It’s true that defining what it means to be missional can be helpful in ways, but to begin to speak of the church being “on mission” can tend to smack of self righteousness and judgmentalism, if not simply usage of non biblical language to make the work of the church or Christians sound hip to the world around us.

“Life comes at you fast!” according to Nationwide’s commercial. Less than two weeks after the question was raised by Time Magazine in regard to Rob Bell as to whether a massive shift is coming in what it means to be Christian, several elephants in the evangelical world have now published a “Missional Manifesto” suggesting “… a significant shift in the way we understand the church.”

Shifts can be good or bad, but “calls for a shift” ought always to alert mature Christians to the possibility of committing drift (on whatever level) in an unorthodox or unhealthy direction, something the writer of Hebrews warns against.

The difficulty arises in that calls to shift can not only be small or large but as well incorporate both good and bad, fruitful and unfruitful; and more often than not calls to shift in an unhealthy direction are often cast in fine sounding and appealing but misguided words.

In evaluating the “Missional Manifesto”, it’s wise to follow the counsel of Ligon Duncan and Tim Keller in exercising care in discussions among Christians not to demonize those who hold different views, but to take time not only to look more deeply at the issues and dissect and determine what the issues really are and where the differences really lie, but to recognize, celebrate and stand together on common positions and when possible to work together within the Christian community even while recognizing differences as far as it’s permissive and prudent. Regardless of one’s views, the leaders who framed this manifesto have much which is commendable in their faith and accomplishments as well as in coming together and setting forth this document for the purposes of clarification, serving the church, and aiding future conversation.

The purpose of this critique is to address issues I find noteworthy or have concern with regarding the Manifesto and overall “missional church” mindset and methods. While there are many things commendable and profitable associated with the “missional church” proponents, their pursuits and their practices, I will not address those here unless it clarifies or complements my thoughts.

For balance, I will simply state here that the proponents of the “missional church” have raised legitimate questions regarding places where the church fails to carry out its mission, have provided useful descriptions and analogies regarding the differences between unhealthy and healthy churches, and have been intentional about keeping missional issues and practices both in mind and in play. For these, all our hats should be off to them.

While I fully agree with those who suggest the church is in need of a shift wherein the missional roles of the church are taken more seriously and actively carried out, this manifesto along with the whole “missional church” label and mindset reminds me of the stool illustration used by Richard Hooker to describe the sources of knowledge and which later found application in the Wesleyan Quadilateral and in Dawson Trotman’s basic principles of the Christian life, which included three legs identified as Scripture, prayer, and witness.

As the illustrations teach, it is neither helpful nor healthy to either be lacking or leave off one of the legs, nor would it be healthy to try to supplant the stool itself by one of the individual legs. While the manifesto does not leave off any of the legs, it does tend to seek to make one of the legs longer or more predominant, if not define the stool and its purpose by one of the legs.

The argument can be made that it’s not the leg which is ultimately being addressed, but the framework in which one sees the purpose and application of the stool itself which is foremost addressed, but even then selectivity is employed which while highlighting truths valid in themselves tends to narrow or limit the fuller picture, and hence skew the outcome and application, however small or great.

Having said this, the declaration of the manifesto in its ecclesiastical, historical and socio-cultural context proves useful in such things as drawing attention and addressing lethargy and lack of mission-mindedness in much of the church today; in setting before the church the high calling of its members to be involved in addressing and handling the myriad of issues and forces which confront today’s church, it’s present health, and its future; and answering a present critique of the church and involvement of today’s youth when it comes to practicing rather than just proclaiming faith to the world.

At the same time, if experience of a skewed view of missions within the in places teaches us anything, the manifesto may also end up being part of what in the future leaves some drained, disillusioned, and detached in part due to improper perspective or balance.

The Problems I Observe in the Manifesto Include:

1. The Tendency to Set the Cart Before the Horse

While the Manifesto is right in pointing out that God’s missional character is formative for the believer’s own missional mindset and that the church on one level is found within God’s missional plan, to set “missional” as the primary understanding and defining principle and drive of the church is to miss the mark and elevate one aspect of the church above others without biblical warrant.

