Mark D. Roberts

Mark D. Roberts

P.S. – Is the Missional Church Just a Fad?

Part 17 of series: The Mission of God and the Missional Church
Permalink for this post
/ Permalink for this series
As I was working my way through this series, I received a question from Matthew in one of the comments. He wondered, “Do you think being missional is just a passing fad as marketing was for the church a few years back?”
Great question! The church has a way of making a big deal out of something for a while, only to forget about it later. Yes, this happened with marketing, as Matthew points out. In the 90s the big deal was “cell groups” and “seeker-sensitive” worship. Now you rarely hear those phrases, for better or for worse. So, will “missional” go the way of “marketing,” “cell groups,” and “seeker-sensitive”?
Since I don’t claim to have prophetic gifts, at least in the “tell-the-future” mode, I can’t answer Matthew’s question with any certainty. But this question does give me a chance to say something crucial about the missional character of the church. No matter whether we use the word “missional” or not, I think I’ve shown in this series that the church is meant by God to be essentially missional. Or, to make it more particular, every single church should accept its identity as a missional community, a group of people who have been sent by God to do His work and share His truth in a given place.
Thus, the church is necessarily missional in a way that differs from how it might or might not be cell group based or seeker sensitive or committed to marketing the gospel. In fact, one might even say, on biblical and theological grounds, that the church should not be cell group based or seeker sensitive or committed to marketing the gospel. But on those very same grounds, it seems to me very clear that the church is missional at its very core. In a sense, every single church has been “sent” by God to do God’s work. Every church should recognize its missional identity and should act in faithfulness to this identity.
Of course I’m the first to admit that this doesn’t always happen. Many churches, perhaps most, are more committed to self preservation and meeting the needs of members than to mission. But I hope and pray that more and more churches will move away from this inward-looking posture to one that is truly and fully missional.
Will the word “missional” remain an active part of our vocabulary as Christians? Who knows? But let me close with a story that might help to answer this question.
When I first heard the church described as missional, and when I came to understand what the word “missional” meant, I was 100% supportive of the idea. But I didn’t like the language. “Missional” sounded strange to my ears, and I feared that calling the church missional would be confusing. Many people would assume that the missional church is one committed to overseas missions, to sending and supporting missionaries, rather than to local mission, to spreading the good news of Christ in one’s own neighborhood.
Mike Regele, a good friend of mine, was a strong advocate for the “missional” label. Once, while we were having breakfast together, he said to me, “I hope for the day when I’ll hear in my own church the fact that we are missional.” I responded by saying, “I’m with you completely when it comes to the idea, but I don’t think I’ll ever use the word ‘missional.’ It’s just too confusing.” Mike wasn’t happy with me, but he accepted my conclusion.
Two years later, I preached a series of sermons on the church as a missional community, making it very clear to my own congregation that we were to be a missional church. Mike was happy. More importantly, I believed I was using an appropriate word to educate and challenge my people to be who they were in Christ.
So, it seems to me that the word “missional” just might have legs. It might be around in ten years, maybe even in a hundred, because it captures something essential about the church. But whether or not the word “missional” sticks, my hope and prayer is that the church of Jesus Christ, and every single individual church, will recognize our essentially missional character, and will be fully invested in the mission to which God has sent us. May this never pass away as some sort of temporary fad.

  • robert austell

    I have had a different reaction to the “missional fad” – almost in the opposite direction from the reader you mention above. I’m all for it! But, my first reaction to missional this and missional that was, “Duh, this is what I’ve always believed the Church is about.” The only faddish part about it are those who will get revved up about new lingo for a very old idea – the Great Commission… loving neighbor… being salt and light… being and serving the light of the world. I don’t mind the new attention to the old idea… I just hope the Church won’t forget our calling when the next set of buzzwords come along.

  • Mark Goodyear

    I’m not sure about the word “missional” either. But then, I’m not a big fan of church jargon (or jargon of any kind to be fair).
    On the other hand, if we can get people to think of this word as a way for the church to start giving itself away again… then more power to the missional movement!

  • Mike Regele

    Well being said “Mike Regele” I felt perhaps I should throw in my 2cents worth. I agree with everything Mark has said. I would add this. What makes the concept of missional (whether you use the term or not) different than cell groups or seeker senstive services is the difference between timeless truth and time and location senstive strategies. Cell groups as often discussed are a particular strategy for being the church. Being seeker senstive is as well–though I confess that I believe that these are long term strategies if by them we mean, gatherings that support discipleship and worship that seeks to find ways to invite the stranger. But to be missional means to be about the central reason for being the church. That we lose sight of this does not change the calling. God is on a mission to restore the lost glory of his creation and he has called out a people to share in this task. God’s mission is our mission. All else strikes me as commentary.

  • This Week in Blogs: Suggested reads « Sets ‘n’ Service

Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Mark D. Roberts. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration ...

posted 2:09:11pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? Conclusions
In this series on the death of Jesus, I have presented four different perspectives on why Jesus had to die: Roman, Jewish, Jesus’, and Early Christian. I believe that each of these points of view has merit, and that we cannot fully understand ...

posted 2:47:39am Apr. 11, 2011 | read full post »

Sunday Inspiration from the High Calling
Can We Find God in the City? Psalm 48:1-14 Go, inspect the city of Jerusalem. Walk around and count the many towers. Take note of the fortified walls, and tour all the citadels, that you may describe them to future generations. For that ...

posted 2:05:51am Apr. 10, 2011 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? The Perspective of the First Christians, Part 3
An Act and Symbol of Love Perhaps one of the most startling of the early Christian interpretations of the cross was that it was all about love. It’s easy in our day, when crosses are religious symbols, attractive ornaments, and trendy ...

posted 2:41:47am Apr. 08, 2011 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? The Perspective of the First Christians, Part 2
The Means of Reconciliation In my last post, I examined one of the very earliest Christian statements of the purpose of Jesus’ death. According to the tradition encapsulated in 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus died “for our sins in accordance with ...

posted 2:30:03am Apr. 07, 2011 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.