The Missional Church
Part 2: becoming a Missional Community
David Allis September 2006
This article is a compilation of ideas from others & myself.
In this article, the term "church" refers
to the people of God, who are joined together as His body, with Christ as the
head. It doesn't refer to a building, denomination, physical location or weekly
meeting. So when you read "church," think of a community that you are
part of, not that meeting or building you go to on Sunday.
There
are many churches that call themselves missional. To be missional implies at least two
theological and ecclesiological changes for most churches. On the one hand, missional
hints at moving from church as a “club” for Christians, to church as Christ’s
body, sent by God to reconcile the world to Himself.
On the other hand, missional
means moving from missions as an activity in which a few Christians are sent to
foreign countries to convert unbelievers, to mission
as God’s most basic purpose, intended for all believers. Some churches verbally state a commitment to these, however I am convinced that if these changes are
genuinely made, they should radically affect the whole ethos, purpose, values
& structure of the church. The important questions changes from something
like “how do we be an effective church,
helping our people & reaching the community?” to “God has placed us here as an incarnational
team of missionaries, so how do we obey Him?”
TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF VALUES:
http://secondtimothytwo.blogspot.com/2006/08/clarifying-emerging-vs-missional.html
…before any discussion may be made on emerging and missional communities, I feel that it will be necessary to
clarify what a missional community is and what it is
not. Perhaps this will offer a guide for us to use that will inform us as to
which set of values a particular emerging church may uphold.
TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF
VALUES: IMA and ADH
IMA
INCARNATIONAL An incarnational community cooperatively goes into cultures
that already exist, and become like them to reach them. They believe that God
is already present in these cultures and therefore, their role as missionaries
is not to bring God into that group, or take that group out of the culture into
a sacred space, but they help others to see how God is already working in and
around them in the ordinary as well as the miraculous.
MESSIANIC A messianic community sees God's hand in the
ordinary situations of life. They are able to see and understand the prevenient grace of God at work in places that have not
been reached by the church. Rather than relying on programs and services to
proclaim the gospel, they are able to show the gospel lived out in their
ordinary lives and in ordinary situations. People then see a spirituality that
is wholistic, meaningful, and relevant to their
yearnings for an almighty God that meets them where they are at and a church
that meets them in the same way- where they are, as they are.
APOSTOLIC An apostolic community
recognizes the responsibility that each believer has been given to play a role
in the kingdom. Each member is a leader. As each member is living by the
two-fold practice of LISTEN & OBEY, they are simultaneously learning how to
feed themselves spiritually and be accountable and communal. They therefore,
become less reliant on community for spiritual nurishment,
while choosing to be involved in community out of obedience, love,
accountability, friendship, worship, wisdom, and co-laborship.
The apostolic community typically shares a common set of "missionary
practices." These are spiritual disciplines that provide common ground for
the community as well as a means for the members of the community to LISTEN
& OBEY. As the members of the community gather, these lifestyle disciplines
provide an informal litergy for the community, with
much to share, and much reason to worship the Lord together.
ADH
ATTRACTIONAL An attractional
community seeks to create a spiritually comfortable and sanctified place within
a culture that can serve as the community's hub. They then attempt to invite
people into this space, with the hopes of extracting them out of their old
community and transplanting them into the new christian community. The focus is on providing
alternative 3rd places so that people can meet new friends, and find new clubs,
and new activities to be involved with during the week. This type of community
is also sometimes referred to as "EXTRACTIONAL."
DUALISTIC A dualistic community sees the world as divided between
the sacred and the ordinary. Although God is in both places, we are expected to
encounter him more fully and deeply in the sacred spaces than in the ordinary.
This is because sacred spaces are designed for an encounter with God. Through
the use of architecture, lighting, artwork, alters, cerimonies,
music, etc... these spaces are also protected against
unnecessary distractions or possible stumbling blocks that could hinder someone
from making a connection with God or with another believer in fellowship.
HIERARCHICAL A hierarchical community is a community that is
characterized by the seperation of clergy and laity.
The laity entrust the work of the kingdom to the few qualified leaders, who
then provide vision for the laity and the steps necessary to achieve that
vision. The clergy (or staff) provide services to the laity which include: the sacred space to meet, a vision for the
community's role in the Kingdom, teaching (in the form of a sunday
message, and often classes offered during the week), small group coordination
and management, mission trips, counciling, etc...
