what is "Missional" anyway?

There's a theological blog- meme going on at the moment, which starts "I confess..." and I confess, I haven't the time or inclination to confess to ten of my theological idiosyncracies. Sorry. I've not been well lately, and energy levels are low.

But it has prompted me to come out of the closet about one thing (not ten) that I've thought of blogging about for well over a year, but haven't because I don't want to go treading on other people's good ideas and intentions. If you like the word "missional" or if you describe yourself or your church that way, I promise I'm not picking a fight, OK? But I'll come out of the closet on this one, because I do think there might be something to be teased out here. I confess: I don't like the word "missional"

"Missional" has become a buzzword in church circles the last couple of years. I'm not sure that anyone has put a precise meaning on it. I know that for some it's a way of re-connecting with the idea of Missio Dei while throwing off the baggage of a bad image of evangelism. I can sympathise with that, and I certainly have learned a good deal from some fantastic communities who like using the word "missional". If a new focus on mission is a response to a Church that has slipped into being a closed, not an open community, then that must be a good thing (although, like most of these "new" ideas, it's not actually new at all, just a re-discovery of something that was there all along). But I also notice that, like lots of buzzwords, "missional" has now begun to function like one of those shorthand terms to identify yourself with a particular brand of Christianity. That can be a kind of tribal indentity thing - you say you belong to a missional, intentional community, and I say so do I, and that identifies us to one another that we are "in the same club". That's not so good; at worst it reinforces exactly the kind of closed shop club that "missional" intends to break down. We need to watch the way we use language; even the language of inclusion can become exclusive.

But my real thing with "missional" is this: that I think it threatens to narrow the self-identity of the Church to a point that she begins to think it's not enough just to be Church, the Bride of Christ who exists primarily to worship God. Now she thinks she needs to be something more than Church; to have more purpose and identity than that. It's really important not to set these things in opposition, as if it were a choice between mission and worship. "Mission" is (and always has been) one of the characteristics that overflows from knowing God; the Church has always understood God to be for the world, and the Church to be open to the world, even though, undeniably, she hasn't always managed to live up to that ideal. But it's one thing to say that the Church at large is involved in the Missio Dei; it's another to use the term "Missional" as a kind of advanced concept of Church, or as a thing you have to do to qualify for Church.

I think we should take care not to lose the understanding that the Church is Christ's purpose, not a stepping stone to becoming something else. I think that over-use of the term "missional" is in danger of going beyond being a corrective to a closeted Church, and tending to upend the Church's self identity. Any thoughts?

Comments

[don't eat alone]

Great questions and comments, Maggi.

I, too, have wondered about the term much in the same way I've wondered about the way "emergent" is used here in the US. As someone who is a part of a "mainline" denominaton (a term often used by others to mean "stayed and out of touch"), I must say I feel a bit defensive when I hear missional and emergent used as brands of Christianity. We have much to learn from one another and the different ways we feel called to be church. The labels hinder the conversation rather than encourage it.

Peace,
Milton

[radical evangelical]

Maggi

well, some thoughts

first, I remember being introduced to the idea of 'missio dei' in my first term at college 7 years ago. Anne Wilkinson Hayes had just taken over from Stuart Murray in the 'Mission' module and we were looking at various 'missional' concepts. I remember being enthused and suddenly having my eyes open to stuff that was just a closed book in my 'evangelical' world.

so from that time 'missio dei' has been fairly pivotal in my thinking - focused on the premise that this is God's world and he is the missionary God, and attempting to discern where God is working and joining Him: with individuals and in communities. I find that very exciting and you're right, this is an overflow of my worship.

With regards to the word 'missional' - I think that it kinda depends which circles you move in. I've had a foot in two camps of evanglicalism in my life - Open and Conservative Evangelicalism - and have always been fairly 'open' within both of those, and it occurs to me that the word 'missional' is used for one and 'evangelistic' is used for the other (this is a gross generalisation you understand) In this case it is more about saying 'it's more than proclamation' (for the OEs) or 'proclamation is the most important' (for the CEs) and it can be about a badge of identity. The truth is that sometimes the need is wider mission and sometimes the need is evangelism - this is the case whether we would call ourselves open or conservative.

