MISSIONAL EVERYTHING

This past week the Plain Writing Act went into effect. It requires the Federal government to write in  simple, easy-to-understand language. Hurrah! Too bad that separation of church and state prevents the Federal Government from making church hierarchy write in plain language.

Yes, I am still carry on about “missional” this and that. I despise that word. It seems to be an adjective derived from the word “mission,” but it doesn’t function that way. Take the expression “missional church.” That should mean a church with a mission. Problem is that every church has a mission. I am aware that The-Sources-Of-All-Wisdom think that only some churches have a mission. Not true. Every church has a purpose, something it is trying to accomplish. The church might not be able to say what the mission is, or it might say it is one thing but act as if it were something else, or the members might disagree on the mission, but they certainly have a mission or perhaps several.  

It is obvious, then, that the word “missional” has some other meaning than simply “having a mission.” My experience, however, is that many who use the term are quite vague about what it means. I’m not the only person who thinks so.  Alan Hirsch writes the following in his article in Christianity Today “Defining Missional.”

"It has become increasingly difficult to open a ministry book or attend a church conference and not be accosted by the word missional. A quick search on Google uncovers the presence of 'missional communities,' 'missional leaders,' 'missional worship,' even 'missional seating,' and "missional coffee." Today, everyone wants to be missional."

Missional seating? That's a new one on me. Must be what you do when you’re around a missional table drinking missional coffee. Fortunately Hirsch is able to give an elaboration of the context of missional. 

“A proper understanding of missional begins with recovering a missionary understanding of God. By his very nature God is a ‘sent on’ who takes the initiative to redeem his creation. . . . Because we are the ‘sent’ people of God, the church is the instrument of God's mission in the world. As things stand, many people see it the other way around. They believe mission is an instrument of the church; a means by which the church is grown. Although we frequently say ‘the church has a mission,’ according to missional theology a more correct statement would be ‘the mission has a church.’”

That is something I agree with. If the mission of a church is only to preserve the institution of the church, then it is a failure.

I also agree with an implication of this idea for the individual. “A missional theology is not content with mission being a church-based work. Rather, it applies to the whole life of every believer. Every disciple is to be an agent of the kingdom of God, and every disciple is to carry the mission of God into every sphere of life. We are all missionaries sent into a non-Christian culture.”

I'm beginning to comprehend. I found the brief powerpoint display prepared by the ELCA based on the book: Treasurers in Clay Jars edited by Lois Barrett a help. However, I'll need a lot more information  to grasp the details.

So why am I still suspicious of the term missional? First, because it is so seldom defined in any compre- hensible manner. It’s just dropped in places with the expectation that everyone know what it means. I am not at all convinced of that. I’m not stupid, but I have difficulty in understanding it.

Second, I have my deep-seated mistrust of Higher-Ups.  An old friend–let me change that–a friend of long acquaintance opined, “Missional is the jargon for ‘get out there and get more members so you can send more money to us.’” I’m sure Those-In-Authority would deny that, but what would happen if a congregation, as a result of becoming missional, decided to redirected its benevolence from the Synod to distribution of food to the poor? What if they sold the church building to give the money away to the homeless? What if the process of becoming missional meant that 75% of the members quit? I’d venture to say the Missional-Authorities would be down on that church like a ton of missional bricks.

This leads to a third point; every religion must become institutionalized if it is to survive past the days of its founder. This is always true. It was true in earliest Christianity in the formation of churches. But there is a danger in this process that preservation of the institution becomes more important that the purpose of the institution. This is the danger missional people rightfully point to. But how does the missional approach form and sustain the institution needed to support mission?  Perhaps when I read some more I’ll understand how the missional approach intends to create or preserve the necessary institution, but I am skeptical. 

Fourth, I suspect the whole missional movement is grounded in Post-modernism. I think Christians need to be as cautious about Post-modernism as any other “ism.” I fear that the missional movement will become caught in the relativist Post-modern view of the world and thus undermine the mission to make disciples for Jesus Christ.

Fifth, I need to learn how the missional movement understands the fullness of Baptism. Baptism is an incorporation into the death of Christ, it makes one part of Christ’s body, but it also brings one into a local community of believers who gather around word and sacrament. If that’s not essential to the missional movement, it is not centered in the Christ who commands us to baptize and “do this in remembrance of me.” In exploring the web I notice that I am not alone in wondering how missional and worship fit together.

The last thing, I am pretty sure all this missional talk is the just the latest form of church-babble. I’ve seen it all come and go before. When I started in the ministry 'goal-setting' was an absolute necessity for the church. Then we had to have a Mission Statement. Then that was considered passe as we really needed a Vision Statement.

Fifteen years from now I suspect almost no one will be talking missional anything because we will have moved on to some new concept with its own bizarre language. Maybe Multi-Emergent Transinclusivity will be the new thing. (I just made that up. If it happens, you read it here first.)  I hope whatever is good in this missional talk will survive, but I just know that someday a new crowd of Powers-That-Be will be shaking their heads sadly at the backward clergy and churches that are still talking missional anything.

I am still critical of the sloppy way “missional” is thrown around without ever making its meaning clear. I am, however, open to the positive contribution it may make to the life of Christ’s followers.

The Lord bless you on your journey and greet you on your arrival.

Wayne


NOTE ADDED 5/29 Just discovered that both Multi-emergent and Trans Inclusivity are terms already in use in English (I use the word 'English' loosely). Only a matter of time before the churches pick them up. It's a sign of doom when I can put together the silliest terms I can think of and then find that some yo-yos  use them. To use a good Hebrew term taken over into Yiddish, OY!



16790