History of Missional Church – Part IV
Posted by Brad BriscoNov 16
History of Missional Church – Part I
History of Missional Church – Part II
History of Missional Church – Part III
Other Notable Authors and Contributors
There are a number of other authors who have contributed significantly to the missional church conversation in the past decade. Two of the more notable voices have been that of Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost. Their first collaborative effort was The Shaping of Things to Come [1] published in 2003. In that book, the authors built upon the twelve indicators first offered by the GOCN by adding three additional overarching principles that provides perhaps the best direction for what it means for a church to be missional. The additional principles include the following:
- The missional church is incarnational, not attractional, in its ecclesiology. By incarnational we mean it does not create sanctified spaces into which unbelievers must come to encounter the gospel. Rather, the missional church disassembles itself and seeps into the cracks and crevices of a society in order to be Christ to those who don’t yet know him.
- The missional church is messianic, not dualistic, in its spirituality. That is, it adopts the worldview of Jesus the Messiah, rather than that of the Greco-Roman empire. Instead of seeing the world as divided between the sacred (religious) and profane (nonreligious), like Christ it sees the world and God’s place in it as more holistic and integrated.
- The missional church adopts an apostolic, rather than a hierarchical, mode of leadership. By apostolic we mean a mode of leadership that recognizes the fivefold model detailed by Paul in Ephesians 6. It abandons the triangular hierarchies of the traditional church and embraces a biblical, flat-leadership community that unleashes the gifts of evangelism, apostleship, and prophecy, as well as the currently popular pastoral and teaching gifts. [2]
Hirsch and Frost believe the missional “genius” of a church can only be unleashed when there are foundational changes made to the church’s very DNA, and that means addressing fundamental issues like ecclesiology, spirituality, and leadership. It means there must be a complete shift away from a Christendom way of thinking, which, as mentioned above, has been attractional, dualistic, and hierarchical. [3]
Several other books that have added much to the missional church conversation in the past decade are included in the following abridged annotated bibliography:
Craig Van Gelder, The Essence of the Church: A Community Created by the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000).
In The Essence of the Church, Van Gelder shares his concerns for many churches taking a functional approach to ecclesiology. He then moves to articulate a missional ecclesiology, which he places in the context of God’s purposes within creation and his eschatological intention. According to Van Gelder, the church is the redemptive reign of God implemented in a fallen world. Furthermore, it is the Spirit which carries out the redemptive purposes of God through the church as the Spirit empowers it for ministry. After describing the church from a redemptive, Trinitarian theological perspective, Van Gelder reserves the second half of the book to give practical advice about what the church is, what the church does, and how the church should organize to best live out its missionary nature.
Milfred Minatrea. Shaped by God’s Heart: The Passion and Practices of Missional Churches (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004).
In Shaped by God’s Heart, Minatrea offers a good introduction to the missional church conversation. The book is organized in three sections. Part one is titled, “The Church in a New and Changing World.” In this portion of the book Minatrea discusses the difference between being “mission-minded” and “missional.” In part two, “The Nine Essential Practices of Missional Churches,” he presents the core of the book as he shares nine practices that he has observed in studying missional churches. Part three is titled “Structures and Strategies for Becoming Missional.” In this last section Minatrea shares strategies for church leaders who desire to move their churches towards becoming more missional. Additionally, each chapter includes helpful reflection and application questions to be used in group studies.
Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2006).
In The Forgotten Ways, Frost and Hirsch describe the current form of church in two simple ways. A missional church is one that goes to where people are to engage them on their own cultural turf while an attractional model expects people to leave where they are and come join the church culture. They contend that the attractional, institutional church that in large part is the creation of the church growth movement, has created a spectator Christianity that is largely irrelevant at reaching 85 percent of the culture. However the book is much more than a simple attack on the attractional church or the church growth movement. Building upon theological reflection and missiological principles, the authors develops a sound missional theology for the church. The Forgotten Ways will certainly remain one of the most significant contributions to effective missional engagement.
Alan J. Roxburgh and Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader: Equipping Your Church to Reach a Changing World (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006).
In The Missional Leader, Roxburgh and Romanuk draw upon many years of experience as consultants to church leaders across the United States and Canada. They offer a realistic approach to leaders who are struggling with what it means to be a missional church in a local context. The authors caution against adopting business models and church growth techniques. Instead they continually emphasize the importance of recognizing that the church is a spiritual entity that is lead and empowered by the Spirit. The goal of spiritual leadership therefore is to discern where and how the Spirit of God is working in the context of the local church.
