The Meaning of Being MISSIONAL as a believer and as a Church

Missional is a buzz word in Christian circles and I am rather fond of its use. Like all words or concepts, its meaning can be watered down or even lost without periodic clarification. It is not enough to know what “missional” means, but also what it means when I use it.

One of the guys who has helped me shape my thinking is Dr. Ed Stetzer of Lifeway Research and also one of the teaching pastors at GraceLife Church (a church plant). I love Ed’s writing style and the content is “spot on.” (Perhaps it is that northern style in him that I love. He tells the truth, in love, and allows others to wrestle with its implications.)

Having served as a church planter and as pastor of two different established churches, I have a strong desire for churches to be “on mission” or “missional” in their approach to ministry. But…what does that mean?

To be missional means to think and act as a missionary in the culture we live in. It is to choose activities that further us toward the goal of accomplishing the Kingdom mission, while rejecting those activities that hinder such accomplishment. Above all…it means to actively and intentionally engage the culture with a contextual presentation of the truth of the gospel.

I don’t mean simply inform them of the presence of the gospel, or to argue for the necessity of the gospel. I mean to present the gospel in perfectly understandable terms so that they can make an informed decision to accept or reject the gift of God in Christ Jesus.

Here is a link to an article (one of many) that Stetzer has written on CONTEXTUALIZATION. It is a powerful and succinct definition of what it is to make the gospel accessible to others.

One observation about it that connects this to “missional,” Paul not only contextualized the gospel…but he did it on purpose. He intentionally engaged others, studied them, then presented the gospel to them in a way that was not easy or comfortable for him…but was essential for their understanding.

It sort of reminds me of the old Bill Hybel’s principle that I call the “barbecue first principle.” (You have not earned the right to inquire or share about eternal matters until you have at least shared a meal with someone. If you don’t know their children’s names, how will they ever believe that you care about their eternity?)

If we truly care about people in our community, doesn’t it make sense to get to know them well enough that we earn the right to share our story and HIS story? If that means changing our approach or our lifestyles to become more relatable…shouldn’t we do that IMMEDIATELY and INTENTIONALLY?

Who are you investing in? Who are you getting to know…on purpose…with the intent of sharing with them about your journey as a believer and the amazing love of God?

So what’s up with “change”?

I have been thinking on the subject of “church” for quite some time now….but the class I teach on Sunday night has precipitated an in-depth study into church and (most recently) a re-read of a great book, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church.

One of the questions I have been wrestling with relates to the “psychology” involved with a church that is changing.

Many pastors struggle with “change” at a church. It is difficult to “sell” change to a congregation and many guys get frustrated and leave. Change though, is necessary for a church to survive (ask any church which has a median age of 65+ today…in ten years if you can still find them). It is also necessary for a church to thrive.

I personally have a great deal of faith in the church. I think the church in America is still viable. I do not see it as it is seen in a great number of European cities. I think a lot of hope still exists for the church…and with proper adjustments…it can truly magnify the Name of Jesus on a wide scale basis.

So, as I have been considering the psychology of a church…I have been acutely aware that many folks in churches are resistant to change. They don’t like it. They resist it. They hate it. They want to turn back from in…even if it means using a filet knife in creative ways on the one bringing the change about. Why?

No one wants to go back to 3 channels on their TV. No one wants to have dirt roads to travel on in cities or to be without a cell phone (ok…maybe the cell phone.) The reason is, I THINK, because we (leaders) have not connected the reality of change with its purpose. We simply want to change and want people to embrace change…and we fail to focus on the reason for change.

A church changes (or if you will allow me) focuses on being INTENTIONALLY MISSIONAL in order to more effectively communicate the gospel. A church seeks to use relevant forms of music in worship to connect the dots for those in the assembly who do not yet know Jesus. A true worshipper can worship Jesus with any form of music (and I might argue…in nearly any language), but an outsider needs help connecting the dots. This relevance is part of the mission, it in not the mission.

I read this AM an article in a series by Dr. Ed Stetzer…one of the thinkers and practitioners that I learn from. Here is an excerpt:  

Trouble starts with cultural relevance when we misunderstand its importance. Sometimes we believe being relevant means being missional, but it doesn’t. The truth is we can be culturally relevant and ultimately go nowhere in helping people know Jesus or serving Him on mission. Relevance is an implication of mission, and a tool for the mission, but it is not the goal of the mission. Making disciples through the spread of the gospel is the goal. If cultural relevance is our goal, the Gospel is demoted and we lose confidence in its transforming power and necessity.

That is a telling quote and makes me want to say, “Get out of my head, Ed!”

