I like the word missional. It is a really good word when used correctly. But like most words overused it has suffered abuse. If everthing the church does is “mission,” then nothing is “mission.” If every Christ-follower is a “missionary,” then we just created another synonym for “Christian.”

Michael Oh spoke a little bit about this problem @ the Pastor’s Conf. that Desiring God hosted.

My own home church (although doesn’t tend to speak in missional terminology) is a prime example of being all about being ‘missionaries’ in your own community & being on mission in an area of 150,000 people in order to reach all 150,000 people for Christ – all the while it’s one of the most saturated areas with good, Bible believing churches. Their focus on unreached people groups is pathetic. Most of the money, talk & resources go towards the ‘mission’ of their own reached area.

Shouldn’t being missional in America mean not needing to spend much money cuz you’re already there? Therefore the funds, resources & people should be sent to areas where there isn’t anybody to be missional yet. You can’t be missional where there isn’t a church.

I agree with your definition. I don’t mean that to be “missional” you have to go overseas; just wondering why those who adopt the label and talk about being missionaries here in the US (which I agree with) often get little support for frontier missions to those who have never heard the name of Christ. It’s not to say they have to be “go-ers,” but why are so few of them advocates or “send-ers”?

I think Stetzer’s article helps clarify some things.

Hope this helps.

JT

I’m confused. When I think, “missional,” I don’t necessarily envision a school-building project (with the Gospel) in Rwanda or an irrigation duct construction job (with some more Gospel) in some remote corner of Asia. The first thing that comes to mind is a life lived right here at home for the glory of God, so that others may believe in His grace (as it is evident in our lives). Anyone can do it, it’s not limited to those chosen and funded by an organization, and it’s desperately needed.

Is my confusion one of definition? Have I simply misapplied the word “mission” as opposed to “evangelism”? It’s difficult to believe that anyone could advocate sending the Gospel overseas but neglecting its presentation, in living form, right here at home, so I’m hoping this problem of definition is in fact the case.

Sorry to intrude, I really enjoy reading here and elsewhere, and this is a genuine question and concern, so please don’t read it as an attack.

Respectfully,

-Evan