Mission-Minded or Missional?
Ok. I have another book on the go. Yeah I know, it is a compulsion and Dan picks on me all the time about how many books I read at once.
This one was recommended to me by Alan Hirsch and is called Shaped by God’s Heart – the passion and practices of Missional Churches by Milfred Minatrea.
In the early pages of the book (pp10–11) there is this quote that I thought gave us further information for our discussion surrounding the use of the word missional.
Mission-Minded or Missional?
“If you are confused by the term missional church, you are not alone — it’s so new that most Christians are stil coming to terms with it. In fact, if you search the pages of books written before the 1990’s, you will not find the word missional. No dictionary included the word; most still do not. In 1991, Charles Van Engen first referred to “missional relationships” as he addressed the role of the local church in the world. Explaining his intent in using the word, Van Engen wrote to me, “When I began using the term, I was not aware of anyone else using it yet. I meant a quality of the essence of being Church”.
Some insist the term missional church is reduntant, like “cannine dog” or “feline cat”. In fact, it is not. All dogs maybe canine and all cats feline, but not all churches are missional. Many Leaders who hear ‘missional church’ respond that theirs is a very mission-minded church, assuming the term to be synonymous. As you will see in this book, they are not. Much of the mission enterprise of the Western churches view their role as sending and supporting those who have been “called” to mission service. “Mission” is therefore representative; church members pray and give so that others may go and serve. Just as churches have other programs, such as Christian Education and choral music, they also have a missions program. The word missions is but one expression of the church.
People in the missional church do pray and give so that othes may go and serve; yet for them missions is more centered in “being and doing” than “sending and supporting”. The missonal church understands that although some may be supported as those sent to other locations, every member of the church is sent. Mission is therefore participatory rather than simply representative.”
March 3rd, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Sorry to bug you guys, can’t find your feed. Is your rss link broken (the one at the top of the page says no file exists…)
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:29 pm
try now Stephen
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Too simplisitic and too many straw men - which churches still send “missionaries”? Theres an arrogance about the missional church which worries me - are they really the only part of the church that centre’s its faith on “being and doing”
I agree with Dan your’e reading the wrong books!!We need more on sin Phil!
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2006/03/02/1141191796989.html
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Why do we need more on sin, Alan?
March 3rd, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Dan does not think I am reading the wrong books just too many at the same time.
But seriously Alan, are you suggesting that there is not a point to be made that many churches operate in a “representative” method towards mission? I know many in our shared denomination that do. Many Churches still “send missionaries” in way that means they pray, send money or pay salary for mission to be done in their name.
I agree it is simplistic in this interest of setting up the argument but I still think a fair ,relevant and important point is being made.
March 3rd, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Why is it arrogant for us to attempt to make all of our worship, structure, and finances be subservient to our role as missionaries to our culture? I don’t say we are the only ones doing this, but you must admit that most churches put most of their money, and effort, on taking care of their members, rather than outwardly.
the rev
March 4th, 2006 at 1:38 am
There is a fantastic article written by a guy called Ken Morgan from CRM over at Steve Addison’s blog on the issue of mission shaped vs mission flavoured (http://www.steveaddison.net/wp-content/Mission%20shaped%20or%20Mission%20flavoured%20-%20Morgan.pdf). I think it is a helpful contribution in the whole ‘missional’ discussion.
March 5th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Kieren and more sin:
A couple of media comments throw a light on sin which doesnt fit the normal preoccupation with individual morality.First was Brennan’s article which talked of the end justifying the means (”the nonchalant acceptance”);he was referring to the govts complicity(and the publics and churches silence) in the wheat for guns scandal.
And in an interview this weekend Mary Gaundron(retired high court judge)talked of the Australian govts treatment of the most vulnerable in society.She said they dont “interfere with nice middle class men(NB the treatment of the christian CEO of woolworths and his reward!)and women,they pick on ……as often as the mentally ill and mentally disabled”.
We get our knickers in a knot on gay issues, its a rare australian missional blog that will get its knickers in a knot on Iraq or the shameful injustice of people with mental disabilities.
Phil
I agree.But there are people in congregations who do not hear read or know much about the missional church who’s faith is centred on “being and doing”.Why put them down.
And the rev - of course its not arrogant to make our worship etc etc its only arrogant when you proclaim “that most churches put most of their money and effort on taking care of their members,rather than outwardly”
March 6th, 2006 at 6:51 am
So what if the AWB ignored a UN directive. Why is working around a corrupt body like the UN regarded as “sin”? I think most Australians would regard the UN as an institution that has no respect and does not deserve any.
Governments are behaving rationally when they extend middle-class welfare in an attempt to gain votes and extend their longevity. Once again, this is not sin.
Organisations don’t “sin”, “sin” is a property of an individual person.
March 6th, 2006 at 7:38 am
Hitler was acting rationaly when he started persecuting Jews. He was acting rationaly when he order that deformed people be included in the finaly solution.
Remember that there are commonly many rational answers to a situation, some of which will honor God and some that will dishonor Him.
Paying bribes to governments that are flawed in every significant aspect is not a supportable position for any society that I would want to call my self apart of. In the last few years I would much prefer to call my self a citizen of the UN than Australia or the US of A. For while they can be accused of not doing enough to prevent many of the worlds problems today, I don’t know of too many things they actively done to the detriment of it.
March 6th, 2006 at 8:44 am
alan says - “I agree.But there are people in congregations who do not hear read or know much about the missional church who’s faith is centred on “being and doing”.Why put them down.”
I don’t believe I did.
How would you point out that on the whole we are in trouble and eliviate your fear of putting people down? Perhaps you coud rephrase what I wrote to illustrate. How do we make comments on the general form and activity of the church without moving into your fear of putting people down?
March 6th, 2006 at 8:45 am
I think that organisations can be guilty of sin, in a systemic sense. For example, the institutional church has been guilty of sin in its approach to sexual abuse and the way that it has been handled. It is more than just an individual sin because the whole organisation has created an environment where these sins can be perpetrated.
March 6th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Organisations don’t “sin”, “sin” is a property of an individual person.
Sin, as Father Brennan in Alan’s article up further described it, is a corporate thing - we all contribute to it, their is the national sin of the lost generation, the community sin of not noticing a person has died in their unit for 6 months. Sin is not just individual - Jesus died for the sin of the world - it is very much a collective contributution. Are we benefiting from the sin of our forebears in stealing this land from the indigenous people here before us? Are we in that case sinning?
Sin and mission go hand in hand - it is to a sinful world that we bring the good news of freedom from the clutches and death of sin that we find in Jesus Christ
March 6th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Trying to analyse sin as an organisational phenomenon:
1. Can an organisation sin without any of its individuals sinning?
2. Can an organisation be without sin while one or more of its individuals is sinning?
3. In a sinful organisation, what level of responsibility goes to the organisation as a whole versus what goes against the individuals?
4. What does organisational responsibility mean? Is this something the members can hide behind, thus leading to no accountability?
March 6th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
(to be read in the tone of batman and robin clinging to life)
Questions too tough…must find answers…sin all around…organisations nothing whithout peopole in them…gettgin to dark…too dark to see…need water or will……………………………………
March 8th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Phil maybe I was wrong and you were not putting down those in churches who do the same thing as those in misional churches - “being and doing”.yet is there not a tendency to define in the negative ie we are doing this because they are doing this……
From where I sit the generation which is struggling to respond to the challenge of the gospel in a world, as someone described it as utilitarian,pragmatic,eclectic and experimental,is doing nothing more and nothing else but doing what every generation does.
I think its exciting and chaotic even if it spends a hell of a lot time loooooking at its navel!
Kieren:I’m not sure that the majority of australians treat the Un with no respect.
Thats the kind of line run by howard,bush and the neo cons-which UN:those parts concerned with nuclear disarmanent,landmines,chemical and biolofical warffare,ILO,development,discrimination,WHO(health)……..if you mean the security Council….well yes,on the other hand its far better that there is a place to talk,rather than kill.
March 8th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Alan, I agree with you when you say this: “From where I sit the generation which is struggling to respond to the challenge of the gospel in a world, as someone described it as utilitarian,pragmatic,eclectic and experimental,is doing nothing more and nothing else but doing what every generation does.” I sometimes say that is what is new is the missional context and not the attempt to be missional.
There is a danger in making generalisations as you say - it means that some in the established Church that are doing more than representative mission can be seen to be included in the criticism. But, that is true of all criticisms and calls to do better. The old is never all bad even when the new is better. But, I think we have to attempt to hear what is being said - in this case by Milfred Minatrea.
May 28th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
This thread appears to having been silent for a while… thought, however, it might be an appropriate location for an question. Is it mission-minded or missional or neither to be involved in human rights protection? Is it something the church should get involved in? I think probably yes. Check out the work of http://www.prayforburma.org and their free burma ranger teams. Seems like UN is getting onto Burma - again… Do these things get any attention in Australian media?