Changing this mindset in American church culture may be the greatest barrier we face in order to see a great movement of God in this generation. I, as a pastor, take the blame. In the past I have incorrectly focused to much on getting people to come rather than training people to go. If we can begin to do church biblically, I may just work myself out of a job (salary). We have become too dependent on our facilities and resources. We must learn to do what Jesus commands without programs, buildings, and money.

I always thought a missional church was one where the pastor had a goatee and preached in jeans and sandals, and said things like "I'm really stoked to be here today".

Actually, as an old fogey pastor, I've had trouble trying to wrap my brain around what all these young whipper-snappers mean by "missional." The "simple" video above explained it about as well as any I have ever seen.

In fact, we are linking to that at sbcIMPACT to help get this video out. Maybe more crusty old folks like me will finally understand.

AWESOME AWESOME AWESOME!

I have been thinking and talking about this for the past few weeks and these videos explain what I've been dealing with perfectly!

This is HUGE! I have to be a part of this.

What are some ways I can go? The only friends I have are Christians. How can I do something regularly that gets me in the world? Any suggestions Ed?

How would you (all of you, not just Ed) suggest working for change in a situation where (to use the terms of the second video):

Invitation = Evangelism = Missional
?

Attractional and missional aren't necessarily at odds but how would you try to help a pastor who thinks that they mean the same thing, i.e., a missional church is one where lots of people are attracted to a Sunday morning event.

This isn't just hypothetical; I'm pulling my hair out here.

How about rather than having your regular Sunday night activities at the church facility, train your people to get in the community. You could prayer walk nearby neighborhoods on Sunday afternoons. Then follow up by distributing materials that invite them to a back yard Bible club or Home Bible study. I'm amazed you guys are asking how to mobilize the church into the lostness that surrounds you. When everything we do revolves around activities at the church building, we're not much different than Roman Catholicism. Everything has become ritual. Force yourself and others to interact with non-believers. Start spending time where they are.

Ed,
In your opinion, is "missional" just a new phrasing of Stott's "incarnational" idea? If not, what are the differences? If so, why change the wording?

Anon Steve,

I think one crucial point of our thinking that needs to change in this regard (and what I would stress with others who don't seem to get the missional concept yet) is that the Sunday morning gathering of the church, BIBLICALLY, is not an evangelistic rally. Rallies have their place, but all of the instruction that Paul and the apostles give for what we're called to do when the church gathers is focused on **the encouragement and up-building (disciplining) of a believer.** Somewhere along the way American evangelicalism got the idea that the ultimate goal for a church service is to replicate a Billy Graham Crusade. That's neither biblical nor reasonable.

This may be heresy to some, but I think the overuse of the "invitational system" ("...now if you've never accepted Jesus into your heart, I want you to come down front right now...") confuses people into thinking that a church gathering = an evangelistic rally. It's probably seen as the climax of the service for most, even though the biblical instructions focus on prayer, preaching, bible reading, Lord's Supper, etc, not the evangelization of visitors. Of course, the sermon needs to call for a response to repent and believe in Jesus; but it may just be that if the pastor stops calling people down front, the people in the pews may begin to understand that they'll need to ask their friends over lunch whether they have understood the Gospel, see their sins before a Holy God, and know that Christ is the Savior for all those who would believe on Him. If the pastor teaches that all need to be responsible to share the gospel with their friends/neighbors, but takes on the roll of supreme evangelizer in all the gatherings of the church, it sends mixed messages.

Finally, this shift requires that we see the goal of "salvation" not as met when one repents and believes in Christ; but that biblically, salvation is that initial work + God's continual sanctification of a believer - making them into the very image of His Son. If the goal of the church is seen as simply churning out "decisions", the old model will prevail; but if we begin to see the goal of the church as presenting believers mature in Christ (=disciple making) we'll be on a much healthier and more biblical path. And if you wanted, you could probably call that "missional."

Steve,
My perspective.--
"Attractional church models" mostly attract "churchy" people.(people with church backgrounds) Seekers will be attracted to a preacher's sermon, programs, music, etc. Some individuals can simply be asked to come to a church function, but many "unchurched" can only be reached by less traditional means. (Which sounds like an oxymoron. We should be sharing Christ one on one as our traditional norm, not the exception.)

Think of the Missional Christian as one that intentionaly develops a "sixth sense" for those needing the presence of Christ (broad definition) in their life. The "need" sensed by the Missional Christian (MC) may be physical, emotional, or spiritual in nature. In the name of Christ, the MC acts on that need by "ministering" (broad definition again) out of compassion to the one in need. This may require building a relationship, baking a casserole, sending a card, making a phone call, evengelizing; sharing the love of Christ in some relevant context for that individual to both the saved and the lost.

