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?
Jamie, I think you’ve identified a helpful way to clarify discussions on missional living.
I’ve been sitting on the sidelines watching these involved conversations and multiple misunderstandings unfold–aware that there was little to nothing I could say that would help in any way.
As you know, I’m reading Fritjof Captra’s Web of Life. Capra explains how the scientific approach has evolved from a Cartesian understanding that breaks a whole into parts for dissection and analysis toward a broader worldview that sees science, and life, as a network of systems within systems- from the subatomic level out.
While I’m not far into the book, I can assume at this point that my end conclusion will be that we all benefit from looking at the whole as system and at the part for clarity. The concept fluidly transfers to Chrisitianity. It seems to me that the Christian faith is merely behind science in the application of this logical perspective by several hundred years. More on that at my blog later on.
All that to say, well said!
Cindy,
I didn’t immediately make the connection until you pointed it out, but my being drawn to this approach has much to do with the ideas I gleaned from books like “Web of Life. Thanks. I look forward to reading more thoughts at you blog.
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie: I believe this is very helpful. A light clicked when I was reading your post and thinking about conversations I’ve had where I was attempting to deal with a macro-missional concept and my counterpart was struggling with it because they were attempting to put it into their micro-missional world. I think these terms will be (but not always) helpful in setting the context to the dialog.
Well done!
Rick,
Thanks, I am glad you appreciate it. It was such a light bulb moment for me. I hope we can develop it more over time.
Peace,
Jamie
Helpful terminology Jamie — you may not have coined new phrases, but these probably SHOULD become part of the lexicon of understanding being missional. (Sort of like Bro. Maynard’s use of CLB has unintentionally become part of the lexicon for many.)
As the risk of being over-reductionistic, and possibly a smart-ahem–aleck, could the oldskewl word “missionary” simply now mean “missional, with (perhaps cross-cultural) relocation”?
RobbyMac,
Thanks for the encouraging words. I know it is helpful for me, largely a product of sorting through recent dialogues on the topic.
As for “missionary”, I am not sure I would want to make the relocation issue solely or even primarily connected to the concept. As we recognize the universal mandate for all Christians to be missional, I think “missionary” can be reclaimed for those whose specific missional vocation is more explicit (meaning readily observable, not more missional), such as what I do.
For example, several people I know have intentionally relocated within their own city. It is an extremely cross-cultural shift on many levels. However, they maintained their jobs, church, etc. Therefore, I think that both cross-cultural and relocation issues are still more broadly applicable.
Does that make sense?
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie, I wonder if another way of talking about relocation as a part of macro-missionality is not that the universal church ought to be apostolic. Individuals ought to be set apart and sent out to places in the city, in the culture and in the world to be witnesses of Jesus, co-workers in the kingdom.
David,
I think that relocation is very much a part of the apostolic calling. However, I would hesitate (again) to exclusively or primarily identify it with just the apostolic, as I think it can be (and should be) a practice within many people’s micro-missionality. That said, your point is still a good one.
Peace,
Jamie
J … this is good, thanks. Reading it quickly, I was wondering if one layer of this might be where missional leadership is coming from? If denominations or mission organizations are helpfully/hope-fully leading their churches ( like a Reggie McNeal ) or ‘parachurch’ agencies from a macro-view, it is incredibly helpful to those of us in the trenches ( but dangerous for them? I think Scott Williams mentioned hearing McNeal talk very recently about reaction to his work as a denom exec ).
On the other hand, those of us in the trenches working up from a micro-view ( my missionality, the missionality of the faith community I serve in, etc ) have more freedom technically, but also of an uphill struggle, and I would guess, face more stagnancy in the upper echelons of the denomination or organization?
The macro/micro distinction, or lens, was helpful to me. Kind of asking the question ( on possibly this one layer only ) of … “where is leadership coming from on missionality in my context?” … for us it is totally the pastoral team, with elders getting on board, and the congregations getting mobilized as they see a different kind of motivation, investment, fruit and challenge coming.
dc
Don,
Thanks! I think the level of leadership/organization you are speaking about would fall somewhere in the spectrum between macro- & micro- (if they are considered the general ends of the measure). I think you are right in this in many ways.
