not only of numbers but of power and influence within society. “The United States is still, by all accounts, a very religious society. The pollsters affirm that Americans and Canadians believe in God, pray regularly, and consider themselves religious. But they find less and less reason to express their faith by joining a Christian church.”[1] As a result, many historical denominations are now in serious decline, while others are just now beginning to recognize that they are now in their own mission field location.

This recognition of the North American religiosity shift to a post-Christian, neo-pagan, pluralistic mission field has lead many to return to the foundation of what it means to be the church of Jesus Christ in the world. “This involves the issue of ecclesiology (ecclesia = ‘church’; -ology = ‘the study of’). In the midst of our changing world, we are in constant need of continuing to engage in the study of the church, to explore its nature, to understand its creation and continuing formation, and to carefully examine its purpose and ministry.”[2] The chief discussion that has emerged over the past few decades around these important issues of ecclesiology and missionary engagement in North America is known as the “missional church conversation.” While there are a number of prominent contributors to this dialog, by far the most influential has been the contributions made by missiologist Lesslie Newbigin.[3]

The Influence of Lesslie Newbigin

Upon returning home to England in 1974 from missionary service in India for nearly 40 years, “Newbigin took up the challenge of trying to envision what a fresh encounter of the gospel with late-modern Western culture might look like.”[4] In the book Foolishness to the Greeks, he posed the question: “What would be involved in a missionary encounter between the gospel and this whole way of perceiving, thinking, and living that we call ‘modern Western Culture?”[5]

Newbigin’s missiology was largely formed by the mission theology that took shape within the International Missionary Council (IMC) conferences of the 1950s through the 1970s. Perhaps the most significant of these conferences was the one convened in Willingen, Germany in 1952. At Willingen the conference recognized that the church could be neither the starting point nor the goal of mission. “God’s salvific work precedes both the church and mission. We should not subordinate mission to the church nor the church to mission; both should, rather, be taken up into the missio Dei, which now became the overarching concept. The missio Dei institutes the missiones ecclesiae.”[6] It was here that this idea (not the exact term) missio Dei first surfaced. When discussing the paradigm shift that began at Willingen, David Bosch writes:

Mission was understood as being derived from the very nature of God. It was thus put in the context of the doctrine on the missio Dei as God the Father sending the Son, and God the Father and the Son sending the Spirit was expanded to include yet another “movement”: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sending the church into the world. As far as missionary thinking was concerned, this linking with the doctrine of the Trinity constituted an important innovation. Willingen’s image of mission was mission as participating in the sending of God.[7]

While the Trinitarian foundation for mission theology was later formulated as the missio Dei by Karl Hartenstein,[8] and still later given fully expression by Johannes Blauw in his 1962 book The Missionary Nature of the Church,[9] Lesslie Newbigin articulated his own expression in The Open Secret.[10] Central to Newbigin’s understanding of mission is the work of the Triune God in calling and sending the church, empowered by the Spirit, into the world to participate fully in God’s mission. This theological assertion understands the church to be the creation of the Spirit: which exists in the world as a “sign” that the redemptive reign of God’s kingdom is present; it serves as a “foretaste” of the eschatological future of the redemptive reign that has already begun; and it serves as an “instrument” under the leadership of the Spirit to bring that redemptive reign to bear on every dimension of life.[11]

In the following extended excerpt from an outstanding PhD dissertation on Newbigin’s missionary ecclesiology, Michael Goheen provides an excellent summation of the significance of Newbigin’s lasting influence on mission theology:

First, Newbigin’s work has served as the catalyst for bringing the issue of mission in western culture to the forefront of the agenda of mission studies. The appearance of his book The Other Side of 1984 marks a major milestone for a missiology of western culture. With unusual skill the book crystallized a number of issues which have stimulated vigorous discussion. The stream of books and articles written by Newbigin since that time has continued to focus the issue for many people. The Gospel and Our Culture movements in Britain, North America, and New Zealand, the Missiology of Western Culture project headed up by Wilbert Shenk, and a growing stream of publications on the issue bear witness to the stimulus that the work of Newbigin has produced in the last couple of decades.

