• If the Missional Movement Fails So Does Discipleship

    September 22, 2011

    In the last week or so, a few blog posts have caught my attention, driven me to some reflection, and incline me to go ahead and try to offer my some clarifying thoughts that I hope will further some important conversations.

    The first posts were from my friend Mike Breen – 2 posts on “Why the Missional Movement Will Fail” (Part 1, Part 2).

    (ht: churchleaders.com for the image)

    Essentially, what these posts are suggesting is that discipleship is the engine (which is either in desperate need of repair or lacking entirely) that ought to be driving the vehicle of our (missional) churches.

    Beautiful.  Couldn’t possibly agree more.

    Here’s what surfaced as a clarifying point for me as I though about this though.

    The criticism offered in these posts really only applies to the people who don’t really understand “missional” in the first place – people who think it’s a tack on to existing church structures and programs. These are people who wrongly and unhelpfully interpret “missional” as merely being more outward focused or placing greater emphasis on doing mission activities.  These have become the classic mistakes of those who mean to co-opt missional language and principles as “the next big thing” that people will show interest in – a new church product for bored or disinterested church people.  Their focus isn’t refining their theological perspectives and living fully into the implications of doing so, it’s merely adding or shifting an external point of focus, and so the point, and opportunity, is missed.

    Missional, for those who take the time to really delve into it, is a biblical and theological paradigm predicated on a vision of God as a missionary God, which has deep implications for how we understand, among other things, the Gospel and the Church.  In fact, it is this theological vision that actually serves to restore discipleship to its rightful place at the center of our ecclesiologies and (as I have argued before), our soteriology.

    Mike’s assertion, I believe, is only properly addressed to those plagued by dichotomous thinking – discipleship is one thing and being missional is another.  I think that some confusion over just this fact surfaces when Mike’s writes, in his 2nd post,

    To be a disciple is to be a missionary.

    But then follows it by saying,

    Jesus made disciples and he sent them out as missionaries while discipling them.

    There first sentence rightfully conveys that the point of discipleship is being on mission with God and that being on mission with God is the context and “stuff” of discipleship, but the next sentence devolves into the notion of discipleship as one thing and participation in mission another.  This way of thinking persists only for so long as we misunderstand what is really at the heart of the missional movement and I think the language of Mike’s argument here waffles here not because he’s confused, but because the conversation about what the missional movement is all about can be confusing.

    From a missional perspective, the Gospel is first and foremost a call to follow Jesus as his disciples and the Church is rightly though of as a community of disciples on mission with God.  It’s not that discipleship is one thing and “being missional” another – two things that we must seek to hold together with the whole AND mentality that has gained some popularity recently.  Instead, and I suppose this is my real point in offering this clarifying thought, it is the full and proper understanding of “missional” that is actually our greatest ally in terms of providing theological and ecclesiological visions that help us see and understand the centrality of discipleship. 

    So, to play on Mike’s metaphor, if (missional) churches are propelled by the engine of discipleship, it is missional theology that builds, fuels, and maintains the performance of that engine.

    For that reason, I’ll continue to throw my lot in with my brothers and sisters who’ve given themselves to advancing the missional movement!

    The other post was by Ed Stetzer on the whole, “Can Megachurches be Missional?” debate.  He still thinks they can and I still think they can’t.  But, as I’ve thought some more on this I’ve had some clarifying thoughts that I’d love some feedback on.  I’ll save those for another post though.

    Related Posts

    1. Northern Seminary & 3DM: Discipleship Oriented Theological Education
    2. Discipleship in a Missional Context
    3. The Place of Salvation in the Missional (Church) Conversation

    Posted in: 3DM, church, discipleship, missiology, missional, missional theology, salvation, theology

Recent Comments

  • Zach Hoag said...

    1

    JR, I was going to put together a response to Breen today on my blog, but you literally just said everything I would have said, and more. Thanks man! I think the tragedy of the whole thing is that saying "The Missional Movement Will Fail" weakens the theological interest of those coming into contact with the missional movement. Even if there are surfacey, shallow attempts at missional going on out there (and there are), even those attempts might get someone interested in digging deeper.

    The point, obviously, is that something is being recovered here that the church has long forgotten – that, as Bosch put it, God is a missionary God, God is a God for people, and the church is mission. Notably absent from Breen's criticism, ironically, was any kind of meaningful ecclesiology. The church was sort of a "side effect" of discipleship. But if the church is mission, then the church is discipleship, and there is no discipleship without the church.

    So yeah. Well done brother.
    My recent post My Nine Eleven

    09/22/11 2:53 PM | Comment Link

  • PaulDz said...

    2

    Nicely said. At the same time Mike does say something important. As the movement called "Missional Movement" gets watered down by people who "co-opt missional language and principles as 'the next big thing'" the overall movement suffers. It looses momentum.

    I wonder if those who function from a missional theology into practical discipleship driven ministry will have to change their language from calling it missional to something else. The movement may have no other way to weed out the "co-opters."

    09/22/11 3:42 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    3

    Hey Zach, thanks. Good thinking on this. Make disciples and you'll get the church is true enough, but making disciples is always the task of the church, so we need an ecclesiology that supports that vision. Love it!

    09/22/11 4:50 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    4

    Hey Paul. Count me among the people who are committed to not letting that happen. I mean, bottom line, the work of God is obviously more important that mounting defenses regarding terms related to it, but as someone who desperately wants to see the missio Dei and a correspondingly missiological shape to theology, ecclesiology, and theological education regain some ground, it's a word that I'm going to continue vying for the rightful use of.

    09/22/11 4:54 PM | Comment Link

  • PaulDz said...

    5

    I can really see why. I would not really know what else to call missional but missional. I do think that it is therefore our obligation to clean up the field a bit making the popular term missional mean the same as the substantive term missional. I did that a little while back in my post, "ATTRACTIONAL OR EXTRACTIONAL: A TWITTER CHAT" http://pl-d.net/2011/07/07/attractional-or-extrac… You are doing it here. It pretty important.
    My recent post Confusing Bible

    09/22/11 5:13 PM | Comment Link

  • Doug Paul said...

    6

    JR, agree with probably 98% of these thoughts. I think Mike was going after was the feaux-missional peeps who do compartmentalize discipleship and mission. However, I do think he goes one step further and also says to the people who are rightly "missional thinkers" and practioners that we should also be concerned about how competent we are. While we seek faithfulness and obedience first, don't we also want to be effective and be good at the things Jesus can do? Not at the EXPENSE of faithfulness, but in addition?

    One other thing I might add. You liked the sentence "To be a missionary is to be a disciple" but had a slight quibble with the "Jesus made disciples and he sent them out as missionaries while discipling them" quote. I think once is about who disciples ARE and one is about PROCESS. To be a disciple is to be a missionary. That's part of the deal. That's what you're signing up for. However, the PROCESS that Jesus used to disciple people didn't necessarily with immediately sending them out. It's hard to read Luke and not think the disciples weren't standing around a lot watching for the majority of the time, watching Jesus do all the missional engagement. However, we get to Luke 9 and BOOM…Jesus sends them out. I imagine this what Mike was speaking to. Being a missionary is to be a disciple, but there's also a process of how this happens (which, I imagine, does look slightly different for everyone). I don't think the process takes away from defining a disciple as a missionary (i.e. I don't find them to be contradictory statements).

    Lastly, as has been said by a few people already, the language is slightly confusing in all of this. Part of me wonders if we just go old school and say, "We want a discipling movement" and understand that for people who really have a missional theology, they know that means it will have a serios missional bent.

    What say you?
    My recent post 10 Things Missional Moms can do

    09/22/11 7:18 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    7

    Yes, competence is an important issue, but beyond that I'm not really sure what you are driving at here in the first part of your comment. I suppose I see faithfulness and obedience not as things to which we need to add a focus on competence and effectiveness, but as the channels through which God can exercise his competence through me. Another way of saying that may be, I'm not faithful and obedient in order to become competent and effective, but rather, I'm competent and effective to the extent that I remain faithful and obedient. That make sense? I may yet be missing what you're driving at on this one.

    As far as the two sentences about disciple as missionary, I think I see what you are saying, but would want to argue for a vision of what it means to participate in God's mission in the world that is broader than just being sent out as the disciples were in Luke 9 and 10. The disciples were on mission with Jesus right from the get go and though there was a development to the responsibility and authority he passed on to them, this isn't the same as saying discipleship is one things and "being missional" another.

    I could get behind the language of cultivating a discipling movement, but because I think that discipleship only ever happens as we are called into participating in God's mission in the world in and through local, incarnational expressions of the Body of Christ, we need an ecclesiology that is capable of launching, guiding, and sustaining that movement. So, in this way, what we need isn't so much a discipling movement with a "missional bent," but a missional understanding of God and the Church that leads naturally to discipleship.

    09/22/11 11:14 PM | Comment Link

  • Frank said...

    8

    Great post. I’ve been arguing in my small circle that “missional” without a Christ-focus is just community service. It doesn’t have to be one or the other, but as “the next big thing” Jesus gets lost in the hype

    09/23/11 8:22 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    9

    Good reminder, thanks Frank. Glad to connect.

    09/23/11 8:40 AM | Comment Link

  • @bradbrisco_kc said...

    10

    JR, really great post. When I first read Mike's post I too found myself agreeing but I was also a bit uncomfortable with how some people might understand or apply his words. I was going to comment on his blog, but was afraid I would be misunderstood. You articulate it well here.

    I was also a bit afraid that some, who have a misguided view of discipleship (classroom/cognitive learning) would think that we needed more instruction BEFORE we will be equipped to move into missional engagement. I am also completely convinced that discipleship leads us to mission but mission also compels us to discipleship. In other words, as we are engaged in God's mission it will force us, simultaneously into deeper/greater discipleship. Thanks bro!

    09/23/11 9:08 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    11

    Thanks Brad. Yeah, it's important to push past that tendency to view discipleship as an exercise in the accumulation of information rather than a movement in to joining God on his mission in the world. There's a place for cognitive learning of course, but separating it from the context of mission/ministry has distorting effects – the sort that I believe many seminary-trained pastors and leaders have unfortunately had to learn the hard way.

    09/23/11 1:22 PM | Comment Link

  • Doug Paul said...

    12

    Brad and JR, agree on both of these things. One of the ways I've heard it said before is "go before you know." Jesus had this amazing knack for letting his disciples experience something of the Kingdom and then point back and say, "OK…here's what you just experienced, let me teach you something about it." I think this is a big thing in western, cartesian culture. We either think, 1) We have to have everything perfectly formed in our mind or theologically before we go and do anything, or 2) Knowing ABOUT something is the same thing as knowing how to DO something.

    09/23/11 5:14 PM | Comment Link

Leave A Comment

Mail (will not be published) (required)