Missional & Location: Inseparably Connected - UPDATED
Previous Post - Carnivorous Bunny & Winged Watchers
UPDATE (June 10, 2007): I just had lunch with Brother Maynard and I think we understand each other better. We didn't even have to resort to trading fists (wink). I want to add that in order to understand this post, please go and read the comments at Bill's blog I link to below. When I quoted BroMay, I presumed readers would get the context by read those comments first. That was a mistake, meaning that some would have read the excerpt of his comment out of context and got the wrong impression.
BroMay, obviously believes that location/context is important. What was at issue was that he felt I had not clearly communicated my concept, leaving the impression that I believed everyone must relocate to be missional. While he & I may still disagree on some of the details on the issue, we understand the others position better.
The other day, while reading over at Achievable Ends (one of my daily favourites), I noticed a link to a new blog by Allelon called "Moving into the Neighborhood". Admittedly, when I saw that title I made the assumption that it was (at least in part) about relocating for missional purposes. When I realized that this was not the intention of the blog, but rather about being missional engaged in suburbia, I expressed my disappointment in the comment section. Here is where the misunderstanding began.
I was not disappointed that Allelon was launching a blog on this topic, but rather, as I was excited about the prospect, I was disappointed that my assumption had been wrong. In fact, I think few organization are better poised to explore this important issue. Perhaps now more than ever the need for an intentional engagement of missionality within the suburban context is necessary. For those who find themselves in this context, I believe this blog will be invaluable.
However, the discussion that resulted between myself and my good friend Brother Maynard has sparked some interesting questions for me. Is location a significant aspect of missionality? Brother Maynard suggests:
Missional to me is about incarnating the message, embodying it... and on that basis, location doesn't matter. The inner city is of course a concern and needs people to embody the message there, but that's not the same issue. People need to act/engage missionally. End of sentence.
I agree that missionality is incarnational. Location certainly does not centrally/exclusively define how missional a person is. However, I do believe that location cannot be separated so definitively from missionality. From an individual perspective, location becomes a much more clear issue- no location or vocation is more important than any other. However, if we look at the big picture of the larger Church, it's importance becomes more significant. Let me try to explore this from my own context.
I was first introduced to the importance of relocation over five years ago when I first met my late friend, Pastor Harry Lehotsky. He made pioneering the YWAM ministry in Winnipeg possible with all the ways he served us, but on one condition- that we would move into the neighbourhood and make it our own. We gladly agreed. He then gave us a copy of "Restoring At-Risk Communities: Doing It Together and Doing It Right" by John Perkins. Relocation was one of three R's Perkin's advocated (the others being reconciliation & redistribution). After five years, I am more convinced than ever.
I live and minister in an inner city neighbourhood that is populated by dead and dying churches (that said, those that remain are often amazing examples for us all). The need for missional communities to become part of the neighbourhood is desperately needed. While I am not advocating every Christian abandon their rural and suburban neighbourhoods, I believe for communities to be missional they must consider intentionally rooting their lives in specific communities as an essential expression of their missional commitment. One cannot be missional without prayerfully considering their location, not letting it be incidental to the incarnational faith.
Again, I am not saying everyone must relocate. Rather, I am saying that to be truly missional we must all, as individuals and communities, consider if our location in the context of our missional vocation, both in the specific vocations and the universal vocation of the whole Church. The great narrative of God through history as seen throughout the entire Bible seems significantly rooted in location. We cannot assume that we are called to a location simply because that happens to be where we are- that may end up being the case, but the question must be asked.
What do you think? Is location critical to missionality? Am I overstating things as a result of my own choices and vocation?
A while back, I wrote a post about the reason that our church is neighborhood-specific: http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/?p=631 (Comment this)
I agree. Thanks for the link. I'll go check it out.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
IMO, if your "mission" revolves around a cause then the closer you are to that cause--the more you have cast your fate in with its success/failure, the more effective/credible your involvement will be. I can help out at a school but if my kids attend a private school across town, my credibility is limited. If my kid goes there, then I will be intimately involved with whatever joy/sorrow comes from the school.
