Characteristics of a Missional Church

[SoniaSephia]

"not relying on evangelical sub-cultural jargon." Thank you! I grew as Roman Catholic, I'm a Mexican, live in southern California, then went to Baptist University in my city, 80% tof the people there are from the Bible Belt and use alot "evangelic jargon" that when classmates explained gospel to me, it made not sense. And then they would explain thier jargon with more jargon :P So yes a church that uses real language that's clear is always a must if they wanna reach anyone :) Go Tim!

[machisendai]

Why does "Go" and "Bring them in" have to be in opposition to each other? Take the account of Philip going to get his brother Nathanael and bring him to Jesus. "Going" has the objective of "bringing" people to where they can meet Jesus, and what better place to meet Jesus than "where 2 or 3 are gathered"? Also, the missional conversation does not equate the church with a building. "Church" is a believing community living out its calling as a sign, instrument and foretaste of the Kingdom.

[darthfocus]

@machisendai wow, no offense man but where 2 or 3 are gathered has to do with judgment and discipline and never meeting Jesus. The church is not for non believers, never was or will be.

[machisendai]

@darthfocus I think your response is an overstatement, but be that as it may, what I imply is not that unbelievers constitute the church. That would be absurd. What I mean to say is that what better place for unbelievers to encounter Jesus than through believers, disciples? People today will not usually meet Jesus through someone lecturing them or giving them a prepackaged presentation. People today encounter Jesus best in a community of authentic Christians, where actions back up words.

[darthfocus]

@machisendai Actually understated, it primarily has to do with restoration within the church. I agree with you so long as that community reproves rebukes and exhorts with great patience and instruction handling accurately the word of truth under pastoral/elder care. John 13:35 is a better reference than Matt 18: 15-20 when it comes to making disciples.

[slick222]

"As long as we apologize for ourselves and take most of the challenge out of the gospel, we can grow churches in places where Christianity is socially undesirable." Sounds more like marketing than missions.

[ReformedTheology5]

WARNING SUBTLE FALSE TEACHERS. DRISCOLL AND WARREN ARE EMERGENT AND ECUMENICAL. MISSIONAL IS SECRET CODE FOR EMERGENT. YOU MUST KNOW THIS. THEY PUT DOWN BIBLE'S RIGHT WAY.

[prlang]

so true...

[kleewins]

Those who feel they are judged or condemned is due to their own consciences.

[kleewins]

It is seeker-sensitive which undermines the power of the Spirit. The Church does not belong to this world. Jesus says in Matt 5: "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.

You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden."

[bradjjohnston]

hey k, good thots personaly i understood him 2 say that the way we/christians talk and act can b offensive and we don't need 2b. We all know the mess. of Jesus is ofensive-that wont & shouldnt change. agreed-our job is to communicate the fullness of the gospel but sometimes we add layers of judgment/superiority. Jesus did offend mostly religious folk but he loved those who didn't know him treating them with respect/dignity that was gentle but stirring. I think we forget the gentle gracious part

[kleewins]

1 Cor 1:17-20 (NIV)

17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Is he saying that Christians should conform their thinking to the world so as to not offend those who are guilty before God? If they aren't offended how will understand the message of the cross?

[mapliopl]

One thing that really struck me was his last sentence, "I think most non-christians, when they see what christians are obsessed with, they can't even begin to relate to them."

SLAP IN THE FACE!

[mapliopl]

marvelous. How I wish more christians understood mission that way.

[m2redshirt]

Although Christians should be concerned with problems that non-Christians are concerned about, that shouldn't be the be-all end-all method of drawing people to the body of Christ. The responsibility of a Gospel-preaching church is to emphasize REAL problems that non-Christians typically do not focus on, namely, the problems of SIN, life after death, present life without God, etc. So there is some validity to churches that focus on things that non-Christians do not connect with. Love is the key.

[rawen2008]

If we don't "Go" to them, how will they COME to us? We should "Go" so that they might "Come". Just another thought.

[geehadio]

Are they really supposed to understand? Shouldnt Christians show such a difference in lifestyle that it makes non-believers wonder?

