This perspective of a missional church starkly contrasts the typical church today that sees itself as a church that has missions. In these churches, missions are always done by a specially called person who is a missionary. Missions is always done in a foreign country. Missions is a program or ministry that is run by a committee in the church. The church goes on mission trips, has a missions fund, and has a missions bulletin board in the foyer with a map of the world with colored pushpins in it. Missions is completely separate from the church and exist out of the church. The church has missions.
Whereas a missional church understands the opposite—the mission of God has a church. This perspective changes everything. This means that the mission field is where the church is. We are all missionaries. There is no missions program. Instead, every program and ministry is a missional program. The church doesn’t run missions—the mission runs the church. The church doesn’t have a mission. The mission has a church. This is what it means to be a missional church. Being missional isn’t the next catchy fad, but instead it is being caught up in the mission of God.
The word missional also gets its meaning and understanding from John 20:21 when Jesus tells his disciples, “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” We must understand that the Father sent Jesus. God is a missionary God. God is on a mission to reconcile the entire world to Himself. Therefore, the Father sent Jesus into the world to usher in the Kingdom of God in order to begin this reconciliation. This is what theologians call the Missio Dei (Latin for Mission of God).
Jesus then tells his disciples that he is sending them on the same mission. Jesus calls his church to go into the world and to share that the King has come and that we can be reconciled to the Father. Being a missional church means that you understand that the church is sent on mission as an instrument and as a sign of the Missio Dei. Although the word missional has only been used for a few years, the concept has been around since the 1950s. Darrell L. Guder and Lois Barrett tell us the following:
By mid-century, the emphasis in mission thought shifted toward a theocentric approach that, in contrast, stressed the mission of God (Missio Dei) as the foundation for the mission of the church. The church became redefined as the community spawned by the mission of God and gathered up into that mission. The church was coming to understand that in any place it is a community sent by God. “Mission” is not something the church does, a part of its total program. No, the church’s essence is missional, for the calling and sending action of God forms its identity. Mission is founded on the mission of God in the world, rather than the church’s effort to extend itself.[1]
A missional church exists because of and for the mission of God.
[1] Darrell L. Guder and Lois Barrett,
Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 82.
The word missional’s meaning is rooted deeply within the understanding of the church’s purpose. This purpose displays itself in three different ways. The church is a missionary sent on mission as a sign and instrument of the Missio Dei. The first area in which we are called to be missional is as a missionary in our own culture. The general idea of a missionary is a person in a foreign country in a completely non-Christian culture. But in reality, today all Christians live in non-Christian cultures. Tim Keller gives insight into this reality by focusing on the missionary Lesslie Newbigin:
The British missionary Lesslie Newbigin went to India around 1950. There he was involved with a church living ‘in mission’ in a very non-Christian culture. When he returned to England some 30 years later, he discovered that now the Western church too existed in a non-Christian society, but it had not adapted to its new situation. Though public institutions and popular culture of Europe and North America no longer ‘Christianized’ people, the church still ran its ministries assuming that a stream of ‘Christianized,’ traditional/moral people would simply show up in services. Some churches certainly did ‘evangelism’ as one ministry among many. But the church in the West had not become completely ‘missional’—adapting and reformulating absolutely everything it did in worship, discipleship, community, and service—so as to be engaged with the non-Christian society around it. It had not developed a ‘missiology of western culture’ the way it had done so for other nonbelieving cultures.
Even if you are in a “Christianized” culture, the reality is that we still need to view ourselves as missionaries. Every culture needs some amount of contextualization of the gospel. This means that you have to be missionary to do the contextualization needed to present the gospel.
What is the difference between a church that has missions and a missional church? This seems to be the question that everyone is asking lately, and it has been one that I’ve been developing a personal answer to for a while.
There always seems to be a new buzzword in Christian circles every few years. The words enter our vocabulary quickly and leave just as fast. People reword mission and purpose statements around them, and some even restructure their entire church around them. “Seeker-sensitive,” “purpose-driven,” “organic,” and “emerging” are just a few, but the newest to be added to the list is the word “missional.” It is the new buzzword of our day. There are missional churches, missional small groups, missional preaching, missional books, missional degrees, and even missional missiology.
But what does “missional” mean exactly? Most people use it without even stopping to determine what it means. Worst yet, some simply make it mean what they want it to mean to give themselves license to do idiotic and irrelevant acts. This is a sad thing, because the word missional has a deep and beautiful meaning for our churches today.
