UPDATE: I’ve gotten some great comments on a post I wrote in response to a revelation I received (from Jeremy, not Jesus!) during my Church Planting 1 class last week. I commented waaaay below to clarify my post a bit, so I thought I would (in the lingo of my form life on Capitol Hill) revise and extend my argument by posting that comment at the beginning here. I hope it helps better frame and extend the conversation:
RH commented: “You need to be careful when you say that a church that displays these 9 marks is not healthy.” That really is excellent, sound instruction and I would NEVER want to give the impression that these marks are un-important. I certainly do believe a healthy church should be marked by discipleship, teaching from the Text, sacramental celebration, encountering God through worship, and proclaiming the fantastic message of the Kingdom of Heaven and Jesus Christ. I’m there. I get that.
The reason I wrote this post was to probe my original church planting class revelation: why do church’s not place missional service at the center of what it means to be a healthy church? If we are sent on mission by God (which is really what this quote-and-quote buzz word ‘missional’ really means), if we are to partner with the Reign of God (God’s kingdom-movement), and exist primarily to serve the world…if this is true and “biblical” (to use a reformed/evangelical ‘buzz word’) then why isn’t this a factor in gauging the health of a church?
Why isn’t missional service a gauge of a healthy church? Why is missional service considered an outgrowth of a healthy church rather than the very core of what a healthy church is?
And to be frank, the fact that a major organization that has set itself up as a barometer of healthy churches does not at least include the missio dei as a “mark of a healthy church” really, really deep down concerns and befuddles me.
I’m befuddled…
Can anyone help me out here? RH, do you understand what I’m saying? Can ya help a brotha understand?
cause I
just
do not
get it…
I am in the middle of my church planting class and we’re discussing what makes a church healthy. We all agree that discipleship, evangelism, worship, and teaching are signs of a healthy church. But what was missing from the list was service to the world.
Too much of the “values” centered on the “us” at the expense of the other.
So we got into a discussion about the most important core values and what seemed to be missing from the conversaion was an emphasis on being missional and outreach. Most said outreach and mission was the result of being healthy and having a set of core values that made a healthy church. I and others said missional service must be a part of a church’s core values that make a healthy church.
In other words: a church cannot be healthy unless it values missional service and reaches out to the Other.
So in class I thought about 9Marks Ministry and went to their website just to see if they had a missional component to their “9 marks of a healthy church.” As you can see below, they have no component (outside of maybe evangelism) that values missional service and love of the Other as a fundamental need for healthy churches.
- Expositional Preaching
- Biblical Theology
- Biblical Understanding of the Good News
- Biblical Understanding of Conversion
- Biblical Understanding of Evangelism
- Biblical Understanding of Membership
- Biblical Church Discipline
- Promotion of Christian Discipleship and Growth
- Biblical Understanding of Leadership
Does anyone else find this odd? Why would anyone think missional service is not necessary for a healthy church? Could that be why USAmerican Church Inc. is oftentimes screwed-up? Because it values “expositional preaching” over against AND at the expense of loving missional service to the Other?
It seems central to the mission of Jesus (a Core Value if you want to put it in that way) was missional service. If we are called to live out Jesus’ mission, why is missional service not a core value to 9Marks, let alone Church Inc.?
I’ve seen this website before and never really been a fan of it. What is “biblical understanding” of those things anyways? Some of those issues are disagreed about among adamant Christians. So which interpretation is right? And who is it going around judging those things in churches? I think there is something incestuous about many modern churches today. They exist for the Christians within their walls. No wonder the church has such a bad reputation in the world. Its like a social club which tries to isolate its members from the outside world as much as possible. And somehow those people can feel good about themselves because their church meets some list and has the “correct” understanding of Scripture… as if any of us could even come close to such a feat!
I would disagree that a church who displays the “9 Marks” is a healthy church. What it would be is merely a well-behaved and easily controlled organization. Never confuse an organization – even a good one – with the Church. It’s very easy to confuse church planting with organization building. Obviously, there’s a place for both. Unfortunately, it seems that often the organization gets more attention.
“Missional” is one of those new buzzwords that for me just seems to get in the way. The point would seem to be obedience to “loving our neighbors as ourselves,” which by Jesus’ definition includes those outside of our own group. Failure to do that has larger implications than whether or not we’re a healthy church organization.
Perhaps there’s even a conceptual problem in trying to define a healthy church before first defining a healthy Christian? Then, the question might be, “what will/should healthy Christians do when they get together?” Perhaps being “missional” is not so much a call to the church as organization, but to the community (i.e. individuals in relationship, apart from any church organization)?
Good thoughts and questions.
You are right to highlight the need to focus on mission as a healthy mark of the Church. In an ideal world, mission would flow from faithful preaching, teaching, discipleship, etc… But we all know this isn’t necessarily the case.
As I try to promote health in my own congregation, I consistently point to Acts 2:42. Apostle’s teaching (Bible study, including preaching), Fellowship (which includes giving and discipline), Breaking of bread (worship and Sacraments), Prayers (individual and collective).
While there is no explicit outward focus in Acts 2:42, faithful adherence to these practices inspired them to reach out to teach and heal, and ultimately, “day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.”
Jeremy,
Being a fan of 9marks, hopefully I can answer some of the questions you have. You claim that the 9marks ministry does not care much about the outside world. I would like to submit that they actually care quite a bit about the outside world, although they probably would not be “missional” as you define it. If you look at chapter 5 of Nine Marks of the Healthy Church (by Mark Dever) you will see that he plainly says every Christian should be sharing the gospel. It is not only the duty of the pastor, but of the people as well. It is just plain wrong to claim that 9marks does not care about outreach, Mark says in as many words that every Christian should be sharing the gospel with others. It is one of his marks of a healthy church. Beyond that, all of the other marks of a healthy church tie in with this one. On page 110, Mark quotes Jesus as saying “by this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:34). Mark then says, “if you are not expressing proper C/hristian love to every member of your church, you are in disobedience to God and you are hindering the evangelistic work of your church.” It is through loving your fellow church members that you are a visual representation of the gospel to the rest of the world. That is why 9marks puts such an emphasis on what a church should really look like internally. If a church is not loving itself, it cannot show love to the unbelieving world. And, unless the church really understands the Bible (biblical theology), the gospel (the good news that Jesus came and died as a substitute for us in order to make us righteous before God), conversion (how someone is saved), and evangelism (how to share the good news), and then teaches these things correctly (expositional preaching), it cannot speak the good news to the rest of the world, and the saints cannot be built up. And, unless a church is loving its members well via a good understanding of church membership, biblical church discipline (trying to ensure that those who claim to be Christians truly are, and that they represent Christ well to the rest of the world), church leadership, and discipleship and growth (the church loving itself, as Jesus commanded), then the church cannot be an adequate representation of Christ’s love.
Okay, that was a not-so-brief explanation and defesne of 9marks and Mark Dever’s book. Hopefully it is more helpful than hurtful. Please understand, I am not trying to be argumentative with a fellow brother, I am trying to defend a ministry that I benefit much from. If you have more thoughts on 9marks, I am sure Mark Dever and the 9marks guys would love to hear from you, and even talk to you. If you minister on Capitol Hill, then you are only a few blocks away from them. They love these sorts of discussions, and would love to hear from you.
God Bless,
RH
The nine marks seem to stress intellectual standards more than healthy activity. For instance, one of the marks is a biblical understanding of evangelism, but not evangelism itself, or as you properly point to, missional serving.
I have found that this is typical of alot of evangelicals. Some of them have a form of godliness, but there is no power in it. Perhaps part of the problem is that they never put hands and feet to things they assent to mentally.
