Missional Church is in full swing. In classic American fashion, we’ve created a whole industry around it—Networks, Conferences, Books, Blogs, Seminars, Schools, Workbooks, Degrees, and so on. Missional is becoming common parlance among American evangelicals. But at the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding. What kind of impact is missional church making?
Ed Stetzer reported a disappointing trend in 2008 of continued decline in conversions, church growth, and church starts. Church plants are popping up everywhere, but not faster than established churches are closing their doors. It appears that The Next Christendom isn’t returning to the shores of the West anytime soon. In fact, according to Gallup, cultural Christianity is on the decline. Are we to then assume that the missional church movement is a failure, a fad?
There are several reasons why Missional Church isn’t working. Here I will focus on one reason—syncretistic missional ecclesiology. Syncretistic missional ecclesiology (SME) is the fusion of missional church with institutional church. In other cultural contexts, syncretistic ecclesiology combines Christian church values and practices with other religious institutions like Buddhist temple life. Here we are concerned with the American context, the resurgence of missional church and its unhealthy integration into the institutional church.
Institutional Missional Church
Although many leaders and churches have embraced missional language and theology, they are still having trouble translating mission into their own communities. Why? Because church plants are fusing missional ecclesiology with their prior experience of institutional church. The nature of missional church requires more than cosmetic adjustments to our inherited forms of church. Missional ecclesiology requires an entirely new way of thinking about church, from the bottom up. Church plants and established churches have failed to recognize this important point. As a result, they have created a syncretistic ecclesiology, blending institutional church with missional church. This syncretism is both theologically and practically defective. Sometimes the blending of institutional and missional church is only functionally defective, prone to failure. Other times it is theologically defective, prone to heresy and correction. Here we will primarily focus on functionally defective SME.
Syncretistic Missional Church Practices
How do you know if you are approaching mission institutionally? Here are a few ways:
- Institutional mission relies on preaching, teaching, and writing to implement missional ecclesiology.
- Institutional mission adopts a program of mission during a set season of the year to implement missional ecclesiology.
- Institutional mission focuses on evangelistic and social justice events to implement missional ecclesiology.
- Institutional mission sees mission as a line item in the church budget, not mission as the whole budget.
- Institutional mission views mission as an implication of the gospel, not as part of the gospel.
While these institutional approaches are not bad, they are not enough. Church leadership and practices must be consonant with the nature of mission. The nature of mission is Spirit-initiated not man-made, organic not institutional, training not just teaching, relational not programmatic, gradual not instant. What we need is not institutional mission, but intuitive mission
Intuitive Missional Church
Intuitive mission relies on the intuition of the Spirit through the guidance of the Word to embed a gospel that is missional. It is not primarily concerned with implementation but with cultivation of DNA (see Hirsch’s Apostolic Genius). Intuitive mission is soaked in the Spirit’s guidance. It discerns missional leadership patterns in Scripture. It understands that mission is gospel-centric. It approaches mission as something to be cultivated. Here are some ways to know if you are practicing intuitive mission:
- Intuitive mission relies on Spirit-led prayer that begins with repentance over the sins of institutional, individualistic Christianity in neglecting the mission of the church and diminishing the glory of Christ.
- Intuitive mission discerns missional leadership patterns from Scripture instead of uncritically implementing business models of leadership.
- Intuitive mission cultivates missional DNA through personal and communal forms of training instead of relying primarily upon professional, monological communication.
- Intuitive mission spends lots of time with people not programs, so that we have networks of relationships in which we can authenticate the gospel we preach.
- Intuitive mission does “everyday things with gospel intentionality”, instead of seeing mission as either an evangelistic or social justice event.
If missional ecclesiology is to sufficiently permeate our churches and change our point in history, then we will have to do a better job of spotting our institutionalism. We will need to rigorously weed out unhealthy syncretistic missional ecclesiology. Throw out institutional mission while retaining our rich traditions. Cultivate intuitive mission practices that remain faithful to the gospel and force a gracious, deliberate, and discerning reworking of institutional mission. It is a difficult process. I fall back into my inherited patterns of ecclesiology all the time, so pray for me. I welcome your help. Let’s push mission all the way through our churches, by the grace of God, to see his gospel permeate every aspect of life.
26 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 30, 2009 at 6:08 pm
JR Rozko
Thanks for this post Jonathan, I couldn’t agree more. For the sake of discussion, I thought I’d add a few thoughts.
While I am all for seeking and following the leadership of the Holy Spirit, the notion of “intuition” might be problematic. After all, isn’t intuitively following the leading the Spirit the trump card that any well-intentioned Christian might play?