Then again it might just be the way that we understand our role in God's world.

Mission is, of course, an outworking of worship, but the question remains what does that outworking look like - and, as ever, words fail us or we fail them by capturing them and making them a badge of elitism.

[Hugh A]

Maggi, I agree with your concerns about the use of the word 'missional' as I suspect it has become a buzzword which isn't thought through in the same way that words evangelical and fundamentalist are now used in a way that would bemuse previous generations. Brian McLaren, in his book A Generous Orthodoxy defines missional as "To be and make disciples of Jesus Christ in authentic community for the good of the world." He goes on to say that the last phrase is the essence of being missional.
I like this as it encompasses evangelism, social action and just being the Church; in the world, not of the world but proclaiming the glorious richness of the Kingdom of Heaven in the here and now.

[Andrew Dowsett]

Hi Maggi. Sorry to hear you've not been well - i hope your energy levels are soon on the rise again.

I can't speak for anyone else, but one of the reasons I use 'missional' is in contrast with 'missionary,' because 'missionary' has a focus on what we *do* whereas 'missional' focuses on who *be* - who we are called to be, through which God might do - and that is a helpful corrective in the specific context of the church tradition I am coming from. It may well not be universally appropriate. I think for many of us, 'missional' is not "this is why I am better than you" but "this is how I aspire to be, recognising I'm not there yet."

So for me, 'missional' is precisely about being the Church, rather than being something more than the Church.

Re the potential worship-mission dichotomy you highlight, I like this from Graham Cray [in "The Future of the Parish System", his chapter being "Focusing church life on a theology of mission"]:
"Worship lies at the heart of a missionary Church, as a response of gratitude for God's grace and goodness. Because we worship a missionary God we cannot attend to mission without attending to worship, and we cannot attend to worship without attending to mission. At their best they are both instinctive reflexes in response to the gospel, which we turn into disciplined actions. Each is the test of the integrity of the other." [p. 64]

Of course, any focus needs continual attending to, or it loses its appropriateness. Thank you for challenging a focus that is, perhaps, due for review!

[maggi]

hugh I liked the quote from Brian (as usual!) but I think Generous Orthodoxy is in particular need of being read as a whole, as the thesis is in a sense delivered in its form: that is to say, McLaren's definition of Missional can't be isolated from the whole. Brian has very literary sensibilities, and so although every book should be treated with some observation to its form, especially so with someone like him.

[Andrew]

A standing ovation Maggi! Missional seems to separate the 'first class, culturally savvy' churches from the 'second class, "traditional", irrelevant' churches. As you say, as if being the people of God isn't good enough. I really like the words of Martin Sutherland (a Kiwi historical theologian): "the Missional church (and there is no other kind) exists to make the kingdom visible". I really like his emphasis that to be the church (the bride of Christ, the people of God who are drawn by the Spirit to participate in the life of the Trinity) is to be missional - to BE the people of God... This emphasis on being missional, going out and carry on Christ's mission (as if Christ isn't continuing his own mission) seems to hollow out any significance of gathering together in worship and around the Lord's Table which is surely some of the most missional things we can do - place our faith in Christ to grow his church and not our culturally savvy techniques. I know it's not either/or but both/and but it seems to me some are using Shenia Twain's words and applying them to the significance of being the people of God - "that don't impress me much"

[Neale Adams]

I've found useful a distinction between "mission," in the sense of missio dei, God's purposeful action in our world, and "ministry," which is our response to God. Discerning God's mission and how we can contribute to it is one of our Christian tasks.
But we see through a glass darkly; sometimes our response isn't a good one. We can see our ministry in cultural terms, as bringing the blessings of the Christian West to the underprivileged peoples of the less developed world (as Canadians did in the flawed ministry of residential schools for Aboriginal children); we can see it as simply growing the Church in numbers; we can see it as storing up for the Apocalypse. We can get it wrong.
We hope and pray and do our best that our ministry is "missional," but this side of heaven we can't know. In this sense, to say we belong to a missional Church is most arrogant. We can only say we respond in ministry as best we can, as sinful creatures.
And, of course, to do our bit for the missio Dei doesn't mean we all have the same ministry. Sometimes for some being quiet and "traditional" (in the good sense) is what we should be; sometimes we discern we are being called to enter the noisy fray. God help us. (God does.)