Regardless, mission will always include more than "the task at hand". One cannot underestimate the importance of the tangential and intangible impact of simply being there. (Comment this)
I think you actually are missing my point. I believe that to be inclusive in our consideration of location when exploring missionality my scope is bigger, not narrower. I am not at all suggesting having mission revolve around a cause, but rather that (as Makeesha has articulated in her comment) being missional means being intentional in all of life, including location. Location cannot (generally) be incidental to missionality.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Exactly. I am glad I am not completely unintelligible. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Conversely, if I live in a neighborhood where people "keep to themselves", I can't adopt an "everybody get to know each other" attitude. I'd need to contact folks individually.
Is that what you mean? (Comment this)
No, we are still not connecting. I am simply saying that to be missional we must consider our location. Location is not incidental. I am simply saying that to be missional one must at least examine ones location. It is about being intentional in all aspects of life, including location.
As we prayerfully consider our locations, most will likely find that God is calling them to be intentional in engaging in their neighbourhood, while others will discover that God is calling them to other neighbourhoods. My point is that, unless we are intentional about examining location and its significance, we might miss something important.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
(Comment this)
But it may not be everyone's. That was something we all had to wrestle through at Winnipeg Centre Vineyard back in the late 90's -- would we become missional snobs who looked down our spiritual noses at people living in the suburbs?
Being missional simply means "bloom where you're planted, unless God clearly calls you somewhere else". If someone were to say "how can I be more missional", I would start by asking "where do you currently live, and do you know the names of your neighbours?"
(sorry about the double post -- not sure how/why that happened) (Comment this)
I am not sure how much more clearly I can say it. Clearly I am not doing it well, as you both seem to be missing my point.
I understand that my calling is urban. I am not suggesting in ANY way that it is everyones calling. I am in NO WAY down playing the call to suburbia. Read my post and my comments and it is unarguable that I think it is an important calling that I affirm.
What I am saying is that location is not incidental (aka insignificant or irrelevant) to being missional. I am not saying any one location is better than an other, but rather that to be missional means to be intentionally aware of our calling and our context, moving obediently and responsibly towards what is right.
At the most I am suggesting that certain contexts appear to have too few Christians engaging them, which suggests to me that someone isn't where they should be. I think there are people who are not being obedient by no relocating to the urban context. However, I also believe there are people being disobedient for not relocating and/or incarnating in the suburban context.
To say that being missional transcends calling/vocation simply baffles me. Missionality is defined by the Missio Dei, which in turns is the context out of which all callings/vocations are defined. They cannot be separated in my understanding.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Perhaps, but consider this. Missionality is defined by the Missio Dei. The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. This is more true of some locations than others. Therefore, while one can be missional anywhere, if everyone is missional in only a few places, are WE (aka the Church) truly being missional?
This is what concerns me about a great deal of the missional conversation- that the strong emphasis on being missional where you are (locally) it fails to see the concept in its larger vocational mandate (globally). Thanks for weighing in!
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Is this akin to what is happening among the ex-churched? In my case, I was sitting in a pew (with other Christians), going to Bible studies in homes (with other Christians), reading books and listening to radio (for Christians), attending events and concerts (for Christians), going on missions trips (to serve Third World Christians), and generally hanging out (exclusively with Christians). All the while, I'm hearing about reaching "the lost".
One day I realized: if I'm going to "reach the lost" I've got to get the hell out of here. (Comment this)
No, what I mean is that, as Christians (individually & as communities) decide where to live our lives (including, but not only where we "do" church), we need to seek God as to where. We assume in our Western freedom that it is our choice where we live, but I believe as Christians we submit that right to the calling of God. It may very well be where we are already, but it very well may not be as well.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
LOL! So, is that a "LOL, I get it now" or "LOL, I have no idea what you are talking about"?
