Fitch writes: "I just assume a church with systems and organization sufficient to funnel 7,000 people through their walls cannot operate in this missional fashion."

Is this an assumption that is justified by actual fact? Why are we playing this "who is more missional" game? Why are we splitting hairs on who is "missional" and who is not when those involved are all on missions to proclaim the glory and salvation of Christ to the lost? What silly games we playing over definitions.

I have listened to the entire Southeastern Seminary message which Driscoll's quote is pulled from. To clarify a singular quote pulled from a greater context, much of Driscoll's criticism is pointed at those who would change ecclesiology as an outflow of their changed gospel. From what I have seen, many (not all) in the emergent/emerging stream seem to have faith that the problems in the church are rooted in church structures and overly-rigid doctrine, not sinners acting sinful. A main emergent talking-point seems to be that a changed church structure will save and establish the Kingdom rather than the cross of Christ changing the hearts and minds of sinners.

Summarily, Driscoll's critique of Bell, Mclaren, Pagitt, and Jones seems founded chiefly on his belief in their heretical doctrine and not on the basis, primarily, of new methods. I've never heard Driscoll warn others about those whose love of the true gospel has led them to make radical changes in church programatic structures.

I think it makes sense: those who (not all) from the emergent/emerging crowd who have largely abandoned the gospel of sinners saved by grace, for all their intense rhetoric and severe criticisms of orthodox Christianity, not only are not but can not fulfill the Great Commission because they have a different gospel. The new "missional" church expressions, e.g., monastic, etc., all have programs (read plans and strategies) on how to reach their neighbors...they just have different expressions of programs from mega/conventional churches. Ultimately, our faith is in God and in his original gospel of sinners saved by Christ's work on the cross; our faith is emphatically not in the Church's programatic structure.

Paul, as far as missional goes, I would defend David's usage. Part of the problem is that of course no one wants to be labled un-"missional". Everyone just envisions what they mean by missional in different ways. When those in the emergent conversation talk about missional, they do so from the perspective of the authors that Fitch talks about, which gives their usage a distinction from a broader usage. I do not think it was David's intent to say that a church of 7,000 can not be missional at all in the broadest sense, but that it would struggle mightily to be missional in the sense that these authors are talking about.

As to your larger question of church problems being due to sinners or to structures, it brings up a much larger discussion about the role of the church in the growth of a Christian. One idea that is key to what you would call "changing structures" is that preaching the gospel is more than what we say. Indeed, the gospel needs to be preached in everything we do, from our individual actions as believers in Christ to our corporate actions in the body of Christ. Therefore, it seems to me that if a chruch structure can be critiqued for not adequately embodying the gospel, then it seems legitimate to identify it as possible reason for why the church is having what you call "problems". Sinners will of course, "act sinful", but it does not seem to me that one is required to believe in the perfectability of humanity in order to think that improving (or even radically changing) the way we do church might possibly lead to more effective growth for its members and a more effective witness as the body of Christ.

So, there is no necessary tension between preaching "Christ's work on the cross" and the Church's "programatic structure" in the sense that focusing on one will lead to the neglect of the other, because as Christian we seek to preach the gospel in everything we do and say.

That we often fail at that, neglecting ecclesiology as unimportant to what we actually say and preach, or in looking to ingenious programs or strategies to bring large numbers of people to our churches, simply reminds us of a point that you and I at least, and I would venture to say the vast majority of the emergent conversation, agree upon. We ARE sinful, and we need Jesus!

Blessings as you continue to think about these difficult issues.

Thanks for the missiologically astute post, David. I just came across both of your posts after writing my on post based on reflections from Andrew Walls' work in the area.

We certainly need to deconstruct culturally conceived notions of conversion to allow for fresh, new creation conversions borne of the Spirit in a new context. Sifting this out is a real challenge, and hiding behind relativism won't help. We still need to affirm a historic gospel while allowing for a new expression of conversion.

David wrote:
"Concerning your second question, the dynamic of a church of 2–3000 or more often attracts a person already familiar with the gospel."

I do not see where this is biblical. The church was huge early on. Peter preached a great sermon and 3,000 people responded in faith. They met as a large group in the temple. Paul would preach and sometimes the whole city would gather to here. I believe faithful biblical preaching is what needs to be done today. Anything less than opening up the bible and telling people the truth will not accomplish anything. All of you churches who are finger painting theology on Sunday morning should not be surprised that not many are responding. All of the seek sensitive services who are attracting disgruntled church kids who think church is boring should not be surprised that they are not attracting people who have never heard about Jesus.
We have got to start opening the bible on Sunday morning and preaching the truth about Jesus. God will grow a church that faithfully preaches Jesus.
The deep truths of God are so appealing to the unbeliever. Just like the woman at the well, Jesus offered her the fresh water. The church can do it today. Lets invite the unbeliever in, have a guy up front that knows his bible, loves Jesus, and is able to teach. That is all you need.
The gospel is the power for our salvation and it is time we preach that with clarity and confidence.

Ross Kuester (Age 25)

T.J.,
Thank you for the thoughtful response.

As you say, all who are concerned for the lost, no matter their expression, want to see themselves as "missional". I question the wisdom in so narrowly defining "missional" when that narrow definition necessarily labels those Christians who, though loving and reaching their neighbors where ever they are, are then labeled "non-missional". Seems rather ungracious.

My issue is that I think Fitch has missed the point of Driscoll's message. The defining marker of the emerging church, more than theology, is the desire to be missional within our culture. Driscoll's emphasis throughout his message was that many within Emergent(namely Mclaren, Pagitt, Jones, and Bell) have largely abandoned the gospel of a King that saves sinners for his glory in favor of heretical teachings. THEREFORE, in light of that abandonment, the rest of the conversations are ridiculous.

And can we agree that, for all the excitement of so many thrilling conversations, without a true, efficacious gospel there are no true converts to Christ?

does anyone other than me sense that our discussion of "church" here - and over the past few discussion topics - seems totally focused upon an organization of some kind? is this because most of the people who are writing / commenting are part of an organization, and it's in their best desire that the organization continue?

If church is organic and self-sustaining from the beginning, it should by definition be less difficult.

where in the bible does it say the church - and here i suppose we're talking 'local' church - as an organization needs to be self-sustaining?

and melody's comments about Jesus' conversions - i'd say that, if Jesus' success was determined by a count of conversions, He was quite simply a miserable failure. it seems many times that people wanted to become part of what He was doing, then pulled back. and, when push came to shove, He was Hans Solo.

Url, talking about the topics of late that you've raised seems to be something we need to do.

but, my gracious, it almost seems those in ministry positions are more interested in job preservation, and in selectively identifying what is normative for all time, than they are just letting the faith be the faith.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa

Not that I'm trying to have a two-way conversation on the message board, but...

I can see what you're saying, and you're right Paul, it would sting a bit to be called "unmissional". To be quite blunt, it also stings a bit to be called heretical. Does that mean that either of us shouldn't say it if we believe it? Probably not. But it doesn't necessary reflect ungracious behavior every time either.

It seems to me that if you really think that these authors are heretical, than I wouldn't be at all surprised that you disagree with how they conceive of the church's mission.

As to your last point, I would of course say that the closer our presentation of the gospel is to the real thing, the better. But I also think both "sides" would be able to get along a little better if we could admit that God can (and will) work in people's lives even in the context of churches we think are off-base. That's not an excuse to be complacent; we need to continue talking to each other, and that talk may become heated at times, and thats okay. But that might lower the stakes a bit, and allow for us to hear each other a bit clearer. Blessings.

T.J.,
I wasn't shooting for a two-way conversation either, but as long as we still engaging the article, I think we're swell.

I see, and agree, with your point about the usage of terms and letting them land where they fit. Intuitively, "missional" would be defined as a church's posture and actions towards their neighbor. Non-missional would be those that see themselves as isolated communities, at best, unconcerned for, or, at worst, barricading themselves from, the world. I've been in that church.

You make a good point though: if we don't agree on the church's mission, the term missional loses all meaning between us. But I don't see that Fitch is saying Driscoll has a different gospel: they both desire through their work to help sinners repent before a holy God. But the definition he uses for "missional" tends to categorically favor his own structure. "Missional" in Fitch's article, from what I can tell, tends to be based local church governance structures rather than the intent and actions of our brothers and sisters in that church. In this paradigm, it seems that we are saying that even those who are missionaries to their neighbors are not "missional". It is like arbitrarily saying that something that tastes and feels like cheese isn't "cheesy".

It also seems that that Fitch was discussing one of the points of Driscoll's message to new pastors without debating the rest of the premise. Premise: some emergent leaders have lost solid, gospel doctrine and are therefore dangerous. One conclusion: so much discussion about new structures and methods is worse than silly if the gospel has been abandoned and this is evidenced by their lack of converts.

Just a point of agreement: several of my friends were saved in churches that were bizarro...thanks be to God. Agreed, we should strive to obey our leadings and bear patiently with those we believe are off base, because God works either way.

It's been a pleasure...

Mike Rucker
As usual your observations are astute!! Too often we are trying to do both theology and pastor our flocks at the same time. It's not a very good combination.

As to the general conversation, I get really nervous with comments like 'its in the bible' or 'Peter converted 3000'. There is a minor detail called historical and cultural context, not to mention comparing contemporary literature that brings 'known' assumptions into question.

We spend way too much time on institutional excellence and not enough time on just doing raw ministry. Its not clean its not neat, and many times its not done to book at all!! We need to keep it simple, love God, love others, repeat.

The failure of evangelicalism is that we spend so much time debating heresy, who gets paid, and how big our ministries are that we perpetuate the boom bust cycles based around generations and fear.This zero sum gain philosophy is unhealthy, but its unproductive, and ineffective. It why we have become caractures on late night talk shows and comedy acts.

David, It is just not my experience that conversions take more time in post Christendom. I think some do but I find many people simply need to hear clearly the Gospel. One reason, just my opinion, that a conversion could take longer is we simply lack Spirit Lead boldness. I am not talking about shouting, yelling and telling people they suck. I am talking about being willing to SPEAK truth with conviction and clarity. Many people will respond if we ask.

I also think with the deconstructing of the Gospel and the proliferation of the "Jesus really meant this" thinkers today, you have many preachers in post Christendom whose feet are firmly planted in mid air. That makes inviting people to place their trust in the Chief Cornerstone really difficult.

A fundamental question that springs to mind is this. Is justification (ie Being born again) a moment in time or a process? There appears to be two primary responses. Some evangelicals would argue that elaborate formation is necessary prior to making a decision. Others would argue that merely professing faith with the mouth is enough. I personally think it somewhere between the extremes but certainly requires time.

Paul, I think your comment about chesse is actually right on. Those authors who are trying to take a fresh look at mission and being missional are very much challenging our very understanding of mission, at a very deep level, and suggesting that much of what passes for mission may actually be seriously deficient. In other words, what everyone thought was smooth brie or spicy pepper jack or even just solid cheddar was actually all just cheese-whip. Now of course, all can taste the "cheese" for themselves: and its not as though all Christian mission before the being "missional" came along had the quality of cheese whip. But many of the missional authors are writing in the decline of churches, at least in North America, and what appears to them to be an inability to reach out to a post-Christian culture. I actually would count Driscoll among this wider group of "missional" authors, but I think he differs significantly from the authors you named as suspect in terms of the extent of possibility of Christian engagement with post-modernity and a post-modern culture and the extent to which our presentation of the gospel should be contextualized to fit that context (he would probably say this just simply means changed, and although I haven't heard the address in question, the word "heretical" is clearly in play). For all these missional authors, yes, they are fundamentally questioning the way we think about mission in a post-Christian context. So if you think that the missional authors are trying to redefine mission in ways that seem to suggest that typical 20th century "reaching out to ones neighbors" by Christians is in some sense actually not fully missional, I think you have actually heard what they are saying clearly. Whether you agree with them is, of course, a different matter, and, if I may be a little bold, where it seems you have the most issue.

T.J.