Exploring Missional – An Idea
As you have likely noticed, the topic of missional, its nature and practice. As passionately as I love the topic and as convinced I am that it is one of the more crucial areas that the Church needs to explore, I often find myself confounded by the twists and turns that its leads me through. this is especially true as we explore the topic together in conversation. It is at the same time thrillingly collaborative and frustratingly muddled.
Recently I have begun to feel the edges of a distinction that, for me at least, is helpful in understand the engagement of missionality both in concept and as practice. Be clear that I am not intending to coin new terms, but rather want to introduce two terms that help me navigate some of the trickier places of understanding the topic: micro-missional and macro-missional.
As we discuss missionality, I often find people talk from two ends of the spectrum. Micro-missional is what I would characterize largely as places where we explore missionality as individuals, small groups and perhaps even communities. It finds expression in questions like “What does it mean for me to missional?” and “How can our congregation be missional?”. The diversity of what this will look like is virtually endless, though still shaped by the underlying DNA of missionality (essentially, the Missio Dei). This perspective is obviously very pragmatic and absolutely essential.
Macro-missional, on the other hand, looks at it from a wider lense, specifically where we explore missionality in respect to the Church as a whole, the Body of Christ. While we will obviously look at it through the lens of our current place in history, it is essentially (if not intentionally) informed by both the past and the future. It finds expression in questions like “What role does the Church play in the Missio Dei?” and “Where has God brought us from and where is He leading us to? What part do we, the Church, play in that grand narrative?”.
For example, when I recently said that I believe that relocation is an essential aspect of missionality, I was referring to macro-missionality. In the big picture, if relocation does not happen within the Church somewhere, someone is failing to be missional. So, looking at being missional within the Body of Christ, it then is clearly one essential aspect that must be practice in order for the Missio Dei to be fulfilled. However, by my failure to clarify this, it was read by some that I was saying it was essential to micro-missionality. Clearly this would be wrong, as not everyone must relocate to be missional.
In addition to being helpful for differentiating the concept of missional in our dialogues, I also think it is an essential safeguard against losing sight of the bigger picture. One challenging aspect of postmodern thought is that it can undermine the importance of history and our place in it. So many Christians live their faith so deeply in the now, our missionality can become merely universal principles of living (albeit, excellent ones). If we can maintain the historicity and directionality of the Mission Dei, we will then be able to respond more responsibly in our pursuit of building the Kingdom together.
It is, perhaps, idiosyncratic of me to focus on macro-missionality when I am primarily a practioner (or a practical theologian, as a friend recently refered to me). If you are familiar with MBTI or KTS, I am an INTJ and therefore love intuitively exploring systems, with a fascination for the “meta-system” of things, if you will. However, I hope that this distinction will help bring clarity to some in the discussion, as it has certainly helped me. It is by no means a completed thesis, so you are likely to find flaws here and there, but I think the heart of it stands up.
What do you? Does this help or hinder understanding of missionality for you?
