daveingland.com   about church relevance, culture, life, community, & transformational faith

I’ve posted previously about missional vs emergent and missional vs the mega church model. However, I don’t see how it would be possible to validate a missional vs. missional argument though. The reason being is that there is a basic, fundamental understanding of what it means to be a missional church, therefore there isn’t any relevant argument regarding that. Alan Hirsch, author of The Forgotten Ways defines the missional church as: “a church that defines itself, and organizes its life around, its real purpose as an agent of God’s mission to the world.”

Now, we could argue what the mission should like in a given community or whether advertising the mission through press releases in the local newspaper is relevant to the mission, but we can’t argue the foundation of being missional. It is this that gives momentum to the missional church and through transformations happening on the local level, missional churches will have global impact on the kingdom of heaven.

Before I continue, I want to make it clear that I am not in opposition to those with a vision to lead emergent or mega-churches. I think God can honor their work and that transformed lives could be the result. However, let me point out some observations I’ve made that lend themselves to momentum within the missional church:

• Overall, churches are shrinking in numerical size, therefore being positioned to be better able to mobilize behind a missional movement
• Budgets are being drastically cut as church members are giving less or not giving at all. Smaller budgets many times means smaller staff or fewer programs. This creates an environment conducive to change and reorganization, going away from past methods that are deemed not to work and seeking something new
• We’re in a post-Christian era where over 90% profess a belief in a god or gods or a higher power, yet oppose Christianity and discussion centering on Jesus. Missional church fulfills the Greatest Commandment and causes people to look at Jesus through love, not condemnation.
• Many Christians have left the traditional church and choose to worship God individually without being in fellowship with others. The missional church can help bring them back into fellowship through uniting them in a common cause that they feel is relevant.

There is a culture shift happening and it’s causing many church leaders to take notice. Some may see their budgets shrink and believe the answer is to waive their salary and take full-time, secular job. Some churches may see positions phased out and consolidation occur. Other churches may think a new focus from the pulpit on tithing may be in order. In reality, this is the kind of culture shift that should be leading people to see that God is moving in a different way. As we get closer to the day of Christ’s return, we need to get back to our roots. Things will go full circle and what was ancient may become modern again.

Our focus should really be on God and serving his people with the love of Christ. We must have ultimate faith in God and His Word for salvation and trust Christ to really be the head of His church. Instead of responding to what the market dictates by trying to give people what they want or tell them what they want to hear, we should respond in a way that reveals God in our midst. As we see numbers diminishing within the church here in America, it’s clear to see that the kingdom of heaven is growing exponentially in China. Under threat of persecution the church in China is for the most-part an underground movement. It is very reminiscent of the description of the first century church in Acts 2:44-47:

44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Where there is sincere love for God and love for others through giving as they have need, the kingdom of heaven will grow daily with those being saved. If the missional church stays on mission, salvation and growth will be fulfilled through God. People will care about other people and love others because God first loved them. Transformation will occur and the gospel will be preached to all nations and the end result will be glory to the King of kings as he returns for his bride.

As the church, I say we should look to return to the root of our existence–loving God and loving others–and repel those things which cause us to focus on worldly things like money, pride, control. If we trust in Jesus to deliver his saving grace upon the earth, God will add to our number those that are being saved and instill in them a passion for loving He that created them and all of whom He created.

Let me start with a question: Can the seeker-sensitive, mega-church model really be missional? I’m one of those that thinks it can. Missional really is a matter of the heart that is realized through application. Serving others becomes relevant because it is in the very nature of who we are as missionaries. Can such an environment exist in a mega-church? I think it can.

The biggest problem facing the missional mega-church is one of how it can be organic and easily mobilized when it operates with 2-5 services per day and affects 2,000-50,000+ in attendance on any given weekend. Menlo Park Presbyterian Church actually closed its door one Sunday in April last year to be the love of Christ to the surrounding community. With about 2,600 of its 5,000 members committing to serve others as reported in the Oakland Tribune:

For only the second time in its 134 years, a church in Menlo Park today canceled Sunday morning service and shut its doors.

