Awesome article. Resonates with what I have been seeing as well. As I wrote in my Mere Orthodoxy article, the loss of soteriology has come at the hands of Missio Dei. You capture that well here. I am going to read your article a few more times... and let it soak in a bit. Somebody who is a Barth scholar needs to pick at this thread because Missio Dei is his brainchild. As a younger missiologist I don't think I grasped this as much as I do now.
There is much that affirms what I have been sensing, and you give voice to it in a wonderful, respectful way. My particular focus has been more on the non-Western mission movement. Missional (a term I avoid using unless it is specifically referring to the movement itself) has never been a widely respected concept within the traditional missionary agency movement. It has been viewed as a methodology for local church outreach in the reached West.
I would suggest two possible corrections. First, we do not know if "Western missionary sending continued declining through the missional era." The association I lead, Missio Nexus, is perhaps the best counter of US missionaries. From the broader West I would agree that sending has been in decline (the UK, New Zealand, Canada in particular). However, US sending has been static. It is most likely not rising, but it is also most likely not in decline. I purposefully use "most likely" here as missionary statistic are some of the most lying statistics out there. Yet, there should be some push back on the common narrative that US mission sending is in decline. I would counter that we don't know if this is true, but if it is, it is a very small decline. What is true, however, is that the Global South missions force is growing, albeit slower than we might like to think. Thus, the percentage of US missionaries in the whole pie chart is declining. This leads to people writing that the US missions movement is declining, which is a different thing. So... I would be careful to state that Western missions sending is declining without giving a bit of further explanation.
The other part I would investigate more is about how the Global South church is growing today. A lot of growth in the Global South stems from advances made in the previous generation (particularly in Africa and South America) which is now yielding demographic growth. This is a different type of growth than the analysis here suggests. I am utterly grateful for it, of course, but as we seek to understand the changes globally, let's remember that Africa in particular is going to enjoy some sweet, Christian demographic growth. If we think this is because of breakthroughs in methodology that we might observe in church today, we might have to go back a decade or two to find those methodologies.
For the best in mission methodologies from the Global South, we might look to those working specifically among Muslims. This seems to be where non-demographic, conversionistic growth is happening today. Strangely, it might be that digital outreach is where we might poke around first, as this seems to me to be bearing the most response.
Graham, Thank you for the thorough article and honest critique.
1. I would be interested in what you have to say about DMM/CPM.
2. I also think the modality/sodality needs to be looked at again. I don't like how it has been used. You're right that it's not completely dependent on the local church and that there is a place for the parachurch. Winter's formulation does not seem exegetically sound, though. The church is clearly prescribed, while the missionary band is merely tangentially described. The burden of responsibility is clearly lopsided in favor of the church.
3. I take slight issue with negative assessments of the advance of the church. I think Jesus is doing a great job and he isn't failing. Individual churches may be on various places on the spectrum of faithfulness, similar to the 7 churches of Revelation. But on the whole, the gospel is advancing and the kingdom is being built by Jesus' command and the Spirit's power.
I love your article. As a retired minister from South Africa, I certainly agree with you. The problems I faced in denominations are that their is no committed definition in theory as well in praxis of missionality in the denomination. People acted as if they now exactly what it means and how to be a missional congregation and church, but with deeper insights you discover that they are really have their own interpretation. This is basically that yhe congregaion must only be highly actine and involved in the community and it always turned out to be only certain and selective members and not the whole congregatiom as members of the church of God. Furthermore that the congregation must be very active with evangelization. Their is a very high emphasis now on evangelization in the Church. People are looking for programs and models to help them, which I believe is the wrong way to go if yo want to be missional. Discipleship must receive the highest priority in every congregation and thet will lead th econgregaton to be a movemental church. It wll re-define the mission off the church in any community as well as the lives of any chistian in any place or situation.
I think motus Dei will help move the conversation forward, but there is much work to be done. What if the best type of a missional church is a movemental church? CPMs and DMMs give much food for thought.
Thank you for this. You've named what may be the most significant gap in the book proposal I’m writing on this topic as it currently stands, and I think you're right.
Motus Dei and the broader CPM/DMM literature deserve serious engagement in the new book, not just a footnote. Farah, Garrison, Trousdale, Watson, Victor John, Ying Kai, and Nathan Shank are doing work that the missiological conversation can't ignore, and the question you're asking, whether the best successor to "missional church" is "movemental church," is exactly the kind of open question the book should hold rather than answer too quickly.
Here's how I'm thinking about integrating this. Chapter 11 (the Global South witness) needs a substantive section on movemental practice, treating the multiplication literature as theology rather than just methodology. Chapter 18 on rebuilding sodalities should engage movemental ecclesiology directly, since the movemental claim presses the local-translocal question further than I currently take it. Chapter 25 needs a section on what Western pastors can learn from movemental practice and where the contextual translation is still unfinished. And the appendix needs an objection that engages the underweighting question head-on.
