: on being missional :

AJ 'blogged a bit yesterday on an article in Christian Week that frustrated him somewhat ( his 'blog is listed over in the right hand column ). My comment in response was that maybe 'missional' as the M-word was simply getting 'over-used' not necessarily abused? I also mentioned my alumni newsletter had arrived in the mail from Tyndale Seminary in Toronto, and I lost track of the number of times "missional" was used in it. So, what gives?

I went back this morning and re-read some of Tyndale's articles a bit more carefully. First off, Tyndale's Prez, Brian Stiller, defined missional as meaning "to see the world as God - Creator, Redeemer, and Saviour - sees it". He goes on to say that as Tyndale's faculty have wrestled with the same things Andy struggled with in Stanley Porter's CW article, they have come to see that "to be missional is to be in the stream of the Spirit as He empowers the people of God to give witness to the life of Christ". Later in the newsletter Tyndale's associate professor of Global Christianity, Dr. Wafik Wahba, makes these distinctions:

mission : the calling of the Church to participate in God's mission in and to the world.

missions : the structures and activities carried by the church in order to fulfill the task of mission.

missional : the very essence of the Church. A missional church is a church that lives according to its very nature and calling.

So I think maybe Dean Porter of MacMaster School of Theology, Andy, and Corrine are all right ( Corrine was the first to comment on Andy's post ). I also know that there are WAY better minds than mine who have, and continue to invest, big time in this discussion ... Len at www.nextreformation.com would be one. However, I sometimes wonder if the whole conversation isn't about re-calibrating back to a true and faithful re-understanding of mission/missions/missional? I think something got lost along the way, maybe even in my lifetime, and this thing will come full circle.

Already the 'terms' postmodern and possibly even missional are falling out of favour with people, families, faith communities, churches and ministries who are actually doing it, being missional. Maybe churches and seminaries and para-church agencies need to still be talking it up to bring their constituencies on board, but at the grass roots level, where Andy and Corrine live, in a part of Victoria called Gordon Head, just being faithful is all that is needed. Which brings me around to one last observation. Another term in this conversation is 'incarnational' ... but if you are incarnational, you don't have to talk about being missional, you just are. Maybe that is why AJ got a little frustrated ...

dlc

ps. on the other hand, I continue to find myself fascinated by the work, writing, thought and prayer that people like Jamie Arpin-Ricci, Len Hjalmarson, Al Roxborough and others are doing. The shift taking place is a big one, and we need both, or all, of the spectrum covered. And I am only aware of a teensy slice ... and don't quite know where I fit in?

UPDATE : okay, I am officially of two minds on this. Practically, daily, grassroots level? we need to just get on with it, incarnationally meet, greet, welcome, host, shop, coach and serve in our neighbourhoods and little 'spheres of influence' ... work, school, friends, family. AND ... we have to understand what is going on. Feeling a little guilty I just spent an hour surfing Len's 'blog, Jamie's, and others who really are unpacking all this. It is critical stuff. It makes me think, and act, differently. Maybe I do need both?