Others in the history of the church have done the same with missions, evangelism, discipleship, and even worship. I suppose there are a variety of factors that make being “missional” appealing today such as those mentioned in the manifest (cultural contextualization of Christianity, implementing church growth, engaging in social action), but we must not allow our present context and concerns to redefine the timeless entity and truths of the church, though these factors certainly affect how we are to apply that knowledge.

2. The Ill-Proportioned Focus on One Aspect of God, His Church, His People, and the Christian Life Without Due Weight Given to Other Aspects

History and experience show that whenever God’s attributes or activities are set forth at the exclusion or disproportion of the others, negative effects eventually show up in the results.

God is not just “a sending God, a missionary God, who has called His people, the church, to be missionary agents…” While the statement itself is true and has relevant implications on Christian’s lives, to define God solely in this light (without also recognizing his independency, his works of drawing men to himself, etc.), and to define Christians primarily as “missionary agents” is to substitute the part for the whole.
Likewise, the church is not to be considered simply “the instrument of His mission.”

One might argue the framers certainly know this and did not intend this, but their stated framework and perspective derives from or at least casts such a view. Hence, mission, even if only by first order, is set forth as the primary character and call of the church. This is a distortion of the whole truth, and such distortions can lead to aberrant beliefs and practices, not to mention end results.

3. The Tendency to Exalt Mission to the Place of God

Ironically, this mindset can also affect the value and response a person has toward mission, and toward others depending on their relationship to the “missional church.”

Perhaps some is semantics, but consider the statements: “God’s mission has a church”, “the church is the instrument of His mission”, “A missional community is one that regards mission as both its originating impulse and organizing principle”, etc. Is it ultimately “God’s mission” which has a church or God himself? Is “mission” really the originating impulse and organizing principle of the Church, or is that to be found in God Himself and such things as His love, pleasure, decrees, Word, etc.?

While it’s certainly appropriate on one level for emphasis to lie downstream from God Himself, it’s also possible for that which is downstream to take on the characteristics and the place of God as well. While I’m sure this is not the intention of the framers; it would not be the first time that phraseology, particular emphases, etc. foretold and set forth the idols of the heart, perhaps if not found in some, present in others, whether now or down the road.

4. The Emphasis on Commitment without Similar Comment on Motivation

While the manifesto speaks first of a strong foundation in the gospel, it emphasizes “obedience’, “commitment” to being His ambassadors, “working” as agents of reconciliation, and being “tasked” with the mission of the kingdom without also properly addressing the motivations which flow from the gospel which lead Christians to (want to) participate in mission. This would not be uncharacteristic where the place or emphasis on works is misplaced or mis-proportioned.

5. The Adoption of Applying a Label

While the term “missional” (with a lowercase “m”) has long been not only used and understood of the calling and role of a person or the church in carrying out Christ’s commands, but used in evaluation of a person or church as to whether or not and to what degree they are doing so; recent usage of the term “missional church” seems to suggest or imply more, as if a capital “M” were being used to designate not just whether one is actively participating in and fulfilling the commands of Christ, but doing so according to a particular set of definitions, or with a certain priority to missional participation and activities assigned or in mind, or perhaps in some cases could be used to describe one who excels in being missional more than others.

It’s true that defining what it means to be missional can be helpful in ways, but to begin to speak of the church being “on mission” can tend to smack of self righteousness and judgmentalism, if not simply usage of non biblical language to make the work of the church or Christians sound hip to the world around us.

In conclusion, the Missional Manifesto (just as the missional church conversation) is somewhat a mixed bag. On the one hand it’s an attempt by godly Christian leaders to come together and declare to the church and to the world its convictions and paradigm for the reasons and manner in which Christians are to be missional in the world. One would have to have his head in the sand not to recognize all the good which has come from and been accomplished by those who have given thought and effort to being missional.

On the other hand, by calling for a shift based on a limited (or flawed) paradigm is not only to invite rebuttal but to lead some to cautiously not fully embrace all the Manifesto declares. Even so, I commend the framers for declaring their position which will enable further conversation, desire and work in advancing the mission of Christ’s church.

Tim Muse is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and serves as Senior Pastor at Brandon Presbyterian Church (PCA) in the Jackson, MS suburbs. He blogs at Christian Word Bearer where this article first appeared; it is used with his permission.

[Editor’s note: One or more original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid; those links have been removed.]