3 Essentials for Missional Communities
By Jonathan Dodson | March 3rd, 2010 | Category: Missional Church | 7 commentsThrough failure and success we’ve developed three clear criteria for health gospel-centered missional communities. Whether a new missional community is formed “out of nothing” or one of our existing groups is ready to multiply, there are three things new groups must have in place before forming: LEADER, a CORE, and a MISSION.
1 LEADER/ A called and qualified leader.
This leader must sense a) God’s call, b) complete the Missional Leader Readiness form, c) meet the leadership qualifications and d) complete City Group Leaders Training.
2 CORE/ A healthy community living out gospel-centered missional community.
Healthy communities are a core of people that a) practice steady state community b) are engaged in mission, c) share leadership and d) keep the gospel central. An initial core size must be at least 6-8.
3 MISSION/ A new group starts with a clear missional focus.
The City Group should be aligned with a local non-profit to serve monthly, or focus on engaging a particular group of Austinites. This clearly defined mission must be accompanied by a plan for engagement. Whether you work with a non-profit or not, your ultimate missional focus should be people. Identify a people group and develop a plan to engage them with the gospel.
What would it take to get a copy of the:
1. Missional Leader Readiness form,
2. List of your leadership qualifications and
3. Overview of your City Group Leaders Training.
50 bucks. Just kidding. We will be putting these resources out on the GCM site soon (cleaning them up for public use)! If you are on the GCM community site, Drew already uploaded the MLR form.
I really like how simply put this is. What is *needed* is nothing more and nothing less than a leader, core, and mission under Christ.
But one thing struck me under the third item, mission. I am sure that your teaching in Austin guards against this, but if engaging with a non-profit qualifies as mission then the “gospel-centered” portion can easily be lost in the second and third generations of the community. The second option, “focus on engaging a particular group of Austinites”, seems like a better way to guard against mission becoming simply meeting a need.
The mission that we are given from our Head is a discipleship mission. It is a disciple-making mission that is undergone while engaging particular groups, caring for daily needs, and working alongside others in the city (i.e. non-profits), but we can’t consider ourselves “on mission” and thus missional unless it is specifically a disciple-making gospel mission. Thus, the ultimate focus isn’t “people”, but disciples.
I’ve reread what was written a few times now. Clearly, what I’m clarifying here and what you said up there is the same thing. And I your three simple points, and the final sentence makes things clear. “Identify a people group and develop a plan to engage them with the gospel.” Maybe just bumping this sentence to the top of the paragraph would put first things first. I just see people in churches near me and around the nation that seem to think they are missional just because they are “meeting needs in the community” or connecting with a non-profit.
Our mission is nothing less than a reconciling, healing, restoring, hope-filled, gospel-speaking, disciple-making mission from Christ.
Thank you for your work in Austin as well as for those of us listening in from far away.
—–
note :: I hate leaving comments because being an analytical person I read and reread it and it seems critical or nit-picky to me. Be encouraged! The Lord bless you and keep you and the City Groups ever before His face engaged in His mission.
Thanks Jeremiah. Couldn’t agree more. Like this quote:
we can’t consider ourselves “on mission” and thus missional unless it is specifically a disciple-making gospel mission. Thus, the ultimate focus isn’t “people”, but disciples.
You read our intention well, even when we could have stated it better. Thanks for the suggestion to move the last sentence up. I’ll do that on our master doc.
Is there any concern that leadership is articulated in the individual context? A significant aspect of missionality is the commonality of missional leadership as expressed in mutual submissive, yet distinct expression of leadership that work in dynamic unity together. I fear that this emphasis on “A leader” will unintentionally and inevitably (though unnecessarily) reinforce models of power and authority that directly related to the effectiveness of missionality.
Just curious.
Peace,
Jamie
So… the Missional Leader Readiness (MLR) form is the same as what Drew has posted as “Missional Community Leader Role Description & Personal Evaluation “?
same question