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 This blog is no longer being updated.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!
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?”
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.
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.