I’ve been wrestling with needing to define the term “missional,” largely because I get nervous when I hear the word used without a healthy understanding of the term. Too often, the word is thrown into a conversation as if people knew what it meant (I’m probably very guilty of this.) And people listen politely, don’t ask for a definition (because, speaking autobiographically, I would give a long multi-syllabic response which only furthers the confusion.)
I’m most alarmed when “missional” is used as a synonym for “missions” or any outward Christian expression of love, care and concern toward others. These are good things to do, but is very different from what missional means.
Missions can be seen as a “department” of the church that funds various evangelistic or social service activities. It is seen as a subset of what the church as an organization does. Missions is a noun. Missional, in contrast, is an adjective that attaches the idea of “God with a mission”, with “followers on mission.” The shift in thinking is that while missions is something you do… and is often outsourced to professionals or those really committed to God, missional describes the way a disciple lives as one that organizes his life around God’s mission.
I think it is critically important that the church in N. America moves away from the idea that we can fulfill our mission in the world by proxy through missionaries, and personally assume the privilege/responsibility as followers of Jesus.
Alan Hirsch has written a great post about the difference between the “emerging” church people and those who are “missional” church people. Both groups share the desire to find a more relevant way to following Jesus in this new world, Hirsch maintains a distinction between the two. He argues that the “emerging” movement is a renewal movement, whereas the “missional” camp is a missionary movement. In the post, he further elaborates on the distinctions and pleads for restraint on willy-nilly use of the term “missional.” He writes:
And my advice to all you folks on both sides of the debate that mix up the term, be warned! What you are doing is only making it harder for the Church to come to grips with its deepest sense of call and purpose in this time and place–no less! You are therefore mucking around with what could be one of the most significant ideas that the Church has to grapple with if we are going to survive, let alone thrive, in the 21st Century. For God’s sake, be clear in your use of the term or can I suggest that you stop using it.
The post is quite articulate and deserves a good read. Note also his pairing of Missional with Incarnational. The incarnation of Jesus highlights the fact that the best medium for the gospel to be communicated is in the life of a person that dwells among others. Missions might be about going out and doing stuff, but comes back. Missions can also connote an activity or event where the proclamation of the gospel is primarily a bunch of facts one needs to know. In contrast, missional is about going out… and staying out… developing relationships with people and incarnating the gospel message to others.
Entries (RSS)