This is an important question: “When is a missional community a church?” It gets at the root of our essential ecclesiology—what makes church, church. Some would emphasize the presence of elders, others would emphasize the presence of people, others the gospel and sacraments, still others a people on mission. Where do you fall? When are missional communities considered churches? When are missional core teams considered “a church”?
Check out the answers to this question here.
Advertisements
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 12, 2008 at 12:43 am
brian
I think Driscoll & Brashears definition of the church is biblical,
“The local church is a community of confessing believers in Jesus Christ who obey Scripture by organizing under qualified leadership, gather regularly for preaching and worship, and scatter to evangelize and care for people everywhere. They observe the Biblical sacraments of baptism and communion, and are unified by the Spirit for mission in the world, and are disciplined to live out the Great Commandment and the Great Commission to the glory of God.”
Practically, the institutionalized church asks the question becomes, “how often?” How often do we gather for preaching and worship? how often do we observe communion?”
I think the missional church practices these regularly, but their question is “How often and where?” How often and where are we scattering the gospel and caring for others. How often and where are we living out the Great Commission?”
December 13, 2008 at 9:37 am
Adam Hoffman
I answer this question based on a knowledge of modalities and sodalities (Dr. Ralph Winter, Perspectives on the World Christian Movement).
To me they serve two different functions and are complimentary instead of inter-related. Missional communities (by my definition) are inherently outward in focus and are often tied together through a set of values and tasks. The major mission orders function like this.
While the hope of the church is to serve the community and participate in various levels of the society, a primary function is pastoring and shepherding, leading people to communion with God. I don’t know of missional communities that baptize, serve communion and preach on a regular basis.
I see it as a multi-level decision. You can easily join a church and get involved in that structure. But to be involved in a missional community takes a second level decision. It is striping away the negatives of Western cultural Christianity and focusing on God’s Ultimate Glory, His purposes and how he has gifted us to serve Him in those purposes.
Let me know if you’ve heard of the sodality/modality distinction and what you think about this.
December 13, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Jonathan Dodson
Thanks, Adam. Yes, I am aware of Winter’s M/S distinction; however, I’m not sure that MCs actually fit nicely into those distinction.
Many missional communities are elder-led and share communion. And many churches that are MC driven, don’t see them as optional but essential. Take our church, for instance, we had MCs (we call them City Groups) before we had a big weekend gathering. City Groups are where the church is the church to one another and to the city. We have people in CGs that dont attend our services and vice-versa. Soma and Kaleo churches in San Diego and Tacoma are experiencing something similar, but on an even larger scale.
Winter now advocates a “churchless Christianity” which goes outside the Reformation structures of church, what he calls a “Third Reformation.” Both you and Brian seem to be assume some certain “marks of the church” handed down from the Reformation as the essential criteria for church. WHile I agree that there are certain non-negotiables besides community and mission, biblically speaking, where do you see support for a church being defined as a communion taking, monologue preaching community?
Just trying to refine the conversation here. According to your definitions, would an MC be a church if it had and elder, preached the word and took communion? Is there a minimum number of people?