Jesus was very intentional with his actions and words, always being aware of those around him and ministering to their needs on their level in the moment. There is no biblical account of Jesus asking others to join him down at the synagogue for the 11 AM service where they would be greeted at the door with suited individuals handing out a freshly written orders of service and emotionaly moved by the best music program in all of Jerusalem. Jesus was the original example of missional. He ministered where the need was.

The missional movement is trying to get Christ followers to understand there is more to sharing Christ than inviting someone to church. Is the church building the only place Jesus can be shared? Jesus did some of his best work in the "streets". Many unchurched need to see Christ at work in us and begin to understand His love. Do we want people to know Jesus or join a church? Many need to be "Jesused" by his disciples first, then "churched".

The problem I see, and I seldom see this discussed by missional leaders, is the fact that many Christians, or church attenders, only want to be that; attenders. Some folks attend church for the worship experience, for entertainment, because it's Sunday, so they can see their friends, etc. and for the established traditional church a true missional shift will be like pushing a chain. But if leaders can model and begin to convince one Christian, and then another, and then another, it may be contagious thereby forming a "missional church". Missional modeling will not take place from the pulpit.

Some compare the missional movement to a reformation, but unlike other religious reformations over the past centuries, the missional reformation, if it happens, must be led by Jesus himself. It will happen out of love and compassion, not because some individual makes a new proclimation, creed, or creates a new denomination. (Not even Ed Stetzer's teaching or blog can make it happen, although it helps.. :)
The Example has lived among us. It is up to us as individuals to proclaim, love, and follow Him and be broken enough to love others through Him. Then Christians will be missional. Churches as a whole, on the other hand, will struggle to be missional because following Christ ain't easy, and "easy" is what most of us want isn't it?

Ed- can you add spell check this ;)

The way I see it [well] defined by you and the video is that being missional is being less institutional, more risky and more savvy about evangelism for the individual. I think this is good, but I see it as "good evangelism". I'm not convinced it's "missional" as I understand it, but I am willing to have push-back on my, perhaps, narrow view of missional.

I'm not locked into using the term "missional" (but I don't hate it), but I am wondering if the missing element is what people like Fitch, Cole and Chester and the like (as if they're a homogenous group - and my apologies to them if I mis-represent) [tend to] call for as integral to living out missional: GOSPEL COMMUNITY. That is, not just individuals going out and doing better evangelism. It is a community of believers living "ordinary life [together] "with Gospel intentionality" in a community (location/neighborhood), with the community (location/neighborhood) and for the community (location/neighborhood).

Seriously (really), am I being too narrow?

I actually just posted that video on my blog yesterday and commented on it.

I think it is unintentionally divisive. By acting like only that model is "missional", it makes it seem like the other model (often called attractional), is not missional. That makes absolutely no sense.

For argument's sake, let's say a Church A is attractional. Well, if it's like every other attractional church, the vast majority of it's attenders are invited....meaning somebody was "missional" in their lives by investing in them.

Missional, as defined by that video, has to be "attractive" as well. Nobody will want to hear from a "missional" Christian if their life is unattractive, and by that I mean if it's a mess or doesn't represent Christ well. Both are needed.

The Church (including gatherings) should represent Jesus to the world, right?

People, particularly lost people, were attracted to Jesus, right? People invited other people to see Jesus, right? People also carried out Jesus' mission on their own.

Rather than either/or labels and conversations that lead to disunity, we should probably recognize it's both/and.

Ben W.,

I'd be interested in hearing your Biblical evidence that Christians gathering should not be evangelistic.

We're commanded to be evangelistic, so I'm interested in seeing where the Bible clearly tells us not to be.

With so many Christian radio stations in the USA, you'd think they would be a prime vehicle for missional work; meeting people where they're at, instead of choking them with recycled sermons...?

I believe part of the issue, is that we need to be more relational in our evangelism. And realize you can't separate evangelism from discipleship. I recently did a study of Jesus' ministry in the Gospels. Here's what I found. Less than 10% of Jesus' ministry was to a large crowd (Sermon on the Mt.; Feeding 5,000, etc.) Less than 30% of His ministry was for a small group setting, primarily the disciples. Over 60% of His ministry was in a one on one setting. Boy have we gotten things backwards compared to Jesus' everyday life. This doesn't mean that big events aren't important. It does mean that true relationships are formed in a setting where there can be accountability and mentorship. This why statistics show that more than half of those baptized in the church drop out within 6 months. No one on one connection is ever made.

Dave said....I always thought a missional church was one where the pastor had a goatee and preached in jeans and sandals, and said things like "I'm really stoked to be here today".

The sad reality is that for many this is all missional is. It's a new wrapper for the same old product and mindset. I hear alot of conversations throwing around "missional" in order to support their top-heavy, campus driven attractional strategy.

