Amidst the many debates and classifications of missional, Ed Stetzer’s three streams (Breaking Missional Code p. 187ff) or Scot McKnight’s 5 streams, or the attractional versus missional debates, I’d like to suggest another approach to classifications that might help us understand why we within the missional conversation often talk past each other. I suggest there are Reformed Missionals, Anabaptist Missionals, and Pragmatic Missionals. I suggest that each of these theologies tends towards a certain kind of epistemology and understanding of culture that influences how we think about missional church. Now to be clear – these are types right? There will be overlaps between the three and so anytime I put anyone in either of these three categories, I am sure we all will find reasons to also be in the other categories (except for me because I designed the categories). So with those caveats in mind here’s the three categories.
The Reformed Missionals.
These folk are more comfortable with individualist forms of salvation and church. The Protestant Reformation afterall emphasizes sola Scriptura, sola Fide, justification by faith – all of which put more emphasis on the individual’s coming to God through faith in Christ via the penal substitutional atonement made available in Christ. (BTW I do not ever want to deny the importance of personal faith and the work of God in Christ via the atonement for the individual’s restoration os his/her relationship with God thru Christ). The Bible, for Reformed thinkers, tends to be perspicuous to the individual and there is more invested in the mind’s ability to understand and come to truth as an isolated individual through the work of the Spirit. These epistemological factors make these missional types more open to an ecclesiology and soteriology based in the modern (Cartesian) individual. They are less critical of attractional mega church models of church and place more emphasis on the Sunday morning as a teaching event than other missionals. In addition, Reformed thinkers view the culture as inherently good and that God is at work there in unambivalent manner (or at least less ambivalent than Anabaptists). We should seek therefore to get Christians into government and positions of cultural power (Kuyper). These views on church and culture allow Reformed Missionals to see all of these things as missional whereas Anabaptists like myself would see these things as still valuable but secondary to the ministry of God’s reconciliation and salvation in the world. Anabpatists would instead argue for the work of culture (re)creation as opposed to seeking positions in power in secular culture. From here we engage secular culture. Reformed thinkers are more logocentric (trusting in language itself trascending culture as a medium of the gospel). They tend therefore towards a particular kind of contextualization, the translation of a concept or message into language and/or culture. Anabaptist see the gospel as not making sense outside of an enculturation. Contextualization is much more than translation, it must be done in “a way of life.” This last characteristic of Reformed theology also makes Reformed Missionals more open to “mega” forms of church. So, to be fair, this is an anabaptist’s (mine) take on Reformed tendencies.
I’d say Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll and Ed Stetzer lean in this direction. Darrell Guder and Craig Van Gelder, I would say, have some of the Kupyerian cultural influences of the Reformed Missional, yet resist some of the Christendom implications. As a result, there are some Anabaptist impulses going with them as well.
The Anabaptist Missionals
These folk are driven by the community as the central instrument of God bringing in His Kingdom and the way we know and enter into the gospel. The relationships, the ways of salvation, the ways we speak and practice the gospel are best lived out among people submitting to His Lordship. From here God’s work spreads politically an socially into the world. The impulse here is away from individualist (only) Bible reading and salvation. Salvation is always more than individual, it is participation in redeemed community. In terms of contextualization in culture: God is at work everywhere but there is evil and rebellion from God still at work in the world. It is not always easy therefore to see God in culture without a community formed under His redeeming Lordship (“a hermeneutic of peoplehood”) where we know he has promised to be present and at work. The best strategy then for contextualization is to move into a neighborhood, learn the culture, and slowly through rejecting pieces, blessings pieces, and bringing other pieces under captivity of His Lordship, a community is worked out that becomes a sign, a visible model of redeemed culture in that particular place. This is what makes mega church so difficult to fit into an Anabaptist way of thinking. Also, and just as importantly, salvation is inseparable from an apprenticeship in following in the ways of Jesus. And one’s personal salvation is inseparable from one’s commitments to peace, justice as well as reconciliation with God thru Christ and one’s neighbor.
I put Alan Hirsch in this group primarily because of the way he talks about discipleship and communitas. I put Michael Frost in there with him (his book Exiles leans inthis direction). I see Al Roxburgh here too. I put Mark Van Steenwyk of Jesus Manifesto, and Shane Claiborne in this camp. Scot McKnight treads in these waters at times. Of the GOCN, many times (presbyterian) Guder and (Lutheran seminary prof. but evangelcial background) Van Gelder talk like post Christendom Anabaptists. Hunsberger on the other hand I read as being attached ecclesiologically more to his Reformed backgrounds. I see myself as unambiguously landing here with the Anabaptists (I get this from my early theological formation into Hauerwas Yoder et al.).
The Pragmatic Missionals
These folk take basic core themes (call them “truths”) of the missional conversation and evaluate all forms of church based upon their success in these areas. I WANT TO SAY THAT I AM NOT CRITICISING THEM FOR THIS because I believe we need “results” oriented evangelists and practicioners to push theologians and traditions. I believe this is part of this group’s contribution to missional. These folk take key issues like racial reconciliation, a wholistic gospel, the Kingdom of God, reaching out to the poor and distressed in our society, and conversion and try to implement forms of church that produce these things. They are not under the influence of Reformed or Anabaptist thinking. One of their weaknesses is they sometimes have not thought out the implications theologically of their pragmatic forms of church. Having said that, I have been pushed in my theology by these practicioners.
I put Dan Kimball, and Erwin McManus in this group. I also think Scot McKnight finds himself here sometimes (wink,wink), despite his claims to be an Anabaptist. (OK Scot I’m open for you to defend your anabaptism)
In Summary
All in all, I think the Anabaptist Missionals are different than the Reformed and Pragmatist Missionals because of underlying assumptions that escape each other when we talk to one another. The way Anabaptists evaluate the integrity of church practice, the way we see post- modernity and post-Christendom is vastly different than the other two, and so we often end up talking past one another. Indeed, I would say this is what happened in the most recent Missional versus Attractional debates where Kimball, Keller and I basically taked past one another.
What do you think? Do these theological categories help in navigating the Missional debates?
——————————————————————
FYI I’ll be preaching at University Baptist Church in Champaign IL on Sunday morning. Then we’ll be holding an hour gathering afterward on the subject of the Christian church “Navigating the new Post-Cultures.” Then I’ll be on the University NPR Radion station at 5 p.m. on Steve Shoemaker’s show. Listen in here
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Dave-
I think you’re onto something here. Part of the problem is that missonal has become loosed from its moorings in the Bosch/Newbiggin missiological matrix and has become a catch-phrase used interchangeably with ‘evangelistic’ ‘outreach-oriented’ and ‘purpose-driven’ (not that there aren’t some overlappings there).
As a postmodern guy, I know that language is a living thing and its almost pointless to argue for the “right” definition of a word. But, I would say, by and large, folks in the third camp (pragmatic) aren’t really using the word right at all. And the folks in the first camp who can’t communicate with Anabaptistic folks, probably aren’t either.
But as someone in that group that straddles the Reformed/Anabaptist line, (I’m at Western Theological with Hunsberger/GOCN and heavily influenced by Guder), I would say these are the folks with the most appropriate definition of the word. My experience too is that these folk are able to converse with groups one and two quite readily. Much of the GOCN/Hunsberger/Guder/Van Gelder/J.V.Brownson stuff is clearly addressing the issue of a post-Christendom era. I think there differences with the full-on Anabaptist types in not in their understanding of ‘missional’ or the missionary situation of N. Americans, but in their theology of the state and its use of violence. Reformed folks still see gov’t/politics/entertainment/positions of power and influence as valid and needed arenas of missional work (even in a post-Constantinian context) because they hold there is a God-ordained place for the state and its use violence. While the Anabaptists, because of their view of violence and power, see missional activity as taking place only from the margins.
I think we need more Anabaptist-leaning folks, especially in settings where they provide a counter-witness to culturally-accommodated evangelicalism, but I don’t think the Reformed folks are entirely wrong.
David,
I agree that this is helpful. I would put myself, and the church plant I’m working with, pretty squarely in the pragmatic camp. We end up with some communal/anabaptist leanings, but mainly because they produce the results we feel called to produce. That said, I don’t think we (or any pragmatics?) could say we’re “not under the influence of Reformed or Anabaptist thinking” and some more theological camps besides, but that we evaluate all practices, no matter their historic source, at least in part on what they are or have been producing (or not producing). Are Wesleyans (‘method’-ists) the early pragmatists?