Ed Stetzer and David Putman, Breaking the Missional Code (Nashville: B&H, 2006).
Breaking the Misisonal Code is one of the most practical introductions to the missional conversation. The book is built upon the premise that the church is a community created by God to be sent as a missionary into a local context. To do so effectively means that the church must break the “missional code” of their context. Each church must function as a missionary people exegeting their culture in order to better present the Gospel. Throughout the book Stetzer and Putman provide numerous examples of churches that exhibit missional qualities. They also offer multiple definitions to bring clarity to missional terminology. For any church leader who desires to better understand the basics of missional practice Breaking the Missional Code would be a great place to begin.
Patrick Keifert, We Are Here Now: A New Missional Era (Eagle, ID: Allelon Publishing, 2006).
In We Are Here Now, Keifert offers a framework for deep change in churches and leadership teams that are striving towards missional engagement. Similar to other books on the missional church, Keifert agrees that as a result of vast cultural changes the church is in desperate need of recapturing its missionary nature. However what sets We Are Here Now apart is that Keifert lays out a long-range plan of spiritual discernment and transformation for a local congregation. Keifert maintains that when it comes to serious missional commitment, there are no quick fixes and real change is shaped by Scripture, the Holy Spirit, and attention to each other.
Craig Van Gelder, The Ministry of the Missional Church: A Community Led by the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007).
Van Gelder writes that the premise of The Ministry of the Missional Church is to encourage churches to recognize the ministry of the Spirit in the midst of constant congregational change. He believes that God’s intent is often to use change either directly or indirectly to move a congregation in new directions of meaningful ministry under the leading of the Spirit. Furthermore, Van Gelder desires for congregations to understand that the Spirit-led ministry of the church flows out of the Spirit-created nature of the church. In other words, being precedes doing. Or to put it another way, the nature of the church establishes the foundation for understanding the purpose of the church and its ministry and determines their direction and scope. Van Gelder does an excellent job of showing that when a church begins with its nature, or essence as a Spirit-created community, growth and development are the natural outcome.
Craig Van Gelder, ed., The Missional Church in Context: Helping Congregations Develop Contextual Ministry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007).
The Missional Church in Context is a collection of eight outstanding papers presented at a consultation held at Luther Seminary in December of 2005. The premise of the consultation, and exemplified by the book title, is that every context should be seen as a missional context, and every congregation as a missional congregation that is responsible to participate in God’s mission in that context. The book does not promote a method or model of ministry but encourages various congregational expressions to enter a discernment process, with the Spirit, to identify the theological foundations and insights in order to develop the capacity for ministry engagement. Again as indicative of the title, context does matter. Collectively the contributors state that the church needs to develop a “formation triad” that includes congregational formation (the shaping of a concrete Christian community), spiritual formation (corporate and personal attention to initiatives of God) and missional formation (local church’s identity and agency in its encounter with the immediate context). This text represents another important voice speaking on the significance of context in the formation of the local church.
Hugh Halter and Matt Smay. The Tangible Kingdom: Creating Incarnational Community (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008).
The Tangible Kingdom is a guide to the planting of missional communities written by two missional practitioners and church planters. One of the strengths of the book is the use of stories to illustrate the power of incarnational community. They show what it looks like to leave the safe “bubble” of much of modern evangelicalism and ventured out into the lives of those around us. Further it provides helpful direction on combating consumerism, living out our mission in the context of an entire community, and what it means to practice biblical hospitality.
Alan Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways Handbook: A Practical Guide for Developing Missional Churches (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009).
The Forgotten Ways Handbook is a follow up to the 2006 publication by the same name. However, the handbook moves beyond the theological foundation built in the original The Forgotten Ways to a place of practice that very little resources provide. This extremely practical handbook includes many helpful tools including summary sections encapsulating the ideas contained in each chapter of the original book, suggested habits and practices to help readers embed missional principles, and adult learning-based techniques and examples from other churches that enable readers to process and assimilate the ideas in a group context.
Reggie McNeal, Missional Renaissance: Changing the Scorecard for the Church (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009).