Second, Newbigin played an active and central role in the International Missionary Council and the Commission of World Mission and Evangelism of the World Council of Churches. After serving as a missionary in India for twenty-three years, Newbigin took the post of general secretary of the IMC and then director of CWME of the WCC. His influence was formative for many of the discussions throughout since 1948. Newbigin was shaped by the theology, missiology, and ecclesiology of the early ecumenical movement. Yet when there was a dramatic challenge to that paradigm, Newbigin was able to appropriate many of the insights of the new challenge. His flexibility along with his commitment to tradition makes his insight for the current ecclesiological discussions significant.

There is a third reason for focusing on the work of Newbigin. Not only has he provided an impetus for renewed reflection on the issue of mission in western culture and been an active participant in the ecumenical movement, Newbigin has also paid close attention to ecclesiological questions throughout his long and distinguished career as a recognized leader in the context of three settings: as a missionary in India; as an ecumenical leader in a global context; and as a missionary to the West. A glance at his bibliography reveals at once the interest that Newbigin has had in ecclesiological issues in his published work. His record as a missionary, bishop, ecumenical administrator, and pastor all testify to his commitment to the local church. Indeed, it is his vast experience in struggling for a missionary church in many different contexts that has nourished his deep and valuable theological reflection on ecclesiology. It is precisely the missionary ecclesiology developed by Newbigin that has been foundational for and formative of both his work within the ecumenical movement and his call for a missionary encounter with western culture.[12]

2. Craig Van Gelder, The Missional Church and Denominations: Helping Congregations Develop a Missional Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 2.

3. For a complete biographical sketch of Newbigin’s life see: Paul Weston, Lesslie Newbigin: Missionary Theologian (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 1-16. See also, George Hunsberger, Bearing the Witness of the Spirit: Lesslie Newbigin’s Theology of Cultural Plurality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

4. Van Gelder, The Missional Church and Denominations, 2.

5. Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 1.

6. David Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1991), 370.

7. Ibid., 390.

8. John A. McIntosh, “Missio Dei” in Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, ed. A. Scott Moreau, Harold Netland and Charles Van Engen (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 631-633.

9. Johannes Blauw, The Missionary Nature of the Church: A Survey of the Biblical Theology of Mission (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962).

10. Lesslie Newbigin, The Open Secret: Introduction to a Theology of Mission (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).

11. Van Gelder, The Missional Church and Denominations, 3.

12. Michael W. Goheen, “As the Father Has Sent Me, I Am Sending You”: J.E. Lesslie Newbigin’s Missionary Ecclesiology” (PhD diss., Utrecht University, 2000), 22.

Today I had the privilege to participate in a conference led by David Fitch. The combination of being a member of academia along with being a church planter gives Fitch an excellent perspective on doing ministry in a Post-Christendom context. One of the many helpful discussions today revolved around the importance of both presence and proximity in the ministry of the missional church. The discussion reminded me of this quote from Nouwen:

More and more, the desire grows in me simply to walk around, greet people, enter their homes, sit on their doorsteps, play ball, throw water, and be known as someone who wants to live with them. It is a privilege to have the time to practice this simple ministry of presence. Still, it is not as simple as it seems. My own desire to be useful, to do something significant, or to be part of some impressive project is so strong that soon my time is taken up by meetings, conferences, study groups, and workshops that prevent me from walking the streets. It is difficult not to have plans, not to organize people around an urgent cause, and not to feel that you are working directly for social progress. But I wonder more and more if the first thing shouldn’t be to know people by name, to eat and drink with them, to listen to their stories and tell your own, and to let them know with words, handshakes, and hugs that you do not simply like them, but truly love them.

-  Henri Nouwen

For those who are interested in doing more research on the missional church conversation, here is the 12 page bibliography that was a part of my dissertation.