We are to be relevant because it furthers the gospel. We ought to build bridges in our city because it furthers the gospel. We ought to help people with practical studies on marriage, finance, and child-rearing because it connects the dots and demonstrates that there is a God who loves them and has already provided for them…and will bless their marriages and finances when they realize that He alone is entitled to Lordship!

Apart from the gospel enterprise though…change is ridiculous. If we go through the pain of change simply to be different and never seek to win our neighbors, countrymen, and global citizenry to Christ…we are ultimately ignorant of what is truly important.

What should we do? Proclaim the gospel in culturally relevant ways.

What should we not do? Delay the change. (I say delay…because for a church to refuse to change continuously…is for a church to delay the change for about 50 years.) What will eventually happen however, is the church will die and someone will turn the building into a liquor store, and antique shop, or an office building…and then change will come.

I encourage you to read Ed’s Article in its entirety here…and then share your thoughts with me. I truly am interested in what you think.

Book Review: Transformational Church by Ed Stetzer and Thom S. Rainer

Book Review: Transformational Church: Creating a New Scorecard for Congregations. Ed Stetzer and Thom S. Rainer, (B&H Publishing Group: Nashville, TN, 2010). 243 pages.

Transformational Church is a great book for church leaders and disciple-makers. The book is based on the product of a multi-year research study on the common characteristics of churches that are effectively seeing “life transformation” take place. It is not a book with an A to Z formula for a church to adopt in order to grow; rather, it presents principles that, if contextualized and adopted, can be instrumental in helping churches become more effective in the task of making “fully devoted followers of Christ.”

The authors do not join the chorus of voices in the contemporary culture that criticize and complain about the church. They do point out, by comparison, the practices that have led to a marked decline among many churches; however, they assert an optimistic opinion about the future of  the church…based on the power of God and on the rising tide of passionate leaders who want to see life transformation occur among the people of the church.

I recommend this book as a tool for church leaders. As a senior pastor, it will be one that I will use for contemplation and the subject matter of many discussions in staff and leader meetings. Thanks to Rainer and Stetzer for continually seeking to equip the equippers in furtherance of the Mission.

You can purchase the book from Amazon.com HERE.

Contextualization and the Gospel Mandate

It is not enough for a Christian to know the gospel…he must be able to share it in such a way that it will be understood and the hearer can respond. This is the idea of contextualization and how it intersects with the Great Commission.

Ed Stetzer, missiologist and President of Lifeway Research, wrote an interesting piece recently on this subject. (Those who know me realize that I think a lot of Stetzer and his approach to missions. His influence in my ministry and approach to evangelism/missions is clear and I am more effective in my ministry because of his influence.

In this piece on contextualization, Stetzer illustrates why we must contextualize when communicating the gospel. He states:

Most of us are familiar with the classic party game, Pictionary. The “artist” gets a name of a person, place, or thing and he has to draw the picture so that his team can guess it, without ever using any words to help. Imagine if I was playing a game of Pictionary at a party. I am assigned to draw the person President George W. Bush. So, in efforts of simplicity and speed, I draw a picture of a bush. I’m playing with a pretty quick crowd, so they guess it right away. “BUSH!!!”

They’ve partially got the answer, but not all of it, so it doesn’t count. So, I start pointing at the bush and make hand gestures, moans, and grunts (but no words). I use my hands to say, “that’s right, but more.” Again, the crowd is smart, so they can see the clue has something to do with a bush so they start guessing. “Tree!… Plant!… Green!… Photosynthesis!… Oxygen to carbon dioxide!… Krebs Cycle!” (I told you they were smart.) Now, they’re getting way off base, but I can’t say anything, so I just keep pointing at that bush. I point at it harder and harder and keep gesturing and grunting and, at this point, I’m getting mad.

The others never get it. I know what it is. I know they should know it. It is so obvious. But they don’t.

I get frustrated, and yet, I never gave another clue.

Too often, I think this is what many evangelicals look like in the twenty-first century. For example, many today in American culture want to talk about “spirituality,” but are unfamiliar with the gospel and not warm to the idea of spiritual absolutes. Some well-meaning Christians hear the spirituality talk and want to move people to the gospel, but the unexplained theological language and the old evangelistic approaches that were targeting a different worldview amount to noise that leaves the hearer in the dark trying to guess. It’s like we, as believers, start communicating through our gestures and grunts, but they don’t get it. We wind up giving clues that lead them in circles, and not to the truth. We know the answer, and we want them to know the answer, but we just can’t make a solid connection.

Without contextualization, the words and arguments we use can amount to ineffective clues.

To be effective then at communicating the gospel, we must understand our audience, identify the obstacles that exist to “grasping” the message, and then communicate the message in accordance with our new information. This is a NECESSITY and is biblical as well as practical.

Helping others understand so that they can respond to the truth of the gospel is critical and it must be approached differently today than in the past. Notice Stetzer again:

It’s one thing to know the gospel, but it’s another to make the gospel known. And making the gospel known is more complicated in America today than it was in decades past. Less people today have a general Christian orientation, or even a shared Judeo-Christian ethic. This means concepts (truths) like sin, death and hell cannot be assumed. So when we want to communicate the gospel and deal with categories like God, man, Christ and faith we must not only know them well, but also how to effectively make them known to the people God has sent us. Knowing where to begin and how to explain the truth to particular people are issues of contextualization.

You can read his entire article from his website HERE. After that, drop back by and share your thoughts, concerns, or fears with “contextualizing the gospel.”

New Post by Ed Stetzer

In his latest installment on the “missional” conversation, Stetzer speaks to the need to define what salvation is! Believe it or not, there is debate as to what salvation looks like…so there is debate as to what our MISSION is.

Regarding different understandings of salvation, Stetzer writes:

Some consider the transmission of salvation as a physical process. This is true, for instance, of a sacramentalist system that believes salvation or grace can be transferred by means of a physical object. While the significance of the sacrament depends to some degree on the innermost attitude or condition of the communicant, grace is received largely through the external, physical act.

Others think that salvation is transferred by moral action. Here salvation is not so much something to be acquired by some individual or organization and conveyed to others, as it is something created by shifting the state of affairs.

Evangelical theologies have generally represented a third idea: salvation is a work of grace, accomplished by Christ, and received by faith alone. In the meritorious sense, the recipient is passive.

You can access his full post HERE. Then drop back by and share your thoughts to these questions…

• Is Salvation simply reconciliation with God…appropriating forgiveness for sins and gaining a hope of heaven in the future?
• Is Salvation the work of justice, healing, restoration of the Kingdom on earth?
• Is Salvation…some combination of both?
• Is there a danger in becoming out of balance in our approach to Salvation? IOW: How do we insure our “missiology” reflects our “soteriology” (doctrine of salvation)?

What does it mean to be “Missional”?

There are a number of resources out there that attempt to define the term “missional.” I won’t belabor the discussion here. I will say that I just responded to a request by Ed Stetzer to share a definition of “missional” on his website. You can access his article and request HERE.

While I have defined it in different ways in times past, here is what I wrote today.

A working definition of missional for me is, “Understanding and engaging my cultural context in order to lead those who are far 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.

I would use the term “missional” to describe myself and many of the people I agree with; however, due to the ambiguity of the definition and the varied ways it is used popularly, this can create confusion (since I might get “lumped in” with a bunch of guys who I don’t necessarily agree with). [NOTE: Sort of like being a "baptist" ]

Anyway, what do you “think” of my working definition and how would you change it or clarify it if it were yours? In fact, why don’t you consider sharing your own…

Thanks.

A Great Article by Ed Stetzer on the “missional” conversation.

Here is a great post from one of the men who has been formative in my thinking on evangelism, contextualization, and my theology of the church and its mission. You can read the article HERE.

Several things in his article interest me, but none more than this statement:

An argument of sorts has arisen among some friends of mine that helps illustrate the point. Mark Driscoll, in his oh-so-subtle way, said that many in the emerging church “don’t have any converts.” Dan Kimball has expressed his missional misgivings about missional churches without conversions. Several defenders have responded to the critics. But, the conversation can and should be much broader than “emerging” or “missional” conversations: I have heard it in charismatic, Calvinist, Baptist, and other settings. And, there are always defenders.

But, I believe defending is not the answer. It is never a good thing to be defending our lack of converts to Christ while we are busy converting people to our cause. To me, it is the difference between complaining and creating a new (and better) way.

Wow! So when I read this…I am reminded that we often spend a great amount of time wanting people in the church to think like us…and not considering that people outside the church are never going to be with Jesus unless we change our focus and begin to think “evangelism” at the core of everything we do. 

As a church planter (in my previous assignment), a man deeply wounded me once. I looked to him for support and he lambasted me for planting a church that did not have “Baptist” in the name. Never mind that we were Baptist in every way, doctrinally and practically. We did not have it in the name.

The decision we made in naming the church was strategic, since “Baptist” in the part of the country where I was planting had a different associated meaning than in the South where he lived.

The truth is, we were baptizing more people in the Northeast with a congregation of under 100 than he was in the deep south with a congregation in the 400s. Why? I think it is because we were interested in seeing people saved, and he was interested in seeing believers converted to his way of thinking.