The most significant contribution that Missional Renaissance makes to the missional church conversation is McNeal’s attempt to establish a new way of measuring success in the church in the United States. For years the measure of faithfulness and vitality in the church has been in terms of growth in attendance, finances and facilities. However to assist the church in making a shift in a missional direction, McNeal argues that the church must begin to measure success by using a new scorecard. He asks, What would happen if we measured vitality in terms of growth in the area of people, service, prayer and outreach?
1. Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st Century Church (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003).
31 comments
Comment by Jonathan Brink on November 19, 2009 at 11:11 am
Brad,
I don’t know if Frost and Hirsch created the false dichotomy of attractional vs. missional, but I think they supported it’s development. It’s impossible to see Jesus as either/or. Mission begins with attraction. Jesus said, “Come follow me.” He called people to follow. And then we see this little three year period where he models it for them, asking them to participate with him but very rarely asking them to go out. And then he leaves, sending them out to do it all over again, with, “Go and make disciples.”
I can’t help but wish that we’d see the conversation a lot more wholistically that just the send part. Mission begins with attracting people to the first mission field of the heart, and creating a space for them to practice what it means following the Way.
What I think has happened over the last century does include an unnecessary approach to attractional so perhaps the swing is justified to drawn attention to it. But at some point it’s got to swing back to a both/and conversation.
Comment by Brad Brisco on November 19, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Jonathan, I think Frost/Hirsch are simply pushing back on the predominant understanding of church where Christendom still has a stranglehold. I like the language that is quoted in the post from “Shaping” that attempts to define incarnational as opposed to attractional when they state that it is not about creating “sanctified spaces into which unbelievers must come to encounter the gospel.” I think a much greater problem is the false dichotomy of sacred and secular, but that is for another day
I agree that it is impossible to see Jesus as either/or but I am also not completely comfortable with using His words “come follow me” as an apologetic for being attractional. As you stated it is about personal discipleship/training that takes place in a relationship. I think you would agree that Jesus’ intent in that passage is a far cry from the way we define/describe the attractional nature of the seeker/purpose driven approach the past three decades.
Moreover, while I certainly agree that it needs to be a both/and, I have found that the VAST majority of churches will never have an issue with with being too outwardly focused/missional. Our deeply rooted self-centered/selfish tendencies keep the majority of our attention on our needs and desires. So while we in the blog sphere and some other “missional circles” talk much about being incarnational, I do not see any real swing taking place that we will need to “swing back” from any time soon.
Thanks for commenting, I do think this is a valuable and needed discussion. Very good to hear from you, blessings!
Comment by Jonathan Brink on November 19, 2009 at 6:40 pm
I should have stated that I also appreciate their work. Missional is a much needed conversation.
But the problem I see is that in defining attractional in such limited terms it ceases to be of value to the missional conversation, and excludes those who still hold it as valuable.
What I would like to see is us redefine attractional around an attraction to Jesus, as opposed to a model. If we liberate the distinction from those limitations we can begin to give people language that means, “Come follow me.”
Comment by John D. on November 20, 2009 at 9:38 am
Great discussion, guys. I too believe that the Church has forgotten exactly what it means to be the Church and that change is desperately needed.
Jonathan raises a great point about the attractional aspects of Christ that should not be taken lightly. I can’t say I completely know where I fall in the discussion, but it did raise a question in my mind…when Jesus walked the earth, He was by His very nature attractional. Yes, He did specifically call the disciples, BUT other people came in droves wherever He went…not only to hear Him teach, but to be healed, delivered, etc… Today, as the body of Christ, does it make sense that if we present Christ to people through our everyday actions i.e.: being the embodiment of love and truth as He also was, that this will be a powerful force that attracts people to Christ and ultimately to become part of a local body of believers? I guess what I’m saying is: couldn’t living missionally BE attractional?
Comment by Brad Brisco on November 20, 2009 at 10:36 am
John, yes agreed, living missionally absolutely should be attractional to those around us because they see the “attractiveness” of Jesus living in and through us. However, that is not what is/has been promoted in an attractional model of ministry, where it is the high quality of programs including such things as “relevant” preaching, “contemporary” worship, “entertaining” children/youth programs, and even multi-use facilities, great parking, adequate seating, etc.
I think we would all agree that this model of ministry is experiencing diminishing returns even among dechurched/unchurched, but most certainly it is not making any inroads into the non-Christian population. I do not believe it even makes sense in the post-mod/post-Christendom culture in which we live.
Jonathan’s point that we need to redefine the word attractional is certainly necessary and probably helpful. I just want to contend that just because Jesus was attractional in a certain sense, and that we too should be attractional does not give a theological/missiological foundation for an attractional model of ministry.
Thanks for commenting!
Comment by Jason Coker on November 20, 2009 at 11:02 am
I think Brad has touched on the subtle but important distinction between being attractional and attractive. The terms attractional and missional are meant to convey the extremely important dichotomy between a Christendom posture of cultural centrality and coercive power to an apostolic posture of incarnation, service, and weakness. I don’t think this is a false dichotomy at all. Some things really are either/or. You can’t be both a pacifist and and a just war advocate. The terms are mutually exclusive. I would say being missional is essentially the pacifist theory of ecclesiology and being attractional is essentially the “just war” theory of ecclesiology.
Having said that, I think the recognition that Jesus and the early Church were very attractive is important for the discussion about spiritual formation and pertinent to questions of ecclesiology. I think it’s also important to recognize that the evangelistic act of proclamation involves attracting attention to the herald. But I think inserting those dynamics into the heart of the attractional/missional debate runs the risk of confusing the terms beyond recognition.
Comment by Taylor Burton-Edwards on November 20, 2009 at 11:17 am
There is no question that the message Jesus brought and something about him, personally, was compellingly attractive to many people– and still is today.
The distinction Frost/Hirsch and other missiologists over time have made, though (they didn’t invent the conversation!) is between the reality of how attractive and compelling Jesus was and is (attractive) and taking on, as a fundamental strategy, a missiological PURPOSE of attracting people TO the message or even TO Jesus. THAT’s what they call “attractional.”
In other words, when the attention in our efforts gets shifted from letting the power of the Spirit speak the truth of God’s love and God’s reign through us, in all the ways this can happen, we shift at that moment from being expressions of God’s mission to trying to sort of “gin up” an audience for it.
If Jesus models anything for us about God’s reign, it’s that the “audience” is there, everywhere, if we just have eyes to see and ears to hear. The harvest is, really is, abundant. We need more laborers to go out into the harvest and help name it and gather it in, wherever we find it.
If we’re doing that, we’re also actively teaching others how to do the same in all sorts of ways.
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Comment by Brad Brisco on November 20, 2009 at 11:18 am
Jason, thanks for commenting. I believe it may be more helpful to think of the attractional/missional discussion on a continuum rather than mutually exclusive poles. In my doctoral project I proposed assisting existing churches to move resources such as prayer, staff, time, facilities in a more missional direction. I am discovering that as churches struggle with the missionary nature of God and His church, and as they begin to honestly deal with the “why” of decreasing trends in areas like attendance, membership, baptisms, etc., they are beginning to move their thinking and practice in a more missional direction.
Comment by Jason Coker on November 20, 2009 at 11:30 am
That excellent Brad, I’d be very interested in the results of your project. I’ve seen a few churches attempt to make that shift, but most seem to fail. Perhaps it’s my anabaptism coming out, but I’ll openly confess that the reason I think it largely fails is because I don’t see it as a continuum – I tend to think there’s a strong undergirding ethic of pacifism in the missional orientation and a strong ethic of conquest in the attractional one. That’s not to say any given church can’t make that shift (obviously many claim to have done so), but I’m still biased toward seeing it as a shift in polarity rather than a movement along a continuum, even if it does occur over time.
But hey…I’m willing to be wrong : )
Comment by Brad Brisco on November 20, 2009 at 11:38 am
Jason, well I have to add that I am not overly optimistic about the “missional shift” for existing congregations. It is a very difficult transition to make. The gravitational pull to resort to an attractional, build it and they will come, mindset is very, very strong for most churches. The best we can hope for in the majority of churches are incremental shifts. That I believe is possible in those churches that are open to rethink the nature of the church.
Comment by Jason Coker on November 20, 2009 at 11:46 am
Very much agreed.
Brad, I don’t know if you need more data or contacts for your project, but if you’re interested I could give you a couple of names of guys who have, or currently are, attempting to lead churches through this kind of shift.
