What is “Missional”?
By Bruce Keisling July 12, 2006
I guess it must be a slow time for Keith since he has decided to take the bull by the horns and bring up the topic of “missional”. This is really one of those topics where I don’t think that you can win even if losing were winning. We are bound to offend some set of people, and there are so many people who like being offensive that I say we should leave it to them. Nevertheless, times being what they are, I am going to jump into this pool.
Honestly, I don’t think that I have seen a clear statement on what it means to be “missional”. I did find this summary from Ed Stetzer’s book Breaking the Missional Code as quoted on Steve McCoy’s Reformissionary blog:
When we talk about missional churches we are not referring to a certain form, expression, model, type, or category of church. We are talking about a church that seeks to understand its context and come to express that understanding by contextualizing the gospel in its community. Over time the church becomes an indigenous expression of the gospel within that culture, eventually removing all extrabiblical barriers. The truest expression of this mission church is that is fully represents Christ in its context, maintaining biblical integrity so that gospel moves unhindered. (187-188)
Well, what exactly is that supposed to mean? At one level I completely understand the phrase “understanding its context” and at another level I don’t. In any given community you will have a range of generations, ethnic groups, etc. so whose context are you going to pick? I actually assume that we would have many things in common with “missional” churches in that we care about our neighborhood. But I think there would be differences as well. I don’t see a single context that we can pick and furthermore, I don’t think I need to think about that as my first priority. I am more inclined to pursue, as Mark Dever has said, faithfulness to the gospel and assume relevance to the context rather than to pursue relevance and assume the gospel.
I’m ducking for cover now . . .