Missional...since it was raised in the "success" thread.

[Eric Frey]

How would you define "missional"? How does the missional approach differ from the church growth approach? What would a missional church look like to you?

I ask because it has come up in my own thinking, on my District, and now here in another thread. Perhaps we could all benefit from a little thought and clarification.

[Eric Frey]

1) Church Growth seeks converts; Missional Church seeks disciples –

A convert is one who has “prayed the prayer,” “prayed through,” “found Jesus,” or any number of other colloquialisms describing our response to God’s offer of grace. Now that they have prayed the prayer, they are in the club. Now their job is to get more people into the club. It is almost as if once they’re in, they’re in.

A disciple is one who walks daily with Christ. Praying “the prayer” becomes a way of life. At a recent retreat, 4 of my teens either became saved or rededicated their life to Christ. I completely affirmed them. I told them I was proud that they were sensitive to the call of Christ and that I was proud of them for responding to the call. But I also told them that whatever happened between them and God that night had to happen every day of their life. Relationships are only healthy when they are growing. A disciple is one who walks every day in a growing relationship with God through Christ.


2) Church Growth seeks salvation of souls; Missional Church seeks healing of persons –

Church Growth seems to fragment persons into component parts: soul, mind, body, finances, etc. The church exists to save the soul of sinners. Whether a person is suffering from mental illness, addiction, cancer, poverty, or any other number of issues, their real need is salvation.

Missional Church says, yes, people need salvation, but living in the kingdom of God means we have to also work with them to find healing of their mental illness, addiction, cancer, poverty, etc. By showing compassion and solidarity with the broken in all arenas, the church is being Christ and revealing God so that they might experience full salvation in all their life.


3) Church Growth emphasized sterile, contemporary worship; Missional Church emphasizes authentic, Christian worship –

Those who brought us church growth brought us churches that look like any other new building. They brought us so called “worship leaders” whose credentials include plenty in the arena of vocal performance and nothing in the arena of church or sacred music. They stripped the signs of our faith: art, crosses, pulpits, altars, fonts, etc., in favor of Thomas Kincaid, projector screens, Plexiglas podiums, and nothing in the realm of sacraments. It was almost as if the goal was to trick a person into becoming a Christian. I am reminded of the proverbial frog in the kettle. “Put ‘em in boiling water and they’ll jump out…put ‘em in cold water, turn up the heat slowly, and they’ll boil.” Worship quit being worship and started being cold water…never mind lukewarm (PLEASE FORGIVE MY RANT).

On the other hand, Missional Church embraces passionate and authentic, Christian worship. We see a return to the arts. We see a return to some degree of informed liturgy. We see a return to sacraments and biblical preaching. We see an embracingo of the mysterious and the sacred. People are looking for faith that is real and true and authentic. People want to follow those who are real and true and authentic. Worship once again becomes worship.


4) Church Growth aims to get the world into church; Missional Church aims to get the church into the world –

Church Growth measured “success” by how many people came to church and how many people joined a small group. The missional church measures “faithfulness” by how many needs are met, by how many people are involved in doing the work of Christ, by how many people are partnering with God, and to one another, in his divine mission. The Church Growth church is those people who are gathered. The Missional Church is those who are gathered to be sent.

[Billy Cox]

Just a quick post...more later.

For the most part, those seem like false distinctions that require a very narrow view of the Church Growth movement.

[Eric Frey]

That may be true. I'd love to hear more when you get time. My experience (whether attending "church growth" churches, being taught by "church growth" experts, or being taught "church growth" methods and principles) is that the distinctions, at least fit my experience.

Looking forward to your observation and experiences.

[Scott Sherwood]

Our official denominational statement on being missional (http://www.nazarene.org/ministries/administration/centennial/core/missional/display.aspx)

[Wilson L. Deaton]

1) Church Growth seeks converts; Missional Church seeks disciples –

Sad but true, though I see this as a problem of modern evangelicalism in general, and not just church growth movement.