Comment by Brad Brisco on November 20, 2009 at 11:55 am
Jason, thanks for that, but I completed my dissertation last month, hallelujah!
Comment by Jonathan Brink on November 20, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Ah come on Brad. You don’t want to do moooooore research? ;-P Well done bro.
Comment by John D. on November 20, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Good stuff, guys! It’s so good to see these conversations taking place.
Great point, Taylor, about the difference between attractional and attractive.
I definitely think the days of appealing to the “Christian consumer” are drawing to a close (in some places much slower than others, unfortunately).
Brad, this blog is a great resource – I check it quite often and am always encouraged by your posts. Thanks for your efforts and please keep the good stuff coming! Congrats on finishing your D-min, btw!
Comment by John D. on November 20, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Oops. It was actually Jason who made the comment I referenced. Sorry for the goof!
Comment by Taylor Burton-Edwards on November 20, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Jason,
I think I get the anabaptist concern you cite a bit. I did a Master of Peace Studies degree with the Mennonites about a decade ago, and Wilbert Shenk was the missiologist who taught in that program. Hanging out at AMBS over three years sort of gives you a feel for the inner dynamics of the folks– or at least I’d like to think it did for me.
But part of the challenge Mennonites face, it seems to me, is the box H. Richard Niebuhr put them into in Christ and Culture– that of “Christ against Culture.” It’s a box that tends to keep folks thinking that a polarized, rather than dynamic-tension or relational mutuality kind of thinking is “the anabaptist way.” Actually, the centuries of peace witness and reconcilation ministries that Mennonites and others in the larger ‘anabaptist” family have created don’t fit any of Niebuhr’s boxes all that well.
So while I think I see how you could see that, I’m not convinced there’s actually a really good fit between missional/pacifist as one pole and attractional/”conquesty” on the other. I guess I’ve run into enough folks on the “attractional” end who are pacifist and on the missional end who are conquesty (as in, this is the only one right way and we have to prevail with this vision, period) to validate your proposal.
What I do think fits, maybe not as a “pole” but more as a story of “growth” might be to describe the attractional model as trying to grab things (Jacob) and the missional model as trusting in while struggling with God and people to bear witness to God’s reign (Israel). The reality is that God was active in Jacob’s life while he was being all “Jacoby”– grabbing things like mad– but God was preparing him, even there, for a life of ongoing engaged struggle, “Israel-y” whose fruits would look little like what he had been able to accumulate for himself earlier. Still, there was real value in both experiences, though certainly greater maturity and fruitfulness in the latter.
Comment by Jason Coker on November 20, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Great comments Taylor! Thanks, that’s very helpful for me. Also, I very much agree with your assessment of anabaptists as being far more nuanced than merely “Christ against Culture” – but they aren’t very nuanced about the use of force, so to the extent that being missional represents the abdication of cultural coercion and triumphalism, I still see a polarity (though, I’m well aware that not everyone see’s the attractional/missional distinction that way).
Yes, God was active in Jacob’s life, but I think there’s a big difference between acknowledging God’s work in spite of Jacob’s posture on the one hand and commending Jacob’s posture on the other. I doubt many attractional churches would appreciate the “Jacoby” comparison.
You’ve given me a really helpful alternative framework for rethinking my prejudices, but guess I assume everyone in the debate is at the Jacob end of the continuum of growth and being used by God despite our shortcomings. So I see the attractional/missional debate as being less about where we’re at in terms of growth and more about what we will commend as a biblical posture to strive for. In which case, the question is, can we really commend both?
At the risk of being “conquesty” (great word, BTW!) I’ll shamefully admit, I still think the answer is “no.”
Comment by Taylor Burton-Edwards on November 21, 2009 at 7:38 am
Jason,
Good point.
I don’t commend the attractional approach as either a biblical or an historical approach to missiology. At least it’s not a missiological approach whose history is actually all that long, if you think about it. It might be as old as the 19th century in North America, an unintended step-child of Finney-style revivalism.
At the same time I find myself not any longer ready spend a lot of energy to condemn it outright. Having been there, done that, I’d say it’s something from which I’ve shaken the dust off my feet and moved on. I’d rather give folks good reasons for the hope that is in me regarding missional approaches that are both biblically faithful and have, in fact, much longer track records (this is more or less the way the monasteries evangelized Europe and the Jesuits functioned in India and China, after all!).
