|
Tuesday August 14, 2007 ~ 15 Comments
Missional. Depending on your perspective, it brings warmth to your soul or a shiver down your spine. Yet, there is no question the word is gaining traction. Is this the case with the church word of the day or is it here to stay? And... oh yes... what does it mean anyway? The answer to the last question depends on who you ask. Some words become so quickly enmeshed into our Christian subculture that the definition is an active, evolving target, that is being changed and defined on the move.
The genesis of this paper came from a week of meetings that illustrated the different meanings. First, before the meetings, I received an email from blogger "Brother Maynard" expressing his concern about the Wikipedia definition. His concerns can be found by looking in the wikipedia history page near the bottom. Maynard has since been seeking to find a common definition of the word "missional." As a missiologist concerned with the history, I was surprised to see the debate proceed without any reference to the origin of the word-- just to its current usage. So, I started doing some research and contacting people about their use of the term and the influences that shaped their ideas. I will reflect some on the answers I have received from Dubose, Guder, Hirsch, Keller, Van Engen, and others in the coming weeks. Second, in late May, I had the privilege of leading a week of missional conversations. It was a busy week, but it was a good week to think on things "missional." I taught two days at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary on the need for a church to have a missional orientation. Then, I led a one day faculty retreat at Biblical Seminary (Hatfield, PA). Finally, I spent the morning on Thursday with Geoff Hammond, new president of the North American Mission Board. New Orleans, thanks to the influence of Jack Allen and others, is a missional-friendly environment. Biblical Seminary has decided to reorder their entire curriculum around the missional church. My assigned task at Biblical Seminary was to look at the use of the word missional. I did so by tracing the understanding of church and mission through the International Missionary Council meetings from Edinburgh to just after Willingen. Geoff Hammond has a passion for seeing North America in a missional manner--as a mission field. In short, I discussed missional church in many contexts--but the word meant different things to different people. The faculty at Biblical Seminary asked for me to write some of the ideas down (and I agreed), but then I promised a more thorough analysis to Geoff Hammond. That has become a bigger task than I expected, but I look forward to sharing the results with them. As that week moved ahead, and in subsequent conversations, I have seen just how much the word "missional�? is a true wiki-word. Practitioners, theoreticians, fans and foes are defining, defending, and dissecting it. Its blurred meaning has brought it to the point that even some of its earliest and ardent users of the term are becoming reticent to use it themselves for fear of their audience misconstruing their message. But the proponents of the term missional see it as a word set apart from other cousin-words, like missionary, mission, and missio dei. Many see the need for a different term. Jim Thomas, writing at the Urbana site regarding why we need the word, explained, We need a new word... to cause us to reconsider what God's mission is and whether we are partaking of it as we should. The old words, like missions and missionary, are laden with historical baggage and strong cultural images that prevent us from seeing a broader picture. Also, regarding the use of the term, Alan Roxburgh cautioned, If the language of missional church is to become a helpful way of forming communities of God's people in a radically changing culture then we have to spend the time and energy to understand what is at stake in the language we are using. Simple sentence definitions are not adequate. (from "The Missional Church" in, Theology Matters: A Publication of Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry Vol 10 No 4 • Sep/Oct 2004) The "new word" appears to be catching on among evangelicals. For example: Southern Baptists have become frequent users of the word. I have cited many evangelical denominations, but the term and the concept have many ecumenical roots that both influence and concern some evangelicals. (I will address that next Monday.) Obviously, part of the problem regarding the debate over what it means to be "missional�? is that so many people have used the term in so many different ways. Put simply, if I want to be "missional" what does that actually mean? And, as evangelicals use the word, what can and should it mean for them? But, in order to get to contemporary usage, we will need to go through history. Why? Well, the origin helps us get at the meaning. I think there are probably three key early thinkers (in order of publication) that are most significant: Francis Dubose, God Who Sends (1983) (Take the time to read the reviews of Van Engen's book at Amazon as it illustrates some of the debate in missiological circles.) But, I think that Guder (as author and editor) has to be the most influential, and the Gospel and Our Culture Network was the most influential organization. I first read about the idea of the missional church in the thoughtful writings of Guder and others in The Missional Church and later in the Gospel and Our Culture Network. He/they were building on the ideas birthed in an earlier missiological debate (which we will see next Monday). And, I believe The Missional Church was the most influential on the topic. On a personal note, The Missional Church was my introduction to the ideas of church and mission. It was only later that I would interact with the other authors mentioned in my post. I read both Van Engen and Dubose as part of my Ph.D. program, but had read Guder, et. al. before I began the program. Actually, Guder's missional focus for North America is one of the reasons I went into missiology instead of Church Growth... and soon found Bosch, Newbigin, Van Gelder, Van Engen, Dubose, and others as part of my Ph.D. at Southern Seminary. My interest in missiology, and my current role as missiologist in residence at LifeWay (and partnership with the International Mission Board) all stem from reading that book. So, as best I can tell, Guder and the GOCN leaders were the most influential. (Guder was the editor and the other authors included several noted missiologists: Lois Barrett, Inagrace T. Dietterich, Darrell L. Guder, George R. Hunsberger, Alan J. Roxburgh, and Craig Van Gelder.) So Guder et. al. were the genesis for many people's ideas today. When we asked Darrell Guder about the origin of the term, he emailed back: The word apparently achieved its current popularity as a result of the publication of the research project I edited entitled Missional Church, Eerdmans, 1998. We chose the term because it was not defined, and we wanted to find a way to convey with an adjective the fundamentally missionary nature of the church (which is the wording in Vatican II on which we were building). Yet, Charles Van Engen and Francis Dubose both indicate a different starting point, and a somewhat different emphasis, in their understanding of "missional." I will explain more fully in the weeks ahead as they came to influence me as well. So, if the word does not have a clear definition, should we even use it? Obviously, I think so, though I have seen the term be used in some ways that concern me. Even though I might disagree with some emphases, I believe we can learn from the ideas of others in the missional conversation without having to agree with them on every point. More on Monday (and probably in between as I am anxious to get some more out there for your input if anyone is paying attention). Here are some questions for you: So, do we really need a new word anyway? Posted on August 14, 2007 at 2:50 PM ~ 15 Comments Tagged with: missional 15 CommentsLeave a comment |
  
  |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- No, I don't think we need a new word, but I do think "missional" ought live within a community's theological vision. Other issues must be defined instead of using as a "buzz word" which is just thrown around. It was goofy a few years back to hear people throwing around "postmodern" without even knowing what they were saying.