More than this, I would suggest that our “going deeper,” means rethinking not only our conceptions of church from bottom up, but even the very conceptions of the nature of the gospel and salvation that led to a particular way of understanding and being the church in the first place.
If our basic theology doesn’t shift, then any alterations we make to our understanding of what it means to be the church will remain cosmetic and disconnected.
December 30, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Jonathan Dodson
I appreciate your concern, JR, which is why I defined intuitive mission as relying, not merely on the Spirit but also on the Word to embed the gospel and not just practices or cosmetic alterations.
I also share your concern for theological integrity, which is why I tie intuitive mission to the Gospel itself. Intuitive mission way of leading and planting churches that transmits the historic gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, if we don’t follow this approach then we will end up with an un-historic gospel, one that is distorted by American institutionalism, business practices, consumerism, and technology. Note I said
I hope that clarifies. Let me know if I am not following your point.
December 30, 2009 at 6:34 pm
JR Rozko
Yeah, all that is really good! The problem is everyone thinks they are faithful to Scripture as well as gospel-centric. The real point is getting at a “missional” reading of Scripture and a “missional” understanding of the gospel.
Yes, we need to seek the Spirit’s guidance through the Word, but many of us need to re-learn how to read the Bible as a story of God’s mission in and through history.
Yes, we need to root mission in the gospel, but we need a renewed appreciation for the very nature of that gospel, one rooted in the same mission of God.
For me, it is the concept (and reality!) of the Missio Dei that guides these things.
December 30, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Jonathan Dodson
We are in agreement, JR. You’re just bringing out another important part of the missional conversation, our motivation and understanding of mission as described and embodied by the Scriptures. I really like this sentence, which could be placed under the list of Intuitive Mission practices:
“many of us need to re-learn how to read the Bible as a story of God’s mission in and through history.”
December 30, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Bob Thune
JD, I love ya, but I disagree with ya. I think this post is overly simplistic.
“The nature of missional church requires more than cosmetic adjustments to our inherited forms of church. Missional ecclesiology requires an entirely new way of thinking about church, from the bottom up.” This statement creates an either/or dichotomy: the only way to have a missional ecclesiology is to start from scratch. While I share your passion for church planting, I, for one, am thankful that many established/institutional churches are trying (however weakly) to move in a more missional direction. Time will tell if it works or not. I’m just saying: I don’t believe that it’s an either-or. If it IS, then we should be working AGAINST established churches instead of with them.
Furthermore, you (and me, and others) spend a lot of time “preaching, teaching, and writing, in order to implement missional ecclesiology.” If this means we’re approaching mission institutionally, I guess I’m guilty as charged. Or maybe it means that people are listening and reading, seeking to intuitively discern the voice of the Spirit through our communication, so that they can be equipped to live with gospel intentionality.
December 30, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Jonathan Dodson
Thanks for weighing in Bob. I love and respect you, so let’s try to work this out.
That sentence doesn’t create a dichotomy but calls for a different way of thinking about church, which is exactly what missional ecclesiology requires. I am not advocating an either/or.
I think you have misunderstood the post. My point isn’t that it the only way to have a missional church is to start from scratch. Rather, my point is that traditional churches and church plants have to do the hard work of rethinking organizational structures, leadership, community, all things church along the lines of mission. If we just co-opt missional language, go to a few conferences, and start preaching mission without doing the ground level retooling, then mission won’t stick. Perhaps you could re-read the Practices of Intuitive Mission I wrote up? If followed, they help leaders, pastors, and planters push mission through everything and not stop short by adding a few events or sermons.
I rejoice in the missionalizing of traditional churches, and have learned and continue to learn a lot of things from them in other ways. And, yes, we should spend time preaching, teaching, and writing, but not to institutionalize mission but to stimulate missional leadership and community.
Here are some examples of where I struggle with this syncretization of traditional and missional church:
1. Approaching mission as an event performed by our missional community once an month, instead of living out a missional life with everyday gospel intentionality.
2. Seeing myself as a pastor of a staff, instead of living my life as a person in missional community.
3. Preaching mission without sufficiently training MC leaders for mission.
4. Spending enough time in civic and social areas, instead of remaining in my areas of comfort, as Christian as they may be.
5. Borrowing best missional practices without sufficiently rethinking them thru our own local context.
6. Preaching missionally, sensitively to my context, instead of just preaching mission.
7. Training missional leaders but not spending enough time with them day in and day out.
8. Requiring too much of leaders and not enough of the community.
In all these areas, institutional-traditional approaches see mission as something to me implemented not cultivated, done not thought out. We all need help in this ecclesial shift, and I believe we need less institution and more Spirit-led, Word-shaped, intutition to plant and lead missional churches.
Hope that clarifies.
December 30, 2009 at 9:57 pm
captainquaker
As always, your post is inspiring, challenging, and incredibly well-written.
December 31, 2009 at 12:27 am
Derek
Great post, JD. I’m a long-time reader and avid fan.
But there is one part I’d like more clarification on: you write that one of the syncretistic practices is viewing “mission as an implication of the gospel, not as part of the gospel.”
At first glance, I’d highly disagree with this. From my view, mission as a part of the Gospel is anthropocentric. Mission, at least in my understanding, is a result of seeing Christ for who He is because of what He’s done and is doing by the Spirit in our lives (the Gospel). While Christ’s mission in His incarnation, perfect life, atonement, resurrection, and ascension is a part of the Gospel, our mission in doing “everyday things with gospel intentionality” is not.
The Good News is not, nor does it include, the fact that I’ve befriended someone over a two-year period to be used of the Spirit to lead them to faith, constantly discipling them in everyday situations. Sure, that is good news. But not the Good News. The Good News is the person and completed work of Christ.
The way I see it, the reason I’ve lived missionally is because of the person and completed work of Christ. Therefore, my missional life is an implication of the Gospel, not a part of it.
Hopefully you’ll bring some clarity to my thinking.
Godspeed.
December 31, 2009 at 5:12 am
Sam DeSocio
Im 3/4 on board with you. I think you are right in calling existing church to avoiding missionally stamping their existing programs, so instead of bible studies we have missional communities with the thoughts, values and practices remaining almost entirely unaltered. I also agree we cant just copy someone else all leaders need to ask how do I minister here, not just how is Pastor Acme ministering is his area.
I agree with Bob Thune, Intended or not your post is very dichotomized. Your final Institutional Mission church paragraph reveals this when you say “Spirit-initiated not man-made, organic not institutional, training not just teaching, relational not programmatic, gradual not instant.”
The real question is how do we remove the junk while retaining the good. The church is both an organization and an organism. We can’t demonize or even characterize institutions. The institutional church has given us many great thinkers and practitioners, men and women, who have challenged the church to keep pursuing Christ in the totality of its existence.
Thanks for your thoughts.
December 31, 2009 at 5:29 am
jamesbrett
While I agree with most of the post, I’m just curious about the statistics we started from. We often talk about measuring “Christianity” and its “success,” but I don’t really understand how we’re doing that.
You wrote,”Ed Stetzer reported a disappointing trend in 2008 of continued decline in conversions, church growth, and church starts. Church plants are popping up everywhere, but not faster than established churches are closing their doors.”
My first question is whether or not ‘church starts’ and church plants’ are the same thing? Because Ed reports they’re in decline in one sentence, while in the next sentence it’s stated that church plants are plentiful. But my primary question is whether or not its at least possible that Christianity is on the rise in terms of creating obedient and lifelong disciples of Christ, in contrast to larger numbers of nominal adherents and church attenders?
It’s not that I disagree with the post. I do believe what you guys talk about as missional church needs to be adopted in more than word and appearance. Though, at the same time, I have to be honest and say that I missed out on most of the history of this practice of ‘missional’ and what it means exactly. I seem to be a bit behind on the vocabulary…
Question three: Do these missional churches you guys speak about do much internationally? Because that might also be another way in which you’re finding success, but not in the numbers given by Ed Stetzer?
December 31, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Bob Thune
Jonathan, thanks for the response… your thoughts clarify but don’t erase my contention that your post is overly simplistic. Another way to frame my question: are Keller’s and Driscoll’s churches missional? I would say yes. Your post would require you to say no. I agree with much of what you wrote; I just think you are falling into some false dichotomies. If you don’t want to think of yourself as a pastor of a staff team, that’s fine; but the first time you have to fire someone, it’s going to wreak havoc on your view of missional community. Because you can’t fire someone from the mission of God, or from community; but there are times when you HAVE TO fire them from your missional-church staff. This post is going to back you into a corner when that day comes. (I may or may not be speaking from experience.) 🙂
Also, I had the same reservations as Derek about your articulation of the relationship between mission and gospel.
December 31, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Jonathan Dodson
Thanks for the hearty interactions, men. Here’s my response. (FYI: all caps is for emphasis, not because I am angry, I promise!)
DEREK: You make good points, and this could be a very long discussion. However, I can make it brief by explaining what I meant.
