Posts Tagged ‘missional’

Theology

We’ve explored two specific marks of the missional church over three different posts. This leads us to the last mark of the missional church — a theologically educated laity. As one approaches the general laity in his or her congregation, he or she can quickly assess whether or not the local church has properly served its congregants by providing some type of theological education for engaging everyday life. In the trend of seeker-sensitivity, many churches have neglected theology believing that “seekers” individuals have no interest in such training. However, Tim Keller suggests that missional churches need to theologically train laity for their vocations when he explains, “In a ‘missional’ church, the laity needs theological education to ‘think Christianly’ about everything and work with Christian distinctiveness…lay people renewing and transforming the culture through distinctively Christian vocations must be lifted up as ‘real kingdom work’ and ministry along with the traditional ministry of the Word” (p. 2). As seminaries continue to close their doors and biblical illiteracy increases, theological education of laity must be of utter importance in the Church’s call to disciple-making.
The twenty-first Church continues to struggle with its identity in the current context. However, there are numerous things, which the Church should continue to focus upon, if it is to be a peculiar people. The Church has and must continue to be shaped by the Great Commission, specifically surrounding the area of discipleship. As stated, discipleship is the most important task for the twenty-first century, missional Church. In light of this, the Church must paradoxically engage culture while at the same time promoting a counter-cultural mentality. These are difficult to balance, but the Church must be able to do both. The missional Church is counter-cultural specifically by promoting multiracial communities and rejecting consumerism and nationalism. In the end, it is important that laity be theologically trained in order to participate as missional people in daily life. The Church for so long has relied on Christendom to assist its efforts for making disciples. However, Christendom overemphasized conversion and not discipleship; thus, neglecting the Great Commission. The people of Christ are to be a peculiar people. If the Church forgets this and falls into the trap of overemphasizing something like relevance, it forgets its identity. If the Church focuses strictly on conversion, it forgets its identity. If the Church becomes racially homogeneous, it forgets its identity. Thus, the Church is a peculiar people, and a peculiar people that have forgotten their identity can never fulfill Christ’s words to “make disciples of all nations.” These things must mark the missional Church in order to do ministry in a twenty-first century context.

There is not enough time to cover all the “marks” so what “marks” would you add?

+++++++

Conclusion of series on “The Marks of the Missional Church”

Read Part 1 on Discipleship here. Part 2 - (Counter)Culture 1 here. Part 3 - (Counter)Culture 2 here.

Citations for all posts:

1. DeYoung, C. P., Emerson, M. O., Yancey, G., & Kim, K. C. “All Churches Should Be Multiracial”, in Christianity Today 49 (April, 2005).
2. Emerson, M. O. & Smith, C. (2000). Divided by faith: evangelical religion and the problem of race in America. New York: Oxford.
3. Hirsh, A. (2006). The forgotten ways. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press.
4. Keller, T. (2001). “The missional church.”
5. Walsh, B. J. & Keesmaat, S. C. (2004). Colossians remixed: subverting the empire. Downers Grove: IVP.

Consumerism

Thoughts on a multiracial church lead to the second way in which the Church must be counter-cultural. The Church must be counter-cultural by standing against the overwhelming consumerism, most prevalent in American culture. Emerson and Smith suggest that evangelicals are not immune to consumerism when they state, “The organization of American religion is characterized by disestablishment, pluralism, competition, and consumer choice. This organization is partly shaped and often capitalized on by evangelicals. And as a consequence of sociological and social psychological principles at work, congregations become and remain highly racially homogeneous” (p. 151; emphasis mine). The racial homogeneity of Christian congregations is a by-product of the emphasis of the surrounding culture.

(more…)

Culture

For the people of God to “make disciples of all nations,” they must be not run from culture but engage it. Keller suggests that Christians engage the stories of the culture in order that they might restate the stories in light of the gospel. Christians will be faced with a strong temptation to fall into sectarianism, but they must never yield to this. Engaging the culture marks the missional Church, as Keller states that “to ‘enter’ [the culture’s stories] means to show sympathy toward and deep acquaintance with the literature, music, theater, etc. of the existing culture’s hopes, dreams, ‘heroic’ narratives, fears” (p. 2). The missional Church must familiarize itself with its surrounding culture.

The Church has always been tempted to over-engaged culture that it becomes the culture’s bedfellow. Paradoxically, the missional Church must engage culture and be counter-cultural at the same time. If the Church is not counter-cultural, it ceases to be a peculiar people and abandons its calling. The Church has often neglected its calling by overemphasizing the desire to be relevant in order to reach the culture for Christ. However, in many situations, the Church fails to look different from culture since the people of God were so concerned with looking like society.

(more…)

The Marks of the Missional Church

Over approximately two millennia, the Church has continually struggled with its mission to be the people of Jesus Christ to an ever-changing culture and society. The task has not always been an easy one. As the Church has entered the twenty-first century, the question of what makes the Church the people of Jesus Christ still lingers. The Church seeks to be ekklesia, a “called out” people, and becomes a peculiar people. This peculiar people must live in the twenty-first century seeking to fulfill the mission of Christ and dialog about what specifically marks the Church in its current context. These people are sent to the world as agents of Christ’s kingdom and should continually self-evaluate to see if it is living out its mission.

(more…)

Now, I have a friend, who will remain unnamed, who cheered for certain sports teams while he grew up. In his thirties, he accepted a job in the New York City area, and, thus, he changed his favorite teams to New York teams. Conveniently, at the same time as the Giants won the Super Bowl, but that’s beside the point.

I, myself, have grown up cheering for every Philadelphia team that there is (yes, even the MISL team, the “Kixx”). I love the Phillies. I love the Eagles. I love the Flyers [the Sixers, I can live without, but I love them too like I love an uncle who I never see and gives large financial contracts to mediocre friends]. You get the point. In Philadelphia (much like other blue-collar cities/towns), you live and die with your teams. I could never, ever, ever think about switching teams, but…

If I were to change the location of my ministry, should I change the teams I cheer for in order to be more missionally minded? Better yet, who would Jesus cheer for in that situation?

For some of you, this is no big deal, but, for me, it is. This may seem like a lame topic, but it’s a serious one for someone who loves his or her team so much. I could never see myself moving to New York and cheering for the Giants, or worse, the Yankees [or even worse, move to Queens and be a…a…a…(gulp)…Mets fan]. But would I be missing out on missional opportunities because I’m unable to relate with New York fans because I insist on being a Philly fan?

I don’t think many people think about this. But maybe being missional, maybe being part of the kingdom of God means changing teams? So, maybe my unnamed friend is right to cheer for the Yankees and Giants (as much as I hate to say it).

What do you think?

[PS- Yankees suck!]