I wrote the above definition in conjunction with my doctoral dissertation on missional churches (http://www.okwu.edu/assets/institute/Dissertation_–_How_Missional_Leaders_Cultivate_Change.pdf).

Brad (we haven’t met yet, but) thanks for posting it here!

That research was then published by the theological journal Bibliotheca Sacra (http://www.dts.edu/media/publications/bibliothecasacra/#macilvaine).

But it’s raised the question, Can there be a definition for a missional church or for the missional movement? Some missional thinkers say no; the movement is too fluid, and definitions don’t work so well in the postmodern ethos of our age.

My contention is that those of us passionate about the missional movement must wrestle with definition, no matter how imperfect they might be, and even if those definitions are in flux. Definitions force creative thinking. Definitions foster the kind of healthy debate and discussion that sharpen all of us to excel still more in the missional journey.

Missional isn’t about being on the next wave of trendy thinking (although the movement does have some amazing thinkers attached to it). Being missional is about being the hands and feet of Christ. Definitions are hugely helpful in this regard, in spite of the postmodern hatred of tight categories and metanarrative.

Our church has developed a missional manifesto that has served us well in our vision casting. (http://gccbartlesville.org/about/mission_and_vision.php)

I’d welcome continued conversation.

Rod