Missional Church Bibliography

Here is one last reminder of the conference we will be hosting in Kansas City next month. The conference will begin on Tuesday, November 10 at 1:00pm and conclude on Wednesday, November 11 at 3:30pm. The cost of the conference is $25, which will include lunch on Wednesday. We will have two primary presenters, Eric Swanson and Jonathan Dodson. For bios for both Eric and Jonathan check out this earlier post. You can register for the conference here. If you have questions shoot me an email at brad.brisco@gmail.com

Conference schedule:

Tuesday, November 10th

12:30pm Registration
1:00pm Welcome & Prayer
1:15pm Becoming an Externally Focused Church: Eric Swanson
2:45pm Break
3:00pm Combining Good News & Good Deeds: Eric Swanson
4:15pm Break
4:30pm City Networks: Jonathan Dodson
5:30pm Conclude
6:00pm Optional – Community Transformation Discussion

Wednesday, November 11th

8:30am Worship & Prayer
9:00am Engaging a Community: Eric Swanson
10:30am Break
10:45am To Transform a City: Interview with Eric Swanson
11:45am Lunch
1:00pm Best Practices of Missional Communities: Jonathan Dodson
2:00pm Break
2:15pm Panel Discussion
3:30pm Conclude

Here is another small section of chapter one of my dmin project. This portion follows a discussion on the marginalization of the church in America, as well as part one shared in the previous post.

To achieve a move from treating the church as a vendor of religious services to being a body of people sent on a mission there must be a renewed emphasis on the nature of the church and its missionary encounter with a post-Christian society. Hunsberger provides one way of framing the necessary transitions that must take place in the beliefs and practices of the church. He believes there are at least three practical shifts that can lay the foundation for sound theological and missiological “rethinking” in the life of the local church.

First there will need to be a shift from program to embodiment. “It makes a difference whether a church is oriented toward producing programs and services for potential consumers, or whether it is committed to cultivating habits of life that help us be faithful to the gospel together.”[1] Programs are not necessarily wrong; they simply need to be subservient to the purpose of the church, which is to be an instrument of God’s mission. Programs are not for the simple consumption of church members but are for the purpose of growing members so they can be sent out into the world to participate in what God is already doing in the lives of people. Mike Erre in Death by Church speaks to this transition when he writes:

The church was birthed out of the mission of God, and not the other way around. This means that we don’t take Christ to a region or people group, but we instead show up and pay attention to the work that Jesus is already doing. We have to move away from the current mind-set about church, ministry and mission and think again about our participation in the ministry of Jesus in the world. This change is difficult for us because it means we are no longer the initiators or sustainers of mission and ministry. Instead, we are focused on discerning the movement of God’s Spirit as we week to join Him in what He is already doing. This involves waiting, asking, seeking, knocking – disciplines and activities that cannot be mass-produced or consumed.[2]

The second shift that Hunsberger believes must be embraced by the church is a shift from being clergy dominated to being laity oriented. In other words, the emphasis must shift from the “professional Christians (clergy), who are center stage in the gathered church, to Christian professionals who are ministering in the world and in the workplace.”[3] Martin Luther’s idea of the priesthood of all believers was that all Christians were called to carry out their vocational ministries in every area of life. Every believer needs to be encouraged to fully understand how their vocation plays a central part in God’s redemptive Kingdom.[4] Mike Regele speaks to this dynamic of vocational ministry for all believers when he writes:

If the local congregation is the primary unit of mission in the twenty-first century, then the individual members of the local congregation are the primary agents of mission. We have the opportunity to again image the lay person as playing not just a supporting actor role but a lead role in the mission of Christ’s church in the world. The Pauline notion of being ambassadors for Christ takes on renewed meaning, not just for those who enter into “full-time Christian work” but for those who work, period. Each one of us must be captured by the vision of playing this role in every activity we undertake.[5]

The third shift, which is perhaps the most crucial in assisting the church in the development of a missional mindset, involves a shift from recruitment to mission. Hunsberger rightly contends that the two words, “recruitment” and “mission” move in opposite directions. “Recruitment is the orientation inherent in the vendor church, which tries to attract people to be regular and committed consumers of its programs and services – that is, to be satisfied customers. Mission moves in an opposite direction. It moves outward. It is concerned about giving the gospel away, not getting people in.”[6]

Robert Warren in Building Missionary Congregations makes a helpful addition to this third shift by highlighting the point that when the church moves its emphasis off of the needs of the church and on to the needs of the world, the typical pastoral role will also change:

A church effectively engaged in mission will see that participating in the missio Dei will involve shifting emphasis from a focus on the life of the local church, and a concern to keep everyone happy (which too easily passes for ‘pastoral concern’), to a concern for the world in its needs, joys and struggles. The work, for example, of engaging with the sick, the grieving and the dying, as well as with the moral issues of such roles in society as those concerned with wealth creation or medical ethics, is indeed pastoral. It is the shift form the maintenance and ‘keeping people happy’ mode in which the church all too often operates, into engagement with these situations that will bring the church into the pastoral-in-mission mode of operating. [7]

Conclusion

While religious interest remains strong in American culture, people are increasingly examining alternatives to Christianity to supplement their religious beliefs and behaviors. In a chapter titled “Post-Enlightenment Culture as a Missionary Problem” author Lesslie Newbigin argues that the missiological dilemma is not reaching a secular society, but more troubling, reaching a society that is thoroughly pagan. Newbigin writes, Western society “is a pagan society, and its paganism, having been born out of the rejection of Christianity, is far more resistant to the gospel than the pre-Christian paganism with which cross-cultural missions have been familiar. Here surely, is the most challenging missionary frontier of our time.”[8]

Scottish missiologist Andrew Walls further emphasizes both the gravity and urgency of the challenge when he writes:

It is now too late to treat Western society as in some sort of decline from Christian standards, to be brought back to church by preaching and persuasion. Modern Western society, taken as a whole, reflects one of the great non-Christian cultures of the world. There is one department of the life of the Western church that spent centuries grappling with non-Christian cultures, and gradually learned something of the processes of comprehending, penetrating, exploring, and translating within them. That was the task of the missionary movement.[9]

The church in America must once again engage in the task of the missionary movement of which Walls speaks, however today those same missiological efforts of the past must be directed towards Western society. It is essential that the church in America recognize that it is now living in a mission field which requires sound missionary thinking and activities. Furthermore, it is necessary that the church gain a clear understanding of the missio Dei,[10] the mission of God, and see how it, the Church, is to be sent into the world to actively participate in what God is already doing. Instead of being shaped by mission statements, business models, or marketing and church growth techniques; the church must be shaped by participating in God’s mission. Ed Stetzer writes:

A proper understanding of the biblical and theological basis of being on mission begins with an understanding of the nature of God. He is a missionary God – in this and every culture. . . . The missionary posture is the normal expression of the church in all times and places. The theological concept of missio Dei, the mission of God, recognizes that God is a sending God and the church is sent. It is the most important mission in the Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the embodiment of that mission; the Holy Spirit is the power of that mission; the church is the instrument of that mission; and the culture is the context in which that mission occurs. . . . The source of missionary identity is located in the nature of the triune and sending God, and is connected ontologically with the very existence of the church. . . . The church needs to realize that mission is its “fundamental identity.”[11]

What does this imply for the church in America that faces the challenge of doing ministry in a post-Christian, pagan, pluralistic context? First and foremost it means that the church must recapture the missionary nature of God and His church, and as a result see, as Stetzer states, that mission is its fundamental identity. It is essential that the church once again become a missionary people who move beyond a Constantinian model, that presumed a churched culture, to an apostolic, missionary approach intent on penetrating the vast unchurched segments of society. It means the church will “need to be turned inside out in order to bring those outside in. It will not suffice to simply invite the seeker to come to us to hear the gospel on our turf. Instead the church will have to be the church in the world – gathering for worship in order to go out in mission.”[12]

In the final chapter of Foolishness to the Greeks, Newbigin provides a clarion call to the church to activate its missionary calling as God’s instrument sent into the world on His behalf, when he writes:

The church is the bearer to all the nations of a gospel that announces the kingdom, the reign, and the sovereignty of God. . . . It is not meant to call men and women out of the world into a safe religious enclave but to call them out in order to send them back as agents of God’s kingship.[13] (emphasis added)

The contemporary church is in desperate need of a self-understanding that will empower it for ministry in this changing world. That self-understanding, however will come only when the church fully embraces the reality that it is in fact a called people – but as Newbigin states, it is called for the unmitigated purpose of being sent.

2. Mike Erre, Death by Church (Eugene: Harvest House, 2009), 136.

3.  Hunsberger and Van Gelder, 345.

4.  Gene Edward Veith, God at Work: Your Christian Vocation in All of Life (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2002)

5.  Regele, 220.

6.  Hunsberger and Van Gelder, 345.

7.  Robert Warren, Building Missionary Congregations (Glasgow, Scotland: Church House Publishing, 1995), 26.

8.  Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 20.