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Comment by Schaun on November 21, 2009 at 9:21 am
Jason, Taylor, Jonathan and Brad,
I have had a delightful morning reading this very healthy debate. I am part of a team who leads a Church that has been very successful at drawing a crowd, but struggled at helping the crowd be missional. I am excited about the challenge we now face as we embark on turning a large group of Christ Followers, who have never been released into a missional life, into missionaries. I am 100% in agreement that “attractional” Churches need to be more Missional. So the challenge for our team is: “how do we do that?”. We cannot abandon this large group of people who have been “attracted” to attend Church. The challenge now is turning this ship outward. I would appreciate your input and/or direction to others who have successfully made this shift.We are repenting, but also discovering that this will take time. Our initial approach is to dedicate one of our services as a “missional community”. This attracts (gasp, there is that word again) the Christ followers at our Church who have a desire to engage and impact the world. This smaller community allows us to cut our teeth and we are praying that slowly but surely we can develop a culture of a missional lifestyle in our Church at large. This group will hopefully lead the way for the others to follow. Your thoughts?
Comment by Brad Brisco on November 21, 2009 at 11:07 am
Schaun, thanks for participating in the discussion. I am very excited by your commitment to “turn the ship outward.” I also admire your heart to not “abandon” the Christ followers that God has directed to your community. There is certainly a large group of people there that could participate significantly in what God is doing in your city, and of course I know that is already happening in many cases.
However, I do believe the “turn” is more difficult than most churches imagine, of course most churches don’t have the brain trust that your group has
. As someone once said, “what you win them with, is what you win them to.” In other words, when we gather a crowd through attractional, somewhat consumerist “practices” as mentioned above, it is all the more difficult to move the crowd’s thinking and actions in a selfless, sacrificial, outward direction.
How then do we attempt such a shift? I believe it involves several ideas/steps, but two of the more important include: (1) consistently teaching on the missionary/sent nature of God and His church. There is a strong theological and missiological foundation for the church, individually and corporately to become missionaries to our cities, neighborhoods, workplaces, etc., especially in light of our growing post-Christendom context. As we do so I believe it not only challenges church people to see that the church doesn’t exist for their personal consumption, but they become more aware of how/when/where they can partner with God in their own context. A huge issues here is that our participation becomes a matter of discernment (where/what is God doing) rather than “here is what I can do.”; (2) tapping into the power of story. I believe it is most helpful to describe missional living through stories and images. We can capture the “missional imagination” by sharing what others in our churches are doing, as well as what other faith communities are doing, to illustrate what it looks like to participate in what God is already doing. This will involve telling stories about connecting with people in third places, cultivating rapport with local schools, and building redemptive relationships with neighbors. As you have already mentioned, this takes time.
Again, thanks for sharing, brother, I appreciate your hard work.
Comment by Jason Coker on November 21, 2009 at 11:54 am
Taylor – There’s a truckload of wisdom in what you’ve said and I completely agree. It’s my great hope that one day people will find good reason for the hope that in in our community of faith at Ikon. Thank you for framing it that way.
Shaun – I’m only at the beginning of my journey, and starting from scratch, so I’m not sure I have much wisdom to share. However, I do know a few sharp leaders who are doing it that may be of help to your team. If you write me at jason(at)twoshirts(dot)org I’d be happy to give your their contact information.
Comment by Brad Brisco on November 21, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Schaun, one more thing. I like the attempt with the smaller community within the larger church. It will be very interesting to see how to best foster a missional mindset with that group. I think a key will be for the teaching time to reflect the missional outcomes you desire. But I also think a helpful place to initiate a missional “push” is in a church’s small group ministry. In some cases this might also occur in the area of men’s ministry and/or youth ministry.
Comment by Jonathan Brink on November 21, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Shaun, A group of men in my church began asking about missional seven years ago. Much of what we found was that missional is not just sent. It’s the whole enchilada of spiritual formation in the Way of Jesus. That is part of my initial concern in the post. When we cut away the attractional portion, (drawing people in) we cut away the space for people to gather. If we approach missional as simply going out, we cut out the space for people to engage the way in small tribes.
We ended up going back to what Jesus did. We gathered people in small tribes and let them spend three years together. And when the three years were up, we asked them to split up and start new tribes. We built an entire process around it. And it worked.
