I just finished reading Jonathan Leeman’s article, “What in the World is the Missional Church?” in the latest issue of 9News, the 9Marks eNewsletter. Leeman’s article opens with a fairly good description of the “missional” church. He was fair in his treatment of the subject matter, and it was clear he did not approach his task with a presupposition. Thank you, Jonathan, for resisting the temptation to which some have fallen; many authors give little study to the subject matter of the missional church and have a great tendency to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” For example, because Brian McLaren apparently finds little need to take stands on issues most evangelical believers find important, academic theologians (D. A. Carson, Al Mohler, just to name a couple—and let me add I have great respect for both of these men) reject everything else McLaren says. I find that a little unfair. Amid some of the things McLaren gets wrong, there are some things he gets right. His argument in A Generous Orthodoxy that for too long the church has been very good at blowing the whistle and calling a foul when we see others doing something wrong but not very good at getting out on the court and playing ball is right on target!

I think Leeman’s article will be very helpful for anyone who hasn’t heard of the word “missional” or who knows little about the idea behind the term. If you fit into this category, by all means, read the article!

There are a few minor points on which I disagree with Leeman, though, and I would like to take the opportunity to point these out here just to give a slightly different perspective. In the section entitled “The Conservative Take-Over,” (he’s not talking about the mid-1980s conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention), Leeman draws a false dichotomy between the authority of the Bible and the authority of Jesus. He says, “that [Ed] Stetzer sees the Bible as authoritative for the church’s mission, where as [sic] someone like [Leslie] Newbigin . . . will say that Jesus is the authority for its mission. What does this mean? (emphasis in original)” Is Leeman saying that Jesus isn’t the authority? One would certainly hope that isn’t what he’s saying, since Jesus Himself said, “All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me . . .” Leeman goes on to answer his own question. “It means that Newbigin does not what [sic—bad editing, he meant to say “want,” but since this is a quote I'll put what actually appears in the article] to give the Bible unqualified approval as Jesus’ inerrant word, so he pits Jesus and his word against one another.” I have to throw a flag here. Leeman may be able to prove this point with examples from Newbigin’s writing (or he may not be able to do so; I’m not well-read on all things Newbigin), but this is a weighty accusation and because he doesn’t back it up here or elsewhere in the article, this statement comes across as merely unfair speculation.

Later in the article, Leeman states, “The crisis in our churches today, each one of the [aforementioned] authors tells us, is about the transition from modernism to postmodernism.” He’s obviously reading old material, because, although that scenario was once used as a foundation for the emerging church, it has long since fallen away. Too, the missional church, to which the article refers, is much bigger than the emerging church. To be sure, being missional is a large aspect of the emerging church; but, there are plenty of missional churches that have nothing to do with the emerging church movement.

Finally, Leeman argues against what he calls the “reductionist” mindset of the missional church:

Both [the conservatives and the ecumenicals] emphasize the fact that the church is a people, and not a place. That’s absolutely correct. But answering the question ‘Where on earth will we find the church?’ requires us to fall back on three marks of the Reformers—preaching, practicing the ordinances, and practicing discipline. As Mark Dever likes to say, three Christians who bump into each other at the grocery store do not comprise a local church.

Do we even need to ask, “Where on earth will we find the church?” The church is the Bride of Christ. Using that metaphor, my wife is not only my wife when we are at home together tending to the children or conversing or cleaning the kitchen or any of the other things we do when we’re together. She is also my wife when she’s taking our daughter to ballet. She’s also my wife when she’s picking my son up from the bus stop, or when she’s going to the grocery store, or when she’s meeting with her mom’s Bible study group in our home. While Leeman may agree with the principle that the church is a people and not a place, asking a questions such as, “Where on earth will we find the church?” effectively betrays that principle and shows a practical belief that, in fact, the church is a place, or at the very least the church is a people gathered at a specific place.

I hope my criticisms here do not undermine the excellent thoughts and positions Leeman takes in his article, which is one of the most fair treatments of the ideas behind the missional church I’ve come across. Take the time to read it; I think you’ll be glad you did.