[Jamie G]

I quite agree, Maggi. Mission is not the focus. It is the outflow of the fact that God first loved us. We love others because first we are loved. Mission, if that's the term you prefer, is a consequence of us being found. Yet if mission is absent, it should raise questions; have we really connected with the love of God or not?

[tribalchurch]

Our Presbytery's all over the neologism. It's even in their vision statement. So, I'm learning to say it without rolling my eyes, along with "attractional" which also cannot be found in my dictionary....

[Rev. Lisa]

I hear all of your criticisms of the word 'missional', Maggi, but can I please add one?

Surely the effort spent coming up with trendy new words could be better spent wrestling a blessing from the old ones. Those of us in stodgy old traditional churches recite the Nicean creed every week. These are words that unite us with the church throughout the world, throughout the ages, throughout many denominations. One, holy, catholic, and APOSTOLIC church, we say. So when we gather to worship we remember that we are the ones God sends, and calling ourselves 'missional' seems a bit unnecessary.

Branding a church as 'missional' (or bible-believing, or even emergent) is just that - a marketing ploy. It begs all sorts of questions about who you're trying to compete with and what you're trying to sell.

[Andrew]

A lot of good comments above. I'd add that the word missional...

1. came out of the Gospel and our Culture movement who were struggling to think of a way to describe the church as a sent people rather then a gathering of Chriatians who then send individuals. It was good at first (although bad grammer!) but then became problematic as it spread from an idea to a 'tag'.

2. means nothing these days because everyone has made a claim upon it like trendy fashion becoming mainstreamed. Now I hear mega churches describe themselves as missional.

3. is meant to also suggest that mission is the organising principle of the said church rather then worship which has become the main organising principle in most 'Christendom' churches.

I accept that some of these descriptors will create their own new problems for this conversation but a little more context never hurt!

Thanks for the blog, Maggi, which I greatly enjoy reading ocassionally.

Andrew

[Tom Allen]

I was quite suprised by your post Maggi - I thought from what you had written that your view of missional would be more catholic (ie comprehensive or universal). I am more than content to use the label "missional" as someone whose vocation is as "a mission priest" but it does depend upon a truly catholic and trinitarian definition of the word which focuses on the essential "being" of the Trinity rather than the more recent evangelical protestant definition which equates missional with "doing" and as a refit of evangelism. A trinitarian defintion regards mission as the overiding principle which for example would understand worship as the core missional component of what it means to be Church.
I have set aside some time in August to offer a write-up which will appear in potted form on the blog.

[maggi]

hi Tom, you're right about the Catholicity element; it's precisely the "you must DO this in order to qualify" aspect of the missional tag that worries me. I've even heard it used with the implication that unless you are missional (i.e. realising an active function of missionality... another appalling word!!) than you are not true CHurch.
As I understand it, the Missio Dei implies something that is already world-sized, and the Church is the beginning of the realisation of that Missio. Nothing we DO in mission will make us more worthy of God's love, or improve upon God himself. But neither is it really helpful to allow for "missional" to imply (as it does in many usages) that separatism is a requirement for co-operating in Missio Dei. The historical church (despite the failings of large and lumbering institutions) is not something we can or should just wash our hands of and walk away from in the name of being "missional".

[Tom Allen]

I guess my journey has been very different from many others who would use the label missional - I come from (and highly value) my Anglo catholic background. I will always be grateful (through Greenbelt)to Dave Tomlinson and his book "Post-evanglical" - because although it spoke for many things I felt it also made me realise that I was not "post" anything, and that my catholic (note the small "c") background actually had most things which I needed for my future journey, and this enabled me to move to ordination "within the Church". Dave has subsequently discovered this as an Anlgican priest. I find a similar affinity with much that say Allelon are writing and sharing thought it comes from a clearly protestant background. If missional is to mean anything long-term it will only happen within the formal Church in its diverse forms - the History of the Church reveals that break aways will ulitmately die from their own exclusiveness.