But, again, good thoughts. This should be helpful.
Interesting categories and very helpful. I would identify our community distinctly in the Anabaptist sphere of missional, though we draw a number of Pragmatics- not because they are convinced Pragmatics, but because they are unaware of theological realities of the other categories, but find themselves dissatisfied with their own experienced and traditions.
This is something that struck me, as I consider this topic- aside from the examples you gave, the vast majority of Pragmatics I meet are passionate young Christians who have never been introduced to any genuine ecclesiology and therefore are drawn to that which acts and works. There are thousands of them. It would benefit the Anabaptist category to make specific effort to find and effectively communicate their ideas & practices to this group. Many end up in less than helpful places simply because they someone offering something- anything!
Look forward to the conversation here to continue.
Peace,
Jamie
I want to be a reformed anabaptist who seeks results.
Reformed theology
Gospel Centered Community
Principaled Pragmatism
David –
This is MOST helpful heuristically and yes, it illuminates why Fitch/Kimball/Keller and what they represent philosophically wind up talking past each other. Keen insight. I’ll be using it. Thanks.
Andrew
David,
I was having a conversation with a young Reformed Southern Baptist last week. We both attended a meeting wherein the formulaic basis for our participation trekked along missional lines. I left the meeting glad for the fellowship but realizing the different spaces “missional” inhabits. The vast majority in the room operated from a pragmatic approach to missional and the vocabulary and inherent values flowed from there.
Your post along with your recent post, “Mission Precedes Ecclesiology,” have been much needed for healthy continued dialogue.
Thanks for writing.
Todd
A couple of questions:
Isn’t anyone who affirms that missiology precedes ecclesiology allowing pragmatics to precede and shape community, or am I misunderstanding you somewhere?
Relatedly, you seem to be saying that pragmatics may themselves differ widely based on how they define the mission (what are the core themes) and how they pursue that mission. If so, are all the groups pragmatists who differ along these lines (the specific ‘whats’ and ‘hows’ of mission?
T.,
I think you raise a good point, for certainly one way to interpret “missiology precedes ecclesiology” is the contexual drive for results. Yet I don’t think that is how most of the missional authors think about this phrase. Part of the confusion around the term is it leads peope to say “contextualization should drive the form each church takes” but this simply cannot be so, for there has to be something particular which we would still recognize as church. Others have said taht this phrase simply means that the church is defined as mission, therefore derivative of mission, but church is still church, it’s very being however is constituted by it’s birthing as Mission. I think a better way to say this that avoids the confusion of the former, is to simply say missiology is ecclesiology or vice versa. In a sense, we all are pragmatists in one way shape or form? But the way pragmatic has been used in the American context, we do a technique or model of church (or business for that matter) to achieve a., b., or c., is significantly curtailed, looks monumentally different in missional church, for we cannot sightline down what God will do with our faithfulness, we do know our goal is to invite everyone into the reconciliation of humanity and the world with God.
Thanks for those words.. thanks for the other so helpful and challenged ideas in this discussion.
I think that analysis is very good. Though, I do believe that there is alot of intersection at times. I find myself definitely in the Anabaptist camp. I find the reformist view is very Western and Americanized, and that it caters to a self centered Theology that is consumerist and contrary to The Cross, suffering, the community of believers, and the Lordship of Christ. The story of Salvation is one of the whole Universe being redemned, not just the individual soul. As far as pragmatism. To me that is watered down and trying to please all views. We are called to live out the Kingdom, which is far from pragmatic. The preaching of the Cross is foolishness, Corinthians tells us. It is time we bring the message of the Gospel back to its original communal middle eastern roots
Dave,
Quick question here – are there any others? And, as the missional conversation moves forward, will the reformed, anabaptist, etc. theologies still exist as the primaries or do you think we’ll see different theologies coming out of the shadows where they were hidden by Christendom in order to engage these “big hitters”? Or, to be fair I suppose, do you see those that have come out of the shadows?
Peace.
Dan
“In addition, Reformed thinkers view the culture as inherently good…”
“I’d say … Mark Driscoll … lean in this direction.”