Three things come to mind regarding the missional nature of the Gospel:
1. The Gospel is missional because God is missional. Mission isn’t an implication of God; it is his very nature, i.e. the Missio Dei. The Gospel is the good news of a missionary God.
2. The Gospel is missional because it is news not information. It is not static information to be read, believed, and be saved. Rather it is an announcement, a public declaration that Jesus Christ is Lord, thus it is inherently active, on mission. (Is 52:7; 61;1ff; Luk 4)
3. The Gospel is missional because it is incarnational, the ultimate act of mission. Jesus leaving his heavenly glory to bring redemption to earth. This too is missional, Jesus is sent (Jn 17).
SAM: If you read a little closer, you’ll see that both you and Bob are missing the meaning of the text. The quote you point to was taken out of context. The subject in that sentence is not institutional church but THE NATURE OF MISSION. I am describing practices that flow from missional ecclesiology that are missed if we ONLY lead with traditional methods. Think Alan Hirsch’s Apostolic Genius.
As you point out, we need to discern which institutional methods should be kept and which ones should not. That is why this is such an important point. Please note that I do not denigrate institutional approaches, but say they are not enough:
It is possible for missional churches to lead institutionally, not intuitively. My list in the comments above is an example of that. So, again, the post is being misread. I am not pitting Institutional Churches against Missional Churches. Rather, I clearly state that I am comparing INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES against MISSIONAL PRACTICES. There is a difference. And on that note, I am drawing a distinction but not a dichotomization. EX:
Teaching is both an institutional and intuitive practice, performed by all kinds of churches, missional or not.
JAMES:
1. Overall church growth is in decline, despite the increase of church plants/starts (same thing).
2. Read Stetzers series on Meanings of Missional .
3. Yes, many missional churches are engaged locally and globally, but not all.
December 31, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Jonathan Dodson
Thanks Bob. You are still missing my point. Please read the above response. I don’t have problem firing anyone, that is not the issue. I am not saying that Keller and Driscoll dont have missional churches. Please read the above explanation.
I am making DISTINCTIONS not DICHOTOMIES. There is a big difference.
December 31, 2009 at 2:58 pm
JR Rozko
Bob, I’m interested, in your opinion, by what criteria do Keller and Driscoll’s churches qualify as missional? What genuinely sets a missional church apart from whatever other forms might define?
December 31, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Derek
BOB and JR: Your comments disturb me by working backwards from existing churches (Mars Hill and Redeemer) that we assume have it “right”. While I love what those men are doing as well, I won’t justify my definition of gospel and mission by my classification of those churches. As pastor-theologians, our first responsibility should be to discern absolute truth, and then relate it to our purposes (in this instance, classifying churches). That is, instead of saying “considering this missional church, this is mission” we should ask “this is mission, so is this church missional?”.
JD: To maybe assist in thinking through the distinction/dichotomy dilemma, here are my two cents: it does indeed seem as if you are presenting a dichotomy. There are two options explored (institutional and missional), and it’s an either-or proposition, hence the sentence “Syncretistic missional ecclesiology (SME) is the fusion of missional church with institutional church.” (which is labeled unhealthy in the same paragraph). Two mutually exclusive options are a dichotomy, which is a type of distinction. If you’d allow for a mingling of missional and institutional church that is healthy (which I think you would, considering the “institution” of 1 timothy 3, titus 1, etc. with the missional imperatives of the NT), no longer do you have a dichotomy. A simple rewording would work: “Syncretistic missional ecclesiology (SME) is the UNHEALTHY fusion of missional church with institutional church.”
Now I’ll examine your clarifications, which are helpful for me, but not satisfactory [ of course 🙂 ].
I’d definitely agree that the Gospel is missional in nature. Absolutely, without a doubt. My main question is this, though: would you distinguish between the mission of the church and the missio dei? If so, are both a part of the Gospel, or just one? In my thinking, the missio dei (sending the Son who sends the Spirit to regenerate people for the purpose of worship through disciple-making and culture-forming) is inherent to the Gospel. So if that’s what you mean, then I’m all aboard. But if you’re thinking that the Good News includes the missio populis (the outward working of the inward regeneration of people by means of the Gospel – “everyday intentional living”), so to speak, then I have some qualms about that one.
Again, your thoughts are on point for the most part, and much appreciated. I’m loving thinking through this with you. Thanks for all you do for the Kingdom and for the city of Austin. It makes a difference, at least here in NC. Be encouraged, bro.