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Absolutely. And I believe that listening to all those things (including location) is inseparably part of what it mean to be missional.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
That won't stop me from another guess, though.
Not that it has to do with location, but would a respect for the planet and its resources fall under this broader scope of missional living? I mean, along with seeking God's direction as to *where* I live, shouldn't I also be seeking God's direction as to my impact on that environment? Not to pick on "suburbia" but it is not the best use of the planet's resources when one takes into consideration the increased energy and infrastructure demands of living singly. Apartment/urban dwelling has a much lower impact (along with living close to shopping, work, and leisure spaces). (Comment this)
I should have been more clear before. When I said "No", I was referring to "No, that's not what I mean exactly". However, much of what you were sharing is indeed missional living. So please do not read that I am dismissing what you are saying.
Absolutely missionality has a lot to do with Creation. You are right that there are aspects of suburban living that are not very ecologically friendly which we need to resist while remain contextually engaged. There are ways to be irresponsible in the urban context too. Again, one is not better by any means, but in the big picture, we need people to be in all of them as is needed, not as is comfortable.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
I think I would add a "necessarily" in there - but I think this is key - we need to be intentional about where we live as part of living the mission and it is not NECESSARILY going to be where it is comfortable.
I mentioned this to Jamie in an email - I think that suburban living, from the conversations I have had with people, is often a cop out. They will say "well, suburbanites need Jesus too" but the reality is that they're not living the mission in a suburban context, they're just living in mindless comfort that is not remotely intentional (just sailing along, riding the wind of the american dream with their sails wide open) and justifying it. There is no "mission" going on at all.
This does not just happen in suburbia, it happens wherever people are comfortable - - however, because suburban living is the top rung of the american dream (and I imagine most of the west), it seems to be the biggest trap and the area people need to examine their motives the most.
so if you're going to live in suburbia, you have a very very difficult task ahead of you (and a glorious one if you do it well) - to live the mission, engage the culture and do so without compromise, without getting complacent and cozy.
I love how the message puts "living the mission"
Matthew 10:34
"Don't think I've come to make life cozy. I've come to cut—make a sharp knife-cut between son and father, daughter and mother, bride and mother-in-law—cut through these cozy domestic arrangements and free you for God. Well-meaning family members can be your worst enemies.
and this
1 Peter 2:11
Friends, this world is not your home, so don't make yourselves cozy in it. Don't indulge your ego at the expense of your soul. Live an exemplary life among the natives so that your actions will refute their prejudices. Then they'll be won over to God's side and be there to join in the celebration when he arrives.
for some reason I understand Jamie but I don't seem to be doing better at helping him explain himself - -hopefully this doesn't add to the confusion (Comment this)
In any event, we're clearly not talking about the same things. For my part, the definition of missional is important, and I think you're trying to complexify it (I think that's a George W. Bush word, innit?) by adding something that doesn't belong. Nobody's saying location doesn't matter, just that it isn't part of the missional package when trying to interpret urban vs. suburban or Winnipeg vs. Timbuktu. Be missional where you are. Period. Other than missional implying "in the world" vs. "in the pew," there's no location attached. This is *very much* what the God of Israel is all about... he is the God who *goes with* his people where they go, unlike the territorial deities of the day. Being missional where you are means being the incarnational gospel wherever you go... but it doesn't "lessen" or change your "missionality" by virtue of where it is you chose or are called to go.
As nice as I can try to say it, I think there are some corollary matters to what you're saying that you simply aren't considering or haven't been able to see. You keep saying that we don't understand what you're saying, but is it perhaps possible that we (or I; I won't speak for the others) might be understanding the implications of what you're saying more than you are or in a fashion you haven't considered? This is where the dialogue is necessary.
