Language is a pesky medium. Everyone knew that sooner or later someone with name recognition would come out and announce the term “missional” fell under the weight of its varied meanings. In the last week those 140 space communiques known as “Tweets” announced that “missional church” is redundant and that “missional” is the new junk drawer.

I would venture a guess that most who have used the word never read the book by Guder titled, The Missional Church. Even fewer will have read his book, The Continuing Conversion of the Church. In the best sense of semper reformanda, Guder contends that the church in every context and age must experience conversion from the barnacles it attracts as it passes through culture. He never suggests there is a pristinated version of church but opens the reader up to understand that when the church becomes complacent in its self-criticism it eventually loses its voice as it takes on the worst characteristics of the culture in which it finds itself.

Yes, Ed Stetzer regularly tweets in love and favor of the church. What he does not do is suggest it is perfect, just not worth bashing.

Monday I spent the day at a conference hosted by our contributor John Elam and the Northwestern Baptist Association in Woodward, OK. That’s right one of the smallest associations in the SBC hosts a conference titled, For the World. (Oh that our larger associations would consider these kinds of regular events.) Applying the best sense of the word missional the conference sought to encourage pastors to lead their congregations to live out the mission of God “for the world.”

SEBTS professors Nathan Finn and Alvin Reid offered two sessions each. Dr. Anthony Jordan, Exec. Director of the BGCO was featured for another session. The three combined with John Elam for a panel discussion moderated by Douglas Baker, new Executive Editor of The Baptist Messenger.

The point of this piece is not to offer a review or necessary critique. I would suggest you listen to the sessions. The discerning ear will hear some surprises. For instance, what would it mean if we really grasped Finn’s description of Baptists as an “ecclesiological reform movement?” Let that sink in a bit you who want desperately for Baptists to be a “theological reform movement.” Finn does not suggest an a/theological move for Baptists, instead he outlines historically what it means when we talk about the “five Baptist distinctives.” One must confess they are all ecclesiological in their affirmations.

Maybe you would find Reid’s attention to the 120 in the early Acts narrative compelling. Regularly we pay attention to the extraordinary “move of the Spirit” in Peter’s preaching. But, would we concede that contextually the 120 likely had as much going on in that fast movement of Gospel embrace? Or with all the bantering about “contextualization” would you be willing to accept the methodological adaptations evident in the growing story of the church?

There is little doubt a firestorm could swirl around Dr. Jordan’s contention that we make second order or tertiary confessional commitments matters of collegial cooperation. Recent moves to attach secondary issues to first order matters in an event to tighten the circle for cooperation would surely resist that the BFM article on the family does not rise to the level of the deity of Jesus. What’s more, will we ever concede unity does not of necessity mean uniformity? And, can that apply to more than our preferred music or governing polity?

Take some time to listen to the sessions. Come back and engage a conversation.