Missional is Not in the Dictionary.

OK so I found this video (my friend Brian Eberly had a link to it on his blog) and I agree with its description of what the church has been. I even agree with its basic definition of Missional. But I still kinda cringed when I watched it. I had to stop an contemplate what my problem was with the video. Here's the video by the way.



If you watch it you can see that they have done an excellent job. I really think it is a valuable video. So when I begin my rant please don't think I'm one of those old codgers that thinks that everything new is bad and why don't we just stick to the old ways because they are tried and true. That is not what I am all about. I love change. I embrace it. Some say I am addicted to it. Change is not the problem. My fear is that the Post-modern...er um ... Emergent... ah I mean Missional Church movement seeks to replace an incomplete somewhat anemic model with a new incomplete somewhat anemic model. And in order to sell their new model (although Doug Pagitt and others would probably blow a gasket if he heard me accuse the movement of having a model because they all want to be a non-linear no-model kind of movement)they feel compelled to deconstruct, ridicule and devalue everything the church has been in the last 100 years.

My view is simple. A) Missional is not a word in the dictionary. They made it up. B.) They made it up because they want to distance them self from what they call the consumer church, the fundamental church, the modern church and a dozen other terms they have used to describe the past. C.)In order to prove they are different they have disparaged everything the church has done in the past. D.)Therefore they promote a very good idea of training people to go out into the world (just like Jesus did) built on a synical holier than thou foundation of deconstruction.

Frankly it is the same thing that Evangelicals did in the early 20th century when they distanced themselves from mainline denominations. The accusation (among onthers) was that the mainline churches were steeped in an empty social gospel that promoted works over grace. OK so maybe the mainline church, because of its decaying values and straying from the foundational truths of the Bible had become a church that tried to prove thier value though feeding the poor, caring for the homeless and the like. Maybe they were doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. But Evangelicals could not allow themselves to be accused of being like minded with liberal mainliners so they stepped away from the poor. Some might say the did the wrong things for the right reason (though I am not sure that is entirely accurate). Either way they blew it. They made it wrong to serve the poor and focused entirely on reaching the poor through a propositional gospel that lacked the hands and feet that it had in earlier generations.

Now I sound like Pagitt attacking the evangelicals. My point is that we became too unidimensional because we did not want to appear like we were liberal. If this new Missional movement (or whatever we are calling ourselves today) continues on the path they are on they will become just as unidimensional as the Fundamentalist Evangelical church they have tried so hard to distance themselves from. This video is a prime example. It is an awesome depiction of where the church has been and where it needs to go, BUT it leads the viewer to believe that there is only one way to be right. Their way.

I have a couple problems with the Missional model. First the model assumes people going out but never talks about or deals with the fact that eventually people need to be brought to church. I believe they need to be brought into a church where they can belong before they believe. Second the are real big on the "earn the right to share your faith" idea. That means that they are good at washing feet, feeding the poor and even talking about spiritual things like beauty and art an stuff. I know one Missional guy who had a great exposure in the community with non believers and in 4 years never told any of them how to become a Christian. Consequently none of them did. So the video touts the ideals of sending people out into the community to be the church but never deals with who to actually do the work the church is called to do - make disciples.

So what would I have done different? Simple, make the arrows two way.

The modern church has focused on Come and See ministries (Just like Jesus did) and Missionals want to focus on Go and Tell ministries (Just like Jesus did) Both are right. Both are excellent ideas. I contend that both are dependent on each other. A healthy church is multidimensional in their approach to ministry. Frankly churches like this have been around for a long time. I have personally been a part of churches that have continually trained members to Go and Tell and at the same time have an excellent Come and See ministry.

My own model (the inclusive model) is all about training students to Go and Tell while having a place that students can invite their friends to Come and See. In student ministry it is very important to have both functioning together. Some students will eventually get to the point where the are good at Go and Tell. In the mean time they can invite friends to come and see. If I just sent students out into the world to be the church in the neighborhoods or on their campus then I begin to worry. I worry thinking about me being the church in my neighborhood. What if I am the only church they ever know. I cringe at the thought. But If I go and tell my friends and they listen and want to hear or see more then I can bring them to a come and see ministry.

That is the balance I want to see. A video that, I think better shows what I am trying to say is this one:

But even in this video I find it lacks a clear Come and See element