I think we’ll always bend toward the Institutional. It’s in our nature to find a comfortable place and stay there. In that light, I think that as hard as we can run toward the Missional, it will be in our best interest. We will always be pushing uphill against the gravitational pull of the Institutional.

Just my thought.

Well put. As I mentioned in the Structure post the church has always had some structure. It is not possible to exist without structure unless you devolve the church all the way to the individual.

You could walk the de-centralized model all the way out to it becoming house churches with loose affiliations, but I don’t see us going that far. I think more in the terms of “Simple Church,” where the individual and then small groups engage their world and the church operates as facilitator.

I think Tulsa Metro Association is a great model for denominational locus as well. Minimalistic with the emphasis on facilitation. I am not completely convinced this works on the national level – at least as far as the Seminaries are concerned. The rest of the SBC could be cut way back and redirected toward helping churches be missional rather than doing it for them.

As for the Seminaries, you know my opinion of the waste that I see there, but I also see good coming from them. I would like to see them quit trying to build a bigger institution and focus more on producing missional students. I think some do this better than others. For the most part, though, they think the bigger the institution the “better” the student (more opportunity for the student to learn, etc.), but I think they are creating a culture of sloth. You can get lost in an institution. Just like you can get lost in a church where Sun. am attendance is the norm. I remember many students at Seminary that didn’t even attend church. They’d often get dressed up about 11:45 am on Sunday and go to the cafeteria, like they had gone to service somewhere.

Then again, we may need to ask the question: “Does the denomination need six Seminaries?” Or better yet, “Does the denomination need any seminaries?” There are conservative alternatives out there.

As long as they are focused on building institutions and wasting tithes and offerings, then I am not convinced they even need to exist – or at least that they need to be supported by me. I see a lot of my generation feeling the same way and sensing the same thing.

Moving away from Seminaries, I am happy to cooperate with other churches to support embedded missionaries. I am not happy for the North American Mission Board to pay portions of denominational employees’ salaries and call them missionaries. I am not happy for the Trustees of the IMB to push petty policies that eliminate otherwise qualified missionary candidates that have tertiary theological disagreements.

To the extent the denomination can facilitate missions, then more power to it – and more money. If they continue to operate as institutions where money, ideas and actual missions go to die, then I think that they need to re-evaluate themselves, because I am re-evaluating them.

Does that answer your question? Did I get off on a tangent, or was that what you were looking for?

Thank you for reading them an encouraging me in them. It is more difficult to create something than to comment on something. It seems that all I have ever done is comment on things.

I completely understand the mindset thing. My advice, and what I am putting into practice, is to work toward a change in mindset while you engage in Missional activities. These activities give people an experience with which to associate the Missional thoughts. It helps if the experience looks more traditional in nature, because that will increase participation.

As you know, we’ve taken on Vietnam as a mission target as part of our Acts 1:8 challenge. Last year, we took three, myself included. this year, we are taking teenagers, parents and other members in what is shaping up to be a much larger group. Several of our Youth have surrendered to Missions and point to the Vietnam report as a key moment in their Spiritual calling. They (the Youth) are also organizing a block party in our church neighborhood to reach out to folks nearby as well.

As Reggie McNeal says, it is infectious. You don’t have to convince mass groups of people with arguments for changing their way of thinking. How hard is that? Just infect them with Missional ideas and letting them participate in what God is doing – the salvation and redemption of the lost – and they’ll be hooked. Then it will spread through them to others in the congregation and out.

Remember the Missio Dei. It is God’s mission. He wants your church to be engaged. He will do the work of transforming it. All you have to do is be obedient and stay out of His way. This is happening here at Skelly in a big way.

It is awesome!

Thanks for these posts. In my case, they are very timely because my church has accepted the Acts 1:8 Challenge and I am working through with a newly formed Missions Action Team the differences between being mission-minded and being missional. We’re also working through being attractional versus incarnational evangelistically. Your posts are very helpful in this journey. It is truly a journey for my church because they are having difficulty changing their way of thinking, in that we are to “go” to where the lost are instead of just inviting them to “come” where we are. It’s like trying to undo 50 years of institutionalism. It’s gonna take some time. :)

Les