In the midst of this, you seem to be redefining "missional" to include a *lot* of things that nobody else is rolling up into the word. I get the feeling you might include all of the ought's of the Christian life, and I don't see the connection... it's like saying that Bible study must always include prayer, because that's important too. Well, sure, prayer is important... but we don't redefine the nature of "Bible study" because of it even if the two *do* go hand-in-hand and nobody argues the point. This is a poor example, but it strikes me as the kind of thing you're doing with "missional." All good things, to be sure... but even things that can be done with missional intent are not inversely required in order to be missional. You can open a bookstore with missional intent, but that doesn't mean that missional therefore requires bookstores. Yes, of course I know you're not claiming that - but what you're saying does have the ring of something being read backwards in just the same way.
Basically, you can move locations with missional intent, but missional action in and of itself does not require the move. The move is only required in response to a specific call concerning location. I think we're all called to be missional, but not all called to change location... the two are distinct.
I hope we can discuss further over lunch on Tuesday, without getting into a row about it! (Comment this)
Well said. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
I think it would be good to discuss this over lunch, but I think we are going to end up disagreeing on it in the end anyway. It isn't for a lack of thinking through the implications. We just disagree. No big deal.
However, I do think that there is somewhat of a misunderstanding about what I am saying, as you keep using terms like "vs." which is not at all what I am suggesting. If you are reading any "vs." into my words, you are misunderstanding. Neither did I suggest that missional living requires a move- necessarily. If someone is fleeing their calling to a specific location, there will be serious limits to their capacity to be missional where they are at. Not impossible, but seriously problematic.
On another note, I have already emailed Bill about the comments and he is happy to have them remain up and didn't find them problematic. I don't think this has "escalated". Your challenge at his blog inspired me to write a blog post about the topic. As a result we are having a great discussion. I would ask that you not read into my words (implicationally or otherwise) more than what they say.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
"lets be missional where we are" as an excuse, or at least I have in my own life at points.
If Jesus did have a bias in His ministry to the poor and the needy, then a missional life would too I expect. If that's the case, and that incarnational living is what we are called to, I wonder if you can live in the burbs and do this?
Maybe that's taking it too far. I think that the difference of opinion between yourself and BM is that you believe that being missional involves incarnational living, but BM believes that you live where you live and then you be missional from there. It seems to come down to a view on at what point in your intentional process you think about location, if at all.
Would that be fair?
(Comment this)
Thanks for your comment. I actually believe that missional living in the suburbs is not only possible, but essential. I think the best way to sum up Jesus' perspective is to look at the story of the Prodigal Son. Both sons were equally loved. The father did not have a bias towards the prodigal (though appearances seemed to suggest otherwise to the "good" son), but rather responded the reality of the situation.
(Now, some might suggest that Jesus hung with the poor because He was from a poor family. This might have been the case, we can't be entirely sure. However, many scholars believe that, for Joseph to sustain his craft in Egypt and to make the pilgrimages, etc. his family was more than likely well off. This raises some interesting questions about why He aligned with the poor. However, I don't think it suggests that being missional in suburbia is impossible or unneeded.)
I think Jesus spent time with the marginalized because they were the most wounded (a doctor comes for the sick, not the healthy). So what does this mean for the suburban Christian? It will mean some will need to relocate based on calling, but it will more likely means that, as they seek to missional in their context, they will examine the relationship between the suburban context and the urban one (and there are strong connections). It won't necessarily mean the abandonment of the suburbs, but an intentionality on how those communities relate to the poor in our cities and in the world.
Does that make sense?
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
lemme try yet again - generally speaking, suburban living is the default in the west - it's expected that people "advance to the place in life" where they can buy the house in the burbs and live comfortably with the career and the 2.3 kids and the dog and the summer vacation every year. These things are not inherently bad.
but if, as a Christian, I allow myself to THOUGHTLESSLY default to that location, chances are good that I'm not going to live the mission in the burbs (unless the Spirit shakes me up).