2) Church Growth seeks salvation of souls; Missional Church seeks healing of persons –

Though a slightly different nuance or angle, this is basically same as #1.

3) Church Growth emphasized sterile, contemporary worship; Missional Church emphasizes authentic, Christian worship –

I really dislike/disagree with this one. I would agree that Church Growth worship wasn't always very "deep" or "profound." I would agree that at times it was/is too "performance" oriented. However, I cannot accept "sterile" and I certainly can't agree that it wasn't authentic or that it wasn't even Christian (which is implied by opposing it to worship that is authentic and Christian).


4) Church Growth aims to get the world into church; Missional Church aims to get the church into the world –

I believe this is true. However, while I strongly value getting the church into the world, I'm not sure I can say that getting the world into the church is not also a good goal.

Church Growth measured “success” by how many people came to church and how many people joined a small group. The missional church measures “faithfulness” by how many needs are met, by how many people are involved in doing the work of Christ, by how many people are partnering with God, and to one another, in his divine mission.

I tend toward the idea that we have no business even trying to "measure" success. But if we must measure the "missional" plan is better.

Wilson

[Ryan Scott]

I really dislike/disagree with this one. I would agree that Church Growth worship wasn't always very "deep" or "profound." I would agree that at times it was/is too "performance" oriented. However, I cannot accept "sterile" and I certainly can't agree that it wasn't authentic or that it wasn't even Christian (which is implied by opposing it to worship that is authentic and Christian).


The term un-Christian has a wide variety of connotations that make it both appropriate and inappropriate in this situation. When I read the word sterile here, I thought of the focus on "happy" songs and songs with a lot of "I"s in them. I think the Church Growth movement isn't entirely characterized by contemporary vs traditional style, but it did remove a lot of the "controversial" or perhaps better termed "troubling" aspects of our worship. Those things that really made people understand that it took faith more than knowledge to experience God. I think it was sterilized in the sense that it became too narrowly focused on what the worshiper received, rather than on the relationship between God and creation. "Un-Christian" is probably too harsh for this, but it certainly wasn't entirely Christian (although by that criteria, none of our services are).

[Billy Cox]

I tend toward the idea that we have no business even trying to "measure" success. But if we must measure the "missional" plan is better.


While transformation is a better indication of 'success' in a Wesleyan context, it tends to be expressed in anecdotal evidence - which defies measurement. Even a do-nothing pastor could fabricate a good transformation story.

I don't know the answer, but I do know that as long as money is involved, there will be an effort to measure return on investment.

[William Hunter]

I think the whole church growth and missional church ideas completely miss the point. We like to focus on the "go" and the "baptize" in the Great Commission. What about "teaching them to obey all that I commanded you..."? The fact that the biggest need of the church today is ADULT spiritual development goes far to make the point. A few months ago Dr. Henry Blackaby said he has asked pastors for 20 yrs. if they have intentionally listed the commands of Jesus and systematically taught their people from that. He said he has found only one pastor that had.

In Isa. 56:7 God said His house will be called a house prayer. The average congregation is anything but that. Well, what does a house of prayer look like. I would recommend the reading of Cheryl Sacks' book, "The Prayer Saturated Church." I have dozens of books, DVD's and CD's on prayer. I think this may be the finest book on this subject we have today. She answers well this question, but let me give a few thoughts. What did Jesus have in mind when He quoted His Father in Mark 11:17?

Dr. Greg Frizzell wrote: "If a restaurant is called a 'House of Fish,' tht implies...that the predominant practice of that establishment is the cooking and eating of fish. When you call a place a 'house of something' you certainly expect that 'something' to be the predominate practice of the establishment. In exactly the same way, the church is to be a 'house of prayer,' God expects prayer to be its predominant ongoing practice. When a church chooses to become a house of prayer, the practice of prayer literally saturates all it does." Because a house in a dwelling place, a house of prayer then is a dwelling place for God---a place where we abide in perfect communion and intimacy with Him. Out of communion withHim will come strategies, plans, and power to accomplish the mission of the church.