Two cautions I'll bring to the engagement, and I'd value your pushback on both. First, the movemental methodology has produced extraordinary fruit in oral, communal, high-trust-within-kin-networks cultures, and the Western translation question is genuinely unsolved. Some of the strongest CPM advocates have said so themselves. Second, the formation cluster of the book (Chapters 19 to 22) is partly an argument against the speed-over-depth pattern that some movemental approaches have produced. I want the book to commend the movemental project without becoming an uncritical advocate, and to engage Farah's theological work especially as a serious partner.
Your question may end up being one of the book's open questions in the closing chapter. "Is the genuine successor to missional church a movemental church?" I'm increasingly persuaded the answer is "yes, with careful translation," and the book is better for being asked.
Thanks to everyone who gave helpful feedback and pushback on this article. I'm writing a book on the topic, so this feedback will be integrated into the insights and arguments.
This was a helpful post. I'm an outsider to the missional conversation, though, I think the missional folks would not disagree with your fifteen recommendations. For one, your suggestion on cruciformity was made by Gorman. For another, your point on the trinitarian overreach that made the church optional - which you traced to Hoekendijk - was one of Newbigin's concerns. Newbigin kept the church central - and some missional folks did as well. Even your point about democratization without formation: I think many missional folks desired to keep formation central - the problem might have been one of execution?
I'm also unsure that: (1) David Bosch and Chris Wright were "missional." I think the traffic was the other way around, and their influence was definitely more global than "missional" - which was centered in the US around US concerns. (2) That the missional movement thought "every Christian isa missionary." Granted, they argue that everyone finds themselves sent - but that is different from saying everyone is a professional missionary. Perhaps that happens in such-and-such church, or local pastors might say it, but I'm not sure the missional movement on a whole hinged on such a theology. (3) Your tale of two churches was entirely helpful. It seems you caricatured the missional church and idealized the Anglican church plant? (4) the missional folks were guilty of "kingdom-without-church." Perhaps some pastor might overstate things, but on a whole? Newbigin's adaption of the Vatican II's statement - Newbigin used i.e., sign, foretaste, instrument of the kingdom - clearly had some concern that the church functioned as the representative of Christ's presence on earth. (5) I'm not sure the missional movement was particular strong in pneumatology; i.e., you talked about the richness ... of "the Spirit's missio Dei work in the world."
I’m currently writing a book on this topic, and your analysis of my argument will make the book considerably stronger, so I owe you a great debt of gratitude
Awesome article. Resonates with what I have been seeing as well. As I wrote in my Mere Orthodoxy article, the loss of soteriology has come at the hands of Missio Dei. You capture that well here. I am going to read your article a few more times... and let it soak in a bit. Somebody who is a Barth scholar needs to pick at this thread because Missio Dei is his brainchild. As a younger missiologist I don't think I grasped this as much as I do now.
There is much that affirms what I have been sensing, and you give voice to it in a wonderful, respectful way. My particular focus has been more on the non-Western mission movement. Missional (a term I avoid using unless it is specifically referring to the movement itself) has never been a widely respected concept within the traditional missionary agency movement. It has been viewed as a methodology for local church outreach in the reached West.
I would suggest two possible corrections. First, we do not know if "Western missionary sending continued declining through the missional era." The association I lead, Missio Nexus, is perhaps the best counter of US missionaries. From the broader West I would agree that sending has been in decline (the UK, New Zealand, Canada in particular). However, US sending has been static. It is most likely not rising, but it is also most likely not in decline. I purposefully use "most likely" here as missionary statistic are some of the most lying statistics out there. Yet, there should be some push back on the common narrative that US mission sending is in decline. I would counter that we don't know if this is true, but if it is, it is a very small decline. What is true, however, is that the Global South missions force is growing, albeit slower than we might like to think. Thus, the percentage of US missionaries in the whole pie chart is declining. This leads to people writing that the US missions movement is declining, which is a different thing. So... I would be careful to state that Western missions sending is declining without giving a bit of further explanation.
The other part I would investigate more is about how the Global South church is growing today. A lot of growth in the Global South stems from advances made in the previous generation (particularly in Africa and South America) which is now yielding demographic growth. This is a different type of growth than the analysis here suggests. I am utterly grateful for it, of course, but as we seek to understand the changes globally, let's remember that Africa in particular is going to enjoy some sweet, Christian demographic growth. If we think this is because of breakthroughs in methodology that we might observe in church today, we might have to go back a decade or two to find those methodologies.
For the best in mission methodologies from the Global South, we might look to those working specifically among Muslims. This seems to be where non-demographic, conversionistic growth is happening today. Strangely, it might be that digital outreach is where we might poke around first, as this seems to me to be bearing the most response.
I appreciate these insights greatly!!
Hi Ted. If you have any observations about what I may be missing, please let me know. I’m writing a book, so will benefit from your insights
Graham, Thank you for the thorough article and honest critique.
1. I would be interested in what you have to say about DMM/CPM.
2. I also think the modality/sodality needs to be looked at again. I don't like how it has been used. You're right that it's not completely dependent on the local church and that there is a place for the parachurch. Winter's formulation does not seem exegetically sound, though. The church is clearly prescribed, while the missionary band is merely tangentially described. The burden of responsibility is clearly lopsided in favor of the church.
3. I take slight issue with negative assessments of the advance of the church. I think Jesus is doing a great job and he isn't failing. Individual churches may be on various places on the spectrum of faithfulness, similar to the 7 churches of Revelation. But on the whole, the gospel is advancing and the kingdom is being built by Jesus' command and the Spirit's power.
Thank you so much for this! I have been trying to say this and this really empowers me to make a better case for this.
Thanks Bevin. And thanks for the graphic
I love your article. As a retired minister from South Africa, I certainly agree with you. The problems I faced in denominations are that their is no committed definition in theory as well in praxis of missionality in the denomination. People acted as if they now exactly what it means and how to be a missional congregation and church, but with deeper insights you discover that they are really have their own interpretation. This is basically that yhe congregaion must only be highly actine and involved in the community and it always turned out to be only certain and selective members and not the whole congregatiom as members of the church of God. Furthermore that the congregation must be very active with evangelization. Their is a very high emphasis now on evangelization in the Church. People are looking for programs and models to help them, which I believe is the wrong way to go if yo want to be missional. Discipleship must receive the highest priority in every congregation and thet will lead th econgregaton to be a movemental church. It wll re-define the mission off the church in any community as well as the lives of any chistian in any place or situation.
Thanks for your reflections, Arnold
I think motus Dei will help move the conversation forward, but there is much work to be done. What if the best type of a missional church is a movemental church? CPMs and DMMs give much food for thought.
Thank you for this. You've named what may be the most significant gap in the book proposal I’m writing on this topic as it currently stands, and I think you're right.
Motus Dei and the broader CPM/DMM literature deserve serious engagement in the new book, not just a footnote. Farah, Garrison, Trousdale, Watson, Victor John, Ying Kai, and Nathan Shank are doing work that the missiological conversation can't ignore, and the question you're asking, whether the best successor to "missional church" is "movemental church," is exactly the kind of open question the book should hold rather than answer too quickly.
Here's how I'm thinking about integrating this. Chapter 11 (the Global South witness) needs a substantive section on movemental practice, treating the multiplication literature as theology rather than just methodology. Chapter 18 on rebuilding sodalities should engage movemental ecclesiology directly, since the movemental claim presses the local-translocal question further than I currently take it. Chapter 25 needs a section on what Western pastors can learn from movemental practice and where the contextual translation is still unfinished. And the appendix needs an objection that engages the underweighting question head-on.
Two cautions I'll bring to the engagement, and I'd value your pushback on both. First, the movemental methodology has produced extraordinary fruit in oral, communal, high-trust-within-kin-networks cultures, and the Western translation question is genuinely unsolved. Some of the strongest CPM advocates have said so themselves. Second, the formation cluster of the book (Chapters 19 to 22) is partly an argument against the speed-over-depth pattern that some movemental approaches have produced. I want the book to commend the movemental project without becoming an uncritical advocate, and to engage Farah's theological work especially as a serious partner.
Your question may end up being one of the book's open questions in the closing chapter. "Is the genuine successor to missional church a movemental church?" I'm increasingly persuaded the answer is "yes, with careful translation," and the book is better for being asked.
Thanks to everyone who gave helpful feedback and pushback on this article. I'm writing a book on the topic, so this feedback will be integrated into the insights and arguments.
This was a helpful post. I'm an outsider to the missional conversation, though, I think the missional folks would not disagree with your fifteen recommendations. For one, your suggestion on cruciformity was made by Gorman. For another, your point on the trinitarian overreach that made the church optional - which you traced to Hoekendijk - was one of Newbigin's concerns. Newbigin kept the church central - and some missional folks did as well. Even your point about democratization without formation: I think many missional folks desired to keep formation central - the problem might have been one of execution?
I'm also unsure that: (1) David Bosch and Chris Wright were "missional." I think the traffic was the other way around, and their influence was definitely more global than "missional" - which was centered in the US around US concerns. (2) That the missional movement thought "every Christian isa missionary." Granted, they argue that everyone finds themselves sent - but that is different from saying everyone is a professional missionary. Perhaps that happens in such-and-such church, or local pastors might say it, but I'm not sure the missional movement on a whole hinged on such a theology. (3) Your tale of two churches was entirely helpful. It seems you caricatured the missional church and idealized the Anglican church plant? (4) the missional folks were guilty of "kingdom-without-church." Perhaps some pastor might overstate things, but on a whole? Newbigin's adaption of the Vatican II's statement - Newbigin used i.e., sign, foretaste, instrument of the kingdom - clearly had some concern that the church functioned as the representative of Christ's presence on earth. (5) I'm not sure the missional movement was particular strong in pneumatology; i.e., you talked about the richness ... of "the Spirit's missio Dei work in the world."
I’m currently writing a book on this topic, and your analysis of my argument will make the book considerably stronger, so I owe you a great debt of gratitude
Glad to be of service. Looking forward to your book.
Thank you for your thoughtful responses. Greatly appreciated