Characteristics of a Missional Church

[@mapliopl]

marvelous. How I wish more christians understood mission that way.

[@zibambense4008]

Wow. Straight to the point...

[@billyholly]

@anthonythirteen Perhaps things like small groups can span the gaps. In our small group, we have two non-Christians who also regularly attend church, as well, but can receive needed personal attention for their questions in a less intimidating smaller gathering.

[@billyholly]

@anthonythirteen My experience is quite positive with them! We go over the sermons and cover any questions and then eat GREAT food! I get to eat lots of stuff I never heard of before as I am the only "westerner" in our group. We spend a lot of time laughing during the fellowship time and the spirit can be felt! :)

[@billyholly]

@anthonythirteen I got the idea that Christians need to keep in mind that they and seekers ARE alike and it's the similarities that need to be shown as part of the bridge to reach others. Also part of the message is that while people are alike, a Christian can live using a different set of priorities, in the world but not OF the world. How do you think this should go? Did I understand your point correctly? GB!

[@SoniaSephia]

"not relying on evangelical sub-cultural jargon." Thank you! I grew as Roman Catholic, I'm a Mexican, live in southern California, then went to Baptist University in my city, 80% tof the people there are from the Bible Belt and use alot "evangelic jargon" that when classmates explained gospel to me, it made not sense. And then they would explain thier jargon with more jargon :P So yes a church that uses real language that's clear is always a must if they wanna reach anyone :) Go Tim!

[@billyholly]

@anthonythirteen I've read...it might have been Lee Stroebel, talking about making seekers feel lost by the use of Christian "jargon" and that some churches are mostly trying to (properly) bring seekers in while other churches are servicing believers. I hadn't thought about this before, though I once brought three interested people into London Hillsong and the "friendly" service of the week before became a healing service, freaking them out. What should be done, do you think?

[@m2redshirt]

Although Christians should be concerned with problems that non-Christians are concerned about, that shouldn't be the be-all end-all method of drawing people to the body of Christ. The responsibility of a Gospel-preaching church is to emphasize REAL problems that non-Christians typically do not focus on, namely, the problems of SIN, life after death, present life without God, etc. So there is some validity to churches that focus on things that non-Christians do not connect with. Love is the key.

[@MattWilsonToday]

Spot on - the 'bring them in' paradigm is the fatal flaw in what Keller is saying in this interview. A church concerned with 'bringing the lost into the sanctuary' is Attractional not Missional. That doesn't mean it's not a good church and not an important part of God's Kingdom design - it's just not a Missional church.

[@wScott905]

You have summed it up nicely. Instead of focusing on a method, churches should continue doing what works best; teach the Bible. The Missional Church's message is not new, it is already in the Bible.

[@prlang]

so true...

[@ElJibaroBravo]

I'm just getting into Missional theology and I gotta say I'm feeling like I'm "coming home" again. This just feels right to me & more importantly, it's apparently more Biblical. However, I'm not sure I agree with the whole "let's bring in the non-believer to church" rhetoric. Why? The church (building) is for believers to be edified and commisioned. Jesus said "Go!" not "Bring them in". Just my thoughts.

[@DiscoverJesus]

I believe a healthy church will be both attractional and missional - the mission is surely the lives of the congregation lived out in a Christ-like manner underpinned by the theological framework of the church community. Attraction could be to specific events OR the more "missional " more informal gatherings or one to one outside of Church timetable. Perhaps what needs to be re-emphasised is both aspects within the life of more churches rather than the polarising of these two models

[@machisendai]

Why does "Go" and "Bring them in" have to be in opposition to each other? Take the account of Philip going to get his brother Nathanael and bring him to Jesus. "Going" has the objective of "bringing" people to where they can meet Jesus, and what better place to meet Jesus than "where 2 or 3 are gathered"? Also, the missional conversation does not equate the church with a building. "Church" is a believing community living out its calling as a sign, instrument and foretaste of the Kingdom.

[@billyholly]

@anthonythirteen Yep, I've seen that. We gotta get out there and do something!! ...and not be complacent, "preaching to the choir."

[@machisendai]

@darthfocus I think your response is an overstatement, but be that as it may, what I imply is not that unbelievers constitute the church. That would be absurd. What I mean to say is that what better place for unbelievers to encounter Jesus than through believers, disciples? People today will not usually meet Jesus through someone lecturing them or giving them a prepackaged presentation. People today encounter Jesus best in a community of authentic Christians, where actions back up words.

[@JDpowerpower]

Dishonest: at some point you have to talk about doctrine unless you just focus on know 3:16. I don't like pretending I don't have certain exclusive truth positions and after they convert we spring it on them lol.

[@JDpowerpower]

But the clique within evangelicalism isn't good either. One side is obnoxiously Christian and the missional side pretends they are totally different.