I have noticed that a lot of churches are adopting wisdom
and practices from missional communites
while retaining the ADH identity. I think that this is wonderful, as long as we
recognize it for what it is. Many ADH communities DO have mission activities
and rich community and even lifestyle discipleship... this is wonderful. But I
have heard people say that this makes them a missional
community. I can only say that my definition of a missional
community upholds the IMA principles. And as long as an ADH church desires to
emerge into the 21st century with dynamic new postmodern ideals, it will still
be an ADH church at it's core unless it is willing to
fully embrace an IMA paradigm. That's not to discredit the advances that are
being made within the ADH churches, but I would also hope that we not discredit
the distinction of "mission" and "missional."
I hope that this serves to clarify some of the issues
surrounding the dialogue between traditional church, emerging church, and missional community. My intensions for clarity are not to
judge which of these communities is better or worse,
and I hope that my personal biases are not overly evident here. I merely intend
to clarify the values of these different communities in the hopes that any
dialogue that requires a comparison of emerging and missional
communities will have a clear set of values to reference. I pray that these
distinctions serve to educate all who may find the grace of respect for those communites that we may have found differences with. We
should all strive to accept one another in love, while holding firmly to our
convictions with clarity, unwavering fortitude, gentleness, respect, and most
of all- humilty toward those who do not share our
personal convictions, but trust that the Lord is soveriegn
and no one, no matter how wrong they might be, has ever been able to change the
Lord's plans. He is soveriegn and that gives me great
peace.
Common Deviations from Missional
To further clarify what a missional
church is, we can describe a number of common alternative models.
Missionary churches. Some churches are
described as “missionary churches.” They are noted for sending a lot of
missionaries to foreign countries, raising funds for missionaries, holding
missions conferences, and featuring missionaries prominently in the Sunday
services when they are in town. In this perspective, however, the missionaries
are a subset of the congregation. In a missional
church, every believer is regarded as a missionary and church life is oriented
around the implications of that view. Thus, missional
churches significantly “raise the bar” in terms of mission. Also, since the
term missionary carries such
strong mental images, some of them not very positive, an alternative to saying
that every believer is a missionary is to say that every believer is to live missionally.
Church growth. One might think that
churches that are focused on growth in numbers have evangelism as their
mission. While this may be true for some churches subscribing to the church
growth philosophy and practices, there are some aspects of the church growth
school that run contrary to missional church
philosophies and practices. For one, Missional
churches focus on kingdom growth rather than church growth. They are more
likely to focus on planting new churches than in enlarging themselves (though
they do not shun numerical growth as a by-product of being missional),
and to measure growth by “the ability to release rather than retain.”
Kingdom growth often means collaborating with
other churches. Church growth, however, often occurs at the expense of other
churches and creates competition rather than cooperation. The church growth
school promotes “the homogenous unit principle” which says that people want to
become part of a group of people like themselves. This principle is thought by
many to be counter to the biblical mandate for cross-cultural unity. In
addition, one study has shown that multi-ethnic churches grow faster than mono-ethnic
churches.
Finally, a church that is remaining stable in
size while also releasing people to other and new churches is growing in a
sense. It has to be bringing in new people all the time to compensate for those
who are leaving.
Maintenance churches. Minatrea
refers to these as conventional churches. McNeal describes them as churches
with a “club” mentality. They are churches that have made themselves their
purpose. Their priorities include maintaining established programs and
practices, in large part because they are established, and keeping people
coming to the church in order to maintain the programs. The church building
(enlarging and maintaining it) is often a key goal or priority.
At the risk of overstating the nature of
maintenance churches, I would place in this category churches that have a
self-absorbed spirituality. That is, churches focused on orthodoxy, tradition,
or health and wealth messages. (This is not to say that more traditional
churches cannot be missional.) A related category of
spirituality is what I would call "knowledge-centered." This is a
church that elevates analysis and knowledge of the Bible but does not exhort
and practically enable people to an active Christian life-style. Information is
seen as a necessary and sufficient witness, and believing it brings salvation
and the Holy Spirit, leading in turn to a transformed life. My own church has
had dual tendencies, both a knowledge orientation and radical discipleship. One
of the changes we’ve been experiencing in recent years is a shift to a more
activist, missional church life.
As we commit to becoming missional
churches, we should expect some bumps. Becoming more missional
will require "organized abandonment" of some policies and programs
that do not align with our mission. There will always be tenacious advocates of
any program we either abandon or radically change, and people who will take
issue with every dollar diverted in another direction.
Eight patterns of missional faithfulness
http://www.sentchurch.com/missional_church_eight_patterns.htm
Pattern 1, Missional
Vocation. The congregation is discovering together the missional vocation of the community. It is beginning to
redefine "success" and "vitality" in terms of faithfulness
to God's calling and sending. It is seeking to discern God's specific missional vocation ("charisms"
- gifts) for the entire community and for all of its members.
Pattern 2, Biblical Formation and Discipleship.
The missional church is a community in which all
members are involved in learning what it means to be disciples of Jesus. The
bible is normative in this church's life. Biblical formation and discipling are essential for the congregation.
Pattern 3, Taking Risks as a Contrast Community.
The missional church is learning to take risks for
the sake of the gospel. It understands itself as different from the world
because of its participation in the life, death and resurrection of its Lord.
It is raising questions, often threatening ones, about the church's cultural
captivity, and it is grappling with the ethical and structural implications of
its missional vocation. It is learning to deal with
internal and external resistance.
Pattern 4, Practices That Demonstrate God's Intent for
the World. The pattern of the church's life as community is a
demonstration of what God intends for the life of the whole world. The
practices of the church embody mutual care, reconciliation, loving
accountability, and hospitality. A missional church
is indicated by how Christians behave toward one another.
Pattern 5, Worship as Public Witness.
Worship is the central act by which the community celebrates with joy and
thanksgiving both God's presence and God's promised future. Flowing out of its
worship, the community has a vital public witness.
Pattern 6, Dependence on the Holy Spirit.
The missional community confesses its dependence upon
the Holy Spirit, shown in particular in its practices of corporate prayer.
Pattern 7, Pointing Toward the Reign of God.
The missional church understands its calling as
witness to the gospel of the in-breaking reign of God, and strives to be an
instrument, agent, and sign of that reign. As it makes its witness through its
identity, activity, and communication, it is keenly aware of the provisional
character of all that it is and does. It points towards the reign of God that
God will certainly bring about, but knows that its own response is incomplete,
and that its own conversion is a continuing necessity.
Pattern 8, Missional
Authority. The Holy Spirit gives the missional
church a community a community of persons who, in a variety of ways and with a
diversity of functional roles and titles, together practice the missional authority that cultivates within the community
the discernment of missional vocation and is
intentional about the practices that embed that vocation in the community's
life.
Source: "Treasure in Clay Jars - Patterns in Missional
Faithfulness" from the Gospel and Our Culture Network (Eerdmans,
2004):
|
What is a Missional Community
http://www.theofframp.org/missional_comm.html
General Definition
So what is a missional community? How is it
different from church as we know it in modern Evangelicalism? Probably the
best place to begin is with a general definition.
A missional community is a group of Jesus’
apprentices who so trust his brilliance and mastery of life,
that they learn from him how to be like him for the sake of the world.
Through this apprentice/master relationship, the community journeys together
to become the fullness of God and thereby become a finite earthly expression
of the infinite Tri-Community just as Jesus was in his earthly life. A missional community is about becoming by grace what
Christ is by nature. As the community experiences this, wherever the
community members live their daily lives, they are learning how to easily,
naturally, and routinely embody, demonstrate and announce God’s life and reign
for the sake of the world around them.
Theological Differences
According to this definition, aren’t all churches missional?
Yes. Any valid Christian church has a missional
aspect. But when one examines a missional
church more closely, one discovers a significant difference between a church
that does mission and a missional church. That
difference begins at the theological foundation and ultimately finds
expression in practice and organization.
The theological difference begins at what theologians call ecclesiology.
Ecclesiology is simply one’s understanding of what the church is. Every
church has a built-in ecclesiology, whether it has been thought through or
not. And believe it or not, there are a lot of different ways of
understanding the church. Veli-Matti Karkkainen, in his book, An Introduction to Ecclesiology,
summarizes twenty-one different Christian ecclesiologies
that exist today! Each of them is biblically founded.
A missional ecclesiology is rooted in God’s
character and purpose as a sending or missionary God. Therefore, it’s starting point is the missional
nature of The Trinity. God the Father sent the Son. God the Father and
the Son sends the Spirit. God the Father, the Son and the Spirit sends the
Church (Matthew 28:18-20; John 20:21; Acts 1:8). The church is God’s
sent missional people. So
just as Jesus was the fullness of God incarnated and embodied in a human
being, the missional church follows Jesus’ model,
learning from him how to embody the fullness of God as a new way of being
human for the sake of the world. That is it’s very
identity and essence.
Or to use a biblical metaphor, as Jesus is the head, now the church is his
body – the continuation of who he is and what he does. Paul states in
Ephesians 1:23, that the church “is his body, the fullness of him who fills
everything in every way.” As his body, the missional
church continues the presence of Jesus in and to the world by participating
in his unique incarnation as an extension of God’s presence in the world.
With this view, “mission” shifts from naming a function of the church to
describing its essential nature.[1] In a missional church, the church IS mission rather than does
mission as a program or activity of the larger life of the church. The
church’s nature is to show the world what it looks like when a community of people live under the reign of God in every
aspect of daily life. As Robert Webber states in The Younger Evangelicals,
the church “is an alternative culture that points to the kingdom of God
and the reality of the new heavens and the new earth.”[2]
Practical Differences
Now this theological difference finds expression in practical ways through
our common ideas, language and practices about church. For example, church is
typically defined in one of several ways.
Church as a place: For many people, church is a place you go. It is a
facility, a campus or a building. The common phrase, “I’m going to
church” summarizes this view. When a person is at the building or
facility, they are at church. The implication is that when they are not at
the building, they are not at church.
Church as an event or spiritual activities: For others, church is something
that happens. Church is defined by worship services, Bible studies, prayer
meetings or other ministries. Again the implication is that when one is not
engaged in one of these events or activities, they are no longer doing or
having church.
Church as associated with a person: For others, church is an organization
associated with a pastor or Christian leader. For example, people often say
things like, “I go to Chuck Smith’s church” or “I attend Jack Hayford’s church.”
Church as offering programs or services: For others, church is determined by
what the organization offers to meet needs such as youth programs, music
programs, marriage groups, fellowship, discipleship, mission opportunities,
etc.
However, in a missional community, the church is
God’s sent people. That means when everything is stripped away – the
building, the events, the activities, the leaders, and other identifying
markers for the church – the people are the church and church is the
people. Therefore, wherever God’s people are corporately or
individually, there is the church. Church is at home, in the car, in the
restaurant, the beach – wherever God’s people find themselves in their daily
lives.
Another practical difference can be seen in the practices of the general
American Christian populace. American Christians cannot be
distinguished in any significant way from secular culture. Christian
lifestyles and time-styles, although slightly Christianized, are virtually
the same as the culture around them.There are also
no noticeable differences between Christians and their secular counterparts
in areas of morality and ethics. Dawn Haglund
states that the church has completely adopted American culture. She writes:
Marketing, promotion, advertising, consumerism, selfish materialism. I’m not
sure the church is much different than the American culture. I find that sad,
disappointing, and disturbing. Church has become a place of
consumerism. People come to get their needs met. The church is about giving
people what they want – making them comfortable. Maybe we’ve reached more
people, but I’m skeptical if we’ve participated in transforming lives.[3]
Rather than embodying, demonstrating and announcing a new way of being human
under God’s reign, the modern church, in general, has been domesticated by
American culture. The task of the missional
community is to explore and rediscover God’s countercultural call to
represent the reign of God in our emerging post-modern society.
The Exploration – Four Questions
As a missional community explores God’s call to be
his sent people, four significant questions need to be addressed.[4] First, What
does it mean to be an authentic apprentice of Christ? In other words,
what does it really mean when we call Jesus “Lord?” I like how Brian McLaren describes this in The Story We Find Ourselves In.