If Jesus visited any of our churches next Sunday, I believe we would see another Matt. 21:12-16, a display of Christ's righteous anger, as He goes about cleansing His church. That is the first thing Jesus did here in this chapter when He showed up at the Temple on a Sabbath day. When we invite God to dwell in our midst, it is an invitation for Him to dismantle everything that the Holy Spirit did not initiate. Isa. 56 talks about what a house of prayer is.

Sacks says: "God's purposes are hindered when we look at prayer ministry as just another program of the church. Prayer is communion with the living God. Wothout prayer, the life flow from Christ to His body is cut off; the church ceases to be a living organism and becomes little different from any other organization." I believe it is right here where local congregations and denominations loose their way. You can tell when they have for most of what they do is about survival of the institution rather than the mission of Christ. Sacks: "In the Old Testament, God's house, or temple, was built of stone, but in the New Testament it was built of his people (see Eph. 2:19-22). The defining characteristics of that new house is that God's very presence would dwell among His people in a love relationship through prayer. No record exists in Scripture of another way God prefers to relate to His people..."

When a church prays before its board mtgs., SS classes, etc., that is not a praying church. The ministries and were not birthed in God's heart and laid over ours in prayer. Most of our programs/"ministries" are nothing more than human creations born to try and draw a crowd. Most often we plan and buy the resources, and then ask God to bless OUR plans. That is not the way of a house of prayer. But I can testify to the fact that when a pastor tries to bring a cong. to the place that it is truly a house of prayer, Satan will rise up in serious oppostion, but I would rather follow God's lead, no matter what the suffering. As we all say at times, I've read the last chapter and I know where it all comes out.

I think all this church growth and missional talk is putting the cart before the horse and we are paying the price of a church in America that by and large is not showing more that a percentage single point or two of real growth. We are using human ideas and plans and not waiting on God to see what HIS plan is, we are not spending enough time in prayer to let Him lay His heart over ours so that our thoughts and intents are transformed and are the same as His.

I could write much more on this but we are limited here. Read the book mentioned above and you will see a whole new and God intended way for the church. And the result of becoming a true house of prayer and teaching the commands of Christ leads to spiritual and numerical growth in the church.

[Billy Cox]

If Jesus visited any of our churches next Sunday, I believe we would see another Matt. 21:12-16, a display of Christ's righteous anger, as He goes about cleansing His church.


I am not willing to agree with such a sweeping judgment. The point of clearing the temple was not to advocate more prayer but to repudiate the business enterprise that had taken over the court of the Gentiles.



Sacks says: "God's purposes are hindered when we look at prayer ministry as just another program of the church. Prayer is communion with the living God. Wothout prayer, the life flow from Christ to His body is cut off; the church ceases to be a living organism and becomes little different from any other organization."

This is a good quote and it presents the challenge: How can a church do anything on purpose without making it a program?



And the result of becoming a true house of prayer and teaching the commands of Christ leads to spiritual and numerical growth in the church.

Yes... We should stop asking God to grow our church and instead pray for God's will and the grace that we need in order to be conformed to it.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Unfortunately, the term missional has moved away from what some early Nazarene proponents meant when they used it. Chuck Zink was one of those. I remembering him saying that he suspected the term soon would come to be a replacement of terms like church growth or the missionary enterprise. While for Chuck it was certainly had to do with the mission of the Church, he also spoke of its broader meaning. Foundationally, he used it to mean that a party comprehended what they were about and committed solely to doing that. If it didn't contribute to the essence of one's being, it wasn't missional. There are some things that we do that might be extremely important and necessary, yet not missional. Discovering and committing to one's missional can be a pretty revolutionary activity.

Making disciples is better than making converts. It probably has little to do with music style. Alas, much of what is now touted as missional is not a whole lot more than the latest label on the same old stuff. Too bad, we may have missed something revolutionary.

. . . and these days, the next cutesy them is "church health." Maybe we can get some good from each of these themes.