Let me know if you want to talk further.
Comment by Brad Brisco on November 21, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Jonathan, I know you were responding to Schaun, but I would like to say that I agree that it is “the whole enchilada.” I didn’t include it in this thread of discussion but in other places I have said that it should begin with spiritual formation. We must take seriously the responsibility to cultivate spiritual transformation that does not allow believers to remain as adolescents in their spiritual maturity. Such spiritual formation will involve much greater relational underpinnings and considerable engagement with a multitude of spiritual disciplines. I don’t remember who it was that said it but I like thinking of it as “spiritual formation for the sake of others.” This will of course take place as gathered people. As Darrell Guder has stated “the church is the called AND sent people of God.” As you have said it is not one over the other, it must be both.
Comment by Jonathan Brink on November 21, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Brad, I know you and your writings enough that I assumed you and I were in agreement with that. Sorry about that.
Comment by Jason Coker on November 21, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Jonathan, I just wanted to add my “amen” to your “whole enchilada” comment. Interestingly enough, we came to the same conclusion, and we also ended up sketching out a 3 year process that begins with spiritual formation. Incidentally, the way we arrived there was (as you said) by noticing that mission wasn’t the church “being sent” but was, rather, God himself going out and working in the world (John 5). Therefore, for us at Ikon being missional means going where God goes and doing what God does. That’s all well and good but it very quickly led to the realization that most of us didn’t know how to recognize what God was doing in the world around us…which led immediately to the priority of spiritual formation.
Comment by Brad Brisco on November 21, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Jonathan, no need to apologize. It has been a helpful discussion, thanks for instigating it
I always appreciate your take on things. I hope we have an opportunity to discuss things over dinner/coffee some day. Any chance you are going to the VERGE conference in Austin in Feb?
Comment by Schaun on November 21, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Brad,
I believe I may have been able to talk several of our leadership team into making the Verge conference a priority. At least three are in, hopefully others will join. I believe this could be transformational for our team and Church as we embrace the ideas discussed in this blog. Thanks for the great input.
Comment by Taylor Burton-Edwards on November 22, 2009 at 8:41 am
Schaun and all:
A wonderful conversation, indeed.
Several thoughts through the lenses I work with…
First, a bit about what those lenses are. I am a United Methodist elder (ordained pastor) who serves as the liturgical officer for the denomination. As part of that role, I have in my portfolio connecting with and providing support for persons in my denomination (and beyond) who have are pursuing the emerging missional way of being church. I have a blog for this purpose (http://emergingumc.blogspot.com), and have lead two gatherings of folks doing this work or seeking guidance from others on how to get engaged over the past two years. Both were relatively small– which did not surprise me.
So I’m not speaking as a pastor of a congregation (though I’ve had that role over the years as well). I’m speaking more as a church historian and observer of where and how people have moved from fans of Jesus to followers and missionaries in his name over the centuries, with a particular focus on ways early Methodism (before 1784 on these shores) supported that happening.
In large terms, what I’d suggest is that congregations don’t make disciples well and haven’t for about 1400 years. They can and do other things well as a format of Christian community, but this isn’t one of them. What I note in presentations I make around the UMC is that what early Methodism did was NOT to plant more congregations, but rather to multiply other forms of Christian community (Methodist societies, but especially, as the basic missional unit, the class meeting) that, in network with congregations (Rule 3 of the General Rules used by Methodists to keep each other accountable required they be part of congregations, too!) actually did form and deploy many more disciples of Jesus into God’s mission in the world (as we’d now put it) than congregations alone or class meetings along ever could.
The class meetings really were the engine, the “basic missional unit,” or the “band of brothers and sisters” that Alan Hirsch talks about. The societies provided a support structure and vigorous encouragement/accountability for them.
And these were not congregations. They were “para-congregational” groups whose participants lived in network with existing congregations. Each form of Christian community did what it did well, and the result was well-formed, highly energized Christian disciples whose actions literally transformed England into a far better society. Name any of the massive social changes for the better that happened in England from the late 18th century through the early to mid 19th century, and you will find behind them the actions and often the leadership of Methodists. Prison reform, child labor laws, labor unions, the end of slave trade and the abolition of slavery across the British empire, health care, and the beginnings of social welfare support for children– all of these were the direct result of, significantly participated in by or modeled on Methodist advocacy and even sometimes structures for getting things done. If that level of dramatic social change without a war in such a short period of time is not a sign of God’s reign at work, I don’t know what is.
