We began the missional journey knowing that the path we are walking is, for us, largely an uncharted adventure. We committed to discovering and defining the markers along the way that can guide those who follow. Some of those markers were found at the edge of the forest; they were obvious and easy. Some have taken us by surprise. As we round the corner we discover abrupt changes in the landscape: what was expected just isn’t there. We are discovering at some of those turns that our “church common sense,” that body of information and expectations we carry around with us, accumulated through years of church activity, is no longer adequate to help us navigate. In fact, there are times when “proceeding as normal” is the worst thing we can do.
At those times it is helpful to pitch our tent and evaluate our decision-making process before considering our next turn. The following discussion is one of those moments.
We are well into our second year as a missional team in a defined target area in the urban center of Fort Wayne, Indiana. We currently have nine adults who are committed to the team. Every one of us comes from a church background and most have deep ties to three local churches from two denominations.
Our major goals with church people are twofold. First, we must embrace a missional/incarnational theology. That includes the following essential elements:
1. Understanding the concept of the missio dei—that God has always been on a mission to seek, save and redeem. The mission of God dominated the life and teaching of Jesus; and the missio dei calls every follower of Christ that very lifestyle.
2. The essence of missional theology is relationships. Our triune God, the ultimate relational being, expects us to express our theology and communicate His love relationally. Our Western worldview is more propositional, rather than relational, in nature. The missional/incarnational model moves people to see life and ministry through another lens.
3. Our cultural/evangelical application of church ministry has traditionally been centripetal in nature: that is, we have buildings/properties where ministry happens, and church members and seekers are expected to move toward that central point. In this regard we use the term attractional to help define this kind of ministry model. The vast majority of church people are so familiar with this as the only model we know that we rarely stop to ask if there might be other, equally legitimate models.
4. The Scriptures call believers to a set of relationships that are centrifugal in nature: we are sent out to the needy rather than expecting the needy to come to us. Since Jesus calls His followers salt and light, then we strive to invest our lives and resources where those qualities make the most impact.
5. The missio dei calls us to redefine our local context. Where I work, play and live is a mission field and this is where my ministry must begin.
The second major goal is related to the first, but more clearly defines how I relate to my world as a person of mission. This is one of those unexpected turns along the way. We never anticipated how challenging the adoption of these values is, and how the whole missional process hangs on moving from what we have known to what our times demand.
In essence, the second goal is the gateway through which people from church backgrounds can find permission and freedom to live in a manner that brings power to the concepts embedded in the first goal. The first goal is essential in orienting our thinking. The second goal moves those concepts into everyday experience.
Our second goal is currently coming into focus. As it becomes clarified, we are discovering the many familiar layers of expectation and assumptions that must be addressed if missional teams are to truly flourish. Here it is in a nutshell: missional people must decide how to redefine “Church.” The implications for this definition are staggering. We shall make some brief comments for the benefit of individuals stepping out into mission and for church leaders contemplating how to empower them.
Inside or Outside
We have a missional teammate sharing our house. She has a cat. The cat goes mostly unnoticed, but there are times that it becomes maddening. One of those times is when she yowls at the door to go outside. I will open the door to let the cat out and then the drama begins. The cat rarely shoots out the door as expected—most often she will hesitate; looking out at freedom, then looking at me, the impatient doorkeeper. Should I try to coax the cat out, or move in her direction, she skitters away. I shut the door in disgust and the cat stays inside.
How many times have we stood at the door, hesitating to go outside? This doesn’t automatically imply that we all operate out of fear, and therefore we choose disobedience over possible hardship. Very often we are like that cat: the doorkeeper seemingly bidding us to go outside doesn’t look all that believable.
Our centripetal church model has subtly convinced us that attendance at meetings, and involvement in building-based activities, are some of the significant indicators of spiritual maturity. From which pool of candidates do we choose when considering members for church leadership? One common denominator is those persons’ level of involvement and attendance at centripetal functions.
Meanwhile, preachers and teachers expound the virtues of the Great Commission and offer tips on evangelism. All the while we are locked in the middle of two equal and opposite magnetic pulls: be more involved in the church ministry and its programs; go out and reach your neighbors. We find friendship and support from fellow believers in our church culture; the more we are involved the more isolated we are from impacting our unsaved friends and neighbors (unless they accept our offer to attend church, which all the major cultural trends definitively state that this is rapidly losing effect in our world). Yet we hear the message of God’s heart. We stand at the door, frozen in indecision.
This indecision has implications for individuals and church leaders. For the individual, accepting the concepts surrounding missio dei but not significantly acting upon them leave missional teams in frustration and futility. Individuals contemplating their participation on a missional team must evaluate their level of involvement in the traditional church organization. In a real sense, for missional teams to flourish, there has to be a break for the door. “Insiders” must choose to become “outsiders.”
People moving into the missional lifestyle who remain “insiders” will continue to see their local church as their source of fellowship and fulfillment when it comes to feeding and worship. They will also tend to default to paid professionals to do the heavy lifting in ministry. Consider the possibility that the two most common defining activities of the traditional church are preaching/teaching and worship on Sunday mornings. If this is true, then the average believer must default to a passive experience in a professionally-led environment. What this leaves for a missional team are individuals who attend meetings, but who do not dive headlong into relationships with fellow team members beyond what church-based small groups traditionally provide. They are too busy; their loyalties are divided. And as long as their feeding and worship experience is provided for them, whatever happens in the team setting is icing on the spiritual cake.
As we all know, icing is optional.
Church leaders who truly desire to see their members blossom in a missional environment must evaluate whether teachings from the pulpit coupled with subtle pressure to “go to church” actually create a dissonance that leaves their followers camped in the valley of indecision. What can be done—what must be done—by local church leadership to free people to head out into the great unknown?
One radical (but we deem biblical) turning point is to promote the Great Commission in the individual’s sphere of influence as our destiny and defining activity. This kind of dynamic is truly what should define the Church. As long as corporate worship and the preaching/teaching of the Word are promoted (however subtly) as the central, defining activities of the Church, regular members will continue to treat the Great Commission casually.
What might happen in local neighborhoods if believers, empowered and encouraged by their fellowships, were able to invest themselves fully in a centrifugal lifestyle?
Feed or Fed
Our second theme follows closely on the previous point. One problem the Western Church faces in this era is that we have become victims of our own success. Teaching in local churches is enhanced (and often eclipsed) by supplemental purveyors of truth on TV, in print and through podcasts. All I have to do is open my ears and let the stream fill my brain.
Let’s go on record right now: listening to Bible teaching is not wrong, sinful or misguided. It is simply not enough. We will go on record as saying that receiving teaching was never God’s intention as our primary source of knowing Him and His Word. We must become self-feeding followers of Jesus who gather together out of fullness rather than emptiness.
Missional teams strive to promote the practice of self-feeding. This has three distinct advantages when one is attempting to establish a missional lifestyle: self-feeding untethers the believer, it enhances team dynamics, and it personalizes the priesthood.
Self-feeding as the primary source of one’s spiritual nutrition allows the follower of Jesus to begin the untethering process. Those who grew up standing in their boat tied to the dock sharing fishing stories with all the other boaters tied to their docks can gain confidence that the boats were really designed to push away from shore and head for open waters. Self-feeding starts the process of confidence-building for the great adventure outside the safe harbor.
Self-feeding enhances team dynamics by developing a model of gathering together where everyone has something to share, which is what builds the Church (1 Corinthians 14:26). This separates missional gatherings from our traditional home Bible study format and gives organic life more fertile soil in which to grow.
Self-feeding also personalizes the priesthood of the everyday follower of Jesus. Taking responsibility to feed oneself, coupled with an expectation that God may give that same person something to share when the group gathers, makes the individual much more likely to leave the bleachers and move down to the field.
What can local church leaders do to help encourage self-feeding and thereby give their missional folks a reasonable opportunity to thrive in the new atmosphere? Offering more Sunday School classes on how to study the Bible may actually perpetuate the dissonance and keep potential movers idling at the door. This is an issue that must be discussed and debated. The Baby Boom generation, of which I am part, cut our spiritual teeth on the church growth principles that for many made teaching the Word an end in itself. This has some significant implications for those in professional ministry whose gifting and calling have them staying within organized fellowships. This might mean discovering a new persona for those whose primary responsibility and identity has been behind the pulpit.
Parent or Guardian
The final theme in our quest to re-vision Church more explicitly guides the professional. How can an organization affect significant change if those guiding it remain the same? What this missional impulse needs from the inside-out are pastors and leaders who choose to lead their congregants as parents rather than guardians.
My mother-in-law once told me that her goal as a parent was to raise her kids so that, when they were 18, they were ready, willing and able to move out on their own. No responsible pastor would intentionally raise a generation of spiritually jobless 35-year-olds who still live with their parents. As we have already stated, our collective skill with worship and the Word may actually be encouraging many in our congregations to never strike out on their own because Mom and Dad continue to provide everything they need.
Moses speaks of this in Genesis 2 when he reminds newlyweds to leave their parents and cling to each other. Embedded in the notion of leaving are parents who “get it” and allow and encourage their children to act like adults. This works best when parents initiate a new order of relationship with their kids as friends and peers.
Perhaps the converse of that image is that of a guardian who hovers over the child, dictating (or strongly suggesting) what would be best.
Our best scenario would find church leaders and missional members meeting in a new middle ground. Each gives back to the larger group. Each sees the other with new eyes. Each does his or her part to make the missio dei a reality. Then all, including a previously unpenetrated surrounding community, benefit.
Our enemy would like nothing better than division and alienation amongst the followers of Jesus. Without a strong and clear emphasis on the missio dei, the traditional Church in North America will continue its slow but steady decline. And without the backing of church leaders, missionally-repurposed believers will never enjoy the impact they desire.
We need each other.
More importantly, our world needs the Church in action.
