I pastor a comeback church in NE PA. Missional for us is pretty simple. It is simply removing roadblocks to credibly and effectively inviting people to experience redemption in Jesus, and serving them whether they do or not.

If we are using missional as an adjective to describe the Church, then I feel Alan Hirsch's definition speaks volumes: "A community of people that defines itself and organizing itself around its purpose of being an agent of God's mission to the world."

Mission as the church’s organizing principle is more nuanced than simply mission being the church’s priority. In the missional church, mission organizes all the other functions of the church.

Furthermore, the missional church must realize that mission is a divine event before it is ever a reality in the life of the church. In other words,mission is first and foremost an attribute of God, not just another activity of the church. In this way, the missional church defines its mission by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus - the missionary God incarnate. Because, in Jesus, the mission of God becomes a concrete reality and thereby becomes central to the missional church’s life.

As I have posted elsewhere, we need to commit to hearing multiple voices, not just in on-line forums, but from the stage of the missionSHIFT conference. Demonstrate and validate your value to diversity of voices by giving those voices a place on the program and not just in blog comments.

The primary apparent flaw with the missionSHIFT missional manifesto conference is the grossly over-representation of white, male, middle-class, American clergy of the church planting variety. So many voices are not represented. Women, non-Americans, the poor, sexual minorities, other types of ministers (hospital & prison chaplains, people who work with children, the homeless, in hospice, college ministries.) The result is destined to be much of the same unless we open up the table to the full body of Christ.

Look at the early church one of the first converts to Christianity was a surgically altered, gender-variant, rich civil servant from Africa (the Ethiopian Eunuch) who went home w/ Good News and to this day a church traces its roots to that person. Radical inclusion. New Wine in New Wine Skins.

Peter,

You have left this almost identical quote on several blogs. Let me address it here.

We agree that there needs to be more diversity-- I've already indicated that and we are continuing to invite more voices. I think if you will follow my blog you will see that I often seek to introduce new voices. Thanks for taking a look at the different types of people that are coming. But, we also think that God uses pastors in the church and are glad to have many of them represented as they serve churches filled with all kinds of people.

Now, in regards to you gender and sexuality comments. We believe that the mission of God is described and explained in the Word of God. Thus, we cannot call something missional that does not follow the teaching of scripture.

I know your desire is for all Christians to affirm the practices of gay, lesbian, and transgendered persons. And, I have read of your hurt in ex-gay programs. I am sorry that you were hurt, because so many others have found great freedom through those very ministries.

But, we won't be debating homosexuality here because we think that is is settled in the scriptures. We want to be welcoming of all people, but we cannot affirm what scripture teaches is wrong. Thus, we want to be on mission to all peoples-- and we know that all of us have sins with which we struggle. But, we cannot proclaim a focus on the mission of God and then ignore the teachings of the Word of God.

I invite you to reconsider your view, look to the scriptures, get in a community that will encourage you to biblical fidelity and faithfulness, and, yes, change your view of homosexuality.

We are all broken-- but the answer is not to call "right" what God calls wrong.

As I said, we won't be debating that here... but since you commented, I'm glad to reply in what I hope is a respectful way.

God bless,

Ed

Def of Missional: Seeking to fulfill the great commission's panta ta ethne by penetrating those ethnic groups with no gospel witness.

Seems to me the great commission is pretty simple, make disciples among ethnic groups (Nations). There are 5000 ethnic groups with little to no witness among them. Many are coming to America and Canada. The end goal is Rev 5:9 and 7:9 thus my definition.

I like those definitions... very helpful.

Ed

Ed,

You show what a "pastor" you are in handling the drive up bloggers with an ax to grind. I understand the unbridgeable gap regarding the issue of homosexuality. But, many of us agree with you on the issue of homosexuality and ALSO find the issue of gender equality and the call of God to pastoral leadership to be a grounded in scripture and witnessed to in church history. (no flame of scripture wars people- just who we are)

Can you "lead" a conference, like MissionShift that you created, and invite pastors who are women to speak? I love that you have Linda as a "lab" leader, but why not a female senior pastor who loves Jesus, believes in the Bible, wants to reach the lost and live on mission? Is this like baptism with Tim Keller or homosexuality with Peter?

Curious...

I've been helped (when I need to throw something out quickly) by describing the output of missional ministry as impacting people "on their turf and on their terms."

It doesn't cover everything, like the divine impetus - and "on their terms" would almost certainly be misunderstood by some anti-"missional" crowds - but it's been helpful for reminding myself and reminding others. It seems to catch at least a couple of Fitch's points, and it allows for great variety in the particulars - something even those striving to be missional don't always allow for.

Because, honestly, I would rather not listen to people who practice infant baptism lecture me on the importance of scriptural authority! Talk about an issue that the Bible settles- that we seem much more willing to cross lines on, while giving the stiff arm to people who baptize as the Bible teaches but also believe the Bible teaches women are called to preach the Gospel and lead the church.

Ed, having attended Nyack College and served as an Evangelical Christian missionary, I am fully aware that you are not interested in a discussion about the faith experiences of gay and lesbian Christians. I never intended to bring up that topic and would prefer we not get bogged down with a fruitless and distracting conversation.

