ABSTRACT
This paper will examine and critically evaluate the key contentions and emphasises of the “Missional Church Movement.” It will argue that the key components of the missional church, (1) the shift from sender to the sent; (2) a shift from attractional ministry to incarnational;(3) A shift from modernity to postmodernity (4) the shift from Christendom to a post Christian era, and (5) the transition from traditional centralised leadership to an apostolic movement, represent important contributions to the church in the west.
It will also argue that some of these components although helpful to a certain extent are often unbalanced and not a realignment with biblical Christianity because they often represent a move away from the scriptures and a compromise to the spirit of the age. As far as we are concerned the missional church paradigm valuable as it is has been have overstated their case. There is no doubt that sometimes it is accurate in its analysis but it is also often guilty of setting up straw men and a false dichotomies that it then presents itself as the only solution for.
IS THE MISSIONAL CHURCH A REALIGNMENT TO BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY? – A CRITIQUE
- INTRODUCTION
One of the fundamental claims of the missional church movement is based on a contention that the church, as it has been traditionally expressed, has become ineffective and unfruitful. This fruitlessness, it is argued, is not based on the public’s rejection of God, Jesus or spirituality in general but based on the church’s present structures.[1] Missional advocates point out that is not a change in methodology that is going to fix our problem but a complete paradigm shift from, “traditional/institutional bound churches” to a “missional/apostolic movement,” which is a “continuation of the Reformation.” It is stated that it is only this realignment of the church that can save it from exponential decline. This missional church shift, it is claimed is a shift in similar proportions and importance to the reformation. McNeal is representational of this view when he says:
The rise of the missional church is the single biggest development in Christianity since the Reformation. The post-reformation church of the modern era differed remarkably from it medieval processor. The missional church will just as dramatically distinguish itself from what we now call church[2]
In what follows we will critically examine the claim that the missional church is the biggest “realignment of the church since the reformation.” We will spend time assessing the main components of the missional church paradigm in order to see if they are closer to a biblical expression of what the church should be than what we presently have.
- SOME ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF THE MISSIONAL CHURCH
2.1 SENDING OR SENT?
At the centre of a missional church paradigm is a view that the church needs to move away from seeing itself as the sender to the one who is sent.[3] After Jesus had been raised from death he came to his disciples and said to them:
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you (John 20:21).
This scripture is right at the center of a missional church’s paradigm. Ott asks the key missional question: “Does the church have a mission or does God’s mission have a church? [4]” In many places in scripture, both implicitly and explicitly, it is taught that the church does not just “have a mission” but is the product and vehicle of God’s mission.[5] The church is to partner with God in the missio dei. The missio dei is the mission of the triune God who from eternity is seeking to save the lost. MacIlvaine explains the view well saying:
This emerging concept of missio dei suggests that from eternity past the triune God has been on a mission. To fulfill that mission he engages in a series of sending acts. The Father sent the Son into the world at the incarnation (John 1:14). The Father guides His Son during His ministry (5:31). The Son sends the church into the world after His resurrection (20:21). The Son sent the Spirit into the world at Pentecost (14:16-17; Acts 2:1-4).[6]
This missional idea that the church is a sent community underlines an important observation that missiologists have highlighted for some time. It highlights a contrast between an O.T model of centripetal witness to a N.T model of centrifugal mission.[7] The church’s task (unlike Israel’s), it is argued, is primarily that of going rather than attracting.[8] Unlike Israel the church is not called to draw people to a specific geographical location (i.e. the temple/Jerusalem) but to the risen Christ. The church unlike Israel is not to be attracting people bringing them to a place, but to go to them, and extend the gospel to the ends of the earth.[9] Missional advocates have taken a missio dei framework and forced a conversation about the western church’s ecclesiology, which is helpful.[10]
But what is often left unsaid or missed with this emphasis is that the church is called to be both centrifugal and centripetal, we are to be both sent and attractional.[11] We argue that the missional churches contrast between attractional and missional is incorrect and that as missiologists have pointed out both centrifugal and centripetal movement are the biblical model.[12]
Arguing against an attractional model of the church Gruder says that the church is: “not the purpose or goal of the Gospel, but rather its instrument and witness”[13] agreed. But even as the church is the Gospel’s instrument and witness that same gospel witness has the eschatological purpose of gathering a people for God’s eternal praise. As John Piper has puts it: “missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesn’t.” [14] Is the mission of the church the ultimate goal of the Gospel? Or is the creation of a people (the church) that eternally glorifies God for his salvation through that same mission that is the goal? In the present, we are a sent people but our being sent is not our final resting place or goal; a universal – God praising church is. So while it is important to highlight that we are a to be missional people we are also a gathered people. We are to go out (sent) and bring them to the church (gathering).[15]
2.2 INCARNATIONAL MINISTRY
In the missional conversation the emphasis of the church as a sent people is usually contrasted with an attractional model but as we have previously argued the church is to be both; a sent community and attractional because they are interconnected.[16] Another paradigmatic shift of the missional view, connected with this, is a shift from an internal focus to an external one.[17] It is argued, “the lost world is where our focus should be.” Rather than maintaining our current congregations and structures we should conform our ecclesiology to fit our missiology.[18]
If this is the case, how do missional churches differ from attractional ones? Firstly, instead of bringing people to the church and expecting them to integrate with our “church culture” as fundamentalists do or draw people with programs, as the seeker-friendly movement did, we are to go to them as a sent people (John 20:21) incarnationally.[19] We are to adapt our churches to the sub/culture of the people we want to reach.[20] Hirsch speaking about this strategy of the missional church says:
The issue of culture context is essential because the missional church shapes itself to fit that in order to transform it for the sake of the kingdom of God.[21]
This is why some missional churches have used café’s and pubs as meeting places.[22] They are meeting people where they are at contextually. This strategy is the indigenous church and local theologizing concept that has been used in cross-cultural mission for some time now. The view that we must reach out to each context according to their own sub/culture and use language and thought forms, redemptive analogies of the people we want to reach as a missional strategy is an important task for us in the west as well.
But it is worth noting that the idea of incarnational mission/ministry has come under criticism by some missiologists in the past. This is not just because of its idolatrous and syncretistic[23] potential but also because of its lack of biblical justification. Hesselgrave explains one of the dangers of taking an incarnational approach.[24] He highlights the importance of affirming the uniqueness of Jesus’ incarnation. He points out that John in his gospel presents Jesus as the “only unique (monogenes)” Son of God (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18).[25] Jesus’ incarnation is unique and unrepeatable because it is “linked with Jesus’ eternal pre-existence (1:1,14) and his unique relationship with the father.[26]” He points out how the idea we are incarnating the gospel into specific contexts can “obscure” or “detract” from the uniqueness of the historical Christ’s incarnation. [27] We also submit that is questionable whether it is legitimate to claim we are doing so when we do mission. Kostenberger argues that the true meaning of John 20:21 is not about being sent incarnationally as Jesus was but about witness to the finished work of Christ. He points out the fundamental difference between Jesus ministry to ours: We are called to represent and declare Christ not imitate his incarnation.[28]
Missional church advocates could counter this claim by arguing that they are not claiming to replace Christ or en-flesh him anew, but this is essentially what are claiming to do by using the term.[29] The question is, as imperfect beings who are always culturally bound, can we ever be full incarnations of Christ and yet fully inculturated as he was fully God and fully man, if not then why use the term? How can the changing of our clothes, the understanding of thought forms and heart languages, values and beliefs, sharing in his mission, no matter how well done be equated with the hypostatic union.[30] In one sense it is valid to make a claim to be imitating Jesus and we are called to do so in a limited sense, but as Kostenburger argues a representational model is less problematic because it captures everything incarnational ministry does without confusion.[31]
3. THE WESTERN CHURCHES CRISIS?
A key argument of the missional apologetic is a dire diagnosis of the current status of western Christianity. In their books and articles, missional authors will dedicate a section to identifying and documenting the decline and problems with the western church.[32] They present a crisis that they see only a missional paradigm can solve. One of the main ways they do this is through statistics about the churches decline.[33] It is argued that the church as it has been traditionally expressed is contextually irrelevant and that our problem is about the form of the church not content of our message.[34] Essentially what we have is a good product but it is the form of the church and its leadership structure that needs to change. This is because the church is now living in a postmodern – post-Christian world. What we need to do is get back to a model/leadership that is: organic and apostolic.
We will argue below that these statistics although correct are used irresponsibly by these authors. Is it just the form of the church? Or is it also our content that is the problem? We will explore this further below.
3.1 MODERNITY OR POSTMODERNITY?
A major undercurrent for the missional conversation is based upon two cultural shifts. The first is a shift from Christendom to a post-Christian era (below). The second major shift is a philosophical one, a movement from modernity to postmodernity. Since the end of world war two there has be a significant loss of confidence in modern epistemology. The deconstructism of people like Derrida and the postmodern views of Lyotard have filtered down into all forms of academic inquiry and from there into every area of our lives. [35] This has left the church in a world where even the very foundations of knowledge have shifted. This shift it is argued has left the church completely unprepared to engage with our culture.[36]
We have entered a world for which the churches of North America are woefully unprepared. These churches are, in fact, seeking to address this new, unthinkable world with strategies shaped in the twentieth century and with some of the deepest convictions of modernity.[37]
For many scholars this is seen as a positive development for the church because the church can now freely be what we are, instead of being bound to modern assumptions. [38] For the most part a consideration of this shift is a positive thing that can only help us be more effective. One of the reasons for this is that a postmodern missiology takes into account postmodernism and seeks to present the church in forms that are more contextually aware. Often these forms are more like the early church.[39] Missional church proponents have adopted a postmodern form of the indigenous church.[40] A postmodern missiology means taking into account the places, thought forms, contemporise languages, values and anything else that those we are seeking to reach understand in order to reach the postmodern world with a compelling message
These ideas are helpful to a certain extent but are they biblical? Is the shift of our culture to a postmodern perspective and missional advocates call for us to use it in our forms of the church a realignment to biblical Christianity? This is doubtful, why? Firstly because a basic thread of postmodernism is a shift back to a more pluralistic viewpoint. One that is against any kind of metanarrative or claims to a universal truth.[41] As Kirk says: “humanities great enemy according to postmodernity, is the claim that ultimate truth can be known.[42]” The early churches proclamation about the uniqueness of the Christian message: “Jesus is the way, the truth and the life;” (John 14: 1) would never be considered relevant in a postmodern setting. Everyone’s view is equally valid. The result of a postmodern church is a low view of things like doctrinal statements of faith, which are too dogmatic.
Secondly, if we are to take on board a postmodern ecclesiology then the missional idea that there is no unified way of doing church works against the idea that we are getting back to the early church model because the early church model, if it was postmodern should not be presented as a model for us to use as no model should be programmatic for us. The idea that there is no correct way to do church is thoroughly postmodern and seems to go against the biblical teachings about the church being unified in practice (1 Cor 4:17, Ch. 14; 2 Thess 2:14; 1 Tim 3:15). Furthermore, some settings like clubs and pubs can be destructive mediums for church expression because they represent no break with the world of the attendees. Is every setting equally holy? We argue that they are not.
3.2 CHRISTIANITY OR CHRISTENDOM?
It is proposed that a key barrier to growth is the form of the church, which is based upon European Christendom, a relic of the enlightenment era.[43] “Christendom” is the church bound to institutional forms, which began during the time of Constantine and was never eradicated during the reformation.[44] It is argued that since our culture has shifted, we must deal with the west as post-Christian.[45] As Guder says the church is no longer the “chaplain” of society.[46] Our problem in the past is that the church was wedded to the state and had a colonialist view of mission.[47] This view of the church remains in the church’s self-understanding even though Christendom is over.[48] For many in the missional community our problem lies in the church holding on to this past status. Frost puts it this way:
It seems that the church is still hoping and praying that ground will shift back and our society will embrace once again the values that it once shared with the Christian community.[49]
This point is important for us to consider and missional authors have made a valid point. We can no longer see ourselves as those in a privileged position. Our culture has shifted and the church has lost its place as the conscience of the nation. The early church was never in the majority and now it is becoming increasingly clear that the church will continue to be marginalized. In the N.T the church is presented as a persecuted people, those who are privileged to share in the sufferings of Christ (1 Pet 3:14; 2 Cor 1:5; 1:29). It is the powerful in this age that are least called (1 Cor 1 26-31). The church’s status in Christendom was an unnatural place for the church to be. It became the very institution that Jesus came to pull down.[50]
This aspect of the missional church is a real re-alignment with the historical context of the church but it is only so based on observation. The missional church has provided us with a perspective by which we can be more realistic. But this observation although important does not address why the culture has become post-Christian, an observation alone does not equal a solution. It is yet to be proven that the missional church will be more effective than the church it will replace because it may not be that structure alone is the cause of the decline.
What is the solution offered by the missional movement? We are to move away from institutional forms to a missional form. Instead the church should be a movement or organism.[51] The church must totally change its self-understanding from the chaplain of society and an institution to an organic movement that understands its place as exiles in this world (1 Pet 2:11).[52] When this happens it will be a continuation of the Reformation. McNeal states this change strongly saying: “the first reformation was about freeing the church. The new reformation is about freeing God’s people from the church (the institution).[53]”
The answer offered is that we are to stop seeing the western nations as the senders but as a mission field.[54] And instead of seeing the church as a centralised institution we are form it into an apostolic disciple-making movement.
3.3 APOSTOLIC/MISSIONAL LEADERSHIP VS TRADITIONAL
A final shift is the type of leadership/ministry that the missional movement calls for. The missional churches focus on discipleship and apostolicity means that is sees all Christians as called to be involved in ministry/mission. Its move away from a centralized institutional form to an organic apostolic movement means that the each person must to use their gifts for the expansion of the kingdom (1 Cor 14).[55] They believe if this does not happen the church will continue to decline.[56] This means that a missional leadership will be sprit led in contrast to a centralised rule.[57] It means that leaders are to be equippers and facilitators not CEO’s. This is based on their interpretation of Ephesians 4.[58]
Alan Hirsch argues that that the potential for a movement has already been given to the church both in its most primitive form and in potentially in every believer.[59] Everyone can plant a church and everyone church is a church planting church. A fundamental part of the missional church idea of leadership is based on the doctrine of “the priesthood of all believers” this is based on the personal relationship that each one has with Christ as “Disciples of Christ.” The Christian is to live out their everyday life on mission.[60] There is no real division between sacred and secular. Because Jesus is Lord over every sphere of life and one must present every area to him. Another aspect of the kind of ministry/ leadership that is to be exercised in missional communities is an apostolic fivefold one. Hirsch calls for reestablishment the five-fold ministries in Eph 4 especially apostolic ministry, which is considered to be a key to the missional movement.
This call for missional leadership seems to be a valid one and we consider it an important part of biblical Christianity. The only concerns we have are based on the use of words like apostle and prophet being used today. It seems like it would be best to use the word leader to remove any confusion that the other words might bring. We agree that this kind of leadership is needed. But we disagree that everyone is called to plant churches because we see church planting as an apostolic function. A correct view of the callings of Ephesians 4 must take into account the fact that not everyone has the same function.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the missional church although presenting many important issues for the western church is not the greatest realignment of Christianity since the Reformation. This is the case because as we have argued, it has often failed to present the most biblical model. It often presents models that are not balanced and has often overstated its case giving mutually exclusive options. We have argued that the contrast between attractional and sent is misguided. We have also argued that incarnational ministry is often problematic because it detracts from the historical Christ. The two shifts: one from modernity to postmodernity and the other from Christendom to a post Christian era are valuable insights but it remains to be seen if the missional church or apostolic model will present a better model that what we already have.
[1] Reggie McNeal, The Present Future: Six Tough Questions for the Church, 1st ed (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2009), 12.
[2] Reggie McNeal, Missional Renaissance: Changing the Scorecard for the Church, 1 edition (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2009). 1
[3] Darrell L. Guder, ed., Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America, Reprint edition (Grand Rapids, Mich: 1998), 1.
[4] Craig Ott, Encountering Theology of Mission Biblical Foundations, Historical Developments, and Contemporary Issues (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2010), 192.
[5] For a great discussion about the missio dei and one that contains arguments for scripture see Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative, 6th ed. (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2006). Also see Michael W. Goheen, A Light to the Nations: The Missional Church and the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011).
[6] W. Rodman MacIlvaine III, “What Is the Missional Church Movement?” BibliothecA Sacra 167 (March 2010): 89–106.
[7] Andreas J Köstenberger, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: Apollos ; InterVarsity Press, 2001), 136.
[8] See the discussion about this here – Andreas J Köstenberger, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: 136
[9] Ibid.
[10] Michael W. Goheen, “The Missional Church: Ecclesiological Discussion in the Gospel and Our Culture Network in North America,” Missiology: An International Review 30, no. 4 (October 2002): 483–490.
[11] See Augusto Rodriguez, Paradigms of the Church in Mission: A Historical Survey of the Church’s Self-Understanding of Being the Church and of Mission (Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock Pub, 2012), 43.
[12] Alan Effs, “Missional Voices Down Under,” Missiology: An International Review 38, no. 1 (Jan, 2010).
[13] Darrell L. Guder, Missional Church, 5.
[14] John Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad!: The Supremacy of God in Missions, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2010), 17.
[15] Goheen, A Light to the Nations. 197-198.
[16] We acknowledge that missional church advocates understand this but in all the talk about one side this side is lost and placed under the other. see Alan Hirsch and Dave Ferguson, On the Verge: A Journey Into the Apostolic Future of the Church (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2011), 42. Hirsch says: “We believe church can be attractional and missional at the same time only if the organizational genetics, our core ideas, the paradigmatic brain at the centre, legitimises both impulses as important and justifiable expressions of what it means to contextualise the Gospel in the western world.”
[17] Reggie McNeal, Missional Renaissance: Changing the Scorecard for the Church, 1 edition (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2009), 41.
[18] J. Andrew Kirk, Mission Under Scrutiny: Confronting Contemporary Challenges, 1 edition (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006), 63.
[19] Alan Hirsch and Leonard Sweet, The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church, 5TH edition (Grand Rapids, Mich: Brazos Press, 2009), 142.
[20] Ibid,137.
[21] Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21 Century Church (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Pub, 2003), 7.
[22] Ibid, 9-11. See also Alan Hirsch and Leonard Sweet, The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church, 5th ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Brazos Press, 2009), 66-67.
[23] Scott Eleonora, “A Theological Critique of the Emerging, Postmodern Missional Church/Movement,” Evangelical Review of Theology 34, no. 4 (2010): 335–46.
[24] See David J. Hesselgrave, Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in Christian Missions Today (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2006), 141-166.
[25]Ibid, 153.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] See Köstenberger, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth, 226. And footnotes.
[29] Gruder discusses this here Darrell L. Guder, The Incarnation and the Church’s Witness:, Reprint ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Pub, 2005) 11-19.
[30] For an example of missional church advocates arguing for this kind of thing see Scott Frederickson “The Missional Church in Context” Taken from The Missional Church in Context: Helping Congregations Develop Contextual Ministry ed. Craig Van Gelder, (Grand Rapids, Mich: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007), 46-50. For a nuanced explanation see Ross Langmead, The Word Made Flesh: Towards an Incarnational Missiology (Lanham, Md.: UPA, 2004), 228-235.
[31] Köstenberger, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth, 226.
[32] See Neil Cole, Organic Church: Growing Faith Where Life Happens, 1 edition (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005), (Introduction) 21-29. Also Michael Frost, Exiles: Living Missionally in a Post-Christian Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006), 4-6. McNeal, The Present Future, 1-12.
[33] See McNeal, The Present Future, 1-12. Frost, Exiles, 3-8. Michael Frost, The Road to Missional: Journey to the Center of the Church (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2011), 16-22.
[34] Reggie McNeal, The Present Future, 12.
[35] David Jacobus Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1991). 349-350.
[36] Alan J. Roxburgh, Missional: Joining God in the Neighborhood (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2011), 1.
[37] Ibid.
[38] For more on the idea of the redemptive usefulness of postmodernity see Ross Hastings, Missional God, Missional Church: Hope for Re-Evangelizing the West (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012), 51-57.
[39] Carl Raschke, The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2004), 155-156.
[40] Craig Van Gelder, “How Missiology Can help Inform the Conversation about the Missional Church in Context” Taken from The Missional Church in Context: Helping Congregations Develop Contextual Ministry ed. Craig Van Gelder (Grand Rapids, Mich: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007), 12-42.
[41] J. Andrew Kirk “The Postmodern Condition and the Churches (Co)Mission” Taken From Mission and Postmodernities:, Reprint edition ed. Rolv Olsen, (Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock Pub, 2012), 23-25.
[42] Kirk, Mission Under Scrutiny. 23.
[43] Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come, 8-9.
[44] Frost, Exiles. Also see Guder, Missional Church, 5-7.
[45] Alan J. Roxburgh and M. Scott Boren, Introducing the Missional Church: What It Is, Why It Matters, How to Become One, 1 edition (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009), 75-84.
[46] Darrell L. Guder, ed., Missional Church, 78.
[47] Bosch argues that for the most part mission in the enlightenment era was connected to colonialist motivations. See Bosch, Transforming Mission, 298-212.
[48] Frost, Exiles, 3.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Alan Hirsch and Dave Ferguson, On the Verge: A Journey Into the Apostolic Future of the Church (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2011), 32.
[51] See Frank Viola, Reimagining Church: Pursuing the Dream of Organic Christianity, New edition (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2008), .
[52] Frost, Exiles. 8-11.
[53] McNeal, The Present Future, 43.
[54] Alan J Roxburgh, “The Missional Church,” Theology Matters 10, no. 4 (October 2004): 1–5.
[55] Guder, Missional Church, 183.
[56] Hirsch and Ferguson, On the Verge, 17.
[57] Craig Van Gelder and Alan Roxburgh, The Ministry of the Missional Church: A Community Led by the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007), 15-21.
[58] Guder, Missional Church, 186.
[59] Hirsch and Ferguson, On the Verge, 44.
[60] Ibid, 259.
LIST OF REFERENCES
Bosch, David Jacobus. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1991.
Cole, Neil. Organic Church: Growing Faith Where Life Happens. 1 edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
Effs, Alan. “Missional Voices Down Under.” Missiology: An International Review 38, no. 1 (2010).
Eleonors, Scott. “A Theological Critique of the Emerging, Postmodern Missional Church/Movement.” Evangelical Review of Theology 34, no. 4 (2010): 335–46.
Frost, Michael. Exiles: Living Missionally in a Post-Christian Culture. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006.
———. The Road to Missional: Journey to the Center of the Church. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2011.
Frost, Michael, and Alan Hirsch. The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21 Century Church. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Pub, 2003.
Gelder, Craig Van, ed. The Missional Church in Context: Helping Congregations Develop Contextual Ministry. Grand Rapids, Mich: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007.
Gelder, Craig Van, and Alan Roxburgh. The Ministry of the Missional Church: A Community Led by the Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007.
Goheen, Michael W. A Light to the Nations: The Missional Church and the Biblical Story. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011.
———. “The Missional Church: Ecclesiological Discussion in the Gospel and Our Culture Network in North America.” Missiology: An International Review 30, no. 4 (October 2002): 483–90.
Guder, Darrell L., ed. Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America. Reprint edition. Grand Rapids, Mich: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.
———. The Incarnation and the Church’s Witness:. Reprint edition. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Pub, 2005.
Hastings, Ross. Missional God, Missional Church: Hope for Re-Evangelizing the West. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.
Hesselgrave, David J. Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in Christian Missions Today. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2006.
Hirsch, Alan, and Dave Ferguson. On the Verge: A Journey Into the Apostolic Future of the Church. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2011.
Hirsch, Alan, and Leonard Sweet. The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church. 5TH edition. Grand Rapids, Mich: Brazos Press, 2009.
Kirk, J. Andrew. Mission Under Scrutiny: Confronting Contemporary Challenges. 1 edition. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: Apollos ; InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Langmead, Ross. The Word Made Flesh: Towards an Incarnational Missiology. Lanham,
Md.: UPA, 2004.
MacIlvaine III, W. Rodman. “What Is the Missional Church Movement?” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA 167 (March 2010): 89–106.
McNeal, Reggie. Missional Renaissance: Changing the Scorecard for the Church. 1 edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2009.
———. The Present Future: Six Tough Questions for the Church. 1 edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2009.
Olsen, Rolv. Mission and Postmodernities:. Reprint edition. Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock Pub, 2012.
Ott, Craig. Encountering Theology of Mission Biblical Foundations, Historical Developments, and Contemporary Issues. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2010.
Piper, John. Let the Nations Be Glad!: The Supremacy of God in Missions. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2010.
Raschke, Carl. The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2004.
Rodriguez, Augusto. Paradigms of the Church in Mission: A Historical Survey of the Churchs Self-Understanding of Being the Church and of Mission. Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock Pub, 2012.
Roxburgh, Alan J. Missional: Joining God in the Neighborhood. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2011.
Roxburgh, Alan J. “The Missional Church.” Theology Matters 10, no. 4 (October 2004): 1–5.
Roxburgh, Alan J., and M. Scott Boren. Introducing the Missional Church: What It Is, Why It Matters, How to Become One. 1 edition. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009.
Viola, Frank. Reimagining Church: Pursuing the Dream of Organic Christianity. New edition. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2008.
Wright, Christopher J. H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Sixth Impression edition. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2006.
THE INSIGNIFICANT CHRISTIAN 