What is the Gospel of the Missional Church?
By Jonathan Dodson | March 10th, 2010 | Category: Missional Church | 21 commentsHow important is salvation to mission? The answer to this question will determine the trajectory of the missional church movement, for good or for ill. What is the state of the Gospel of the Missional Church? In his Mondays is for Missiology post, Ed Stetzer notes the importance of this very issue:
Missiology is fairly inextricable from soteriology; one’s view of salvation– however it is defined– will determine the missionary work. In Transforming Mission, David Bosch states that the Christian missionary movement has been driven throughout its history by the aspiration to mediate salvation to all.
Jesus as Example or Messiah?
In some circles, “mission” appears to focus on social activism to the neglect of so-called evangelism. Mission is often reduced to a project among the poor and needy. The example of Christ is central. In other circles, evangelism appears to be more important than social activism. Mission reduces people to evangelistic projects. The death and resurrection of Christ is central. How we understand the person and work of Christ should affect our understanding and practice of mission.
What is the Gospel of the Missional Church?
Do you have any concerns about the trajectory of the missional church conversation? Do you have any concerns about present understandings of the person and work of Jesus? Have you read any important books or articles that are defining the role of Christ in mission?
Weigh in. Consider extending the conversation at MissionSHIFT. Check out what others in the Prologue to MissionSHIFT are saying:
Missional Leaders in the Conversation
I am deeply concerned that much of what is being promoted in some denominational circles (i.e. Southern Baptist…I R 1) is aimed at survival not growth. In other words, we are panicked because of our delining #s instead of being burdened with a sense of the vast lostness of those living around us. We have a tendency to preach Jesus as the solution to our problems…i.e. a better family, a better life, etc…; when Jesus came to call us to die to self, to devote our lives to Him above family, jobs; I guess what I see as the gospel of the missional church: to proclaim Jesus as the way, the life, and then truth, which through the Holy Spirit enables us to particiapte in the kingdom of God.
The sermon on the mount.
As for concerns, I would say the loose definition of “church” that tends to move away from a New Testament elder-led ecclesiology. The conversation often hinges on the actions of the missional church (what we do) rather than the theological convictions (who we are) behind the actions.
The phrase “everyone is a church planter” seems unbiblical in regards to how the Spirit manifests gifts inside of the body. Everyone is indeed a missionary sent by God, but does that make them a church planter? I just don’t see that in the New Testament.
As for books that shape the conversation, Total Church has been incredibly influential in me to see how the Gospel flows into community on mission rather than an overemphasis on either of the parts. I think this book accurately spells out the gospel that should define the missional church.
Outside the Bible, Guder’s pioneering book, Newbigin’s article about the reevangelization of the West, and Chris Wright’s Mission of God are all critical.
I’d be wary, though, of speaking of “the” Missional Church as a monolithic entity. There are at least four streams of missional thought and practice, and factions within those. It’s safe to say that evangelicals, liberals, and Pentecostals have all coopted the term and attempted to apply the concept ‘missional’ to their churches/movements, so the extent to which they differ on the gospel is the extent to which ‘the missional gospel’ differs.
Logan: I share your concern about the loose ecclesiology, but then again stiff ecclesiology got us to this place in the first place. Are you guys still calling a few people that are meeting on campus or a missional community “a church”?
Matt: thanks. Good word. It’s precisely because of the diversity of the Missional Church that we need to hone in on clarifying a theological center.
What are we Planting? I think Alan Hirsch’s distinction between planting “the gospel” and planting “the church” could have a big impact on what N. America contributes to the MC movement. Renewed commitment to the gospel or to missional structures?
True Missional Reform: I also think syncretistic missional ecclesiology is a danger. Calling missional programs missional chruches.
My comment is ONLY on the subject of a book I’ve read that influences my view of this topic:
Brother Lawrence – “Practicing the Presence of God”
Ahh, yes, Brother Lawrence is a helpful corrective to our compartmentalized faith, albeit pietistic.
We still use the term missional community. There are college students from our church working with CMA and leading college house churches. At that point, we have no true affiliation with them except by praying for them.
Jonathon, question on ecclesiology. The stiff ecclesiology definitely got us into this place, but where will the loose ecclesiology lead us? What do you see as the approach ecclesiological (is that a word?) balance?
[...] Jonathan Dodson [...]