It’s no crisis — it’s only because the majority of its 5,000 members instead spent the weekend renovating homes, refurbishing schools, assisting the homeless or building thousands of support kits for AIDS caregivers in Africa, among scores of charitable activities throughout the Peninsula.

As Pastor David Meysembourg stated in a comment to one of the previous posts here on the blog about the missional church, “So for those who are already doing church, the real work lies in becoming missional without losing the flock. The difficulty comes in transitioning from a more traditional church (which is many of the things missional is not) to a missional church. Education and training, modeling missional values, discussion, reading, all are an important part of this process. One of the first things we’ve done is to define ‘church’.”

Ask 100 pastors to define what the church is and you may find 100 different responses. Sure, the underlying theme and overall context may be similar, but just as God calls individuals to lead/preach/teach he also inspires them with visions that complement their giftedness and passions. Another point made by Pastor Meysembourg that we as pastors must be united on though: Church is “Not a building, not program, not an event, but people living God’s plan for their lives.”

What is God’s plan for our lives? Simply stated in the eloquent words of Christ himself in Matthew 22:37-39:

37″‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

If we gather together as the body of Christ and love God completely and love others with the love of Jesus aren’t we being missional? Must there be a 100% buy-in from all that gather in a Sunday service in order for the church to be considered missional? If we look at missional as some formula of how we can “do” church, then the answer would be no. However, if we look at being missional as a matter of the heart and an application of our love for our fellow humans and realize that not everyone may be willing to walk in the same shoes at the same time, then any body of Christ that exemplifies the Greatest Commandment is in-fact going to be missional.

As Alan Hirsch states on page 182 of his book The Forgotten Ways,

“One of the reflections arising out of my fifteen years’ experience at SMRC is that as we grew and began to operate in the classic church growth mode it became increasingly harder to find God in the midst of the progressively more machinelike apparatus required to ‘run a church.’ With numerical growth, it seemed that we were increasingly being drawn away from the natural rhythms of life, from direct ministry, and that our roles seemed to become more managerial than ever before.”

With Mr. Hirsch’s statement being a generalization of what is thought to occur in the mega-church model of ministry, there are definitely large, looming issues inherent in this model that could or would prevent a missional dna from developing as the environment can lend itself to becoming consumeristic and inwardly focused. However, with a missional vision for a mega-church committed to the Greatest Commandment, all things are possible with God.

The “third place” is a place where we go to find community outside of our home and workplace. Home is the first place, our work is the second place, (fill in the blank) ________ is our third place. It’s culture seems steeply rooted in Starbucks because that is exactly what Starbucks set out to create and where a lot of us spend time away from home and work. It’s of particular interest to Christians that seek a place to engage those that do not share our faith. So, I was interested to see a post on JR Woodward’s blog that described the third place as an English pub. It was actually a guest post by Mark Steffey, but it was something that I feel will cause Christians to be divided again. It’s definitely a polarizing issue. The main question here is should Christians engage the culture and relate to those of the world by meeting up with them and sharing their faith (and life in-general) while sharing drinks at the local bar? What if it was a pastor that did this? Oh boy, I could see the headlines now! Quoting from the book The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st Century Church, Steffey goes on to make the point that it allows Christians to be relevant and to be the light of Christ in what is generally a very dark place in the world:

Frost and Hirsch express the kind of interaction that must take place in our culture if we are to impact people with the truth and hope of the Gospel, “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”

Not only that, but the reason cited in the book for this approach of seeking a bar as our third place is this:

One the most common of “third places” for many people is a bar or pub. Subsequently, Christians should consider how they might frequent such establishments as a “missional outpost.” Frost says, “Two of the core ingredients that make third places fertile for mission are food and alcohol. Although it makes many conservative Christians uncomfortable, it’s a fact that many not-yet-Christians really open up about important issues over a meal and few drinks

What do you think about that? I would appreciate seeing some of your comments on this!