While I understand your classifications were not meant to be an end-all, I had to chuckle at this. Driscoll hardly has a view of an “inherently good” culture (on its own); and I doubt most reformed-types do.
It is odd to me, however, how much junk Driscoll gets in general from the self-promoted “missional” or “emergent” types. Mars Hill-Seattle started as a missional group of about 12 people (now over 7,000) and the church planting network Driscoll is a part of has planted over 200 churches. 200.
I ask in all peace and sincerity: Why isn’t what they have accomplished studied, learned from, molded, and made to work elsewhere?
Are the disgruntled-evangelical group-thinkers that clingy to McLaren and his failed, politically focused ideology? – and because of this they dismiss Driscoll and what the LORD has accomplished through him because Driscoll has raised the red flag on ‘ol Brian and his ilk?
Jr,
I have no desire to get into a spat over Driscoll. But I do hope to blog here shortly on what makes Reformed Evangelical mega church plants work like Driscoll’s in Seattle, Keller’s in NY, and the one that I was a part of early on, park Community in Chicago. I want to argue that their dynamics, which are self evident from their writings, are dependent upon a sociological phenomenon (young 30′s and under moving into the city in the 80′s and 90′s with no place to go to church) and Christendom. There is nothing wrong with that. It is just a different dynamic than the so called missionary posture that is self proclaimed by some. In addition, Acts 29 is so huge a church organizing effort, yet it too plays on some dyanmics which I hope to analyze. And what makes it unique to several other large planting orgnizations which have planted 100′s of churches. The numbers thing doesn’t get to what is happening. Again, nothing wrong it, the last vestiges of Christendom need to be saved. The question is – is it sustainable or reporducable as those elements no longer exist.
I am studying some of these methods in prep for a teaching seminar at Fuller in their D Min program.
I hope to post more on this in the future.
peace
No spat over Driscoll was intended. I am just amazed at the knee-jerk reaction he receives at places like Emergent Village. He really gets under the emerging skin and for the life of me I don’t understand it; unless my original assumptions were correct.
Nonetheless, you’re study into the dynamics should be interesting and I look forward to reading more on it in the future. It seems that some church planting organizations are just all over the map with their techniques and methods these days. Do we really need to remake the wheel that rolled in the book of Acts? Preach the Gospel unapologetically and with boldness. Plant the seeds. Live life according to the Will of God. Let the Spirit do the work of retrieving the elect and changing them. Grow the Body. Move, rinse, repeat. Its just so easy when I type it like that!
Grace and Peace –
I just have to say this gave me a good laugh “I am sure we all will find reasons to also be in the other categories (except for me because I designed the categories)”.. heh.. I think I hear Foucault
Ok, now I’ll read the post.
Your instinct that some of the differences in this broad group are driven by a particular stance to culture and approach to knowledge, rooted (transparently) in various traditions, is solid. I’m thinking this overlaps with Bob Webber’s work in The Younger Evangelicals. I’ll blog some thoughts on this. That epistemology is connected to community – how we know and sense of “self” as Cartesian vs pre-modern view .. also helpful. Anthropology anyone? I’m thinking of Owen Barfields work and pre-critical stance — our current views often thrown in the basket of “Hellenistic” vs Hebrew modes — but how these postures and ways of being (how we have been formed) impact our place in the conversation – very useful.
[...] NO. (I don’t want to bring up the attractional versus missional debate – it’s clear to me why this discussion is tired and getting no where). Neither does this deny the profound work of God [...]
[...] January 23rd.. the day we left for Mexico.. David Fitch blogged some thoughts on the types of people in the missional conversation. Following similar lines [...]
[...] understanding what is going on in the church today, which is of course a complicated question. (See here and here for the sparks that started my [...]
I know this post is old and the conversation over, but I loved this post so much I’ve taken your stuff and run with it, with the help of Robert Webber too. I’d love to hear if I’m getting what you’re saying. If you get a chance, take a look and let me know what you think: http://michaeldefazio.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/evangelical-missional-taxonomy/
[...] Neo-Reformed Versus Neo-Anabaptist Versus Pragmatic Missional: Decifering the Streams of the Missional Movement and Why I think the Missional NeoAnabaptist [...]
Also falling into the pragmatic type is Reggie McNeal.