All Comments for: What Makes a Church Missional? | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > March

Christianity Today, March, 2008 |

What Makes a Church Missional?

Freedom from cultural captivity does not mean freedom from tradition.

J. Todd Billings | posted 3/05/2008 09:36AM

The terms missional and missional church are barely 10 years old, but already they bring up more than half a million hits on a Google search. Churches are inundated with missional books, missional websites, ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

JakeT

Posted: March 17, 2008 11:29 AM


Great article, with a lot of clarity and balance. It's great to see well balanced writing that isn't afraid to be critical all around w/o being reactionary. I think we've got a to learn along the lines of the article's conclusion: every tradition could use some balance, both from being truly missional and from other traditions.

Confused

Posted: March 10, 2008 7:49 PM


Re: Ephrem Hagos' comment Who or What church qualifies as 'the true church' according to your comment. Roman Catholic? Greek Orthodox? Presbyterians? Duck River Baptist? All the above?

Ephrem Hagos

Posted: March 10, 2008 1:45 AM


All the meanings of "missional" given in Billings's article are indicative of the deprived conditions of our churches in opposition to the one and only "church" built according to the blueprint and on the foundation of a highly missional, firsthand and personal knowledge of the identity of Jesus Christ (Matt. 16: 13-29). To our loss, this is something completely out of currency today!

Ron Henzel

Posted: March 08, 2008 12:05 PM

In my opinion, the following two sentences should not have been separated by four paragraphs, but should have been closely related to each other in the context: (1) "Hearing McLaren and others, the kingdom often sounds like nothing more than a set of ethical activities in which anyone—Christian, Muslim, or atheist—can participate." And (2) "Theology divides, but mission unites, or so goes the mantra." McLaren's approach to the kingdom is essentially nothing more than a regurgitation of the early 20th century liberal approach, whose actual motto was, "Doctrine divides, service unites."

Ron.....Again

Posted: March 07, 2008 9:23 AM

Even though this article sought to discuss the term 'missional' it still brought some questions of mine to the table regarding the emerging church. Will much of the the emerging church become sectarian seperatistic much like is found among fundamentalists? Will the term 'missional' become a buzz word for the movement to determine who is 'in' and who is 'out'? Is the emerging church deliberately being ambiguous or evasive on certain issues or is this just a common factor found in most expressions of religion and spirituality?

Rev. Tim Truesdell

Posted: March 06, 2008 4:44 PM

Excellent article as the church seeks to rediscover its identity and find its mission/purpose. As this article explores what it means to be 'missional' or a 'missional church,' I find it just as enlightening to see how churches see the need to use an adjective to identify/distinguish itself from other churches. Or in some cases, drop the Biblical concept of 'church' altogether and slap on the "Followers of Jesus" identity. This has been ongoing throughout the Reformation and continues today as we move from Reformed/Lutheran/etc. to nondenominational to missional/emergent as a way to find identity the church. The former being considered outdated in our culture, while the latter will soon find itself replaced with newer concepts. Some days, I would love to start my own church from scratch, while other days I recognize that we are truly one church in one faith. My prayer is that we may find fellowship and communion in Christ in a common mission to which God calls his church.

R	Posted: March 06, 2008 3:07 PM

I am at least glad to see that the author of this article upholds a high view of the church. But I can predict that if the emerging church movement grows that anything spontaneous about it will soon disappear once it becomes institutionalized. Before you know it we will have emerging church music labels, publishing houses, radio stations, seminaries ect. Or maybe the movement will jusst fizzle out like the hippie movement of the 60s to to lack of leadership and its inability to re-contextualize its message for a new generation.

marianne miller

Posted: March 06, 2008 2:57 PM

I found this article very difficult to follow. Typically, the CT articles that I read shed light on or else clarify cultural Christian issues and grant a bit of a reflection of what we, as Christ-followers, look like. I was unable to get a handle on any real thought that this man had. Perhaps it was the glut of comparisons in the article along with the lack of a clear singular statement that made this author's presentation so maze-like.

David Hui

Posted: March 06, 2008 1:44 PM

I found the article helpful as well. Going back to the original thinking & intent behind the term made sense, and identifying some of the misuses was eye-opening for me. However, for someone looking for a concise definition of the word, this, and other related articles & blogs I've read, doesn't quite hit the mark. I can't help wonder: why is that? Perhaps it's because the term comes across as a simple adjective when it's not; it's really a term that describes a complex theological position. Still, at the risk of over-simplifying, could I define missional as "that which embodies at its core both the identity of being Christ’ witness in the world and a thoughtful emphasis on being externally focused?"

Bob Porter

Posted: March 06, 2008 1:31 PM

I appreciated the balance and tone of this article. However, I am concerned about our apparent fascination with buzzwords that have no agreed upon definition (emergent, missional, etc.). I do appreciate any effort to clarify these terms (such as Five Streams of the Emerging Church, February 2007 and this article), but the bigger question is Why do we insist on using these words? As someone who considers communication to be critically important, I find myself wanting to define every important word that I try to use and avoid words that cannot be precisely defined.

Patrick Dennis

Posted: March 06, 2008 11:13 AM


Overall a fairly fair article. Without attacking the author sees the diffenciency of some of the missional thinking. To talk about the era of Christendom vs missional thinking since 1996 is painting with very broad strokes. This has been my problem with many of the people I have met overseas who are into the Emergent books. Everything is based on a very simplistic reading of history.