SPOT ON my friend. The tradition of evangelicalism has been to staff the soup kitchen, fund the mission, or send aid abroad. One kind of preaching has never been the mantle to hold, except what some more fundamentalist meaning churches/groups have espoused. If you are biblical, you will see that there are many ways that were taught in Bible that had nothing to do with going verse by verse. In fact, Paul, Jesus, etc.? No evidence. Not that it is not a valid form, but the ONLY?? Look at the fruit. Happy Christians are ones who contribute to others, not ones that always grab for themselves. Too many angry people pounding others with their Bibles. Be happy. 🙂
Hmm. Interesting.
It seems some of you are saying that being “missional” is a by product of true health while others of you are saying it is something we must focus on or else it will never happen. Maybe both are true to an extent?
I’ve been part of a small, passionate church that sent a majority of its resources to overseas missions (if that’s what you mean by “missional”), and I’ve been part of a large mega church that spent so much on its “building fund”–that is, crown molding, high-def screens, and a Starbucks for the bookstore–that it totally eliminated its outreach department.
In the former, I was around many “happy” and not-so “happy” Christians. But oh’ boy, they were passionate (and fundamental). They all took numerous vacations (some of them without pay) per year for extended overseas mission trips. Most of them wanted to stand on the edge of volcanoes and cast devils out of the village people. In fact, their focus was so “missional” that regular life was looked down upon. By this I mean to say they had the same syndrome many of D.L. Moody’s followers had which caused them to chastise anyone who took the time to attend college or get married (even Moody himself), because Jesus is coming back soon! Brushing your teeth and locking your doors at night is vanity!
In the latter, I was around many well-balanced people who had a problem with the way ministries sometimes squander their resources, but they still gave faithfully out of obedience to God. Oh, and yes they were “missional” even if the church they were currently a part of wasn’t.
You know? My current church is not perfect. I certainly wouldn’t consider it all that “missional.” Yet I believe it is where God has called me to serve for the time being, because their pursuit of God’s word is rather studious (which is something I need). Do I want to go to the four corners of the earth to spread the gospel? Do I want to work in a soup kitchen? Sometimes. And I do get the opportunity on occasion.
I say all this to perhaps balance some of the comments; however, I do believe that being “missional” is important. I think the heart of a church should be “reaching out” to its community and the world beyond. But then again, most churches do actually do this. I think the gripe is, they do not “reach out” proportionately to the length of their arms. And let’s face it. There are so many churches in North America that have many more arms they could extend with a little more effort–that is more sacrifice.
Easier said than done. Do without the new TV cameras? Do without the coffee shop? But those are all “tools” to reach people, aren’t they? At least that is the justification I hear, and I don’t know what to think quite honestly. I know that I am so quick to judge churches, and I can’t imagine what it must be like to run one. Some of you know…
I think my comfort here is that God isn’t going to loose a single one of His sheep–corrupt churches with un-renewed, uninspired leadership totally aside.
~Just my thoughts,
Chris
It is true that many Evangelical churches are at fault for living lives inconsistent with their teaching, and this is not what 9marks is trying to reinforce, to be sure. What 9marks sees is a different problem, though. Well-meaning people are doing things in the name of evangelism or “church growth” that actually hinder their efforts, or worse, contradict the Bible. Some people confuse good works in the community with the gospel itself. This is not fundamentally a failure to do the right thing, but a failure to truly understand the gospel and evangelism. So, it is an intellectual thing. And I think 9marks is hoping that by correcting false teaching, they will also correct false action. Action flows from conviction, and they are aiming a right convictions.
“I would disagree that a church who displays the “9 Marks” is a healthy church. What it would be is merely a well-behaved and easily controlled organization.”
Right on Alden! And yes, missional is a buzzword but points to the fact that the church is sent on mission and is called to partner with God’s mission to restore the world through the Kingdom of Heaven. It’s not about colonialistic efforts like evangelism (which is not even a ‘biblical’ term), but rather an effort to purely love the Other through Christ.
And what’s interesting is that Mark’s church (whom I’ve known and where I’ve been) exhibits legalistic, unhealthy elements precisely because it is more focused on the Us than the Them. For instance, no one who is not a member may be involved in a small group bible study. That, my friends, is neither missional nor hospitable. If people can’t belong to a church community before believing then something is seriously wrong.
As far as I’m concerned, any church that exists for itself and is only concerned with sanitizing and defending it’s own walls (which 9Marks is entirely about) is not healthy. It may be a well oiled machine, but Jesus established the Body to exist for the world, not itself…something that is lost on most churches in America.
my 2 bits,
-jeremy
“I would disagree that a church who displays the “9 Marks” is a healthy church. What it would be is merely a well-behaved and easily controlled organization.”
Sorry for plaguing you with more of my comments than you probably wanted. This is the last one, and I will try to be short. You need to be careful when you say that a church that displays these 9 marks is not healthy. It is true, you can claim to be a 9marks church, and still be quite unhealthy, but all of these 9 marks are biblically mandated. There is clear scriptural warrant for each one, so it seems hard for me to believe that any God fearing Christian would not want to follow the biblical description of a church. We all have to build with the same blocks here, even if the building does not look the same in the end.
dont apologize RH. I thank you for sticking around and holding our noses to the ground on this 🙂
I think when you wrote “You need to be careful when you say that a church that displays these 9 marks is not healthy” is excellent, sound instruction and I would NEVER want to give the impression that these marks are un-important.
The reason I wrote this post was more to probe my original church planting class revelation: why do church’s not place missional service at the center of what it means to be a healthy church? If we are sent on mission by God (which is really what this quote-and-quote buzz word ‘missional’ really means), if we are to partner with the Reign of God (God’s kingdom-movement), and exist PRIMARILY to serve the world…if this is true and “biblical” (to use a reformed/evangelical ‘buzz word’) then why isn’t this a factor in gauging the health of a church?
Why isn’t missional service a gauge of a healthy church?!? No one has answered my question!!! 🙂
And to be frank, the fact that a MAJOR organization that has set itself up as a barometer of healthy church’s does not at least include the missio dei as a “mark of a healthy church” really, really deep down concerns and befuddles me.
I’m befuddled!
Can anyone help me out here? RH, do you understand what I’m saying? Can ya help a brotha understand?
cause I
just
do not
get it…
-jeremy
Jeremy,
I think the questions are well asked, and sadly I’m not surprised by the website lacking that information.
There is a essential principle that lies behind these questions, that being “is it the church’s responsibility to go to the world? Or for the world to come to the church?” This lies at the heart of the discussion.
So many times I think we assume a mindset and praxis that operates on the basis of “as soon as they come through our doors…we’ll be ready”. This however prevents the church from fulfilling its calling of “going into” the whole world to “proclaim the gospel”
One last comment, again? Okay, so you asked me specifically to respond, so I will. So much for shutting my mouth. Knowing Mark and the 9marks guys personally, and the church that it is connected with, I think it is unfair to say that they do not have the missio dei at the front of their minds. They give substantially to overseas missions, both in money and in people. You would be hard pressed to find a church that sends more people over seas. Mark is personally a quite fervent evangelist, and has seen much success in that area. He frequents different restaurants in the area just to get to know non-Christians for the purpose of sharing the gospel. And I know many other people in the congregation like-minded. I say all of this just to (hopefully) show that the men and church behind the ministry is certainly missio-dei-minded, if I can coin that term. As for the 9marks ministry, I do think you find the idea that the church should be evangelizing near and far in their material, especially the mark “evangelism.”
Perhaps the reason you are not completely satisfied with how 9marks handles “being missional” is because they do not see that as the one key that makes a healthy church. In their mindset a healthy church is not just one that is growing numerically, or has a big budget, or even is doing really good stuff like sharing the gospel a lot, or preaching the word well. The one all-encompassing thing that makes a church a healthy church is that it is pleasing to God. That is, it is faithful to doing what God commands. That includes evangelism, but it also includes the minutia of church ecclesiology, because God commands us to have elders, just as he commands us to do missions (please don’t think I am elevating elders to the level of missions, I am just saying they are both ordained by God). Jeremiah the prophet was successful in his ministry, not because people heard his message and repented, they didn’t. He was successful because he did what God told him to do. I think this is the underlying mindset of the 9marks ministry.
Another possible difference is that I just don’t understand what you mean by “missional.” It is a buzz-word, and is used by lots of different people in lots of different ways. If we don’t have the same understanding of mission of God, then we are just talking past each other.
Sorry, not as short as I hoped. I hope it is helpful though 🙂
This may be more of a question than an answer, but isn’t being “missional” more of an individual responsibility than a “corporate” responsibility. It seems to me that church is designed primarily for the Believer. The benefit of the Body to the world is in the way we live out the Gospel in our own lives. When I look at the people who have recently come to our church it’s because of individuals who are already part of our church who impacted them and made them want to be part of our local Body. They did not come because of the church itself, but because they saw Christ in their neighbor, friend, co-worker or family.
Jvan, in no uncertain terms: no!
sorry to be so blunt, but the very notion that the church exists for us is exactly what ‘missional’ doesn’t mean, let alone what the Church is.
The Church exists for the world. Period. Jesus established the ekklesia as a called out, set apart people for God’s kingdom-mission. In fact, the Church is given to the Great Commission, not the other way around (I learned that last week in my church planting class!).
I’ll say it again: the Great Commission is not given to the Church, but the Church is given to the Great Commission. The Church (whether local expressions or individuals withing the Church universal) is sent on mission by God to be Jesus to the world (incarnational living), influence people in such a way that they pattern their life and lifestyle after Jesus (discipleship), and partner as co-creators with God in His re-Creative plan to restore the world to the way it was intended to be through Christ (the ministry of reconciliation).
Maybe I misunderstood what you were asking Jvan, but the notion that the Church exists for believers is a touchy subject for me and I tend to be pretty strong in my reaction to that notion…so please forgive me if I just bit your head off!! 🙂
anyway thanks for commenting and I’d be curious for more of your thoughts!
-jeremy
ps-I am writing a sermon right now that I’ll be sharing in my community this coming Sunday called “The Missional Commision of Jesus’ Community of Followers” It arose out of this post, actually, and is centered on Luke 5:1-11. I might have an audio file of it afterwards, but will atleast do a post on this subject shortly…
RH,
I think your right: i have been a bit unfair to Mark and Capital Hill Baptist church and 9 Marks ministry. I know they are followers of Jesus who care about the Bride and are trying their best to lead and see that local expressions of the ekklesia are “pleasing to God.”
I just think that in order for local churches to be faithful to what God desires for the Church, it cannot be about simply what happens in the four walls nor believe it exists for itself. Rather, the church exists for the world and the idea of ‘missional service’ roots that existence in the notion of ‘being sent on mission’ by God.
I hope to unpackage more what I mean by ‘missional service’ soon because I think we ARE talking past each other in this conversation, at times! Thanks for the inquiry RH and for your words…ALL of them have been very helpful 😉
-jeremy
Perhaps it would be helpful if you did a blog on your view of “missional,” if you haven’t already.
After reading the preceding posts, I must comment that I am currently in a church whose pastor adores the concept of 9Marks.Unfortunately, this, or perhaps something else, is “killing” our church. Our services are like sitting in an academic classroom. No true worship seems to occur. Since this pastor has come, our missions budget has been cut and our church does nothing to help those in our community. I agree that a healthy church should be so excited about Jesus that they can’t help but want to go out and spread the good news throughout the community and the world.
WOW! Shelley it sounds like you’re lamenting…I understanding how that is 🙂 Thanks for sharing about your own story and perspective. And I totally agree: “a healthy church should be so excited about Jesus that they can’t help but want to go out and spread the good news throughout the community and the world.”
I preached a sermon at my church today to that effect and am turning it into a little blog series. Stay tuned 🙂
I dont understand your post… points 3-8 are about the mission. You have to know what is the good news you are supposed to proclaim on mission, what kind of response and change that message will bring, how to share that message, how people that respond to the churchs mission are brought into the family, corrected, discipled, and encouraged to grow. Practically all the “marks” have to do with the mission of making disciples.