By calling Jesus Lord or Teacher, we are recognizing that he is a “master,”
someone to whom we apprentice ourselves to in order to learn everything he
knows and does. He’s similar to a master craftsman or a violin master. McLaren states:
A violin master is someone who can take an instrument of wood and wire and
horsehair and play it so it yields music more beautiful than anyone else can
play. And for the disciples to call Jesus ‘master’ would mean that no
one else could take the raw materials of life – skin and bone and blood and
space and time and words and deeds and waking and sleeping and eating and
walking – and elicit from them a beautiful song of truth and goodness, as
Jesus did.[5]
Therefore, an apprentice of Jesus is restructuring and reorganizing his or
her life in order to spend time with him to learn from him how to be like
him. It’s making every serious intention to become holy love as God is.
This requires a lifestyle of constant engagement with the transforming grace
of God.
Fortunately, God has provided such a lifestyle throughout biblical and church
history called spiritual disciplines. Simply put, walking in the Spirit means
to live in synchronization with the Spirit of God. Spiritual disciplines,
when practiced properly, create the environment for God’s transformation.
They do this by training us in small mundane ways, in coordination with God’s
grace, to die to ourselves and engage God’s real life (Titus 2:11-12).
The second question that must be addressed is What does it mean to be
authentically spiritual? In other words, how does one truly measure
transformation and maturity? If walking in the Spirit is living in
synchronization with the Spirit of God, who is holy love, then the fruit or
byproduct of such a life would be the embodiment of God’s fullness – love,
joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness,
self-control, compassion, humility, hope, faith, etc.
If that is the case, then what do we do with “boundary markers?” Boundary
markers are external measurements that determine whether a person is in or
out. For example, does attending church regularly mean a person is spiritual
or mature? Most of us would say “No.” But let’s flip it around. Does
not attending church regularly mean a person is unspiritual or
immature? Hmmm… John Ortberg, in The Life
You’ve Always Wanted provides another example from his early church
experience:
The senior pastor could have been consumed with pride or resentment, but as
long as his preaching was orthodox and the church was growing, his job would
probably not be in jeopardy. But if some Sunday morning he had been smoking a
cigarette while greeting people after the service, he would not have been
around for the evening service. Why? No one at the church would have said
that smoking a single Camel was a worse sin than life consumed by pride or
resentment. But for us, cigarette-smoking became an identity marker. It was
one of the ways we were able to tell the sheep from the goats.[6]
The third question that must be addressed is What does it mean to be God’s
people? What does it mean to be a community of Jesus’ apprentices who are
pursuing true spiritual maturity as defined by the first two questions? How
do we live as community so that every member becomes filled with the fullness
of God for the sake of the world? Are there things we are currently doing
that actually hinder us from embracing God’s call as his sent people?
Ultimately, the church is a community made up of people who are reconciled to
God, with one another and creation. It is an organic community where the
members live in reconciled relationship, active fellowship and in
interdependence with one another. In being this, the church is a community
that reflects the social reality of the Trinity.
The fourth question is What does Christian leadership in this new community
look like? The modern American church has embraced hierarchical modes of
leadership from business management and military models. Many of the
principles inherent in these models provide effective leadership for
organizations. However, Ken Blanchard, the author of the popular management
book, The One Minute Manager, stated “the popular model of pastor as CEO is
brain dead…This philosophy will only hurt the church in the long run.”[7]
John Piper, in his book, Brothers, We Are Not Professionals, makes this
passionate plea:
We pastors are being killed by the professionalizing of the pastoral
ministry. The mentality of the professional is not the mentality of the
prophet. It is not the mentality of the slave of Christ. Professionalism
has nothing to do with the essence and heart of the Christian ministry.
The more professional we long to be, the more spiritual death we will leave
in our wake. For there is no professional childlikeness (Matt. 18:3); there
is no professional tenderheartedness (Eph. 4:32); there is no professional
panting after God (Ps. 42:1).[8]
A missional community is organic and living. And an
organic community looks and operates differently than an organizational
community. Dallas Willard offers a beautiful picture of how such a community
operates. He says:
Among those who live as Jesus’ apprentices there are no relationship that
omit the presence and action of Jesus. We never go “one on one;” all
relationships are mediated through him. I never think simply of what I am
going to do with you, to you, or for you. I think of what we, Jesus and I,
are going to do with you, to you, and for you. Likewise, I never think of
what you are going to do with me, to me, and for me, but of what will be done
by you and Jesus with me, to me, and for me.[9]
This vision is a demonstration of the social reality of the Trinity, which is
love. So what kind of leadership will contribute to this kind of community?