Rory Marais - South Africa

Posted: March 06, 2008 1:11 AM

The article comes off as being balanced giving a view taking most sides. However, I come from a Methodist childhood but now find myself on the side of the Brian McLarens and the Alan Hirschs. I would like to add another to that list: Neil Cole - Organic Church. My understanding of being "missional" is taking the book of Acts and duplicating it. Christ's directive to the "church" before he ascended into heaven was to "make disciples of all nations" - not to "plant churches, form denominations or anything else of that nature". Like myself, countless other Followers-of-Christ (as opposed to Christians) are fed up with the - dare I say it - CRAP that accompanies denominationalism and institutional church structures. Anyone that has been part of a council/regional meeting will understand what I'm referring to. Lets get back to the basics: Love YHWH with body, mind and soul and love all others as yourself. Lets partner with GOD in impacting lives as opposed building "empires". Bless You !

john dettoni

Posted: March 05, 2008 6:52 PM

"missional" is not an early 21st Century concept. Kennon Callahan, in his book Effective Church Leadership, p 21 uses the word at the conclusion of his first chapter. His whole thesis is that the church must be outward focused and not just inward. However, I go back to the rather seminal command of Jesus in Mt. 28: Because or while or since you are going, make disciples of all nations..... The Church needs to regain the meaning of this commandment. It may be rather simple-minded to say this should be the focus of the Church, but I have a difficult time with finding another commandment that Jesus gave that gives the overall direction to His Church. If the Church is not about discipleship making, then what is it about? The emphasis on the Kingdom of God is certainly in the Gospels and Jesus came to announce its coming and Luke says that Paul "...prerached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 28:31). The Kingdom focuses on Jesus * following Him.

Roger - Australia

Posted: March 05, 2008 6:03 PM

I'm with Randy. 'Missional' is a clang word that states the obvious. Like calling water 'wet'. Biblical Christianity and therefore biblical Christians are missional at the core. But my concern is that being missional without backing it up with discipleship training and bible training for newly converted Christians results in a new generation of superficial Christians who will swallow anything. A missional church must also back this up with discipleship and solid biblical training - so as to help new Christians mature and progress along the journey of sanctification.

Paul Wilkinson

Posted: March 05, 2008 3:36 PM

During the 1980s, evangelicals began embracing worship with choruses and upraised hands that had heretofore been part of the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements, but to describe many of those churches as Charismatic would be to mis-label them. It's the same thing here. Many (mostly younger) leaders have captured bits and pieces from the writings of "missional" authors of the past decade and are applying them to local congregations in a vast variety of ways. But the manifestation of "missional" in particular and the sheer breadth and width of the movement in general makes it impossible to pigeon-hole anyone using the term. I think that Bill Hybels had it right years ago when he recognized that (a) lost people matter to God and (b) reaching the lost sometimes necessitates changes in what we do on Sunday mornings. Though accumulated land and buildings would disqualify him from full acceptance by "missional" devotees, the heart of both movements is strikingly similar.

Sam Andress

Posted: March 05, 2008 3:32 PM


I think you caricature Brian McLaren's emphasis of Kingdom of God based on his most recent books. But you are right, Brian, like Jesus emphasizes that everything flows from the reality of Kingdom of God being present in the shell of the current (old) world, in anticipation of the new.

Allan W. Miller, Sr.

Posted: March 05, 2008 3:08 PM


Our denominational headquarters, Church of the Nazarene is called Global, but we are definitely missional and that is expressed also.

wes hagen

Posted: March 05, 2008 1:57 PM

It was probably a decade ago that I read that "the primary purpose of the Church is to serve those who are non-members." This seemed to capture what God has revealed to me over 6 decades. Many years ago, I remember an old man standing up in a meeting and saying, "Don't preach to me, show me," then he sat down. I was taken back by the honest wisdom.....from a homeless "bum". It wasn't a church service, it was an AA meeting. "But for the grace of God, there go I."

Randy

Posted: March 05, 2008 1:52 PM

It is a silly word made up by people cut off from Scriptural Christianity. The word itself is another compromise with culture. You have to wonder how the church survived for 2000 years without this word or its users. I would love to see us go backwards and return to simple biblical Christianity where Christians are more committed to Christ than they are to being cool or being culturally relevant. Then, missions would not be a question, neither would holiness nor evangelism. I know, it sounds like a simple answer to a complicated problem. But really, it is a complicated answer to a simple problem. Otherwise, more people would try it.

Gaylan Mathiesen

Posted: March 05, 2008 1:30 PM

This is indeed a timely word. There is a great deal of confusion about the word "missional." For many it means the same thing as "missions:" the activities of the Church carried out in response to the Great Commission; or it means all the things that Church Growth and Church Health have offered in order for the Church to be "successful one more time." None of these hit the mark. The core of missional theology is indeed the grounding and sourcing of mission in the Triune God, and the Church responding to what God has done, is doing and wants to do. The author also rightly points out that missional conversation at times underestimates what God has done in the past through His Church. When we do so, we forget that this is indeed God's work, and that He often works in spite of us as well as through us. The Mission of God works toward the Kingdom of God, primarily through the Church of God as we bear witness to what God has done through His Son in the cross and resurrection.

Krista Mournet

Posted: March 05, 2008 12:07 PM

Thank you for this timely word; in an age when the word 'missional' is so over-used that it is at risk of becoming use-less, I am grateful for this bit of clarity. May we hear these words and resist some of the temptations that befall us, particularly in the North American evangelical movement. Thank you also for locating your thoughts in particular traditions--what would you say to Baptists? I would be interested to know. There is much to learn and to take on the mantle of God's mission, we as the people of God must be careful, prayerful, and discerning. Thank you again for these helpful words.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment