The Church I Pastor: The Missional Triad

Here is what I call The Missional Triad (a tweaked version of this by Joe Thorn and this that Joe and I fleshed out together).  Forgive the handwritten sloppiness, but it's what I have for now.  It's essentially a missional paradigm for our church to think through what we do and where we do it.  The mission is a very central part of the paradigm.  (Click the diagram for a larger version.)

If you are familiar with Joe's paradigm the next few points will help you see the changes I've made for my version, as well as explain a few things I thought you might have questions about.

1. The order of the shapes is different.  I changed them to a left to right flow for unbelievers and right to left for believers.
2. I've changed the titles of each shape.  I have included something of each shape in the name (example: tri-formed discipleship).    I can still use "table, pulpit and square" as designations, and have done that, but I felt it helpful to give each a name that is slightly more descriptive.  That also allows my "table" to lose the Lord's Supper confusion.
3. The "Circles of Friendship" is fleshed out so that hospitality is seen in three different spheres:
        neutral >> semi-private >> to private
It also moves beyond the home into third places (why?).
4. Under Tri-Formed Discipleship I have used "Equipping Ministries" to explain all discipleship, from one-on-one to seminars, short-term classes, membership class, leadership training, etc.
5. Our small groups are transitioning toward being "Missional Communities."  These will be more than small groups but less than house churches.

If you want to know something more, let me know.  It's basically still the same three shapes, the same basic approach, the same goal of simplicity.

Comments

[Joseph]

You should come up with several more diagrams...I have a book you can consult.

Joking aside, yours is a good diagram.

[steve lewis]

Steve,
This looks like a helpful approach for some people. I've got a question for you, though.

How is it that in something called a "Missional Triad," unbelievers are expected or even invited to "COME, see, hear, repent, and believe?" Isn't being missional more about the church GOING out than unbelievers coming in?

I truly don't mean to be picky here. I just think maybe we have some increasingly fuzzy definitions for "missional," and I don't want to misunderstand you.

Perhaps I'm not getting what you mean by "come."

Peace

[Steve McCoy]

Hey Steve. Maybe it would be better to respond with a question. Do you see the need to call unbelievers to come into a relationship with Christ, to come into relationships with believers, to come into a relationship with the local church, and therefore to come to our services at whatever point? I'm sure your answer is "yes," and that should clear most of it up.

I don't think being incarnational should squeeze out any attractional element. I think both together make for a missional church.

By the way, the word "come" in my paradigm is in the context of the call. The call to unbelievers from Jesus is "come, see, hear and respond." The call to believers is "go, tell, live, love, make disciples."

Hope that makes sense out of it.

[steve lewis]

Thanks for the clarification, Steve.

You asked: "Do you see the need to call unbelievers to come into a relationship with Christ, to come into relationships with believers, to come into a relationship with the local church, and therefore to come to our services at whatever point?"

I'll say yes to most, but not all of that - I would have cut off that last bit about coming to the services. If the other aspects of that dynamic are in place, I don't think attending services is actually a "need." Having real relationships with believers and the church can take place in a number of other venues.

I agree with you about the attractional element being legitimate in certain respects, though.

Again, thanks for your clarification. I don't typically take up a back and forth debate like this, so I'll shut up now!

[Steve McCoy]

Steve, one question. You said,

"I'll say yes to most, but not all of that - I would have cut off that last bit about coming to the services. If the other aspects of that dynamic are in place, I don't think attending services is actually a "need." Having real relationships with believers and the church can take place in a number of other venues."

Would the unbelievers eventually have to "come" to whatever venue to be with believers? Our "incarnation" into the culture is not just to meet them there, but also to take them somewhere, both literally and metaphorically.

Thanks.

[steve lewis]

To me, the necessity of being with believers is only for the believers. For unbelievers, "coming" to a place of following Jesus (which I assume is the most important piece) can take place with or without a collective gathering of believers - think of all those stories you've heard about people reading a Gideon Bible in a hotel room. So "would the unbelievers eventually have to 'come' to whatever venue . . . ?" No, not necessarily.

I think lots and lots of unbelievers are shown the way to following Jesus through their participation in worship services, so I'm definitely not rejecting that. I'm just trying to suggest that people can come to faith without ever "going to church," AND that they can be in right relationship with God and the church by gathering with other believers in non-worship-service settings, as in house church type settings.

We're probably saying pretty similar things, and it may just be semantics.

[Steve McCoy]

Steve, I think I see what you are saying now. I'm not saying every unbeliever has to take every step. Unbelievers can find a point of contact at any level. The flow (arrows) covers a progression from no contact with our church, to some contact, to attending something, etc. But reality is that one unbeliever might visit with no contact and some might know several members and even spend lots of time with them yet never visit. Some will come to Christ at a square event, some in the home of a member, some in a missional community, or whatever.

I'm not saying they have to attend to become a believer, but I'm assuming that will happen more often than not before they are converted.

Does that clarify?

[steve lewis]

Yep, we're good. My original reason for commenting was just to clarify the "come" aspects of the diagram, and how those square with being a missional model. I think we covered that well enough before.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Chad]

Steve,

Hey! Good stuff, I haven't seen stuff like this from you since...uh...S.U.P.E.R.M.O.D.E.L! ;-) Just kidding. Looks like some smart thinking!

Chad

[Kez]

This is a great visual.

Also I've been wanting to thank you for gathering all the T.Keller resources.

Grace and peace...