I guess I have met so many different personality types out there…that I don’t really care what a pastor’s “flavor” or “style” of church is…what kind of music he plays or which translation of the Bible he preaches from…just so his message is that of a loving God, a bloody cross, and perfect hope in Christ. If he preaches that with a heart for the lost…then I don’t care if he wears a dress when he preaches (ok maybe a dress is a stretch…or not) or if he has a 200 year old pipe organ. Preach the Word!

Anyway, I thought you might find the article by Stetzer interesting. If so, read it, and drop back by to share your thoughts.

Article by Ed Stetzer on “Statistic Abuse” in CT

Hi guys,

Since 10% of all people 70% of the time quote 50% of statistics correctly, and 18% of people under the mean age of 25 who wear socks and shoes and go to the dentist to get flossing lessons have left the church…I though this article might be timely.

(If the statement above which I “made up” confused you…you have a chance of understanding this next post.)

Ed Stetzer, a leading voice in Christianity and in our denomination, has written a great article for Christianity Today on Statistic Abuse. You can read it HERE. Hopefully, as you read it, you will be impressed (as I was) to redouble your efforts to understand statistics about culture and the church before repeating them to others. Everything has a context.

One that I found particularly interesting was his conclusion on American Attitudes toward Organized Religion.

We do not want to be considered “alarmists” in our culture. We want to understand truth and speak it with kindness and love. We also don’t want to “blunt” the edge when we do sound the alarm. As such…we should be good stewards of all that God has entrusted to us…including statistics and research which allow us to be more effective in understanding and reaching those in the culture who are far from God.

Drop back by and share your thoughts here. You may want to read more on this subject and you will find other interesting articles at Ed’s Site HERE.

Worship Wars? style and substance…

First, let me say that I turn purple at the term “worship wars.” It is the highest contradiction I can think of in the church. No one can say they seek to “worship” Jesus and then choose “war” rather than unity. I also recognize that there are, at times, significant disagreements on style of music.

HERE is a link to a post I read this morning by Ed Stetzer. It is a great discussion on the need for a church to find consensus rather than compromise. It is hard-hitting in some places…probably because we need to be hit hard there.

As I was considering this, two things came to mind. First, I was drawn back to a discussion I had with a friend from NAMB as I was planning what our new worship format would look like for the church I planted in NY. He made an argument about worship style which has stuck with me to this day. Second, my church is in the process of identifying our next Worship Pastor. I have had a few conversations along the way about how we find someone who is agreeable to our congregation. We are still discussing the methods of evaluating where we are as a church body, but we have agreed (as a selection team) that however we proceed, it must be tied inextricably to mission. We cannot choose a man based on his style or preferences, but on whether he can sense worship, model worship, teach worship, and lead in worship. We do not want a performer but a pastor.

If the conversation ever digresses to style or preferences without respect to mission…then we have departed from the subject of God-honoring worship and embraced the idolatry of “preference” and “nostalgia.”

I think this article is amazing in how it speaks to the subject…and timely based on where we are as a church in the journey. My heart and my intent is to lead us in CONSENSUS rather than COMPROMISE. This may make some uncomfortable…but unless we all are pulling the same direction in pursuit of the same objective (i.e. glorifying God by leading people into a growing relationship with Jesus Christ, HERE…), we really haven’t accomplished anything anyway.

I trust you will read the article found on his site which can be accessed by the link  HERE. Then, drop back by and share your thoughts with the group…PLEASE! Lord bless.

Book Review: Compelled by Love

Compelled by Love: The Most Excellent Way to Missional Living.Ed Stetzer and Philip Nation, (New Hope Publishers: Birmingham, AL, 2008).

Compelled by Love is an incredible resource for the contemporary church. Ed Stetzer and Philip Nation bring together an amazing blend of philosophy, theology, and practical application to challenge the reader to consider the role of the church as God’s missionary agent on earth. The authors’ approach to the subject begins with a lengthy treatment of the biblical texts surrounding the displayed Love of God. In fact, for the reader who accepts that God has demonstrated His love toward the world and that the church is commanded love the world in like manner, the book seems to start a bit slowly in the opening chapters. For others, the opening chapters provide ample foundation and justification supporting the author’s thesis.

Among its many attributes, Compelled by love is full of insightful observations such as this one, which seems to be the authors’ thesis. Affirming that the redemptive mission of God involves the convicting power of the Holy Spirit and the obedient “going” of the believer, the authors’ note, “Love is the place where our going and His convicting converge (p. 69).”

This book brings focus and challenges the reader to embrace a greater depth of applied love in missional living. While some practical applications are discussed, most readers will leave with a clear understanding that there is more work to be done, more power in the Holy Spirit to accomplish the work, and more glory for God to be obtained as a result of life choices on the part of the reader. You can purchase the book from Amazon.com HERE.

Become a New Hope Book Review Blogger. Visit www.newhopepublishers.com for more information.