Attractional Megachurches Cashing in on 'missional' Buzz
Maybe I have no clue what the word missional means, or perhaps I do and just get ancy when mega churches use the word. Now, I don't own words, but I do understand the semantics game. Missional, in a simple form, is an attempt to communicate the gospel in a language our post-Christendom world can understand. That means breaking down distinctions (clergy-laity), exegeting culture along with scripture to help our communication, embracing community over consumerism, and living incarnationally rather than individually.
Yes, that's a simple assessment, but it sums up some of the key components. Tell me then, how do megachurch leaders sleep at night when they label their outfits as 'missional'. By definition I'm pretty sure missional leads to, by default, SMALL networks. Churches of 2000+ gathering at the same time every week to watch a show DON"T embrace the basics of what it means to be missional, period.
So you can imagine my chagrin and, let's face it, laughter, when I came across a job posting for Beulah Alliance located in Edmonton, Alberta. They are among the largest churches in Edmonton and are doing good work. No problem, bless your hearts. However, I read this portion that made me look again (emphasis mine):
Beulah is a large (2000+), vibrant, missional church located in Edmonton, Alberta. This Canadian city has undergone rapid growth in the past five years, resulting in unmatched potential for reaching seekers. Our desire is to be a reproducing church that creates multi-site venues throughout the city.
What? Missional? Sorry Beulah, you are among the largest attractional churches in Western Canada. Let's call a spade a spade. I'm sure you do great work, but you aren't missional. Perhaps some of your small groups are adopting a missional perspective, but as a whole the organization is not.
But cheers to hoping you cell the auditorium and cut homelessness in half in Edmonton. That would a nice start.
Whoa. Dude. Chill out. You define missional as, "an attempt to communicate the gospel in a language our post-Christendom world can understand. That means breaking down distinctions (clergy-laity), exegeting culture along with scripture to help our communication, embracing community over consumerism, and living incarnationally rather than individually," and then say it can only happen in small churches.
Can we say hubris? I'm not seeing what it is about your definition that precludes larger churches from embracing it. While YOU might not be able to fathom how a larger congregation can do this (possibly due to a vision in your head of what larger churches are rather than a real look at actual churches) in their context, I don't see how missional can be the exclusive property of small churches as you assert.
For that matter, this whole post comes across as a desire to own the term missional and be the arbiter of who is and who is not one. Reminiscent of the battles not to long ago on who is REALLY Emergent(TM) as opposed to those who are just emerging with a litmus test on gays and women that allows the likes of Mark Driscoll to be branded as NOT Emergent or emerging and actually a poseur in all things "E" despite a postmodern veneer and anti-establishment flair.
My definition of missional is incomplete, it should read embracing the missio Dei as foremost. Not embracing missio Dei as a mere subset of the overall church purpose, but acknowledging God's work already at hand, and our need to join him in this process.
Are large churches exempt? No. Does there posture make it exceptionally difficult to embrace missional perspectives? Absolutely. If you think otherwise I'm afraid you underestimate the power of the consumer in the pew.
One solution, however, for large churches to become effective at embracing and redeeming their communities rather than focusing squarely within is to effective release people where they already exist. I see huge benefits from this approach rather than trying to horde people inside geared towards church 'ministries' and 'events' and 'outreach'.
I don't care to define missional as I'm not one to impose rules on words. What I can do is enter into the dialogue that is continually shaping the missional expression. What we discover is that missional becomes incompatible with the foundation of western consumer church (big or small).
This is not a slap on the wrist for churches, it's a call to an all out paradigm shift. The reason? The last time I checked the majority of churches are not making disciples out of anybody who has no Christians/religious memory.
Pingback: Mike Breen is Wrong: Why the Missional Church Won’t Fail | PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives