The last two weeks, I've been writing about a paradigm shift in the way that the church exists and operates to perform its mission. Keep in mind as you read that I'm learning as I ponder along. I don't have an idea where my thoughts and research will lead, but I hope it brings us to a better understanding of what the church can and should be for the future.
One primary question I'm seeking to answer is to what extent the mainline institutional church can coexist alongside or with a church model that is more organic and missional. To answer this question we must first recognize that these two types of community structures have often co-existed in different forms and to different degrees. For instance, within many mainline institutional churches there are gatherings and groups that may function in missional and organic ways. Examples of this can be groups that go on mission trips together, certain small groups that operate and function without much structure and embody certain theological priorities. My observation is that the mainstream institutional community tends to accommodate larger, more anonymous, and more loosely connected gatherings of individuals. The extent to which these communities maintain a sense of closeness, mission, intimacy, and urgency usually depends on the strength of missional organic communities within the institution. Depending on the nature and size of a gathering, there are natural tendencies that help determine whether a community becomes more institutionalized or organic. There are of course major exceptions.
Take for example the Wesleyan societies in 18th century England. These gatherings were institutional in their function but missional in their orientation. They were interpersonal, but not in a fluid and flexible sense. The content of the relationships was predictable and repeatable for the sake of the mission. People came to meetings and answered the same list of questions each week, performed the same tasks for holy living each week and had their sharing and actions recorded to evaluate growth. Many large churches today have programs with a strong mission of "disciple making" that is done in a very organized and institutional way.
The reason I point this out is to acknowledge that a strong mission can be supported by institutional means. But the biblical mission, as I see it, is not only missional, it is missional in an organic way. In other words, what matters is not just what we're doing, but how we're doing it. It must also be stated that most instances of missional church that are carried out by institutional means that I find are alternative communities - meaning they are not mainstream. I'll talk more about that in subsequent posts.
I also see the "missional" church as a "disciple making" church with more of a hands on approach. Its members would be required "to get their hands dirty for Jesus". In my view the institutional church's disciple making program tends not to have an application theme to them. Basically they tell you the elements of discipleship but no accountability which leads to apathy or as you put it "anonymous...individuals." Where as I see a higher degree of individual accountability with in the missional church. This need for accountability in the missional church may limit the overall size of the church.
ReplyDeleteI guess being able to hold individual members accountable may be the key component of a missional church.