Missional. . .Smissional (Part 1)

I remember when distinctions were debated between mission and missions. The discussions are now about being missional. The problem is all of these words and a few others like missionary are used so diversely they are practically useless. Doubt me? Ed Stetzer has written a 5-part series just to define what it means to be missional. See his well written and helpful commentary HERE. Rick Meigs, better known for his blog, The Blind Beggar, has called for a synchronized blog to answer the question, "What is Missional?" Click HERE for his blog. The heart of the discussion about being missional is the debate between attractional and incarnational approaches to Christianity. Attractional is relatively easy to understand. Attractional assumes that non-church members will be attracted to and participate in Christian worship services and events, and much energy is expended to get non-members to attend these gatherings. This approach has become the default ministry and means of evangelism in North America and in many other places around the world. Incarnational is also easily understood. Instead of relying on attraction, it sends. In the case of Christianity it sends disciples into the culture. They live as part of the culture, reflecting it, but not being dominated by it. They make disciples that form churches within the culture, rather than departing from it to go to churches that exist outside the culture. This approach is more frequently found among cross-cultural missionaries. Three issues are critical to this discussion about Attractional and Incarnational. 1. Beliefs Matter Much of the popular discussion about missional focuses on methods. People talk about the church leaving the building and about being the church rather than going to the church. Authenticity, relevant, and simple are the buzzwords of the missional discussion. Yet, almost unnoticed by some is the impact on beliefs when methods and strategy drive the discussion. The gospel is diminished and confused when in an effort to be incarnational, methods define beliefs. One "missional" example I have seen is driven by the method of inclusion. In an effort to overcome the erroneous practice of the church being a Christian club, everyone, including non-followers of Christ, is allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper. This practice misses a beautiful opportunity to teach and experience the exclusivity of the gospel of Christ. It also abandons the biblical and historical practice of the church. Jesus was certainly incarnational and no one was more missional than He was. Nonetheless, He taught clearly that some were part of the body of Christ and others were not. He instituted the Lord's Supper and gave it to the church, not the community. The teachings of Christ must define our understanding of incarnational. 2. Incarnational AND Attractional Matter It is easy to bash traditional churches. Even the term "traditional" has become code for a church that is "outdated" and "dead." Most churches labeled as traditional are presumed to be based on attractional modes of ministry, and attractional is presumed to be non-missional. Attractional, however, is not the opposite or enemy of missional. Throughout the history of the church we find example after example of the church being both incarnational and attractional. Until the temple was destroyed, the Jerusalem church clearly exhibited both characteristics of incarnational and attractional. Canceling church services on Sunday morning and participating in service projects throughout the community is now called missional. This effort is commendable, but it does not mean the church is incarnational. So to slander churches that unapologetically invite people to come to their services and events as attractional and traditional is just as erroneous as to commend a church for being missional because it leaves the building for a day or forever. 3. Jesus' Example and Teaching Matter Luke tells us in chapter 15 the Pharisees and scribes criticized Jesus because He received sinners and ate with them. This passage grabs my attention every time I read it. Much can be said about their criticism of Jesus. Even more can be said about Jesus eating with sinners. Jesus responded to His critics with three parables. He used cultural language that grabbed their hearts and squeezed them with abrasive conviction. Three times He told them they should seek the lost and the lost must repent. Here is a lesson that missional must embody. Moving outside the church building and attracting people to our community service days and our cookouts does not make a church missional. In the 50's and 60's evangelists gained headlines in the papers for their giant, city-wide gatherings in the same way many "missional" events are noted in today's headlines and blogs. Should we organize and serve in our communities? I say, "Yes!" Should we invite our neighbors that do not attend a church to enjoy a meal in our homes? Again, I say, "Yes!" But we can do all of these things and more and fail to follow what Jesus teaches in these three parables. To be missional requires more than moving outside of our buildings, including non-believers in our ministries and gatherings, serving in our neighborhoods, and being culturally relevant. Next week I will describe Jesus' example of being missional and how we can (should) be both incarnational and attractional in our cities as we make disciples. Troy Bush