Sexual minorities were only one of several groups I mentioned (and sexual minorities I mentioned were not gay or lesbian people but intersex and transgender individuals who rarely find welcome in either the church or gay and lesbian spaces.)

I hear you say you wish to reserve your platforms for pastors, and I imagine that means mostly male pastors, but the church and the mission field is made up of a vast array of ministers, male and female, in a diversity of ministries. These servants have vital information to share with church planters and pastors.

As I mentioned above these include--hospital & prison chaplains, people who work with children, the homeless, in hospice, college ministries etc. Also, having served in both South America and Africa, I can see the challenges and pitfalls of a predominately white US-led discussion of missions and missional living that does not include voices from outside of the US.

We may not agree on one issue, but I have a heart for missions and for the fulfillment of a scene that always moves me deeply:

I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.

I usually answer the question about what does missional mean by saying that missional is a helpful term used to describe what happens when you and I replace the "come to us" invitations with a "go to them" life. A life where "the way of Jesus" informs and radically transforms our existence to one wholly focused on sacrificially living for him and others and where we adopt a missionary stance in relation to our culture. It speaks of the very nature of the Jesus follower.

Oh, and in answer to the question of this particular blog post:
Missional, although a clunky academic sounding term, for me represents the influences one has on one’s surroundings arising from authentic living. So much of missions happens through life, a daily witness through our faith and practice, cultivating the fruit of the Spirit and sharing it.

This affects every area of one’s life--not just the church part--and can encompass community relations and service, purchases, diet, social justice, and especially relationships. It is not simply preaching Christ but living in a way so that Christ in me and in you–the hope of glory–becomes realized everyday in us in tasks, practices and belief–mundane and sublime.

The essence of the word missional seems so simple and yet it seems beyond description in other ways. Like all things of God there seems to be a paradox. I believe that Jesus was missional and he expected his followers to be missional.

To me missional means actively and intentionally living a life of love - loving God and loving others - which should result in leading people to a connection with Jesus. This applies to the church, to groups and to individuals.

I'm not well versed in all the missional conversations and my recent Mission Theology class seemed like taking something very simple and making extremely context with no real reason.

But, I would say missional is:

Carrying out God's mission as individuals and as a Church in every way possible.

My thoughts, maybe oversimplified, but mine still the same:

Following Jesus in both example and direction into the context we find ourselves.

A working definition of missional for me is, "Understanding and engaging my cultural context in order to lead those who are from from God into a growing relationship with Jesus."

Perhaps it is too short to clearly define all of the pregnant meanings...but it certainly involves "exegesis" of the culture, relevant demonstration and communication of the gospel message, and an ongoing exercise of developing believers to become fully devoted followers of Christ...to the end that God would be glorified through their duplication of being missional in their lives.

Thanks Ed!

One sentence to define "missional"? There used to be a slogan by a company (I forgot who), it was: "Do ONE thing and do it WELL." ALL we do should ultimately point to the character and person of Jesus.

As I mentioned at Rick's blog, I have wrestled with this question for several years. Through the time, different nuances emerge about the meaning of missional. Currently, this short statement has been a facet I have been considering more:

Becoming and living Christ together.

Peace,
Jamie

Ed, I wanted to respond to something you mention above but in order to avoid thread drift, I posted my comments at my blog.

To give myself away to those He loves for His namesake and His honor and glory.

Missional is not recognized by MSWord as a "proper spelling." That tells me that it's not in the common vernacular. So, "missional" must be something that is wholly different; for me that is living as Jesus did -- bringing people back into community and then eating with them. It is Matthew 25:34-40.

Jane, isn't it funny that "missional" isn't listed as a word? For the sake of interest, here are two historic usages:

-1883 C.E. Bourne "Bishop Tozer is called the 'Missional Bishop of Central Africa' and by some the 'fighting parson'"

-1907 WG Holmes "Several prelates, whose missional activities brought over whole districts & even nationalities to their creed"

Missional: The opposite end of the pendulum swing from those rebelling against the current church model

I only partly believe this at this point, it is mainly in jest. I do not have an axe to grind against those

doing the missional thing. To convince you of this, I am a 20-something leader in an missional A29 church.

I thought I knew what missional meant coming into this, but I am more confused than ever having lived it out for a while now. My issue is that I 1. see no Scriptural support for the agreed upon definition of 'missional'. Yes, Jesus associated with sinners, but his disciples fulfilled the commission by 'coming in sackloth' and preaching repentance and forgiveness of sins. Yes, Paul reasoned and used poetry from the day, but in the immediate context of preaching the gospel. Ironically, Jesus' reason for the specific type of association He engaged in was contextualization. He understood what the Jews were looking for in a Savior and did just the opposite to alter their original understanding of what soon would be Christianity; 'missional reversed' if you will.

And 2. I see little fruit.

I understand and agree with the need to be 'in but not of the world' by means of active engagements with the lost. What I have failed to come to terms with is the current, well-intentioned, 'missional' model of "friend with the world" versus the NT model of "persecution for the sake of the gospel". When we withhold the
proclamation of the gospel for the sake of the gospel we become seeker-sensitive by definition.