[Tami Martin]

Seems like a lesson in semantics to me. Look at the changes in the word "liberal" over the decades.

This thread made me think about something my husband shared with our congregation the other night. We were having a Talent Night of which I had the dubious honor of being emcee. Some sang and some read various types of readings. Mike read a couple of passages out of C.S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters." I can't quote it, but in one letter, Uncle Screwtape talks about the church. Not THE Church, that great and terrible world-sweeping entity like an army with banners that even the most stern of tempters fears, but the visible church. The church which is all about what we see, who we are, the petty squabbles we engage in, the scandals, etc.

We can never hope to measure the REAL church. Or the work thereof. I can only strive to be a part of it.

[Billy Cox]

I think that 'missional' and 'purpose driven' (properly understood) mean the same thing except that 'purpose driven' has a more intuitive meaning to rank and file church people.

[Billy Cox]

. . . and these days, the next cutesy them is "church health." Maybe we can get some good from each of these themes.

Haha... How about if we jump ahead of the curve and start developing resources for "the non-dying church"?

[William Hunter]

Billy, read the book I mentioned. In becoming actively involved in Church Prayer Leader's Network, and Harvest Prayer ministries, and their prayer conferences. it does not take one long to see that if it is done right, led right, etc. a prayer saturated church never allows prayer to become a program. But to see this one has to expose themselves to the materials and prayer influences I have. When I started this journey I wondered the same thing, but it did not take long before I realized that is a depth or prayer and prayer insights that the average pastor and church has no idea of.

We've hired Steve Weber as our Dist. prayer coach. He has found out about this kind of prayer I am talking about and is leaving denominational employ to work this business of prayer full time. There just is alot out there that most here on NN, and in the COTN in general as no clue about.




I am not willing to agree with such a sweeping judgment. The point of clearing the temple was not to advocate more prayer but to repudiate the business enterprise that had taken over the court of the Gentiles.




This is a good quote and it presents the challenge: How can a church do anything on purpose without making it a program?




Yes... We should stop asking God to grow our church and instead pray for God's will and the grace that we need in order to be conformed to it.

[Roy Richardson]

How would you define "missional"? How does the missional approach differ from the church growth approach? What would a missional church look like to you?

I ask because it has come up in my own thinking, on my District, and now here in another thread. Perhaps we could all benefit from a little thought and clarification.

Not to shill for my own blog, but I wrote a 6-part series on this earlier this year.

Part 1 (http://reformedposer.blogspot.com/2007/01/missional-churches-first-in-series_17.html)

Part 2 (http://reformedposer.blogspot.com/2007/01/missional-churches-second-in-series.html)

Part 3 (http://reformedposer.blogspot.com/2007/01/missional-churches-third-in-series.html)

Part 4 (http://reformedposer.blogspot.com/2007/01/missional-churches-fourth-in-series_22.html)

Part 5 (http://reformedposer.blogspot.com/2007/01/missional-churches-fifth-in-series.html)

Part 6 (http://reformedposer.blogspot.com/2007/01/missional-churches-concluding-thoughts.html)

The final post had some concluding thoughts that might be useful here as well:

"Don't get hung up on terms. Missional is a mindset, not a form. I know in Christianity we love to classify people and groups. Emergent, post-modern, missional, liberal, charismatic, mainline, fundamentalist. Labels help us understand, but they also limit us. Focus on what a church is doing, not what it calls itself. If the majority of their activity is internal, that may not be your place if you are a Great Commission -oriented believer.

Since this is a relatively new concept in the Christian vernacular, expect a great deal of turbulence as the concept progresses. As the Church emerges from the Constantinian era, there will be a great deal of turbulence, much like the post-99 theses era. Apply a great deal of grace to your thoughts during this time."

[Roy Richardson]

How would you define "missional"? How does the missional approach differ from the church growth approach? What would a missional church look like to you?

I ask because it has come up in my own thinking, on my District, and now here in another thread. Perhaps we could all benefit from a little thought and clarification.

This video clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvFbzpAwHdw) might spur some thought as well.