December 31, 2009 at 3:44 pm
JR Rozko
Derek – If you read my earlier comments, you’ll note that I am not working backwards. In fact, I was trying to get even more basic than Jonathan was originally intending. In asking by what criteria Bob believes Redeemer and Mars Hill to be missional, I am in effect asking, about his basic definition of missional ecclesiology. I suppose if he wanted to he could derive that definition from what existing churches are doing, but I am betting he’s smarter than that 😉
December 31, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Derek
Yeah, he is smarter. 🙂 And my apologies for reading surface level. I’m betting you’re smarter than that as well.
December 31, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Jonathan Dodson
Thanks guys. This has been sharpening. I will probably write a full-length article on this topic, and am happy to concede that this post did not adequately express my intention. Thanks for pointing that out.
This is my last response on this post, but look forward to more interaction in future posts.
Derek:
1. I don’t think “unhealthy” is required in the definition of SME since missiology associates “syncretism” with unhealthiness. However, not everyone is aware of this, and clarity is king, so I’ll bring that out in the future.
2. Yes, the mission of the church is an implication of the mission of God. Distinct but necessary. Not familiar with “missio populis” can you point me to that literature?
Thanks very much, Derek. Humbled by the gospel,
JD
December 31, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Derek
JD: We’re on the same page, then. And if you read my comment, you read “the literature” on missio populis. 😀 Looking forward to the full treatment.
December 31, 2009 at 11:01 pm
links for 2009-12-31 | jonathan stegall: creative tension
[…] Syncretistic Missional Ecclesiology: The Failure of Missional Church « Church Planting Novice "Missional ecclesiology requires an entirely new way of thinking about church, from the bottom up. Church plants and established churches have failed to recognize this important point. As a result, they have created a syncretistic ecclesiology, blending institutional church with missional church." (tags: mission missiology church ecclesiology) […]
January 3, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Simply Missional - Great Thoughts
[…] friend, Austin church planter and HELP advisory board member Jonathan Dodson shares a great post on Syncretistic Missional Ecclesiology. Great […]
January 3, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Erick Bauman
Sadly, as well presented as this piece is, for the masses and plumbers with GEDs it’s futile and overly academic. Let’s incorporate the least of these into our missional work and get the word into the hand and activate the hearts that have been written upon to live sent as love letters to their communities.
We can’t do this until we realize a missional life and institution is no different from each other. Our goal and prize is working ourselves out of a job. Who amongst us can stand up and say I’d give away my hard work that I’ve toiled over for these years to raise up others to take my place in a continuious progress? Who’s a serial planter/discipler? Being missional is about being able to let go in leadership and walk along others not ahead. And so much more. Could you imagine the Church of Austin in a macro sense if people relenquished their titles, lead from
influence and ushered in others to lead likewise?revival and renewal of the city would take place. True metrics would change like crime, divorce and various other catagories alike, rather than “converts” and budgets increasing. We are not missional unless we can measure it through the renewal of our city’s metrics. When those are influenced and it’s not attributed to the citys actions, God is transforming it… Now I’m rambling and on another track… Just my rough thoughts.
January 3, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Jonathan Dodson
This piece wasn’t written for that group, Erick. However, 90% of this site is practical and accessible to church planters and missionally minded folk. I encourage you to check out the Tools for Missional Church.
Fortunately, there are a lot of leaders leading from influence in Austin, as you described, and renewal is taking place. I love that vision. Praise God.
January 16, 2010 at 6:21 pm
The Blind Beggar » Blog Archive » Friend of Missional Update
[…] Syncretistic Missional Ecclesiology: The Failure of Missional Church […]
January 22, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Jeff
I understand your concern for the issue you’ve raised and I agree with much of what you’ve said. I would point out, though, that you begin your argument on a false premise:
1. Missional church is in full swing.
2. Stetzer says the church is still trending downward.
3. Therefore, missional church is not working.
It is a huge and unwarranted leap from Nos. 1&2 to No. 3. All the self-declared missional churches in the USA could be growing leaps and bounds and the larger Church could still be trending downward. The missional church remains a small part of the overall scene.
Your observations about contradictions inherent in a traditional (you refer to it as institutional) missional church may, in fact, be the case for some churches. Just say that, toss the false premise and your overall argument will have more integrity.
January 22, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Jonathan Dodson
Thanks, Jeff.
To clarify my premise, you’ve read too much into my opening sentence. I didn’t mean comprehensive full swing, but rather, it has taken off in a very American, mass marketing kind of way.
The opening paragraph is not a premise, but a description of some things that are occuring. Think of it as a hook, not a premise.