Several years ago, I was in a conference with a number of others working in various areas around Europe. Someone asked, “What is the gospel.” In true parrot-fashion, I piped up, “Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures….” The leader looked at me and said, “No it isn’t,” and went on to other things. That started me on my own personal quest, enlivened perceptibly in 2005 at a missions conference in Derby (UK) where I first heard the word “missional.” That term gave greater focus to my quest, as did books by too many folks to mention. Last Sunday, in the small church I now pastor outside Halifax, Nova Scotia, I suggested that we, as the church, need to be a gospel-shaped people (in keeping with Philippians 1:27). The gospel, I went on to say, is this:
the gospel that shapes us as community is…
…the good news, that, through repentance and faith in the crucified, risen LORD Jesus Christ,
we receive forgiveness and an eternally-restored relationship with the Father; and
we become
…members of God’s chosen family, a new kind of community
…citizens of an alternative society, those living under his Kingdom rule and
…co-labourers in his redemptive purpose to redeem, rescue, and restore creation, as he reconciles all things to himself in Christ.
I’d be delighted to get some push back on this.
Hi Jonathan: I was reading today the August 19, 2008 posting by Justin Taylor to which you made the following comment:
Jonathan Dodson
August 19, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Thanks for the interview and for your work, Sam. We have some mutual friends, one of whom is Steve Herring. I have wrote a Biblical Theology of Colossians for my Th.M thesis and was encouraged to publish it in some form. I’d be happy to share a PDF with those who are interested.
I’d love to be able to read that PDF. Could it be sent to me?
Sure. Just contact me through the Contact Form at the bottom of the blog so I can email it ot you
[...] Jonathan Dodson: What is the Gospel of the Missional Church? [...]
A bit of push back, as Rick requested…
In answering the question, “What is the gospel?” I conclude that we must be careful not to define the gospel in terms that are only understood by the regenerate mind that can now see, but primarily to the perspective of the natural man who cannot know the things of the Spirit of God, because they are spiritually discerned. The Bible reveals a great deal about the person and work of Jesus Christ in salvation, some of which Rick well summarizes in his comment, “…through repentance and faith in the crucified, risen LORD Jesus Christ, we receive forgiveness and an eternally-restored relationship with the Father.” But I would argue that this is the legal soteriology that makes the gospel possible. The gospel itself is the message that Jesus freely offers eternal life to the dead in place of the curse of death that hangs over them. Many who believe in Jesus for eternal life have little or no understanding of their need for redemption, reconciliation or justification. They only know that they’re dead and Jesus offers them life. So the gospel is the gift, not the details of how the gift was purchased.
Cheers
I’ve been trying to get an answer to this question for months now. Can someone within the missional movement attempt an answer. A great deal depends on the MC’s understanding of the following:
Is there a place or time when one should share “the Gospel” (Four Laws, The Bridge, Steps to Peace with God, Romans Road, etc) with someone who does not know Christ as Savior.
Please, I know its actions “and’ words. Got it! But, is there an actual “crisis confrontation” (Neibuhr?) when the individual has the “plan of salvation”, “Put your faith in Christ alone for salvation” moments explained to him/her; as is the practice of Navigators, Crusade, Billy Graham, etc?
I’d say so, but it should be more that presenting spiritual facts to be believed. People need to encounter the gospel in God’s people first, see how we are applying it, why Jesus is even important or necessary to their lives.
I agree. For decades that has been called “preevangelism”. Not to sound crass but its like the missional church has discovered the same principles that have been used for decades with different names and are stunned.
I don’t think anyone has suggested “confrontational” evangelism in 30 years that I’m aware of. But we all run into people we have reason to believe we will never see them again this side of glory and may want to take advantage of a one time opportunity to share the gospel. Could the “typical” missional disciple share the Gospel “on the fly” if necessary? I honestly don’t know. AND, my question above is asking whether, according to missional principles, not being able to share the simple Gospel message is a problem.
To make it clearer perhaps, would a typical disciple from a missional ministry be encouraged to attend a seminar, class, retreat, college group, etc. to learn how to share the Gospel?
I’ve read several missional/emerging books and this never comes up. Yet, all I’m ever told is what you said Jonathon.
@donallover ~
I can’t speak in behalf of all missional disciples on this issue, ’cause I don’t think there is a ‘typical’ one. But, at least with regards to those at Austin City Life, they are encouraged and taught that the Gospel is not merely true historical information packaged just right for the non-Christian’s reception and cognitive belief. And, the Gospel is not merely a message to be believed for the salvation of one’s soul. The Gospel of Jesus is the power of God to change everything in one’s life; and as an overflow, the Gospel of Jesus renews one’s city–socially, spiritually, and culturally. Because of the all-encompassing relevance, reliability of, and renewal by the Gospel, Jesus’ disciples at Austin City Life are growing in Gospel conversations with each other and with non-Christians.
That is, when in conversation with non-Christians, we are learning how to get to the heart of their stories–learning their deepest struggles, desires, hopes, doubts, fears, etc., in order to share and show how Jesus will meet them right where they’re at, as Savior, Lord, Rescuer, Refuge, Hope, Satisfaction, and More.