[maggi]

that's an interesting connection, Tom - I was a founder member with Dave of "Holy Joe's" which was the community at the heart of the Postevangelical story. I think I was the first of that crowd to head off for ordination, and another five followed on - some of us, including me, were already Anglicans as well as belonging to Holy Joes, and Dave and one or two others became Anglican along the way. Others in that group held together their membership of Holy Joes with other historical expressions of church. Part of my reflection on the connection between new forms and historical church appears in my chapter in The Postevangelical Debate, which was published in 1997 as a reply to Dave's book.

[don't eat alone]

Maggi

Your post still has me thinking. I wrote about it last night.

Peace,
Milton

[paul]

hi maggi, hope all is well - am trying to remember what i said when you asked me about this whilst in guernsey - i think i said something like, it's a poncy (?) word that tries to describe how we should embody love....

please correct me if i am wrong.....glad you are on the mend....

[maggi]

thanks Milton - I caught your comment earlier on my RSS feed, that was a real encouragement. A lot of the theological work I do has to do with the form in which we do things - how the form means something, rather than just being a "wrapper" for what we are trying to say.

Paul, that is pretty much exactly what you said; I recall it was absolutely chucking it down with rain at the time and we were wetter than a pair of ducks. A typically Yorkshire no-frills analysis... :)

[mamacrow]

mmm. I get very twitchy when words to do with being a 'missionary' come up.

In my mind, the best way to 'spread the good news' is simply in the way you live your life. Anything more agressive smacks of, to me, the victorians musseling in and declaring what dresses must be worn or 'you're not 'godly''.

[P3T3RK3Y5]

i also don't like / get the term missional - even though a friend of mine has tried to disciple me ;) so it's nice to see your thoughts here maggi :)

it appears to me that the churches that are embracing this term are the ones already rethinking church - and shoulda already picked up the "corrective" / redeeming aspect of this term in their DNA.

[Tim]

Alan and Eleanor Kreider addressed the issue of the connection between worship and mission at the residential conference of the Anabaptist Network back in May. I wrote an extensive review of it on my blog here

I'm a bit confused about the idea that you can be the church without being in mission for Christ. Surely there are several commands, right from the lips of Jesus, at constitutional moments in the church's life, which are all about mission? I'm afraid that a church which spends all its time worshipping and never does any mission is exactly the sort of church which a lot of people outside the church see as being completely irrelevant.

[Glen Powell]

I'm sure no one will read this far... identity is not exclusive of community. 'Missional' christians do not have to become a clique.

People are always looking for labels that help to express identity... The labels get used or misused, but can be part of saying 'here is who I am - a starting point for a conversation/communion'.

For me, 'missional' re-links 'being' with 'doing'. It is about realising that our identity as church and individual servants (who discover they are children) of God is inextricably linked to our participation in God's mission of making the world a better place.

Our identity and our purpose are inseparable. Each depends on the other. If one then the other...

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

Maggi,

Some important cautions here. While not a comprehensive definition, I have come to under the Gospel as:

"The Gospel is the glory of the Triune God made manifest in His work to reconcile every person to union with Himself, communion with others, to fullness of life, and to harmony with Creation, in the context of community for the good of all."

Part of this is restoring the Bride to her rightful place as the Church. To that end, to be missional is to participate in this perichoretic dance towards reconciliation. It does not offer something more than being Church, but sees that the Church as Bride and as Body is a central end. It is driven by the passionate love that seeks to see everyone come into the embrace of Bridegroom.

I believe the word "missional", for all its misuses and abuses (and there are many), is worth holding on to. Post like yours will help to keep us on the right track. Thanks!

Peace,
Jamie

[Kelly]

Thanks for this post! I have also had an issue with the word "missional" and the way that it is being thrown about these days. The discussion here was excellent, with much food for thought!