Todd Hunter has been wrestling with the question of leadership for a long
time. He asks, “What does it mean to function as a leader in a group of
people who are supposed to be following some else (God the Holy Spirit) and
someone else’s (God’s) vision to have a redeemed, covenant people who would
be his cooperative friends (not for merit, but of grace and
“Spirit-strength”) leading constant lives of creative goodness on behalf of
the whole world…even up to and including, the new heaven and new earth?”[10]
His
hypothesis is that Christian leadership in this context requires serving,
coordinating and empowering the sovereignly given
activities of the Holy Spirit in a group of people.
This requires leadership from within the community rather than from above it.
This requires leadership that is servant-oriented. This requires leadership
that truly believes Christ dwells in every believer to teach and minister and
demonstrates that belief by yielding to community members as Christ ministers
through them. This requires leadership that is team-based as the team seeks
Christ’s direction together and then serves and yields to each other in love.
Conclusion – A Journey Of Formation
The missional community is exploring and
rediscovering what it means to be God’s sent people as our identity and
vocation in the world. It is the extension of the Trinity’s love and
missionary activity as embodied by Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit.
It is a group of Jesus’ apprentices who are learning how to be sent as he was
sent – in the fullness of God in all aspects of daily life. Such a community
is a journey of exploration, discovery, nurture and formation. Stanley Grenz beautifully describes this formational journey:
The church is a people who covenant together to belong to God – that is, to
be holy, to be set apart from the world for God’s
special use. As this holy people, we are to proclaim in word and action the
principles of the kingdom, showing others what it means to live under the
divine reign. But more importantly, as Christ’s people we are to show forth
the divine reality – to be the image of God. To be the people in covenant
with God who serve as the sign of the kingdom means to reflect the very
character of God. The church reflects God’s character in that it lives as a
genuine community – lives in love – for as the community of love, the church
shows the nature of the triune God. En route to the consummation of his
purpose, therefore, God calls the church to mirror as far as possible in the
midst of the brokenness of the present that eschatological ideal community of
love that derives its meaning from the divine essence.[11]
[1] Craig van Gelder, The
Essence of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 31
[2] Robert Webber, The Younger Evangelicals (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Books, 2002), 133.
[3] Webber, 135.
[4] I first heard these four questions posed by Todd Hunter, the former
director of the Association of Vineyard Churches, USA
[5] Brian McLaren, The Story We Find Ourselves In
(San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2003), 121
[6] John Ortberg, The Life You’ve Always Wanted
(Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 1997), 36
[7] Webber, 149.
[8] John Piper, Brothers, We Are Not Professionals (Nashville, TN:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 1-2.
[9] Dallas Willard, The Divine Conspiracy (San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins,
1998), 236
[10] Todd Hunter’s web log at
http://toddhunters.blogspot.com/2003_02_16_toddhunters_archive.html
[11] Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of
God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 483.
|
|
|
REFERENCES
http://www.friendofmissional.org/
Michael Frost, Exiles:
Living Missionally in a Post-Christian Culture. (July 2006)
Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, The
Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission
for the 21 Century Church. (November 2003)
Darrell Guder (Editor), Missional
Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North
America. (1998)
Ed Stetzer, Planting Missional
Churches. (2006)
Ed Stetzer and David Putman, Breaking the Missional Code. (2006) **
Reggie McNeal, The
Present Future: Six Tough Questions for the Church. (2003)
Craig Van Gelder, The Essence of the
Church: A Community Created by the Spirit. (2000)
Milfred Minatrea, Shaped
By God's Heart: The Passion and Practices of Missional
Churches. (2004)
Lois Barrett (Editor), Treasure in Clay Jars: Patterns in Missional Faithfulness. (2004)
George R. Hunsberger (Editor), Craig Van Gelder (Editor), The Church Between Gospel and
Culture: The Emerging Mission in North America. (1996)
Alan Roxburgh, Fred Romanuk,
The Missional Leader: Equipping Your
Church to Reach a Changing World.
(2006)