9.  Andrew Walls, “Western Society Presents a Missionary Challenge,” in Missiological Education for the Twenty-first Century, ed. J. Dudley , Charles Van Engen, and Edgar Elliston (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1996), 19.

10. For a brief history of the concept of mission as missio Dei, see David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1991), 389-93.

11. Stetzer, 78.

12. Gibbs, 236.

13. Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks, 124.

Following is another section of chapter one of my dmin dissertation. This comes immediately after a discussion on the marginalization of the church, which I shared a portion of here.

While the disestablishment of the church from the dominant seat of culture is disturbing to many Christians in North America, it is seen as a positive development by others because they believe the church can now “recover its identity as shaped by the scriptural story rather than the cultural story,” [1] and in turn regain something of its “genuine mission in the world.” [2] Some would argue that the church, as a result of buying into the cultural story of consumerism, materialism and pragmatism has veered away from its self-understanding as rooted in the mission of God and assumed other agendas. [3]

In the book The Church Between Gospel and Culture, theologian George Hunsberger offers three distinct ways people view the nature of the church. He argues that the manner in which people perceive the church becomes determinative for the church’s agenda. The first view is what Hunsberger labels the “Reformation Heritage.” With this view he argues that Protestants have inherited a particular view of church – the right preaching of the gospel, the right administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of church discipline – that has left us with an understanding of the church as “a place where certain things happen.” [4]

Hunsberger labels the second view as the “Contemporary Variation.” He believes that while the church in North America is not far removed from the view that church is “a place where certain things happen,” a more accurate description of the way people view the church would be as “a vendor of religious goods and services.” [5] From this perspective, members are viewed as customers for whom the religious goods and services are produced. The participants expect the church to provide a wide range of services from favorite music and children programs to fellowship opportunities and marriage enrichment options. With such a model, evangelism evolves into membership recruitment, which may more accurately be called “capturing market share.” The livelihood of this kind of church “is dependent on having a sufficient number of satisfied, committed customers.” [6]

The third view of the nature of the church is identified as the “Missionary Vision” or as Hunsberger more often refers to as “a body of people sent on a mission.” [7] The central point with this view is that the church is to be understood as a people called and sent by God to participate in His mission for the world. Or as Lesslie Newbigin states in The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, “It seems to me to be of great importance to insist that mission is not first of all an action of ours. It is an action of God.” [8]

Hunsberger’s taxonomy of how people view the nature of the church raises three very important issues surrounding the missionary posture of the church. First, when people within the church hold to a view that the church is “a place were certain things happen,” they become inwardly focused and expend their resources on maintenance rather than mission. The church becomes a place where the needs of its members take precedence over the needs of those outside the organization. In early 2006 researcher Thom S. Rainer wrote:

In a recent survey of churches across America, we found that nearly 95% of the churches’ ministries were for members alone. Indeed, many churches had no ministries for those outside the congregation. Many churches seem to exist only for themselves. While there certainly should be ministry available for church members, often the balance between external and internal ministries is heavily skewed toward internal. When churches seek to care and minister only to their own, it’s a likely sign that decline is in motion and that death may be imminent. [9]

Or as Bill Easum writes in Unfreezing Moves, “Most Protestant congregations are stuck in the muck and mire of their institutions with little or no movement toward joining Jesus on the mission field. To them faithfulness means supporting their church and keeping it open.” [10]

Second, when a church adopts the view that it is “a vendor of religious goods and services,” it in turn relies on church growth strategies and marketing techniques to attract customers, or new members to the church. However, in the religious climate of today, marketing approaches seem to be wearing thin, especially among younger generations. After discussing the negative image of Christianity among younger people, David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons conclude that “no strategy, tactics, or clever marketing campaign could ever clear away the smokescreen that surrounds Christianity in today’s culture. The perception of outsiders will change only when Christians strive to represent the heart of God in every relationship and situation.” [11]

After discussing the mounting problems of connecting with the majority of the population that report alienation from the form of church that relies on marketing techniques and church growth principles, Alan Hirsch offer this candid critique:

How do they access the gospel if they reject this form of church? And what would church be like for them in their various settings? Because what is clear from the research . . . is that when surveyed about what they think of the contemporary church growth expression of Christianity, [their response ranges] from being blasé (“good for them, but not for me”) to total repulsion (“I would never go there”). At best, we can make inroads on the blasé; we can’t hope to reach the rest of the population with this model – they are simply alienated from it and don’t like it for a whole host of reasons.

