Mark D. Roberts

Mark D. Roberts


Recommendation #10: Choose a church that sees itself and seeks to live as an outpost of the mission of God in the world.

posted by Mark D. Roberts

Part 13 of series: Choosing a Church: Some Recommendations
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
Today I’ll suggest Recommendation #10: Choose a church that sees itself and seeks to live as an outpost of the mission of God in the world.
I could have just said “Choose a missional church,” but many of my readers wouldn’t quite know what this means. Some might thing I’m referring to a church that has an extensive “missions” program: sponsoring overseas missionaries, being involved in local mission, etc. But this wouldn’t get the precise nuance of “missional.”
A missional church sees itself and seeks to live as an outpost of the mission of God in the world. Traditionally, Christian churches though of new church developments or missionary churches as outposts of God’s mission. They weren’t the outposts, but the home bases. Their job was to care for the Christians in their congregation and support the missionary efforts of others. (Photo: The sanctuary of Irvine Presbyterian Church. During my years as pastor there, we worked hard to see ourselves and to live as a missional church. My hope and prayer is that the next pastor will be able to move this fine church even further along the missional path.)
There is much good in this traditional model of church. It has helped spread the good news of Jesus throughout the world. And it has contributed to the planting of thousands of churches in the U.S. But the traditional view that sees the home church as the sending church, rather than the sent church, misses an absolutely central dimension of God’s plan for the church.
If you go back to the Great Commission, where Jesus sent his disciples into the world to make more disciples, it’s clear that these disciples were sent. No question about it. Now their task was to make more disciples of Jesus who would do just as Jesus had commanded his first disciples. So the Great Commission would provide the marching orders, not just for the earliest disciples, but also for all who follow Jesus. Of course, in time, disciples of Jesus wouldn’t need to literally go somewhere to make disciples. They’d already be in the place where God had “sent” them, so to speak. They’d have found their place in the mission (from the Latin word missio, meaning “sending”) of God.
Every single church throughout the world has been, in a sense, sent by God to do the work of the kingdom in that place. In this sense, every church should be a missional church, a church committed to reaching out to make more disciples of Jesus and to living out the reality of the kingdom in its location. Unfortunately, many churches do not see themselves in these terms. They’re stuck in the traditional model of church, rather than in the biblical model.
You can tell if a church is missional by paying attention to its vision and, indeed, statement of mission. Does this church exist not just for itself, but for the sake of others? Does it see itself as called by God to share the good news of Christ in its community and to live out this good news? A church doesn’t have to use the word “missional” to be missional. But it does have to demonstrate a pervasive commitment to the mission of God in the world.
Some churches might have a missional mission statement, but a traditional modus operandi. A church might say, “We exist to reach others” but, in its actions, show that it actually exists primarily for itself. So when you’re choosing a church, you’ll want to see if that church is actually reaching out to the community in tangible ways. Of course the precise nature of this outreach will vary according to the nature of the community.
It’s quite likely that a missional church will also be involved in the wider mission of God throughout the world. That’s great. It will support missionaries, sponsor mission trips, etc.
As a newcomer to a church, chances are that you’ll be able to evaluate the missional character of the church fairly easily, perhaps even more easily than many of the members. You’ll sense whether the church exists for outsiders, because you are an outsider. You’ll know whether you have been welcomed by many. You’ll see whether core members are looking for new folks to greet, or whether they’re caught up with their own friends.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(1)
post a comment
Bill Goff

posted June 17, 2008 at 3:11 pm


Perhaps it is just a matter of taste, but I am not fond of the term “missional”. It sounds too bureaucratic. The phrase “missional mission statement” seems redundant.
On a positive note, I am impressed that Saddleback Church in Southern California (where I am a member) has been able to send thousands (I think over 7,000)of its members on short term mission trips all around the world as well as to local outreach opportunities. I am not in a position to judge the impact these mission trips have made on the world, but I know they have made a major positive impact on those who have been sent. I hope many other churches and denominations will follow the example of Saddleback Church in activating its members to be involved in mission outreach. It is a church with a very wide mission. And as far as I know the church has never used the term “missional”



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



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 blog post Happy Reading!  

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 the necessity of Jesus’ death without taking them all

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 is what God is like. He is our God forever and ever,

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 jewelry to associate the cross with love. But, in the first

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 the scriptures” (15:3). Yet this text doesn’t expl

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.