Ed....good video...thanks for bringing it to us!

Nick,

Your sarcasm isn't helpful to this discussion among brothers. Not sure why you felt the need to point it at me, especially when I was not saying what you charged me of saying.

I certainly did not mean to suggest that there should be no evangelistic component to a Christian gathering. My point (possibly not made clearly enough) was simply that the primary motivation and purpose of the Lord's Day gathering of the church is not evangelism. (It's certainly to be gospel-centered, and in that way "evangelistic.")

For support of this, I would first refer you to David Peterson's "Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship." It's a thorough investigation of the biblical teaching on worship where he concludes that the primary purpose of the church's gathering is the upbuilding of the believer (one could also call this discipleship).

This seems to be exactly Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 12-14. His continual drumbeat is that things be done for the "upbuilding of the body", thus he urges order, coherence, and service to others in the "body." All of the "body" language seems to assume that his instructions are focused on God's people helping one another grow in Christian maturity. There are a few side-comments about what to do "if" an unbeliever enters the assembly (14:22-25), but that's clearly not the focus of Paul's teaching in these chapters or anywhere in his writings, as I can see. In fact, I'm not sure anywhere else in the NT where we're given instructions about what to do with unbelievers who come to a public gathering of the church. The primary commandments for evangelism seem to be to individuals, not to the church for its gatherings. That's not to say that we shouldn't be mindful of the presence of unbelievers in our gatherings and seek to call them to repent and believe; but simply to say that evangelism is not the focus of a Christian gathering. This is what I was trying to communicate when I said "Church does not = an evangelistic rally."

If you think I'm missing some clear Scriptures that indicate that evangelism is the primary purpose of the Lord's Day gathering of God's people, please let me know. I'll be happy to stand corrected by God's Word. Otherwise, I will assume we're in agreement.

Hey Ben,

Sorry how they may have sounded but neither of my 2 statements directed to you (second post) were meant to be sarcastic. My apologies.

Here are some questions/thoughts to toss out in light of your response:

Is evangelism a part of discipleship? (Like, am I discipled when I partner with my church in helping our worship gatherings lead people to Christ?)

Could it be that the most beneficial worship gathering has both discipleship and evangelism? In other words, is it possible to disciple believers and reach non-believers in the same service? I think it is, but have seen many people try to draw lines between the two as if they're mutually exclusive.

Are the various references to New Testament gatherings the blueprint for our gatherings, or are they more descriptive in nature? Clearly some are prescriptive, but is most of it?

Is it possible that small groups in a church could be more of the discipling type of gathering while services could be more evangelistic? This conversation led me to that random thought.

Ed, if you have a chance, could you discuss or refer me to your thinking on what the difference is between your "missional" and Stott's "incarnational"?

As some have stereotyped, is missional no more than Stott's incarnational philosophy in blue jeans and new eyeglasses?

After reading these comments and thinking about it more, I have a couple thoughts:

1.) Attractive does not equal attractional model. That is to say that I think a missional life should be attractive, but I don't think attractional has the same meaning as attractive is. Attractional is an approach that - at it's worst - is synonymous with marketing and excellence in a service without a view to relationships being the key factor.

2.) This quote from Jared Wilson's twitter feed sums up my thinking right now: "It's ridiculous we've had to call it the 'missional church.' We should just call it the 'biblical church.'" But, alas ...

Hi Ed - that was helpful in understanding what you guys mean. The video is very well done - simple. :)

It seems like we're forgetting the way protestant churches were prior to the 1950's though. Just because it was messed up in the late 20th Century, doesn't mean we have to reinvent the wheel. The preaching and teaching of the local church is intended to equip the members to make other disciples and love their neighbors. If the members are not growing in the knowledge of Christ, they will not go out and make other disciples... if they ARE, then they WILL. (Respectfully) If we put our emphasis on "going out and serving" but not in equipping, it will quickly turn into a social gospel.

I'm all for going out and serving -- I think the critique is valid, I'm only questioning the solution and wondering why we are trying to reinvent the wheel every time our last effort failed. Training & equipping the saints (by helping them grow in Christ) will, by it's nature, cause believers to use their gifts to serve in God's Kingdom. It's what Christ called pastors to do (to devote themselves to the doctrine, the public reading & teaching of God's Word. 1 Tim 4)... by this they save both themselves and their hearers.

I think your goals are great, but I fear that the result will not be what is intended.

Your brother in Christ,
Mark

HI Ed!

Love it. so insightful bro. I am doing a project similar to the Trialogue you talk about here, but more integrated and also includes those from different lifestyles. would love to find ways to partner. i am on skype and would love to see if we could connect soon, feel free to email and find out more above at the link..looking forward to it