What is becoming increasingly clear is that if we are going to meaningfully reach this majority of people, we are not going to be able to do it by simply doing more of the same. And yet it seems that when faced with our problems of decline, we automatically reach for the latest church growth package to solve the problem – we seem to have nowhere else to go. But simply pumping up the programs, improving the music and audiovisual effects, or jiggering the ministry mix won’t solve our missional crisis. Something far more fundamental is needed. [12]

Eddie Gibbs speaks to a possible reason behind the move that so many churches make toward marketing strategies to reach those outside the church:

Churches throughout the Western world find themselves increasingly marginalized from society as they endeavor to relate the good news to people whose assumptions and attitudes have been shaped by modernity and postmodernity. Our post-Christian, neopagan, pluralistic North American context presents crosscultural missionary challenges every bit as daunting as those we would face on any other continent. Unfortunately most pastors and church leaders have had no missiological training. Consequently they resort to marketing strategies in place of missionary insights in their attempts to reach out to a population that is becoming increasingly distanced from the church. [13]

The theological and missiological concerns associated with the first two issues surrounding the understanding of the nature and activity of the church leads us to the third and most pressing issue – and one stated in the previous quote by Eddie Gibbs – that the church is in dire need of instruction in the area of mission. Again, Gibbs writes:

The majority of church leaders throughout the Western world find themselves ministering in a rapidly changing cultural context that is both post-Christian and pluralistic. Consequently their outreach ministries are as crosscultural as those of their more traditional missionary counterparts seeking to make Christ known in other parts of the world. Consequently they are in as much need of missionary training to venture across the street as to venture overseas. [14]

2. Hall, 36.

3. Reggie McNeal, Missional Renaissance: Changing the Scorecard for the Church (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009), 22. See also Rodney Clapp, A Peculiar People (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1996) and Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon, Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony (Nashville: Abingdon, 1989).

4. Hunsberger and Van Gelder, 337.

5. Ibid.

6. Hunsberger and Van Gelder, 339.

7. Ibid, 341.

8. Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluarlist Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 134.

9. Thom S. Rainer, “Seven Sins of Dying Churches,” Outreach Magazine 5, no. 1, (January/February 2006), 16.

10. Bill Easum, Unfreezing Moves: Following Jesus into the Mission Field (Nashville: Abingdom, 2001), 10.

11. David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons. Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity And Why it Matters (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 226.

12. Alan Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2006), 37.

13. Gibbs, 36.

14. Ibid., 27.

Stetzer & Fitch – a missional conversation – Part III from Bill Kinnon on Vimeo.

Originally offered by Mike Noel and expanded a bit by J.R. Briggs, check out 21 Questions for Missional Leaders:

A few of my favorite include:

1. What are 8-10 characteristics of your ministry context?
2. What are 6-10 dominant culture values in your ministry context?
3. How does the gospel inform the values of your specific context?
4. How does your leadership team reflect your ministry context (culturally, ethnically, economically)?
5. How do you measure “disciple maturity” in your church community?
6. What verifiable, transformative impact has your church’s ministries had on: individuals, families, corporate congregrational life, your geographic context, the leadership and organizational structures of your church community?
7. How do you monitor/assess transformative impact in each of these areas of ministry influence?
8. What are your primary missional objectives in the next 1-3 years?
9. What structures/systems/attitudes/behaviors do you identify as obstacles to your missional effectiveness?
10. What structures/systems will you simplify in order to reduce need for finances/personnel while preserving relational effectiveness?
11. What discernment strategies will you teach/model as prerequisite to decision making?
12. As you consider (a) the needs of your ministry context (b) your vision for transformative ministry and (c) the passions God has given you and your leadership team; what will you need that you don’t presently have?
13. What for you are the essential elements of a missional congregation?
14. Who in your community and context could you listen to and learn from regarding the values of your city?
15. What are 3-5 ways you and your church are currently blessing the neighborhood?