Worldview & Church Planting, Pt. 2

NOTE: This post has been significantly edited from the original posting.  I mistakenly posted the sections of my paper out of order and have since corrected the problem.  The material formerly found here can now be read in “Pt. 3″ while this post should be read first.

———————

The term “missional” has become a mainstay in contemporary church thought.  Especially in church planting, it is virtually impossible to avoid exposure or hearing this word used in conversation.  Unfortunately, the commonality of “missional” has also led to its growing ambiguity and uncertainty.  This over-exposure has led emergent church leader Alan Hirsch to admit that, as much as the emergent community strives to be missional, there is very little agreement as to what missional means [Hirsch, Alan.  "The Essence of a Missional Church."  Exponential Conference 2009, Orlando, 2009.].  J. Todd Billings expresses a similar concern when he writes:

Some use “missional” to describe a church that rejects treating the gospel like a commodity for spiritual consumers; others frame it as a strategy for marketing the church and stimulating church growth.  Some see the missional church as a refocusing on God’s action in the world rather than obsessing over our own needs; others see it as an opportunity to “meet people where they are” and reinvent the church for postmodern culture [Billings, J. Todd.  "Being Missional in the Reformed Tradition." (Perspectives 24.5 (2009): 3-5.), 3.].

There is obvious confusion surrounding the meaning of “missional.”  Addressing the questions that I initially raised require coming to a consensus regarding the definition of “missional.”

Ed Stetzer offers a rather simplistic definition of “missional;” he writes that, “Establishing a missional church means that you plant a church that’s part of the culture you’re seeking to reach” [Stetzer, Ed.  Planting Missional Churches (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 1.].  He goes one to say, “Missional is the posture – the way in church we approach people in culture…” [Ibid., 2.].  While Stetzer’s definition may be simplistic, it does have profound implications when considered in light of how church planting (in general) had been done in the last half of the 20th century.  Directionally, the missional church goes out while the typical church plant of the previous century sought to attract people in.

Denver church planter Hugh Halter uses similar directional language when he writes, “Missional at its essence means ’sent’…It’s the antithesis of trying to ‘attract’ them to us, our programs, our buildings, or our gatherings” [Halter, Hugh and Matt Smay.  The Tangible Kingdom: Creating Incarnational Community (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008), 38.].  Like Stetzer, Halter also goes on to connect “missional” to our posture [Ibid., 39ff.].  For both of these men, “missional” is not the end of the story and if left there, the ministry of the church is incomplete.

Unfortunately, many “missional theologians” present the concept of “missional” as the whole story.  Frequently what results is a tendency to land on one of two extremes with regard to one’s view of the church and responsibility to proclaim the Gospel.  At one extreme is the view that the visible church is the sole mode by which the Gospel is preached and the invisible church is there to serve the visible [The visible church is often referred to as the institutional church.  The invisible church is often referred to as the organic church.  However, due the variety of uses of "institutional" and "organic" within missional and emergent circles, I am opting for the more traditional theological terms in order to avoid confusion.  For a full explanation of the distinctives of "visible" and "invisible," see Zacharias Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, 286-288.].  At the other end is the view that the invisible church is responsible for all ministries and the visible church is more burdensome than helpful.  For all his strengths, Neil Cole falls into the latter category with his books Organic Church and Organic Leadership.

In order to avoid these extremes, another term is necessary: incarnational.  Hugh Halter has this to say about the relationship:

Missional has an inseparable twin.  It’s called “incarnational.”  The root meaning of incarnation means “any person or thing serving as the type or embodiment of a quality or concept”…missional sentness is focused on leaving and everything related to going, but incarnational represents how we go and what we do as we go [Halter & Smay, 38.].

Stetzer has a slightly different take on “incarnational” but still draws a close connection with “missional”:

Missional is the posture – the way in church we approach people in culture – but incarnational describes what’s actually happening…The concept of being incarnational as it relates to church planting emphasizes the importance of relationships in effective church planting…Good church planting depends on good relationships [Stetzer, 2.].

Stetzer emphasizes “incarnational” as relationship building, while Halter leaves it more broad to mean all that we do.  To Stetzer’s credit, if human beings are understood to be largely relational beings, than even Stetzer’s definition of “incarnational” is accurate.  In any case, both men understand “incarnational” to be rather broad, as if referring to every aspect of an individual’s life.

Stetzer and Halter advocate for a necessary link between “missional” and “incarnational” in order to gain a proper, more balanced, and Biblically-based understanding and application of “missional.”  In their view, “missional” is incomplete without “incarnational;” they describe two distinct aspects of church life and together, prevent us from erring toward one extreme or the other.  What we are left with is a comprehensive picture of the visible and invisible churches both having a call from God to preach the Gospel and viewing themselves as “aliens and strangers” – missionaries – to an unbelieving world.  “Missional” describes our general call to preach the Gospel; “incarnational” describes the means by which we preach: with our entire lives.

Filed under: Bible Study, Christian Living, Church, Church Planting, Ministry, Philosophy, Theology