However, if I move to the burbs with the intention of proactively and intentionally living the mission then that's great! It's needed and valuable and important and consistent with "missional".
living in a space where the burbs are valued, I have both experienced and observed the allure to live comfortably and relatively mindlessly in the burbs. Every single friend I have in that space lives that way.
speaking from experience - we could live in the burbs, we could probably financially wing it (we'd be house poor but so is everyone else in Colorado). But the people we hung out with, the locations we enjoyed spending time in and the people we were drawn to as friends, partners in mission and felt called to minister to are not in the burbs, they're in the "urban center" of where we live - which is not a big city so take "urban" for what it's worth.
so we gave up (literally, we were living there) the 4 bedroom house with the fenced in back yard and big trees and moved to an apartment in the heart of a university campus, walking distance from the urban center.
...I guess, maybe I'm seeing this from a personal bias, but to me, that's being missional - - NOT because we moved but because we were intentional about where we lived.
the core leaders in our faith community have done the same thing - they chose where they lived based on the mission. our worship leader moved from a nearby town and intentionally sought out a place close to where our community ministers.
if you already live in the burbs and can't or have no intention of moving or feel called there, well, then of course, live the mission where you are. find a faith community nearby, make friends nearby in the places that make sense, find a third place in your neighborhood...live the mission.
I'm not sure what is so offensive about someone saying that to be missional you must be intentional about where you live and intentional about what you do where you live. (Comment this)
Wow, I wish I could just have you write my blog for me. When you said, "that's being missional - - NOT because we moved but because we were intentional about where we lived." you summed up the heart of my point. Thank you!
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
I see Bro. M. saying that one does not HAVE to move to be missional and I see Jamie agreeing except that he feels in some cases, to live intentionally, some will need to move. They are in agreement, Jamie just adds a caveat.
I hear a bit of defensiveness from both that is likely coming from personal experience - Jamie having moved into an urban center and Bro. M. being passionate about the definition of missional not being muddled and perhaps feeling prickly about suburban dwellers being "attacked" as not being missional enough.
...anyway, those are my perceptions but I really think we all generally agree here even if not about all the qualifiers, caveats and specifics.
in other words, I don't think there's any need for people to feel wounded. I hope no one does. (Comment this)
I tend to agree with your assessment. My own defensiveness (I shouldn't be sensitive, I guess), is more to do with the fact that my words keep being read as though I am placing one location/context above or better than another (i.e. "vs."). Personally, I would find it MUCH harder to be missional in the burbs, so I think it can, in some ways, present a bigger challenge than the urban context.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Secondly, I think that Jamie has opened up a conversation that needs to take place.
(Comment this)
"Bloom where your planted" is only occasionally a helpful cliché. (Sorry Robbymac, but you know I love you.)
We serve a missional God who calls us how and where He wills. For some of us, we hear and see Him at work where we live and we are to respond.
For others, we hear His still small voice calling us into an adventure that does involve relocation. And might I suggest that for most of us (this humble servant included), that is too often the hardest thing to hear and the easiest to resist.
Blogs like Erika Haub's and Jamie's challenge me on a regular basis to let go of those things that tie me down and respond to the Missio Dei, "the sending of God." (Comment this)
Between you and Makeesha, I could stop writing altogether! Well said. You have helped bring clarity to what I meant.
I suspect that Brother Maynard would have no problem agreeing with, as I don't think it is on this point we are disagreeing, but rather the question of whether the issue of location, important as we both believe it is, is inherent to the concept of missional or not.
Oh, and Bill, if you choose the "other" option when leaving a comment, you don't have to login and you can have your link go to directly to your blog.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
...which, just to emphasize, DOES NOT mean that the suburbs are somehow second class or not included in this call. It would be absurd to suggest such a thing.