And that level of social change happened, I would argue, because Methodists, uniquely, because they were in mission with the poor and attending worship with the most influential people in the larger community, actually had access through social networks to everyone in the country, more or less.
I say all that to encourage that whatever you choose to do with those who will seek to live the way of Jesus, to live missionally, (which I would expect to be a very small minority at first– and that’s fine!) don’t segregate them from their existing social networks. Expand them. This is onefo the ways Jesus remarks about the leaven in the loaf happens. It’s how things go viral– because of contagion of passion and vision via social networks.
So here’s a quick list of thoughts…
1) Look for bright eyes– folks who seem to express some visible, bodily interest in living the way of Jesus. Invite these folks to further conversation to explore what you think you’re seeing. And then if that turns out to be the case, invite them to be part of a process that will help them get there.
2) Don’t think about the missional group an alternative worship service. Yes, when they get together, they may do some “worshipy things” too, as part of what they do (viz the early Methodist society meetings).
3) Do think about at least two levels of structure– “bands of brothers and sisters” where accountability and shared action and life are the focus– and another level of gathering/structure that gets these groups together and keeps them moving forward. These really are two different kinds of functions– and so having both levels of structure/meeting/gathering will be helpful.
4) In terms of formation, remember what this formation is for– it’s to help them see signs of God’s kingdom and join in where they can with their gifts and passion. This formation should always keep in mind that it’s not about “making God’s reign happen.” No, that’s already in progress. It is about joining those signs and occasionally pointing them out as well. And this formation is much more about way of life first, and then doctrinal issues come along to help support that. This was the model of the early catechumenate (the intentional, three-year process of formation for persons preparing for baptism in the early churches). The core questions asked of a sponsor were whether the candidate was loving people well, caring for the elderly, the poor, the sick and those in prisons, and being generous– those kinds of things, not whether they could recite the 12th chapter of Acts or could explain the third article of the Apostles Creed. Now, by that time, they probably could do both of those things, too– because they were, as part of their process, attending morning and sometimes evening prayer every day, and so hearing lots of scripture and basic teaching, too, and beginning to get these patterns of prayer into their bones– but all of that, all of it, was intended to give them tools for living missionally (as we’d say that now).
5) Do not neglect accountability. Gather a group of 9-12 people and send them through any sort of ordeal, and they’ll likely forge a lasting bond to each other. But that “band of sisters and brothers” is no more than a clique if they’re not actively seeking to keep each other on the growing edge of discipleship and mission. That has to happen inside the group– and it needs support from outside as well– hence another reason for the recommendation above for at least a two-tier structure for these things (class meeting and Society, in early Methodist terms).
Finally, you may find the version of the presentation I’ve offered most recently for a United Methodist emerging/missional gathering helpful. Again– I’m not at all trying to push you to be Methodist. It’s just that I do think we have had in our history some good examples of the very sorts of things the missional conversation is talking about now. The presentation can be found here:
http://www.gbod.org/worship/emergingumc/ppt/wherediditgo.ppt
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Comment by Jason Coker on November 22, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Taylor, thank you so much for this contribution! Early Methodism has been a major influence on my thinking as our group has sought to press out a concept of church rhythms that might be effective for spiritual and societal formation – and you given me an even fresher way of perceiving it. I have many questions I would love to ask, but I think I’ll do so on your blog for fear of continuing to co-opt this space.
Thanks again!
Comment by Taylor Burton-Edwards on November 23, 2009 at 10:07 am
Jason (and anyone else)…
I’d be glad to talk, listen and share on anything we’ve discussed above.
The emergingumc blog may not be as helpful a place to do that for specific questions– just because the nature of blogs, as this one here, is to post a significant article and then let comment and questions ensue.
If you’re interested in posting something on the blog– comments are open to do so. If you wish to post an article-length piece there, let me know and I’ll sign you up as a blog author (right now, only blog authors have main entry posting privileges).
The simplest way to reach me is to send an email to worship at gbod dot org. When I reply, you’ll get my phone contacts in the signature lines. I’m out of the office this week and most of December. So the best way to reach me via phone will be cell.
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards