Mike Breen of 3DM posted this and I am wondering what you think – either from your experience or hopes? I mostly agree with Mike (as always) but I’ve added a few specific comments below…
We’ve been doing Missional Communities for years and years, and in that time, we’ve always tried to boil it down to the most essential ingredients to help pass it on to others.
In the last year, I believe we’ve most simply honed it down to these 5 essential ingredients of a Missional Community:
- Size of an extended family. A missional family is best understood in the range of 20-50 people, as it is small enough to care but large enough to dare. From much experience, I’d say it can be difficult to sustain long-term missional activity for a group smaller than this.
- UP/IN/OUT. Intentionally lives out the three dimensions of Jesus’ life. UPward dimension of life with the Father, INward dimension of life with the Body of Christ together, OUTward dimension of fully stepping into a broken world.
- Clear mission vision. Who is this Missional Community trying to bring the Kingdom of God to? The most successful MC’s have a very clear answer that could only be true of their group.
- Lighweight/Low maintenance. If the Missional Community can’t be led by people with normal 9-5 jobs who aren’t paid to do it, it’s not lightweight and low maintenance enough. It’s got to be simple and reproducible.
- Accountable leaders. The person(s) leading the Missional Community need to be accountable to others so there exists a dynamic of low control and high accountability. It’s one thing to say you hold people accountable, it’s another thing to do this well.
If done well, these can lead to the incredible phenomenon of a scattered and gathered church where it is the lay leaders of the church being released to the edges of the missional frontier, seeing extraordinary Kingdom breakthrough.
My thoughts:
I differ with 3DM’s definition of missional community size. For them, it’s one grouping within the church, ideally complimented by a huddle (specific type of small grouping) and a large congregation – each having up/in/out components. To me, a missional community can be any size and has all the essential elements of church so need not be part of something else. Can be, but doesn’t have to be.
I also believe in Mike’s third point about missional communities being lightweight/low maintenance. That’s what we’re trying with our church. Normal people, with lives outside the church, are meant to be the church and its leaders – the priesthood of all believers. Yes, you recognize individual gifting and roles within the community. This can carry through to various forms of leadership as well. This makes a lot of sense in Mike’s model where missional communities are one part of the equation (can’t pay pastors for each and every group) but I believe it to be true if a missional community is the extent of your church community. No one should have the task or responsibility of all the ministry or all leading of the church. It must be shared (in any number of ways) in order to be reproducable and attractive.
What are your thoughts on Mike’s summary or my comments?
Different Church 
Some friends in the Every Nation tribe haclve challenging me on the intentionall prioritizing of values. Without getting into too much detail, I do believe that values have both static and dynamic attributes, and that seasonally different values would have a difference in priority. But I am now convinced that values should have an underlying priority as their order does influence decision making when a situation which causes them to clash arrises. This said, we have an intentional Up/In/Out focus, but after a about two years of intentional In focusing our family of faith is now actively, but subconsciously, choosing In ahead of Out. Thus, two be truly missional in nature we believe that we have to engage a process of changing out value priorities to Up/Out/In. In exists therefore because of Up/Out. Please reference Mark 1:17-20. Because the disciples folliwed Jesus, in becoming fishers of men, a new community arrised.
Friends of mine in the Every Nation tribe, as well as some conventional leadership sources, has been challenging me on prioritizing our ministry values. In short, I do believe that values can be prioritized in a static manner, but I also believe they are dynamic and different seasons will call forth different value focus. This said, in our missional community, we also have an Up/In/Out focus. Established and cultured in that order. However we are finding that the subconscious priority of these values influence our decision making when a situation in which the values conflict arises. By example, when inviting people to a gathering some members will stay exclusive, not engaging the visitees because for them the In is more important than Out. Also, reference Mark 1:17-20 where Jesus calls the disciples with the purpose of turning them into fishers, then when they join a community is formed. Thus, the In is help together by Up, but focused by Out.
Reblogged this on african monastic.
Clear mission vision. Who is this Missional Community trying to bring the Kingdom of God to? The most successful MC’s have a very clear answer that could only be true of their group.
God sometimes upsets p[eoples mission vision, and takes them off in directions that they had hardly contemplated. To Western societies with their calendars, schedules, planners and goal-setting seminars this may sound like planting the goal posts where you kicked the ball, but God often works like that.
Steve-
Agree! Don’t we always want to be open to God’s Spirit saying something we don’t expect/haven’t planned? I would also add that sometimes our best understanding of what God is saying to us is correct, but it’s a stop along the way rather than a final destination.