The Next-Wave Ezine: Issue #100

current issue index



next-wave |  about |  bookstore |  archived |  advertise |  charlie wear's notes |  links April 2007
Why I am Not Missional
 
 
Why I’m Not Missional by Dwight Friesen

Missional language does not do justice to the joy, mystery and fullness of life Christ invites us to share with the Triune God. 

Mission often paints mental pictures of a task to complete, more than pictures of a life to live.  Like the Blues Brothers on their "mission from God," anything that did not obviously contribute to the completion of their mission was treated without respect.  So when we see individual conversion, or serving marginalized peoples, or saving our planet as THE mission then everything else plays second fiddle.  Because of this subtle singularity communicated through missional language, dualism is reinforced.  This dualism suggests, "missional is important, everything else is less important."  Church work is important - web design is less important; working in a homeless shelter is important - working at the holiday inn is less important; working to save the rain forest is important - doing yard work at home is less important. 

We don't believe that God is more concerned with what we do than who we are; God has always been interested in us as whole beings.  Generally we say we believe that what we do is inextricably linked to who we are and vice-versa.  A thoughtful reading of most missional texts will reveal that mission naturally flows out life with Christ (see Jones, Newbigin, Mead, Bosch, Guder, to name a few).  So why choose language that inadvertently emphasizes task completion? 

Often church and organizational leaders like to stress a singularity of mission so that they can encourage more Christians to attach themselves to the leader's vision or mission.  This is a great way for leaders to get their pet projects done, to make a name for themselves, grow large ministries, and of course bring honor to God.  The much harder thing for a leader to do is to help the people in their relational networks uniquely express Christ.  That kind of unique Kingdom service may be hard to take credit for.

At this time I have chosen the language of incarnational living instead of missional living.  The language of incarnational living more meaningfully emphasizes living Christ in and through his followers in any and all relationships, situations, and cultural contexts.  It places the mystery of life with Christ at the center of each follower's life and each faith community's life together. 

Incarnational living invites all Christ-followers to flesh-out their uniqueness, encouraging the totality of their being to be seen as a reflection or embodiment of Christ.  When people and their subsequent communities see their "being" as inevitably making the invisible Christ visible through their lives, then every interaction, every act, every moment of stillness becomes a Christ moment.  This explodes the singularity of mission; now life becomes mission in a holistic sense.  Mission is inevitable when Christ is incarnated, but without incarnation mission looks a lot like busy religiosity. 

When Christ is incarnated through you and me, we will be looking for ways to empty ourselves in the service of the Father by serving others as the Holy Spirit guides us.  We become active participants in a Divine dance through which all of creation is being reconciled to Christ.  This is a dynamic faith process that will always find unique expression through each follower of Christ and each cluster of Christ-followers.  So much so that one person incarnating Christ out of their uniqueness may appear to be in direct conflict with another person incarnating Christ out of their uniqueness - but fear not, God is big enough to handle such occasional difference. 

Of course there is not a genuine dichotomy between these two phrases.  Mission is always lived out of our being and incarnational living always results in doing.  Every person (Christ-follower or not) and every organization is missional, and the more purpose driven in the execution of their mission the more they are viewed as successful.  There is nothing uniquely Christian about being missional.  Christ-followers may espouse a mission that serves God and others - but we are not alone in such selfless service, nor are we entirely selfless.  What does set Christian mission apart is that Christ is lifted high, He is made visible.  What makes mission Christian is that Christ is incarnated.

I choose to emphasize incarnational living precisely because only in and through the living Christ is "mission" Christian.  Don't waste your life living missionally and trying to get others to live missionally; live Christ and life in its fullness is yours, live Christ and the hope of purpose is yours, live Christ and mission… well it's simply inevitable.

 


RECENT COMMENTS


I guess that's part of my point. Evangelical Christians believe they have something or know something or someone that everyone else needs to have/know. They have made an assessment of the evidence and are acting on it by telling others or trying to convince/demonstrate to the targets of their activities that their understanding of the historical Jesus and scripture is true and correct. I think that's fine up to the point where we do not show the same level of respect for others perspectives as we would hope they have for ours.

My experience of evangelical Christianity is very much "this brand of faith/religion/Christianity is THE Way the Truth and the Life and if you don't agree then you're probably going to burn for ever"... that to me is paternalistic, it's not about dialogue, mutual respect and open-mindedness but about closing down any discussion, keeping it clear cut and dominated by the evangelist's (often very limited) understanding of ultimate reality and the meaning of life.

I'm interested in what 'knowing Christ' means to others - I think the relationship people have to the person/idea of Christ is very interesting and not something talked about in depth very much. I consider I've had a relationship with Christ all my life, though at one point in my teens during the late 80's I had what I described at the time as a conversion experience, was baptised in the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues, etc. and since then have had a couple more conversion experiences that I can identify that were much less spectacular outwardly but much deeper - and I expect to have a few or many more 're-orienting' opportunities if I live longer.

I'm no longer convinced that someone needs to 'know Jesus' in order to be 'saved' - most people who claim to have a personal relationship with Jesus really scare me with their ignorance, apathy, indifference, prejudice and arrogance. I'm no saint either but I think a lot of Christians give Christ a bad name and they should probably listen a bit more and think before talking (or singing).

I guess I am saying, from my perspective, many of those who think they know Christ ARE different from those who they think don't know Christ... but maybe not for the reasons they expect. Does knowing Christ make it any easier to live more like Christ? I think for some people this is true but from the little I think I know of Christ, there are many more who do not claim to know Christ who perhaps live The Way Christ calls us all to live... loving God and loving others as we love ourselves.


I don't know if "got something" is the terminology I'd use, but Christians certainly have met someone that others need to meet. If I believe that my life has been forever changed by Jesus Christ and that a new reality is being formed through and in him, how is it paternalistic to say that someone who doesn't know Jesus needs to know Jesus? I appreciate the desire to avoid an "us v. them" mentality, but if those who know Christ are no different than those who don't, what are we talking about?


Language is practice in that it is shaped by and in turn shapes our understanding of the world as we describe our ideas and ascribe meaning to experiences.

For example 'mission', 'missionary' and 'missional' in my context are all loaded with the legacy of the intimate relationship between missionaries and colonists who both led the destruction of indigenous cultures - one in the name of God, the other in the name of the King/Queen - and both in the name of European 'civilisation'.

So when you say "'incarnational' implies everything contained in 'missional'" - it's not a good thing from my perspective. Yes there were missionaries who did try to protect the indigenous peoples from the onslaught of European expansion - as some 'missionaries' today try to critique the onslaught of American and multi-national market expansion - but now as then there seems to be low levels of understanding about the 'missionaries' own cultural baggage and a lack of respect and appreciation for what God is already doing in the communities being missioned to.

Similarly for me, 'incarnational' implies the person doing the 'incarnating' is somehow more sanctified and Christ-like than those who exist in the context into which the 'incarnate' is 'incarnating'... but maybe my assumptions are misguided and 'incarnational' simply means bearing witness to where God is already 'incarnate' in a community/context/life. That would seem like a more equal relationship where there exists more room for negotiating our understanding of what the Spirit incarnate looks like from different perspectives.


I tend to think that the people who identify with incarnational and missional, when descriptive of practice and not merely used in language, actually do build bridges and tear down walls. The awareness that these people may consider Christ is at work through them toward others whom God also loves is not cause for criticism. It's cause for celebration. As for disclosing paternalistic attitudes; since when is actively living life to benifit other human beings in need because you believe God's Spirit is alive and working through you paternalistic? Conceit can take many forms but I have noticed that many "incarnational" Christians are in fact humble and selfless conduits for God's amazing grace, both to others outside and inside any perceived boundaries of the Church. I really like incarnational because it implies everything contained in missional while also identifying the source.


PS. I used to like the term 'incarnational' and connected my choices to 'downshift' and serve others (particularly 'the poor') with Phillipians 2 - but then realised how conceited it was to assume that I was anything like Christ and others were somehow less like Him!


I think both 'missional' and 'incarnational' are honest terms to use as they disclose the paternalistic attitude of most contemporary Christians who think they have got something other people need. These terms reinforce the 'us' (good, Godly, Christ-like) vs. 'them' (lost, sinners, heathen) distinctions and reinforce the walls rather than bridges between themselves and others that followers of Christ still like to build.


I have preferred the term incarnational since hearing about it and seeing it lived well by some individuals the last 8+ years. I haven't actually reflected much on why I moved away from 'missional' after encouraging some others to adopt the phrase when it was becoming popular in the 90's. Perhaps it is the implied directionality of the word, privileging the one doing mission over the one on the receiving end. Incarnational seems to lend itself to emphasizing a common humanity where God's spirit is at work among all.


So what you're saying here is that the church is the RE-incarnation of Christ?


Copyright © 2010 Next-Wave Ezine.
All rights reserved.


Next-Wave Ezine - Issue #100
Editorial
 
Issue Credits
 
 
Cover Story

100 Months
 
 
Featured Article: At the Top
100 months and on...
 
 
Featured Article: Spotlight
Bad Things Happen
 
 
Church Planting
Culturally Relevant Ministry in a Postmodern World
 
 
Doing Church
That's Not Community!
 
 
Church Culture
When the Church Is Its Own Worst Enemy
 
 
Missional
Why I am Not Missional
 
 
Emerging Church
The Emerging Storm
 
Field Report: A Woman in Ministry
 
Origin of the terms "Emerging" and "Emergent Church"
 
 
Culture
They Say It's Just a Phase
 
What I Mean When I Say "Emerging Missional Church"
 
 
Theology
What is The Gospel?
 
 
Interviews
Interview With Stan Grenz
 
Organic Church with Neil Cole
 
 
Church Life
The Next Reformation
 
 
Adventures in Emerging
Emerging Pastor Magazine!