The term "missional" is getting thrown around so much these days I'm not sure it really means anything any more. It runs a serious risk of just being another faddish buzzword tossed around by Christians who either use it to try to draw people into their mega-sized church buildings for a show involving jingly-jangly singing to Jesus (in terms and to tunes that make him sound like someone's boyfriend) or to protect themselves from actually doing anything by just "participating in the conversation."
Sigh.
Below are screenshots (click on them to see larger) from a couple of seminary websites wherein the term "missional" is used. In one I think the usage is accurate, and in the other I suspect it isn't. Can you guess which is which, and what do you think about this?
I am thinking the second article is the bum steer. Arg.
ReplyDeleteI was in a church that threw the word 'missional' around more than the 'Jesus.' We became a missional church and did missional things and ended up losing half our members. Missional may be a cool word but, the way it was used in that case, it was a way of avoiding actually being missional.
My friend Sonia (at Calacirian blog) suggested checking out your post, and it was indeed a very good lead! I appreciate Dr. Walborn's profile of what *missional* really means: Cross-cultural communication and ministry--even when we speak the same language. Being vision carriers who embody (though imperfectly) what we teach/preach instead of just vision casters who theoretically have it perfected. Customizing to the individual or social context without bowing the knee to culture. As a student of linguistics and a former administrative systems worker (translation: "peon") at multiple departments in a seminary, I suspect Alliance Seminary under Dr. Walborn's leadership will survey the paradigm clash-and-crash we're now undergoing. Reading his blurb made me wanna go there!
ReplyDeleteThe second screenshot ... well ... it all sounds rather nice, but I've never really considered being *missional* as about being "nice."
Nice contrast, Adam!
ReplyDeleteOf course if we don't read carefully it's tempting to say that the Princeton profile is the real deal. They've got the names and the whiz bang. But when you read Dr. Walborn's vision ... well, he's got it and in spades. He's the guy I'd want to learn from and listen to. Because he's the guy who was doing "missional" long before it was the latest cool, trendy thing to be doing.
I don't remember ... are you a member at Missional Tribe? If you are, would you consider cross-posting this over there? Maybe as a discussion in one of the forums ... or something like that. I think it might make for some good discussion fodder ... maybe.
Good thoughts, everyone.
ReplyDeleteSonja, I don't think I was ever a member of Missional Tribe. I've been pulling out of religious forums over the past several months. I don't have the patience to deal with it.
Adam,
ReplyDeleteThe first example gives a more robust description of "missional" and how the writer views it being applied. The second example "missional" is only used as an adjective with no real explanation -- perhaps the meaning is assumed? Which is to say, I'm not sure you can make much of what folks at Princeton understand and mean by "missional" from this one example. Then again, maybe that's your point? When "missional" just becomes another whiz-bang buzzword to add "spice" to an otherwise boring seminary event then, yeah, I'd agree, we've lost the plot ;-)
So which is it? Which were you thinking is the clearly "suspect" one?
Shalom,
Steve K.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
ReplyDeleteThe first oen says things people were saying 50 years ago, but they still aren't doing them.
And the second is one removed even from that -- it's saying things about other people saying things.
I'm not sure that either article captures the heart of "missional" though #2 really doesn't say enough to know what they mean.
ReplyDeleteThere's a subtle distinction, I would suggest, missing in #1. It's the distinction between market transaction and organic relationship.
In a market transaction, we hold Jesus as information that must be transmitted in a relevant manner to a fallen culture "out there."
In organic relationship, we perceive ourselves as no different than our fallen culture. ALL people are seen and felt and treated as God's family, not potential religious converts.
The idea of "reaching our culture for Jesus" is radically transformed when, in our heart, we live in a place that does not (in any way) separate us from others, save for the blood.
Missional, then, is more about how we learn to represent Jesus not as something we possess - not as a market transaction - not as an "us and them" duality - not as an academic collection of rational truths that "we" have and "they" don't.
I love Brent Toderash's little missional saying: "Live your faith, share you life."