In Mark Batterson's latest book, he posed a question that resonated with me, and got me to thinking:

"Is anybody else tired of reactive Christianity that is more known for what it's against than what it's for?" (In a Pit with a Lion on a Snowy Day)

I think in many churches (mine included) there's a tendency towards an ethos of reaction rather than proaction. As Ron said at GA, I think a lot of this comes from an ecclesiology built on doxology. When there's an "Alamo" mentality in the church, it becomes very defensive and reactive... fighting to preserve what it thinks is ecclesiological paradise. Unfortunately, this is what the unchurched sees as judgmentalism and vindictiveness towards those who see things differently.

In my observation, missional mindsets are what drive innovation and creativity in the church... Mission-driven churches can't stay in the Alamo, because they've realized the Alamo isn't where the mission is fulfilled. The churches that are thinking outside of the box and doing innovative/creative ministry are the churches that are wholeheartedly devoted to and driven by mission. They know exactly what they're about and they're willing to experiment and try new and innovative things to get it done.... If their mission is to "make disciples", they then ask the question, "how can we do that best?". And through a balance of Biblical and cultural exegesis they begin to try new things and go places that may have never been seen before by the church.

I think one of the major ethos transitions when we talk about transitioning from doxology to missiology is reactive ethos to a proactive ethos. Instead of pushing against something, the church begins to push towards something. Mission motivates action, and puts reactions into the background.

A major part of leadership is about helping the church realize that not only is the Alamo undefendable, in reality, there never was an Alamo to begin with.