[ElJibaroBravo]

I'm just getting into Missional theology and I gotta say I'm feeling like I'm "coming home" again. This just feels right to me & more importantly, it's apparently more Biblical. However, I'm not sure I agree with the whole "let's bring in the non-believer to church" rhetoric. Why? The church (building) is for believers to be edified and commisioned. Jesus said "Go!" not "Bring them in".

Just my thoughts.

[piccadillywilson]

Spot on - the 'bring them in' paradigm is the fatal flaw in what Keller is saying in this interview. A church concerned with 'bringing the lost into the sanctuary' is Attractional not Missional. That doesn't mean it's not a good church and not an important part of God's Kingdom design - it's just not a Missional church.

[anthonythirteen]

@piccadillywilson But, much of what he says in this piece - the tendency of Christians to pretend they are 'different', in some sense of not being 'worldly' - then we cannot reach out. Similarly, we shouldn't pursue getting people in by diluting the message to a point that God becomes a soft figure that we can mould to fit our own percieved needs.

[dutchpuppy2]

@anthonythirteen I got the idea that Christians need to keep in mind that they and seekers ARE alike and it's the similarities that need to be shown as part of the bridge to reach others. Also part of the message is that while people are alike, a Christian can live using a different set of priorities, in the world but not OF the world. How do you think this should go? Did I understand your point correctly? GB!

[anthonythirteen]

@dutchpuppy2 I totally agree with the IN not OF the world statement. This is what Keller is aiming at here. Too often, it is easy to become 'of' the world in an attempt to atract non-believers: the powerpoint presentations & absence of any judgment/ sin & salvation ("just turn up say you're a believer and your in"). I've seen this lead to cult-like churches, because all you have to do is follow what the guy at the front says, and give them 10% then you can become a member.

[anthonythirteen]

@dutchpuppy2 Indeed, those that follow the Emergent Church approaches actually become more 'closed off', because they emphasise you coming into "their church". They are worried about getting 'bottoms on seats' that they focus on that - there is no working through of the Great Commission.

[dutchpuppy2]

@anthonythirteen I've read...it might have been Lee Stroebel, talking about making seekers feel lost by the use of Christian "jargon" and that some churches are mostly trying to (properly) bring seekers in while other churches are servicing believers. I hadn't thought about this before, though I once brought three interested people into London Hillsong and the "friendly" service of the week before became a healing service, freaking them out. What should be done, do you think?

[anthonythirteen]

@dutchpuppy2 Having been in churches that claim to follow Hillsong & other Emerging Chruches, I find them intimidating! There shouldn't be this division between 'recruiting' and 'development' churches: frankly, plenty of immature Christians are running the latter, so how to make the distinction between mature & immature? Feeling welcomed & accepted is the key - no need for constant loud music, forced tithing, aggressive marketing of books, just be friendly!?

[dutchpuppy2]

@anthonythirteen Perhaps things like small groups can span the gaps. In our small group, we have two non-Christians who also regularly attend church, as well, but can receive needed personal attention for their questions in a less intimidating smaller gathering.

[anthonythirteen]

@dutchpuppy2 Mmmm, I know what you mean. Unfortunately, my experience is that the atmosphere in these groups either isn't much better than the full church, or they are a huddle of survivors marginalised from the 'true path' of the main church & their leaders.

[dutchpuppy2]

@anthonythirteen My experience is quite positive with them! We go over the sermons and cover any questions and then eat GREAT food! I get to eat lots of stuff I never heard of before as I am the only "westerner" in our group. We spend a lot of time laughing during the fellowship time and the spirit can be felt! :)

[anthonythirteen]

@dutchpuppy2 Yes, I have felt this myself. But not in churches that pursue 'Emerging Church' type strategies with their rock music, warehouse buildings and trendy 'team leaders', just the usual middle of the road (fairly) liberal local churches without overy 'missional' obsessions, just happy & welcoming.

[dutchpuppy2]

@anthonythirteen Yep, I've seen that. We gotta get out there and do something!! ...and not be complacent, "preaching to the choir."

[Redempt88]

That is very awesome

[dmiller5282]

You mean the seeker model isn't the be-all and end-all? Blasphemy! Just Kidding. Singularity and clarity of vision is attractive.