It looks like this ship wuthering heights dvd download may have left port without me, but I have a few thoughts I’d like to add.
It is a synchroblog organised by Rick over at Blind Beggar and he frames it like this:
“I have a continuing concern that the term missional has become over used and wrongly used. Audio Ur posted a podcast with Alan Hirsch yesterday and I got around to listen to it this morning. Alan takes up this very concern and says things like: It is a critical term. We must reclaim the term. The concept behind missional is really big and it would be terrible to lose it.”
As you would probably know, ‘missional’ was not a word. At least it didn’t appear in the dictionary until recently and it still doesn’t show up on the spell check of the computer.
For a non-word there sure has been some biffo surounding it.
The irony is that ‘missional’ became a word as churches tried to reframe their core business and identity. Today we have ‘missional churches’, but the question you have to ask is instead of what?! Its like having a goal kicking football team or a brick laying construction company… I mean what other options are there?…
Its a frightening thought that for so long this was not an integral part of the church’s psyche – that for so long we forgot about the local arena only to see the overseas need. The current glut of missional speak is possibly an over-reaction to that period of neglect and if we really reflect on on it, then surely its somewhat disturbing to need to use the word ‘missional’ to describe our churches!
There are some interesting variations on the use of this word. As I talk with churches I hear of them doing ‘missions’ and immediately know it will be in a foreign country. I hear them speak of mission and it is local. And the word missional has become the adjective that everyone uses, even if they’re not actually missional.
To its credit ‘missional’ is not an offensive word. People can buy into it and it has excellent pedigree. When I speak with people I usually define missional as coming from the latin ‘missio’ = to send. The church is therefore a ‘sent people’. I think we would all agree on this. Its simple, straight forward and an idea everyone can buy into – even if they don’t do it. Let’s face it – people love new ideas, but new practice is more disturbing and less likely to occur.
Its in the outworking of what it means to be ‘missional’ that most of the disagreement comes. I have come from an evangelical background where there has been a strong emphasis on getting people to come to church and hence ‘missional’ was regularly been co-opted into this paradigm as the obvious intent of a missional church.
Now there’s nothing wrong with wanting people to be part of a rich loving community where they can encounter God, but I believe ‘missional’ is much broader than that. These days I usually describe ‘mission’ as whatever we do that demonstrates God’s love to the world’. And within that ‘evangelism’ is a kind of subset that involves communciating who Jesus is and what he has done – most often in words. I would say that evangelism is ultimately where mission takes us.
While I’m spouting opinions I should add that I don’t like the current trend away from ‘evangelism’ among some of the new expresions of church. It seems like a reaction to the word and its excesses has yet again resulted in a baby/bathwater situation. (FWIW I have been blogging on evangelism over here for the last 4 weeks offering some of my own insights and will be dribbling on there for as long as I have something I need to say)
So in response to the universal adoption of ‘missional’ as the generic adjective to describe pretty much every church you come across, I have been returning to using ‘missionary’ as my preferred descriptorYes, its a loaded one to be sure, as it carries much baggage from historical perceptions of missionaries, but I tend to believe that if we can get people thinking and behaving like missionaries in their own backyards then we must be on the right track.
Hey… missionaries in their own backyards… great title for a blog!
A Western Australian Football Team!
I think you articulate beautifully the problem with relatively new words: it’s hard to tell people that they’re defining them wrong! And there does seem to be a bit of open-season on how to define “missional” – and finding the challenge in that rather than just validation of whatever you happen to be doing at the time,.
Love your thoughts!
Who is the arbitrator in words? Who says their definition is wrong?
Words are fluid…..even old ones.
I like your definition of yourself as a missionary AH…
Yeah – words are fluid Mark.
I agree with you there, but the flip side of that is that words are all we have to describe our lives.
So somehow we need to keep on grappling with that tension.
Yes, I agree — the only advantage to “missional” ver “missionary” as an adjective (where they mean exactly the same thing) is that it avoids a lot of the bad cultural baggage of “missionary” when used as a noun.
Though with the current vogue for verbing nouns and nouning adjectives, I don’t suppose it will be long before “missional” becomes a noun too. Then we’ll be back to square 1.
I know someone who literally foams at the mouth when I use the word “missional” (and the word “incarnational” for that matter) because he says it has no real meaning and that is what the church should be doing anyway. I can’t say I agree with him, especially since new words are always being added to the language and derive their meaning from the manner in which they are used. Having said that I’m with you on the “evangelism” term – if what we have is literally “good news” then we would be remiss to lose the proclamatory significance of that word. My concern is that a group of people end up meeting in a house, doing some funky stuff in the area and call that missional. Unless it is driven by the “evangel” then it’s not missional at all. (this is for my ears to hear!)
Literally foams…sounds like my old Airedale Terrier…..
Is that Andrew and Geoffs concerns? I read it that they are concerned that non funky house type churches are using the word missional, when in fact, they should always have been missional?
Not sure if I understand why you are foaming?
My concern is that the word missional has lost meaning, because everyone from house churches, to mainline denoms to liberals have co-opted it as the ‘in’ word.
I also tried to describe how I would see ‘missional’. Hope that helps
Thats a bit like ‘evangelical’. now everyone is using it, it has lost its meaning.
Its like “Christian’ before it…which is why people started to say “born again’…implying they were passionate about their faith, not merely something they put on the census.
Handwringing over the precise meaning of words isn’t very postmodern, is it?
I know this is the weakness of blogging, but I don’t think Jesus gives a stuff what we call our discipleship as long as we are His disciples. Words are not all we have to describe our lives. Our lives and the fruit of how we live describe our lives.
Personally, I’m going away from ‘missional’ and trying to establish ‘Christic agapegal’. (Sorry, I’ll be slinking away quietly now.)
Hey Andrew, great thoughts…I love this quote from Ed Stetzer, ” It’s possible to be a missionary without ever leaving your zip code.”
Pingback: 50 Ways to Define “Missional” - VIII : Subversive Influence