For instance, when in conversation with a fellow Austinite the other day, we somehow got into a conversation where he described his frequent feelings of anxiety and stress. So, I then asked him, “How do you deal with that anxiety and stress?” Answer: Yoga, meditation, etc., followed by asking me how I deal with it. Enter The Gospel. God works everything out for my good. I meditate on the Scriptures where I can know God. Jesus bore all my fears and stresses. He is trustworthy, etc. My friend’s response: “That is beautiful.” Here, the Gospel is not coming into this guy’s face from a foreign land. Instead, it meets him face to face in real time through knowing him, loving him by asking questions, and showing how Jesus is good, true, and better enough to enter his story for his good (in all of life).
Mr. Caldwell,
I agree with EVERYTHING you just wrote. However, and I don’t mean to sound impatient, but I need a simple, straight, unconfusing answer. (I’m a simple man and that’s the ONLY kind of answer I understand).
Your response: “Here, the Gospel is not coming into this guy’s face from a foreign land. Instead, it meets him face to face in real time through knowing him, loving him by asking questions, and showing how Jesus is good, true, and better enough to enter his story for his good (in all of life).” is simply what we use to call “preevangelism”. So far, so good!
We did NOT consider that the whole Gospel
SO, did you, could you, should you, would you share with the Austinite (?) you encountered HOW they can have eternal life thru faith in Jesus Christ? In other words, if this was the only encounter this person had with you, would they have left this conversation understanding HOW to receive eternal life thru faith in Jesus Christ?
Perhaps you didn’t grow up in an evangelical era as I did (1970′s) when, in addition to any “preevangelism” opportunities, “sharing the Gospel” meant, in SOME form or format, that you communicated to them:
1. All are sinners (Romans 3:23)
2. Christ alone is the means of salvation (Rom 6:23) and
3. By simple faith and trust in Him you can know you have eternal life (Rom 9:9-10).
IMPORTANT: Not that you necessarily WOULD have shared this with them. I’ve often had conversations about where a person is at and DID NOT relay any or all of the 3 steps above. But, I would have known it was either a missed opportunity or for some reason it wasn’t the right time/opportunity.
In other words, this same approach in printed form would be Billy Graham’s “Steps to Peace with God”, Navigators “The Bridge” or Campus Crusade “The Four Laws”.
I guess I”m asking for a simple YES or NO. In GENERAL, does the missional church, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, believe, teach that “sharing the Gospel” AT SOME POINT IN THE EVANGELISTIC PROCESS include the 3 points above?
Your response seems limited to “preevangelism” only but that would not be in my estimate ‘sharing the Gospel”.
Okay, I guess I wasn’t seeing the obvious. I grew up with tools like the Engle Scale to help me/us understand the evangelism process. (http://www.angelfire.com/bc/normanhousechurch/EngleScale.htm ) . My failure I guess was to believe that I simply wasn’t understanding what you were saying. When you said:
…
“Here, the Gospel is not coming into this guy’s face from a foreign land. Instead, it (THE GOSPEL) meets him face to face in real time through knowing him, loving him by asking questions, and showing how Jesus is good, true, and better enough to enter his story for his good (in all of life).”
…
that, for you, that really is “the gospel” or at least, one form of it; that unlike my view which is limted to, whatever other encounter with the God of the Bible one might have, there comes a point when one must put their faith in Christ alone for salvation and there is an actual “crisis of faith” when that decision is made. I would have said your encounter was PART of the gospel process but it seems like you’re saying it IS the Gospel or at least ONE manifestation of the COMPLETE Gospel.
I went to a secular university for undergraduate studies for philosophy and religion. All my “liberal” professors would have said exactly you wrote JT. I now live in New England and when I speak to “liberal” pastors they say very similar things; namely, AND THIS IS SIMPLY MY UNDERSTANING OF WHAT YOU SAID, the Gospel is more amorphous, intangible than a simple “script” as my approach might suggest to those who weren’t discipled like I was.
I know the more traditional evangelical Church agrees with the 3 steps above or some version of it, but it was a mystery to me how the missional church approaches the Gospel and what and evangelistic (crisis) encounter actually looks like.
I was convinced until now that I had just misunderstood what the missional Church teaches (in general). Now, I think I do understand. Sorry, to be so slow on the uptake.
Huge thanx!
Don
@donallover –
Q: “SO, did you, could you, should you, would you share with the Austinite (?) you encountered HOW they can have eternal life thru faith in Jesus Christ?”
A: Yes, though the Gospel implies so much more than this.
Q: “In other words, if this was the only encounter this person had with you, would they have left this conversation understanding HOW to receive eternal life thru faith in Jesus Christ?”
A: Yes, though implicitly.
Q: “AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, believe, teach that “sharing the Gospel” AT SOME POINT IN THE EVANGELISTIC PROCESS include the 3 points above?”
A: Yes, it includes the truths therein.
Note: A few assumptions in your comments deserve at least one whole new blog post to address. But, hopefully these short answers are helpful for what you’re immediately asking.