One won’t wade very far into church planting waters without being bombarded with the importance of being “missional.” Writing for Acts 29, Scott Thomas says:

A church that is not missional is not really a church. A church exists by mission as the sun exists by burning. When the sun loses its burn it ceases to be the sun. When a church loses its mission, it ceases to be a church.

The problem is that the word seems to have become sort of a junk drawer. You know, I’m willing to get that you have a drawer in your house into which you just throw things you have nowhere else to put. The term “missional” has come to mean different things to different people. So it becomes possible to have a conversation in which you come to realize at some point that you’re using the same words but in very different ways (hopefully you realize this if its happening!).

Part of the problem in even trying to define a term like this is that you’ll likely gravitate towards those with whom you already agree, at least to some extent. That having been said, one of the resources I’ve found to be quite helpful in thinking through many of these issues is Ed Stetzer’s Planting Missional Churches (formerly Planting New Churches in a Postmodern Age). Stetzer begins his book by noting that:

Establishing a missional church means that you plant a church that’s part of the culture you’re seeking to reach.

Stetzer states what should be the obvious but often seems to be lost in such discussions: “The goal of church planting is to reach people.” Right away this will be a major paradigm shift to some. Some feel the desire to plant a church because they simply feel they’ve got their theological ducks in a straighter row than others. This does not seem to be a biblical reason for planting a church. Yes, doctrine is important and cannot be divorced from church-life, but it doesn’t seem to be the biblical thrust behind the impetus to plant new churches. While the church is certainly commanded to protect doctrine, this seems to be under the more broad command to make disciples. One cannot properly make disciples without engaging in every step of this process, beginning with bringing the Gospel to the lost.

Missional then, in the sense that Stetzer puts forward, is a powerful reminder that, as he puts it: “It’s possible to be a missionary without ever leaving your zip code.” I would add that not only is it possible, it is expected. But we need to be careful and make a distinction between “Mission(s)-Minded” churches and “Missional” churches. Stetzer clarifies between the two terms (italics his):

The first refers more to an attitude of caring about missions, particularly overseas. Missional means actually doing mission right where you are. Missional means adopting the posture of a missionary, learning and adapting to the culture around you while remaining biblically sound. Think of it this way: missional means being a missionary without ever leaving your zip code. You can see how a particular congregation or denomination can be mission-minded without being missional.

Practically, of course, this means that it is possible to have a church that does a lot overseas but nothing at home, as odd as that might initially sound. Stetzer argues that this arises, at least in part from a false dichotomy between “missions” and “evangelism.” Missions is for out there somewhere while evangelism is for here. He argues that “There is no basis, biblically or theologically, for the territorial distinction of missions and evangelism.”

This thinking seems to contribute to what I believe to be a faulty question in the life of many churches: “Is our primary duty to feed the sheep or win the lost?” I have become convinced that this is the wrong question because our “primary” duty is to make disciples of Jesus Christ. This includes every step of the process, beginning with missions/evangelism. It is a continual process rather than an either/or question.

Furthering the discussion, Stetzer throws one other term into the mix: “on mission,” saying that:

on mission means being intentional and deliberate about reaching others.

Seems simple enough, right? And yet, many churches fully support abroad what they run from at home. We equip foreign missionaries to carefully study the cultural context, encouraging them to “contextualize” (without sacrificing content) the Gospel in such as way as it is most effective to that given cultural context. Yet, churches seem scared to death of the idea of “American” culture, either isolating from it or drowning in it. Or, we simply see a church that seems to be succeeding and we decide to import, lock, stock and barrel, what they are doing, regardless of any cultural differences that might exist between where they’re at from where we find ourselves.

We expect our missionaries to analyze and adapt to surrounding cultures yet we become doubtful of churches doing this, labeling them “liberal” or “emergent” or both. Why? Is it because we fear change? I would like to think that it’s because we’re so protective of the Gospel, but research demonstrates that most Americans who claim to be Christians don’t live anything like biblical Christians, so that doesn’t seem to be it either. Could it simply but profoundly that we don’t think of ourselves as missionaries, especially while singing “God Bless America” under flag-draped crosses?

If anything wrestling with terms like these ought to encourage us to rethink and reapply our approach to how the local church lives in the culture it finds itself.

• Read the article “What Is A Missional Church” by Scott Thomas for Acts 29
• Read Planting Missional Churches by Ed Stetzer
• Read Simple Church: Returning to God’s Process For Making Disciples by Thom S. Rainer and Eric Geiger
• Read Planting Growing Churches for the 21st Century by Aubrey Malphurs
• Read 44 Questions for Church Planters by Lyle E. Schaller