- the two most important issues which must be reflected upon when using the word can be seen in the following questions. 1) What is the mission of God? 2) How is the church called and commanded by God to flow into that mission as she is called to Christ in the gospel/new covenant. Or simply, What is the mission of the church? One can be on a mission and call itself "missional" and be living on a mission that is not the mission of God, nor the subsequent mission of the biblical church.
- Encouraging to see "evangelicals" actually believe they are to leave comfort and security for the sake of others in mission. Encouraging to see the term used in the context of the incarnation of gospel communities contextualized in culture. If the word "contextualization" has been gaining ground, "identification" needs more press. Especially identifying with those "unlike us" not those of our social class or ethnic group. The incarnation is God identifying with the "other" - God becoming and living among human beings. Discouraging - the use of the term to eliminate the need for gospel proclamation, the necessity of the atoning work of Jesus, repentance and explicit faith. Using the term "Missional" in a reductionistic way, to simply mean "be nice, do good" or "follow a certain political agenda - be it right or left." To often we love the divorce of works which follows from faith. When we end up with a Christless "Kingdom" we might as well just start signing Imagine along with John Lennon.
So, do we really need a new word anyway?
Rather than see "missional" as an entirely new word, I think Guder makes an excellent point in recognizing the shift of concepts by embrace mission in adjective form. Missional as an adjective- a descriptive word- is a word that describes a noun. As insignificant as this may seem, when mission or missions is a noun, it is a specific thing or field, but as an adjective it is liberated to broaden its scope to define the fullness of life.
I think the word is an important addition to our lexicon, though I fear it may be lost to the impact of popular usage (or misusage).
What questions do we need to address as we examine "missional"?
I think we need to acknowledge that, as helpful and important an addition as this is, it isn't THE key to the big picture. In the excitement of the genuine insight it brings and the popular buzz that surrounds it, we face the risk of laying it as the primary or exclusive foundation. I think these assumptions, at the very least, need to be questioned.
Further, I think it needs to be defined/explored with respect to its relationship to the other terms/concepts of missions, missionary, missio Dei, etc. Yes, it stands uniquely on its own in many respects, but it cannot be divorced fully from the larger concepts that have shaped the Church (for better and for worse).
How have you seen people use it that both encourages and concerns you?
I have seen it used wonderfully to liberate people from a narrow and limiting concept of vocation, ministry and service. In my own writing and ministry it has been critical in understanding both how and why I live my faith.
Of course, it has been used poorly by many. Most often it is simply people casually ride the popularity of a term for their own purposes. Other times it is out of genuine ignorance or wrong assumptions.
One example that Brother Maynard cites (and I agree with) is Gordon MacDonald's use of the term in Leadership Magazine. The article itself is an excellent and important engagement of a real problem that many pastors, leaders, etc. face. Where I think he errs is in both his use of the term "missional" and his use of it in form a term for the problem he was addressing- "missionalism".
Unfortunately, as genuine a problem as it is (and again, his article is excellent in addressing it) it does not directly relate to the term or concept of "missional", therefore causing confusion as to its meaning. This is further complicated by the pre-existing confusion about the term that already exists.
I am really looking forward to your posts.
Peace,
Jamie Arpin-Ricci
Jamie, good insights. And, I agree on the "word" issue. It is precisely the fact that it is an adjective that makes it helpful, but also more difficult to define.
Reid, thanks. Love the John Lennon reference. I might steal that. Grin.
Good start into the series. I do know people are paying attention, so write on.
You've cited some uses I was unaware of as well, as its adoption is probably more widespread than we realize - of course with different meanings. Lausanne paper #39 (fall 2004) has another definition from the missiological POV (you may have seen that one).
I think the word is a necessary one, though I'm not sure we can call it "new" anymore, being already old enough to have seen its meaning start to morph.
You are right to begin with the history... some attempts at it have been made, but as it takes a good deal of effort (as you found!) there hasn't been a thorough enough treatment of it. I'm looking forward to having you fill in some of the missing bits of my own understanding of the history and various uses of the term.
I have generally avoided buzz words and have rarely been accused of being on the cutting edge :-), yet I like and use the term “missional� as both a self-description and a quality to which Christians should aspire. For one, I believe it provides a fitting substitute for the well-intentioned who want to say that every Christian should be a missionary and thus allows the term “missionary� to be more narrowly defined. Additionally, the term “missional� is broad enough to cover the myriad of ways that Christians and churches can (should) be about fulfilling the Great Commission. Finally, as an adjective, it can describe not only concrete actions, but a particular world and life view.
Still, the word remains largely undefined. Thanks for taking on this project on your blog. I look forward to reading more.
On the subject of the "new word," some of the people I have been talking to have suggested that the meaning of "missional" has become so confusing that we should abandon it.
In my own denomination, some don't want to use the word becuase of how some others use it.
True enough — I hope this effort will help solidify things enough that people can begin using the word with at least some degree of confidence in what it means.
just a quick non-ministry-professional perspective: was in church this last week (non-denom officially, but baptisty in root), and the teacher used the term 'missional' several times in the sermon.
each time there were plenty of nods throughout the assembled folks, just seemed like there wasn't much trouble understanding what he meant (although it struck me as interesting that the teacher would feel confident using a relatively new term).
so, at least in my corner of the world, the question of whether we 'need' the new word is moot - it's already here.
i would posit that human language, with its built-in fluidity, needs an occasional injection of new words. in the current case, i think it is a perfectly good cause - the (re)orientation of church communities on a decidedly biblical goal. terms always shift in and out of favor, become stale or distasteful, and beg replacement or repackaging. perhaps this is a fault of humanity, but i believe that it is nonetheless true. and it definitely takes some time to work through the philological nuances, particularly when the groupings of folks attempting to zero in on the meaning of the term are as fractured (and as comfortable quibbling with each other) as the christian diaspora, but it seems worth it. when i first heard the term, i wanted to know what it meant, and as i dug, i wanted to do what it was saying - i was moved to action by it.
(note: firefox's built in spell-check says 'missional' is not a word. of course, it also says 'firefox' is not a word.)
I'm looking forward to following this series and very glad to see you blogging.
I can't think of a more important topic for the church at this time. See the previous posts on young adults leaving the church... isn't there a connection here?
Should it be come to our thing? Or let's go to their thing? I think it's about us getting up and heading downtown to that rock show and exercising "being" rather than "doing".
my two cents
great that you are doing this Ed. I have some brief thoughts on the connection between missional (USA) and mission-shaped (UK) and their heritage to missio dei (German) here:
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2006/01/thoughts_on_mis.html
and its connection with emerging church here:
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2006/02/what_i_mean_whe.html
Looking forward to seeing a more Baptist definition and understanding from you.
Andrew,
Good to hear from you... and glad we got a chance to connect in Orlando.
My plan is not to create a Baptist definition, but to look at how people have used the word differently and then suggest some ways through that challenge.
In terms of it's concept and meaning, I do not mind using the term "missional" as an adjective, especially if it will spur churches to be both engaged and more incarnational within the culture they live and minister to.
I would struggle with using the term missional to replace the term and description missionary. As you spoke of the roots of missional, I believe that the etymology of missionary has its basis in Scripture, "a sent out one". It seems that the word missions is the term that has morphed into a catch-all phrase that means anything and everything that a church seeks to do outside its own parking lot
I need your comebackchurch powerpoint that you taugh ib Michigan evangelism Conference March 2 and 3 please forward to me if it is avilable
Thanks..
So, do we really need a new word anyway?
I'm not sure I would go so far as to say we "need" a new word. However, I will say that I like the word. Taking the word "mission" and making it adjectival seems to emphasize its verbal element.
What questions do we need to address as we examine "missional"?
We definitely need to address an agreed upon definition. I may be too simplistic for some, but I believe that to be missional is to be actively engaged in the mission Jesus gave us to "make disciples." If that were agreed upon then another question to answer would be: "What can change with Biblical integrity in our approach to the world around us in order to maintain missional relevance?"
How have you seen people use it that both encourages and concerns you?
The way you used it in a recent seminar I attended was very encouraging. Ironically, it was in a conference of churches where I have heard it used rather sloppily in the last couple of years. I hope some of those "abusers" were listening!
I don't think we need a new word. "Missional" was a new word not that long ago. If we come up with a new word for ideas every decade, it will make it difficult to know what people are talking about as obviously the old word will continue to be used but will ultimately change meaning.
We should keep using the same word and keep restating the definition, maybe those who have a certain bent (that is something in contradiction to the general meaning of missional) on the word should find a new word.