Missional Church

I. What is the main idea or thesis of the author?

The Church in North America has strayed from its biblical roots and theology and finds itself in crisis. It finds itself dealing with this crisis by trying new methods and techniques. This will not suffice because the focus of the Church is off base. The North American Church’s structures, theology, strategies and traditions are based by the legacy of Christendom. However, the society no longer considers itself Christian and does not look to the Church to take leadership in society and the control of moral values, we have been marginalized.

Guder is arguing that we need to get back to our missional center instead of our former cultural center. The church needs to understand itself as sent ones, as having a mission. This mission is not of our making, we are sent by God to accomplish His Kingdom purposes. Therefore our theological focus and the focus of our praxis is the Missio Dei, the mission of God. If we do not return to what the Church was designed to be, we will become increasingly irrelevant in the post-Christian society in which we find ourselves.

II. What is my interpretation of the author’s thesis?

I find myself strongly agreeing with Guder that we are longing to return to our privileged status in Christendom rather than realizing our new role in society and functioning from where we actually are. This marginalization is actually healthy for the Church. It can become an advantage to us if we use this marginalization to refocus us on who and what we were designed to be. Further, it should draw us back to the triune God as our source of power rather than our social standing within society. The Church was designed to be at the margins, our former position at the center is the result of history, not a birthright. We function better at the margins.

I find Guder’s historical analysis helpful. This is not merely a theological problem; it is a historical, strategic and spiritual one. The fact that we had such a central place in Western society for so long harmed the Church; for example, how we handle leadership viewing clergy as a separate, privileged, sacred class. This has caused us to tend to rely on ourselves rather than God.

The Evangelical Churches negative response to postmodernism is not merely based on the fact that we have learned to function within the Enlightenment and feel comfortable there; it also reflects a desire to go back to our position of honor within Christendom; a position that our society is no longer offering to us.

Although Guder’s suggestions offer a radical departure from the status quo, there are times that he still seems stuck in it. He shows how denominations and denominational thinking are a result of history, struggles to think outside of that paradigm. He realizes that seminaries are a historical add-ons based on Enlightenment thinking, but doesn’t seem to be able to step away from the model. As radical as Guder is, I think the solutions may be more radical that he can imagine.

III. What would a serious application of this book look like?

Guder wants us to focus our theology, our structures and our strategies on the Missio Dei. Everything we do and are is based on our “sentness” into the world by God. This would be a radical shift, because significant historical encrustations have attached themselves to the Church in the last twenty centuries. This would mean stepping away from the clergy/laity distinction, for example. It would mean going to multiple contextual models of church structure and practice. It would mean reassessing theology and missiology. In fact, theology would be missiologically focused. These would be radical steps; however they are warranted. The transition will be painful, and in fact it will probably come from the margins of the establish church, not from its traditional center. The transition is too radical and disruptive for most mainstream churches. Reformation has always come from the margins, so we should not be surprised by this.

As a proponent of house church, I find Guder’s suggestions much less painful. In fact, I find them refreshing. Since house churches are already at the margins and are a fresh movement of the Spirit for postmodern times, they are in a unique position to develop missional structures and values. Since they are going back to an ancient model of Christianity, which also happens to be strategic in postmodern times, they are not encumbered by the historical incrustations and expectations of Christendom.

House churches can be and often are small, lean and intensely spiritual. They have a structure that is easily reproduced at every level. This allows them to be focused missionally. Further, they have fewer cultural boundaries with the postmodern world which tends to be anti-institutional, anti-hierarchical and longs for intimate community. All of this allows for an opportunity to build missional theology, structures and praxis into the genetic code of house church movements.