missional vs. evangelical
my alumni magazine had this great article on the emerging missional movement and the difference between it and the evangelical movement that swept the church in the ’90s - and whose effects we continue to experience. i think the article did a really good job of presenting both sides and explaining the need for a little bit of both. i acknowledge this need (to evangelize as well as minister relevantly in our communities), but there is a large part of me that has a bitter taste in my mouth related to evangelicalism as defined by many of the churches i’ve come in contact with. i’ve explained the theological, biblical and political reasons why i’ve departed from a predominately evangelical worldview in previous posts, so i’m not seeking to make this an exhaustive argument for missional over evangelical.
i’ve always been turned off by the outward-facing, recruit-more-people megachurches that seemed to arise as a result of evangelicalism. of course this may have something to do with the fact that growing up, each time we moved, my parents seemed to systematically seek out churches that met in schools, community centers, strip malls and the like. considering i’ve moved close to two dozen times in my life, i can just about count the number of “normal” brick-and-mortar churches i went to on one hand. (when i seriously examine my upbringing, i wonder if i had any choice but to turn out the way i did, on so many levels!)
it’s a bit ironic, then, that i go to one of the larger - albeit hipper, younger, non-denominational - churches in the city. does it bother me? a little bit. there’s a large part of me that longs for the unconventional, communal, free-form, emergent atmosphere found in churches like my sister’s in boston. there’s no “message” delivered by a “church leader,” or “worship” performed by a band. the entire “service” is designed to be an act of worship and is facilitated by a wonderful priest: rev steph, whose “day job” is acting as “the minister for radical welcome” at the main cathedral. attending this church with my sister was another high point on this crazy path i’ve taken and made me think even more deeply about the disparity between evangelical and missional. the chart (i know, how 90’s of me) laid out in the biola article explains it well, i think:
maybe it’s partly that i WANT it to be this way, but i would say my church does a good job of focusing on both of these aspects. it’s evangelical in that it’s seamless and seeker-friendly, and it’s clear who the “leadership” is. but i also love that we have an active urban ministry where we are encouraged to thoroughly engage in the crazy community that is san francisco, that we can take classes that discuss everything from theology to finance and that there’s a strong emphasis on what it means to have faith in a place like SF.
so as i feel myself careening toward some sort of bigger spiritual flux, i’m not sure where it will all lead. but there’s something that i’ve learned on my journey so far that is bigger than emergent, missional and evangelical: i’ve learned that i don’t have to make a decision. perhaps that is by definition “emergent.” i don’t have to call one church “home,” because we’re all connected through one common belief that doesn’t live in one church or one building over another.
June 30 2009 07:29 am | family and military and religion and the city