...we also haven't really touched on rural life here, which, IMO, is far more frequently ignored than even the urban context. so this isn't just about urban and suburban, like Jamie said, this isn't a vs. conversation at all. But rather, is location an important component when discussing or defining mission or missional. (Comment this)
Again, well said. Funny you should mention rural life, as it would be were I was in a second if not for my vocation. I spent last weekend in the small town of my youth and am passionate about what it means to be missional in that context too. The rural church is a sleeping giant, I believe.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Bill, I agree *thoroughly* that this is a conversation that needs to take place, and I've said basically this to Jamie via private email. My discomfort arises rather from the fact that I'm not happy about what/how I said at the outset on your blog or here. The more we dialogue, the further apart Jamie and I seem to get, or sound... which does not reflect the facts of the matter in either our friendship (I hope) or how each of us views the subject at hand. I've got some inner turmoil going on as a result of this whole thing based on feeling or perceiving discord with Jamie that I don't think I should be feeling. In no small part, I think that's because I've said things in a tone that is not consistent with what I would like it to be and at the worst bits may appear to attack Jamie personally, which is not what I would intend, ever. Period. Some may not see these things in what I wrote or if they do may not think them too strong, but just the possibility of even hint of it glimpsed by even a few bothers me, because it does not reflect my heart for Jamie and is beneath the standard of what I feel I should be saying publicly. The concern that it could appear that way to a wider audience grieves me. That, and that alone, is why I wished I had never said anything. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with Jamie's thesis.
For the record, my working assumption is that Jamie and I fundamentally agree on the important matters surrounding this issue. We may be explaining it from divergent perspectives and will likely differ in our understanding or ideas on some of the factors leading to it, but in the end, we're going to *fundamentally* agree on this... the question isn't whether location is important, it's how location interacts with missionality to become important. Big disagreement over a small distinction? By the time we have Alan weighing in with a vote, he's putting it forward with a phrase that Jamie and I would *both* agree with... as has been covered above. So I'm not sure what's to vote for as so far every comment (including my own) affirms the same thing.
(Sure, state it differently and sometimes I have a hitch with the language - I'm INTP, precise language goes with the territory.)
I'm reminded of an issue in my CLB about 15 years ago when they were trying to determine whether or not healing was in the atonement. They struck a committee to study it and prepare a paper with a position we could all adopt. Unfortunately, the committee was deadlocked on the question, and their effort rendered in vain and the objective of publishing a paper abandoned. The question I posed to them was sluffed off... I asked them why they couldn't write a paper that said "If healing is in the atonement as some of us believe, the practical outworking should look like this...." followed by a section that said, "If healing is not in the atonement but is still available through the power of God as some of us believe, the practical outworking should look like this...." You see, both sides were in full agreement of exactly what their practice should look like as a result of their different convictions, they just disagreed about a nuance of the "why" and the "how" behind it. Did anyone notice that they all prayed for healing for people consistently?
In the final analysis, I see the missional imperative in a very similar light... if we don't agree that missionality results in some kind of action, then we may as well all give it up now and go home - and I expect that neither Jamie nor I nor anyone else who's weighed in here would be interested any longer. This we take as axiomatic, that being missional involves an active response. Yes, I am concerned for the "definition" of missional and have some passion about it — mostly I want it to see it stay clean and lean in order to remain effective and gain a wider subscription. The how or why leading to ascription of missional practice can differ greatly and for the most part I don't care, as long as we're in agreement about the essence.
In any event, I have the luxury of being able to sit down with Jamie and dialogue in person, which is preferable to this forum and to the emails we've exchanged privately. I intend to take advantage of that opportunity, not because this discussion isn't deserving of wider discussion, but because Jamie and I seem to be pitted at odds which don't reflect our hearts in it (speaking for myself). In order for the conversation to be most helpful, I want to see this miscast adversarial role removed... and personal dialogue is the best way to achieve that because its nature is more back-and-forth with smaller "chunks" of information so that it can't get too far off the rails before either can say, "No, that's not what I mean, I think X might be a better word" and the other can say, "Ah, that makes more sense to me, good clarification, would you say then that YZ?" followed by a "Yes, that's it!". In person, this is likely to be a 15-minute conversation between Jamie and me, 5 of which will be me apologizing for letting this get blown so out of proportion.
That said, I don't want to see the perception that we're at odds get any further down the track by anyone before I can speak with him in person. Jamie and I agree that location matters to missional practice. I think we could add that action is required on our part. That's the big stuff, and the other stuff is small potatoes. I don't intend to engage this much further until I've sat across the table from Jamie and we've been able to dialogue in a context where we can more easily connect and share our hearts, which fundamentally want the same things here. The point of that discussion insofar as it strays from the big matters and into the smaller whys-and-hows will not be *agreement* but *understanding.* With high stock placed in agreement, conversations can eventually drift to debate and attempts to convince. Understanding is much better because it gives the ideas and personal beliefs of all parties their due without being coercive on either side.
So there, I've (again) said way more than I intended to. (Comment this)
I was somewhat concerned when I learned this caused you so much angst, as I was not feeling the intensity of things. I did not feel any threat to friendship nor did I think others would. This is my typical INTJ nature to blaze ahead. At worst, I was frustrated for seeming to be represented as saying one context was better than another.
I agree that we probably agree on the important things. I never doubted that you believe location was important. A difference in our personalities, which usually results in great dynamics (as INTP's & INTJ's are very complimentary), this time resulted in a difference on opinion.
As an INTP, I know how important accurate use of words and ideas and definitions are. The funny thing is that it is usually the J not the P who wants the definitions tight. I do think there are some implicational differences in our perspectives, but nothing we can't work out over lunch.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Bill ... so far it appears that IN..s are missional, as I'm an INFP. ;-) (Comment this)
As MBTI is something of a passion of mine, I have asked similar questions myself (though obviously not anyone temperament is missional, but rather what expression of missional do specific types display).
Jamie (Comment this)
I'll do a post on rural missionality this week. Any specific questions?
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Ah, another INTJ, eh? Sweet! I do agree with you about personality type & missionality.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Instead of citing INTP from MBTI, I should have said "The Architecht" from KTS, which is similar as both are based on Jung. KTS is more recent but lesser known; I would see them as complimentary interpretations of the same data set. "Of all the role variants, Architects are the most logically and verbally precise." My addition: this often makes us annoying.
Maybe we can get sidetracked and talk about "rich Jesus." Some scholars may think Joseph's family was rich, but they're off-base, tossing conjecture on top of speculation. Many scholars also feel that Joseph probably died before Jesus began his earthly ministry, so unless Jesus and his brothers were then old enough to support the family, poverty would have been likely. Add to this the fact that access to any family money Joseph might have had could be put into question by his taking of a wife who was clouded with social unacceptability due to "her condition." The flight to Egypt and the pilgrimages are not good indicators; the latter was expected of all Israelites, most of whom did not stay at the Hilton on the pilgrimage. The flight to Egypt would have been financed in three distinct ways: gold, frankincense, and myrhh. But for that provision, I suspect it would have been a near-impossibility. One concrete thing we can draw an inference from is the fact that when Jesus was born, the purification offering they made was that of the poor - those with any wealth offered something greater.
This "rich Jesus" idea is one that concerns me not simply because I think it's wrong, but because it fuels the error of the prosperity gospel.
How's that for picking a new fight? (Comment this)
As an INFP/INTP, I'm beginning to agree with Sonja. Mak, David's probably a borderline "E". :-)
Sonja,
Check out the latest Roxburgh Journal at Allelon where Al Roxburgh talks to Martin Robinson in the UK about what's happening in the rural communities of Lincolnshire. Pete and Kath Atkins are the couple that Alan and I got to hang out with in Lincolnshire - and they are wonderful missional folk.
(Comment this)