Too often it seems to me that the missional movement is 1. A more pious version of the seeker-sensitive movement and 2. Lead
by Godly men coming out of the old model of seeker-sensitive, who recognize its flaws and are taking action.

However, these are simultaneously stuck in the extreme counteraction acted toward the failure of the
Americanized ministry philosophy of their fathers; and these Godly men have yet to come back to the middle of this pendulum swing, which would result in the potential uniting of the best of both worlds (which is what Mars
Hill, the bastion of the missional movement, and a few others are already doing ... the rest have yet to catch up).

What I mean by 'best of both worlds' is that the current, historical church model (i.e. buildings, programs, resources) is not inherently unbiblical or the problem. The problem with the old model is the underlying lack of theology, well-intentioned men who are not called to the ministry, and lack of true gospel teaching/preaching. If you correct the latter and put it into any context there will be much fruit for the Kingdom. The latter must also happen within the cultural context of those one is attempting to reach, but it is
not either/or. The context one finds his/herself in may demand the use of no formal building, or programs but this is an exception, not a model that should be mandated as the new norm.

The bottom line of my struggle understanding this new missional movement, the movement that seeks to avoid formal buildings and programs and anything resembling a corporation is that there is no Scriptural support beyond eisegesis or an exegetical stretch that is one pull away from coming apart.

I do agree that the old model is not working, but that the answer is a greater reliance upon the proclamation of the gospel whether that is in a pub or behind a pulpit. The real need is not to relate more to the world but rather to redeem the time for those Christian victims of the old model through good theology, the true gospel. From there we will be in a place to truly reach out to the world in a way that will bear much fruit. This movement cannot begin and be sustained with/by well-intentioned ministers leading un-informed sheep into the wolves den. The sheep will either be devoured or never remove the wolf skin. I believe a refocus of time/energy/missional living upon the people of God is first in order. There has been so much damage within the church through easy-believism and an absolute lack of theology that most Christians can't even articulate the gospel let alone engage appropriately with the world. There is so much work to be done WITHIN THE CHURCH; it is truly overwhelming.

Some challenges to the missional ministers: Where is the loss? The loss that comes from preaching the gospel. Whether that be the loss of dignity, or friendship or 'coolness'. Where is the witness? We overcome by the word of our testimony and because of the blood of the lamb. To be a witness of Jesus means that we will suffer rejection and persecution as He did. Are we just trying to be the 'cool' Christians? At what price?

Some challenges to me: I am in the process of unlearning so many things. I do not have all the answers and believe that this missional method is a valid inclusion, but when I am made to feel like it is THE way and is the new norm I begin to get uncomfortable. We should not be so close handed with something that, as far as I can tell, cannot be easily supported with Scripture. We should not be so quick to say "No building" "No programs" "No focus on growth or corporate matters"

What is clear in Scripture? "Disciple the nations; preaching repentance and forgiveness of sins". "The world hated me before it hated you" "Friendship with the world is enmity with Christ" I really want to get to the bottom of this... and I am certainly not on my high horse claiming to do either method adequately... it may just be a matter of learning it as we do it. But there are inherent dangers in this movement. Dangers that have already reared their ugly head i.e. liberalism, man-centered ministry, world-spirit accommodation... In my humble opinion, we are getting ahead of ourselves... we need to turn around and see what/who we've left behind.

But my opinion means little. God's word is the last word. This is a great discussion and I am all ears.

Living an abandoned life to Christ that recognizes, hears and then without hesitation does what he says both as individuals and in a local faith community as agents of reconciliation connecting with his world and your city.

Not too theological - more from a practitioners standpoint as a pastor!

Ed, you say "we cannot call something missional that does not follow the teaching of scripture."

In following the missional conversation over the last few years, I’ve seen the participation of a broad, global collection of Jesus voices, many perhaps with quite different perspectives on "the teaching of the scriptures." I'm not referring specifically to the gay issue, but ALL big issues that divide the church -- gender and religious leadership, military and politics and consumerism, global views on soteriology and theodicy and ecclesiology, and dozens of other historically divisive issues where one group's interpretation of scripture differs from another.

From the very beginning, missional has reflected a collective desire to proclaim the eminence and transcendence of Jesus together in spite of our various interpretive differences. Professional clergy told us that couldn’t be done, but we are doing it. We are globally divergent Jesus folks gathering together as one body while temporarily and graciously suspending our suspicions towards each other's theology.

Reduce missional to “our scriptural interpretation” versus “their scriptural interpretation” and it becomes just another ideological cul de sac, destined to rot and wither behind some locked para-denominational door.

I would propose we’re still a generation or two premature in our ability to adequately define and “manifest” missional. But if you’re bent on writing something, please keep it open-ended, invitational, fluid, generative, and, as Peterson suggests, radically inclusive.

If missional is anything, it is radically inclusive. It is about dropping our polarizing religious identities and hierarchies and freely and even recklessly demonstrating God's love and empathy towards all people. Jesus will prevail, and will do so in spite of our propensity towards religious posturing and marginalizing and manifesto-ing.