However, I will say that I believe that missionality reinvents leadership and leadership structures (and thus organizational structures), so it will often be difficult (though not impossible) for traditional organizations to lead their communities into missionality without systemic change in leadership and organization. My good friend Len H. at http://www.nextreformation.com is excellent on this topic.
As for the challenges of the micro-missionality, I think you are also right, stemming in part to the need for the systemic change I mentioned above. This is why recognizing the interplay and inseparability of these ideas is so important. Each shapes and relates to the other (and all in between).
I think the future of missional leadership will be birthed out of the renewal on a more Biblical model of authority, power and community. While some may function in roles of leadership that are more apparent, it will not be as significantly top down. Again, Len’s site is rich with material on this topic.
Thanks for the great thoughts!
Peace,
Jamie
Helpful Jamie. I find a lot of people want to discuss the macro side of things but the pragmatics just want to jump right in. I’ve focused a bit more on the micro (it’s the easier one to talk to albeit not to do) and that has caused frustrations somestimes amongst others who think I’m ignoring the importance of the macro. Appreciated, as a fellow INTJ.
Duncan,
Indeed, it can be tricky. Like my post on academics & practitioners, there needs to be a respect for and acknowledgment of the mutual authority each perspective brings. Easier said than done, eh?
Peace,
Jamie
Hey Jamie. I’ve just found your page, and many of these terms you use are a bit foreign to me. I’ll hang around a bit, and see if I can educate myself. Sounds like a fascinating topic though!
Feel free to stop by blog, http://www.faithwithareason.blogspot.com and say hello!
Publius,
Welcome! If there are any specific terms you want clarity on, let me know.
Peace,
Jamie
Well, if you don’t mind me hogging your comments section for a dialog here…
What’s the difference between being “missional” and being “evangelical.” And why is the term “missional” used as both an adjective and it seems to also be used as a noun, as if “missional” is some sort of organization as well?
Publius,
Wow, start with a big one, eh? First, I guess I wonder what your definition of “evangelical” is, as there are distinct differences, but the degree of difference would largely depend on what you mean by that word. Having been to your blog, I would suspect that there is a vast difference in meaning. We’ll see.
As for missional being used as a noun, give me an example of what you mean. I am sure there are organization that have adopted the word missional, but they have used the word after its inception and not to be equated with the concept.
Let me recommend you spend some time reading some content over at http://www.friendofmissional.org as it is a great starting point.
That should be a good start. Let me know what you think.
Peace,
Jamie
Well, after spending several hours today getting acquainted with the concept of being “missional,” I can now see a great difference in what the “mainstream” denominations might call “evangelical,” but not much difference from what the word originally meant, and should continue to mean. The two concepts of “missional” (as defined by friendofmissional.org and “evangelical” as derived from the greek word “euaggelizo” (gospel or ‘good news’), in my humble opinion, they are practically synonymous.
It appears to me, that the term evangelical has been distorted over the past few hundred years, and now is so liquid as to be indefinable, for the most part. But there are some of us who continue to assert that what you call “missional” ought to be the bread and butter of the Universal Church, and nothing less.
The list of what a missional church is and is not (very helpful, btw), should be identical to what any church that is actually a church looks like. The sad part is, it usually isn’t the case.
And so when I think “evangelical,” I think of a church that is based on the message of the gospel, and its people who are taking that message daily, going beyond the walls with it… whatever those walls may be, and wherever it takes them. They just live their lives intentionally, displaying the hope that is in them and giving it away to those around them. It doesn’t have anything to do with any sort of politics or programs, but simply a willingness to do (and a carrying out of) what has been asked of us by the God Who created us, Who is there, and Who is not silent.
I’m more than happy to use a newer term (like “missional”) that is a little less diluted (or a LOT less diluted) and still carries some weight to the definition. But let’s not forget that there have always been at the very least a small remnant (sometimes more), that have carried on the ideas that the word “missional” embodies. In our struggle to be authentic, let’s take care not to abandon those who remained faithful to the mission that was given. As long as we keep that in the back of our minds somewhere, I’m all for fleshing out a new term, and all its implications. And “missional” does have a nice ring to it!
