Characteristics of a Missional Church

Tim Keller discusses issues related to the Desiring God 2006 National Conference. Also see http://www.timkeller.info/ for all things Tim Keller.

• Category

  People & Blogs

[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.

[Heysuperfuzz]

Dishonest: at some point you have to talk about doctrine unless you just focus on know 3:16. I don't like pretending I don't have certain exclusive truth positions and after they convert we spring it on them lol.

[DiscoverJesus]

I believe a healthy church will be both attractional and missional - the mission is surely the lives of the congregation lived out in a Christ-like manner underpinned by the theological framework of the church community. Attraction could be to specific events OR the more "missional " more informal gatherings or one to one outside of Church timetable. Perhaps what needs to be re-emphasised is both aspects within the life of more churches rather than the polarising of these two models

[Heysuperfuzz]

But the clique within evangelicalism isn't good either. One side is obnoxiously Christian and the missional side pretends they are totally different.

[darthfocus]

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.

[machisendai]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.