missional?
At a recent meeting at Northern, we were discussing one of our congregations focus, purpose and mission. A paper had been prepared to orient our discussion and it made the point that we needed to regain a missional focus for this particular congregation. One of our leaders, who is a very wise and experienced former minister in the Church of Christ said:
“can someone please explain to me what is the difference between mission and missional? What does missional mean?”
Good question!
For a couple of us at the meeting our attempt to answer this, revolved around the idea that the words mission and missional have become associated with an empire approach to Christianity - a furthering of the ideas and trappings of civilisation according to western powers. This means that these words have become problematic and filled with some unfortunate connotations. We talked about how a number of people some years ago in North America came up with the word - some of the ones I could remember were Darell Guder, Alan Roxburgh.
My parents in hearing the word a number of years ago remarked that it wasn’t a word and they refuse even to this day to use the word as it is bad grammar. But putting my parents aside - what is your reaction and feeling about the increasing use of the word missional?
The word missional is being used a lot lately. Over the recent forge intensive and through out the presentations of Brian McLaren I kept hearing word. I like the word. We use it at Northern. I think it helps to reclaim mission ground that once meant largely what we did overseas and often that just meant sending our money to the brave and committed few that went overseas to “do mission”. The misso dei (the missionary sense of God) is at the very heart of who God is and we need to urgently reclaim mission as an fundamentally apart of who we are as the people of God and not an added extra or a program that we start. The questions is though - does the word missional help this?
So, how would you answer? What is the word missional all about?
February 26th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
How far up the ivory castle did you find this semantic enclave, Phil?
February 26th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Sorry, I meant ivory tower, not ivory castle!
February 26th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Kieren,
Your obsession with insulting Phil, and all things Christian make me think you are a hurt, and lonely man. I hope you find the peace you are craving. I hope you find the true love of the Father, through His Son Jesus.
the rev
February 27th, 2006 at 6:52 am
I both hate the changing of words just for the sake of chaning names and feel that its important to try and revilalise things and changing their names can help ease discussion of the differences.
February 27th, 2006 at 8:39 am
Instead of using one word, such as “missional” so frequently, maybe the whole issue can be avoided by continually using a variety of language and expression in order to avoid sounding jargonistic.
Rev, do you think a debate of this nature is the best use of the churches time and resources? Do you think the repeated use of certain language does indeed start to sound like meaningless jargon, a way of raising walls of separation through the use of language?
February 27th, 2006 at 8:55 am
I think it did help for a while, but now everybody is ‘missional’ (even if they’re not!)
It has become ‘the word’ of the last 10 years.
What do you do?…
Lets just hope it translates to a shift in activity!
February 27th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Do you think joining this debate when you do not believe, nor have any desire to be a part of the community is a good use of your times and resources?
the rev
February 27th, 2006 at 9:11 am
I kind of see the two words in a semantic sense that mission is the act of being missional which is the attitude behind the action. A lot of christians have lost the mission imperative given to us by Jesus - Go out into all the world etc.
The Anglican Church is currently all about creating “Mission Shaped Church” and in fact a large number of papers and discussion groups and conferences litter the anglican environment (so to speak). I sound a little cynical I konw, however there is (as usual) more talk than activity as far as I can see.
I am involved in a congregation plant (a new congregation of a current church) that is billed as one of these so called fresh expressions - it is cafe style, lay leadership, and seeks to be relevent for people who ahve had no exposure to the church - but so far we haven’t really done much to involve ourselves with anyone that has had no church experience! I am getting depressed.
February 27th, 2006 at 9:26 am
If you can get ahold of ignition, written by Mark Sayers it may serve as a good place to start.
the rev
February 27th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Yes and no. I would argue that it is difficult to determine what people believe from the limited evidence of their participation in forums such as this. You would need to interact with people personally over a period of time to really gain a sense of their value systems. That said, I also don’t mind the occasional personal attack and questioning of my own values. I don’t have the ridiculous assurance that I am always right. I’m probably incorrect far more often. I think we are very lucky to have someone like you, Rev, who can guide us into perfect knowledge. Using your profound wisdom, do you think you could respond to the above queries?
February 27th, 2006 at 9:54 am
actually rev - I think the fact that KG posts reasonably regularly qulifies him as part of this community - only he could say if he feels or even wants to be a part of the wider christian community.
I’ll try to check that book out
thnx
February 27th, 2006 at 10:40 am
What I meant by community is the community of faith, or the Christian community, and Kieren has expressed only a desire to criticise and tear down this community and it people.
Ignition is not a book, but a workbook.
Kieren,
You have attacked Phil since you have been here. On another thread you even suggested he has no style, which has nothing to do with anything. You have attacked my beliefs on my own blog. And you have refused to say why you feel the need to be a part of the discussions. Now I am just as sure that I have many blindspots and I am as often wrong as anyone else. Your attempts to make me seem like the arrogant know it all, is again your method of focusing on demonizing individuals rather that being part of a conversation.
You have never once answered the question as to your motivation for your posts when they are altogether negative and critical. Now when others do so, you understand why? Homer is trying to fix us for we have fallen from the true faith. You however have not spoken your motivation, are you trying to convert us to scepticism? Are you trying to enlighten us? Or are you just trying to make fun of a bunch of superstitious idiots, so you can bask in your superiority?
Now Phil is a very good friend of mine, and I am getting a bit cut at your continuing animosity towards him.
the rev
February 27th, 2006 at 11:14 am
a work book - we’ll have to do something - forget it!
February 27th, 2006 at 11:23 am
I see a distinction between personal attack and gentle mocking. I must apologise to you personally, Rev, for the shameful ridicule you apparently feel. However, I’m sure your inner strength of character will see you through these hard times. You’ll move on and become an even stronger ambassador for Christ. That, or you’ll realise the whole deal is a load of ultimately meaningless rubbish. Possibly, you are weighing up the two options in your mind presently, and this inner turmoil makes you lash out at innocent bystanders like myself. I hope you find the peace you are craving.
By the way I don’t think you are an arrogant know it all - I’m sure there are esoteric and arcane areas of theology that you have yet to completely master.
February 27th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
I must agree that I thought Kieren’s comments were more along the lines of gentle mocking than personal attack. I actaully enjoy his contribution to this blog and others. He is intelligent and he articulates himself very well. I respect and understand his opinions even if at times I come to different conclusions than him. What are his motivations? Perhaps it is at times nothing more than shit-stirring, perhaps he enjoys ridicluling us or picking holes in our ideas and beliefs, well that is fair enough, we Christians spend a lot of time picking holes in everyones elses beliefs. I believe that when he first started commenting he more of less disclosed his motivation, but I guess that his business.
Having said that whilst I do enjoy having my beliefs challenged, simply arguing for arguments sake is uproductive.
February 27th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
It must be something he said somewhere else.
The Rev complaining about what people say. I am impressed.
I take it missional is simply evangelism by another name?
It isn’t inthe dictionary yet!
February 27th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Evangelism tends to be much too attractional in most peoples minds. Missional to me is the intersection of evangelism and mission that seeks to redeem cultures without being extractional/attractional
February 27th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Funny, I have always thought as “mission” as distinct from “evangelism”. I find that people sometimes talk at cross purposes for these reasons - for me mission is more about bringing forth the Kingdom of God through works of love and compassion.
February 27th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Isn’t some of the intention of the phrase ‘missional’ to be that we should go about relating to local heathens in the same way we should relate to the great un washed masses in Africa?
Naturaly we don’t think that we should retain the old methods that have had limited sucess but adobt new methods, probably including some of those nice pieces of jargon I used above.
February 27th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
I did find it hard trying to the the article, perhaps that is my lack of education, however I am still in the dark of what missional is.
I would have thought there is nothing more loving or compassionate than telling someone of Jesus in the hope they enter the Kingdom of God rather than descending to the horror of hell
February 27th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
And extracting someone from their community because it doesn’t look Christian isn’t letting them discover where in their everyday life Christ is or how they are called to spread the good news to their secular friends.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
In my understanding, the idea missional rather then mission was to locate the conversation into the context of the West in which we live, dwell and are called to witness as a ’sign and foretaste of the reigh (Kingdom) of God’ (to quote the book Missional Church, Darell Guder (ed)). It is trying to place mission as not just evangelism, not just to Non-Western nations but wherever God’s people are… in local contexts. In the strict gramattical sense is not a word but nor was ‘Google’ or ‘rad’ 20 years ago. Language evolves and the addition of ‘al’ (and really making a verb into an adverb) shouldn’t stop us from trying to get to the idea that it is trying to express.
And… yes I’ve heard many different descriptions from many different churches trying to fit missional into their own understandings. That will happen.
February 27th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
“Language evolves and the addition of ‘al’ (and really making a verb into an adverb) shouldn’t stop us from trying to get to the idea that it is trying to express.”
That’s what I tell my parents!!
February 27th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
The idea is that we are incarnationally sent to those in our community, and that the community of faith evolves out of this “mission” for encouragement, edification and worship.
In the past we viewed missionaries as not only people sent to preach the gospel, but also to spread our cultures. The idea being that our culture is the result of true Christian values, and this culture is part and parcel with the gospel. Churches were for people at home, missions were for others that lived far away.
Trying to develope a vocabulary to explain what an incarnational mission to the Western world, we have latched on to the term missional. But if it is not helpful, or is being subverted, then let the term go. I don’t really care about terms so much.
The idea of missional church to me is this:
We are a mission, that happens to have a church, not the other way around.
the rev
February 27th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
When you say we are incarnationally sent, do you mean that there are some disembodied spirits wandering around doing the same thing too? Are you coming back to haunt me when you die, Rev?
February 27th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
In The Shaping of Things to Come, Alan H talks about missiology forming ecclesiology - the mission determines what the church is and does.
Traditionally, it has been the other way around - the way we do church has shaped the way we do mission.
February 28th, 2006 at 7:45 am
Incarnationally sent means we are to go into the cultures of our world, and like Jesus become one with them, and from there share the gospel. Rather than expecting them to accept a culture as well as the gospel, or even to extract them from their culture and have them join a foreign one.
But yes I will haunt you when I die
the rev
February 28th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Careful rev I think most people would come to the conclusion that Kieren alluded to
February 28th, 2006 at 10:58 am
For once I agree with Homer. Your definition of “incarnation” makes sense only to those who know what the Christian bubble is Rev!
February 28th, 2006 at 11:03 am
I am not surprised - “incarnation” is a word with a particular theological meaning. I think that the conversation about mission being incarnational is a valuable one. It might only make sense to those inside the christian bubble, but how many people outside of the christian bubble are going to be talking about christian missiology?