Miste ik iets? (gedachten op de „missional“ kerk)
Geschreven door Mark Van Steenwyk: 29 september, 2006
Ik word verward door recent gebruik van het woord „missional.“ Het allen begon terwijl ik Jamie arpin-Ricci las blog. Daar maakt hij een onderscheid tussen „op een bepaalde manier het te voorschijn komen“ en „missional“ die geen aan me-as steek houdt hoewel zij twee concurrerende scholen of iets zijn. Mijn begrip is dat missional een grotere categorie dan te voorschijn komend is. Missional verwijst naar de essentie van de kerk zoals deelnemend aan de opdracht van God (d.w.z., missio Dei), terwijl „het te voorschijn komen“ naar een verandering in de verhouding van de kerk met zijn context verwijst. Terwijl deze ideeën absoluut overlappen, zijn zij niet het zelfde.
De post schijnt te poneren dat de nieuwe kerkbespreking door Optredend? is bijeengedreven. Ik heb zeker sympathieën met deze mening. In commentaren de sectie van die post, iemand scheen om het idee dat te articuleren het te voorschijn komen/Optredend een groep mensen is die met sympathiseren McLaren, Pagitt en anderen wie aan Optredend sterk gebonden zijn, terwijl de „missional“ menigte lood door is houden van van Stetzer en Driscoll. Met andere woorden de „het te voorschijn komen kerken“ zijn die kerken met een progressievere agenda gezien onze post-modern, post-welk cultuur, terwijl „de missionalkerken“ die kerken met een conservatievere (meestal calvinistische) agenda gezien onze post-modern zijn, post-welk cultuur. Ik verwierp onmiddellijk het idee.
I am really confused about this. I reread my post and the comments I made throughout the conversation that resulted. I think you misunderstood the point of my post.
I was not drawing the distinction, but acknowledging that the distinction is inevitably happening, whether we like it or not. Why? For many reasons, some of which I cite in my post (the largest being people feeling the there is an increasing connection between “emerging” & Emergent Village, thus one aspect of the American context rather than the larger global community).
It saw the risk of this dividing the conversation, so I attempted to offer a stance in which we could acknowledge our differences while still maintaining our unity.
The missional=Driscoll argument is, as you point out, not helpful or accurate. However, neither do I think camps are dividing along those lines. Missional is a term being used by people of all marks, as is emerging/emergent.
So, while we agree on some points, I can’t help but feel you missed the point of my post. Oh well.
Peace,
Jamie
Missional is larger than either crowd. Being on mission is bigger than conservative vs. liberal. I appreciate your post Mark.
JVD
Jamie,
I may have misunderstood the point of your post, but it seems to me that thinking of the “missional” camp versus the “emerging” camp is something that is indeed happening. Your blog may not make that point, but some folks that commented did, and there is evidence for such a rift in the larger blogosphere. The rift has been there for a while, among progressive “emerging” types and those more like Driscoll. The only point I’m trying to make in my post is to voice my concern over the growing affiliation of the second group with the term “missional.” I don’t draw this conclusion from your post, your post simply got me thinking down this path.
Speaking as an American, I know we have the habit of wanting to draw lines in the sand to clearly define the “camps.” And every camp has to have a label. It is not a good habit, but we can?t seem to help ourselves. We carry this same habit into our discussions within the Body.
We have also developed a fear of association. The thought goes something like, if I openly agree with some point that is being made by a person or camp, I fear that my approval will be seen as an endorsement of the whole person or camp; or that others will label me as part of that camp.
This discussion is useful and needed in the process of bring understanding and affirmation and thus avoiding the habit of making camps or fearing taint by association. I?m not suggesting, in any way or form, that anyone has attempt to make camps. I?m simply affirming the worth of this dialogue. Missional is larger than any group and by talking this through now we can help ensure that it remains so.
Thanks Mark, Jamie and the others who have been willing to open and carry on this conversation.
Thanks for the clarity!
It never fails that whenever “new” Christian groups begin to form that they have to be defined by labels and then associated with either liberal or conservative theological underpinnings.
Why can’t we just be content to say that we are Christians who are trying to rediscover the early practice of engaging the culture as it exists, rather than holding on to the traditional method which worked in a different time and culture but is not working now?
The whole emergent/missional thing is really not a new idea. Take for example the social gospel movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries which sought to engage society where it was at, not where it used to be. To be honest the missional idea is found in the life and praxis of the early church.
All that the ‘leaders’ of the ‘movement’ today seem to be doing is repackaging an ancient idea with some contemporary philosophical and theological adaptations.
Well, thank you for perhaps making things a little clearer, or at least making the context of this “emerging/missional divide” a bit clearer, even though I am still not sure that I have understood it correctly.
Would it be correct to say that there has been an attempt by conservative evangelical Calvinists to hijack the term “missional”, and to claim it for themselves alone?
In my mind all forms of church must be Missional. Missional is a primary function of the body. In order for the church to “be” the church it must be missional.
just my thoughts
Steve,
I don’t know if Conservative Evangelical Calvinists have hijacked the term “missional” on purpose or have deliberately tried to make it THEIR word. I think the word “missional” is becoming like the word “evangelical”–it used to be that the word was a larger category used by many within the Protestant Tradition, but somehow it became more and more associated with pietist conservative protestants as it became their banner word.
Do you think that the word “missional” should still be used by someone wanting to self-differentiate from Evangelicals who aren’t (in their eyes) missional, since they have taken it over?
I supposed you could say that you’ve used it in coupling with “order” and then added “for the West Bank” But I don’t know if you did that ostensibly due to the Evangelical take-over of the word.
I’m not comfortable with the word being used solely to self-differentiate. I try to use it as a possitive assertion of a core understanding. I think all churches are, by definition, missional. A church doesn’t decide whether or not to be missional any more than a Christian decides to be Trinitarian. It is simply a matter of whether or not a church is intentionally so. Using it as a descriptor is a way of drawing attention to one’s understanding of the nature and function of the church.
Many evangelicals are indeed self-reflectively missional. Most, however, use it in an inaccurage way–as though it were interchangeable with “evangelistic” or “contextual.”