What the emerging church is doing in its struggle to be relevant in the here and now is what the Church ought to have been doing all along, and in many cases the Church has done just that. Unfortunately, more times than not it gets overshadowed by the moneychangers in the temple, the Pharisee shouting on the corner, the Sadducee picking up the stone, or the Dead burying their own dead.
What I’m saying is, the quest to be “missional” is the most valid thing, the most relevant thing, the most important thing, and we might even go so far as to say the ONLY thing worth doing in life. But in our desire to be relevant, let’s not make those who did the best they could in the past, an irrelevance.
Does that make any sense or am I just rambling incoherently?
Publius,
While we might find ourselves differing over the finer points should explore them, I think we are largely on the same page. You make some excellent points. Sadly, “missional” is quickly becoming used with such casual frequency that it is becoming diluted by many as well. Perhaps that is inevitable.
I think one reason the word “missional” stands apart from “evangelical” is that is attempts to destroy the false dichotomy where missions or missionaries are somehow a sub-sect of Christian calling instead of the universal vocation of every believer, as it should be.
For many on the missional journey, the emerging church as been an important part (and remains so for many). I am more likely to identify with being missional more so than being “emerging” or “emergent” (and I do believe there is a difference between the two “e”‘s, but that’s another topic).
Thanks for weighing in. Hope you’ll stop by again. If you explore my archive (right sidebar) you will find many articles about missionality that might be helpful.
Peace,
Jamie
Hours later… I’ve done very little in the last half-day other than scour your links and soak in the missional baptismal. Read many many many blogs from folks discovering e-church. My head hurts. My heart aches. My spirit still yearns to go on reading. There’s a freshness there that’s been missing from the traditional church… an everyday-ness about the intentionality of it all. Must have it. Somebody get a rope and lower me through the roof.
Pub,
Wow, sounds like your inspired! Go to it!
Peace,
Jamie
Check this out…
http://faithwithareason.blogspot.com/2007/07/epiphany-3.html
Pub,
Great post. I am glad the site helped.
Peace,
Jamie
Great post, Jamie. You’ve opened up a rich and helpful dialog regarding the missional paradigm. My question to you has to do with the notion of “relocation.” I think I’m hearing you associate the necessity of relocation to “macro-missional endeavors, but not necessarily to micro-missional ones. Is that roughly correct? What’s stirring around in my head is the thought that even in our micro-missional endeavors, we regularly must move. We must move out of our comfort zones, out of our weekly worship gatherings, out of our self-serving routines, and “go” — go to wherever the people are — people who need to hear about God’s story, feel his unconditional love, and experience his transforming power. Yes, we can and must be missionally minded right where we’re at — i.e. without the necessity of relocation, as you’ve noted. Yet, I suppose I’m suggesting that all of us — in our micro-missional commitments — must also be willing to relocate in some basic way. Although such relocation in a micro context will look different than it would in a macro context, some commonalities exist:
- saying ‘yes’ to God unique call or directions.
- Abandoning the status-quo / leaving one’s comfort zone.
- being open to learning a new language — ethnic and/or cultural.
- frequent locations/events new to you.
- make adjustments to one’s budget & lifestyle.
Well, anyway. I think you get the idea. But am I in left-field with this, Jamie? I’m anxious to hear your thoughts.
Blessings,
Chris
Hey Chris,
Thanks for the encouragement. As for relocation, it is issue of precise language that I am trying to be careful with. In macro-missionality, relocation is an essential aspect, meaning it has to be happening somewhere in the grand scheme of things. If I were to say it is an essential aspect of micro-missionality, it would suggest that everyone MUST relocate in order to be missional, which isn’t the case. That being said, many are called within their micro-missional expressions to relocate.
Now, to this point I have been talking about physical location and context, but you are speaking of a more metaphorical, yet equally important kind of relocation- the relocation of our values, our choices, our priorities, etc. Great thoughts, by the way. While my post was specifically on physical relocation, your points deserve exploration. Perhaps you will post on it yourself?
Peace,
Jamie
jamie,
very helpful for. i can really appreciate a time for distinction. it also helps to further me along in the conversation. thanks for helping to form me.
brad
Brad,
I am glad it was helpful for you. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie