Wednesday, February 01, 2012
Is it time to change the word “mission”
Let me give one story. Last year I worked for a year with a local church. This involved meeting 4 times with their leaders, preaching once, designing for them some Lenten listening-in-mission exercises and facilitating two forums.
In other words, quite some time.
As the year ended, I asked for an informal catchup, a chance to reflect on the year and what had worked, and what had not.
During the conversation, one of those present suddenly exploded. “I have no time for this black arm band stuff,” he announced. And out poured a long passionate speech, about how busy he was, about how much he prized good relationships with his neighbours, about how there was no way he was going to tell them they needed saving, about how talking to them about god in the hope of getting them church to grow was a sick motivation for being a good neighbour. It was a passionate, articulate speech.
Given that I had preached on mission, I asked him if that was the type of mission he had heard me articulated. When I preached, I had used Luke 10:1-12.
- Who is God? the Sender.
- Where is God? in 3 places. First in the church, second in the towns and villages of our communities.
- What is God up to? seeking relationships, speaking peace and in the seeing of lives changed.
I thought I had done my level, preaching best to offer a contemporary understanding of mission – God is at work in the world and we are invited to participate. Here’s an excerpt from the sermon:
So mission doesn’t starts with us. Not our bright idea. Not something we do because we need a few more people to join our church. It’s simply because God is sending God. Who chooses all types of ordinary, everyday people.
So mission doesn’t starts with us. Not our bright idea. Not something we do because we need a few more people to join our church. It’s simply because God is sending God. Who chooses all types of ordinary, everyday people.
But the stereotypes, the previous bad experiences, seemed to loom to large for what I said to be heard.
Hence my question: Is it time to change the word “mission.” Do we keep trying to redeem the word? Or is it so damaged, that we need to find a new word, a new language?
)
I am often confused by the push to ‘give something up’, or as you put it Steve “Is it time to change the word ‘mission’. Do we keep trying to redeem the word? Or is it so damaged, that we need to find a new word, a new language?”
I hear the person’s pain, and the wounds that have been caused by past expressions, but where is the space to offer forgiveness to the traditions words.
We are quick to speak and preach about forgiveness to one another, and to creation, and to seek forgiveness from the tradition. But I don’t think I have ever heard anything on us offering forgiveness to our tradition’s language and words that we have misused.
Which then leads me into a space of wondering how to invite members of congregations into such a space. A heart of forgiveness for all things, including language and words.
Comment by Matthew Stuart — February 1, 2012 @ 10:55 am
matt – that is a great thought. thank you. I hadn’t thought about it from the perspective of forgiveness, though i have often pondered language, and the need to find new language.
steve – it does seem an uphill (up a very steep hill) struggle sometimes in the face of heavy baggage we carry about words and experiences …
i wonder if part of the forgiveness, part of the redemption, is stepping away from the words we have inherited for a time, to create space out of which we then might reclaim those words?
Comment by sarah — February 1, 2012 @ 11:33 am
I think Matt is onto something. And while we’re forgiving words, what about ‘God’?
Comment by Paul Walton — February 1, 2012 @ 8:28 pm
I like Matt’s idea too.
But I then began to wonder who needs to be be the receiver of forgiveness. Is it those who seek to do mission, or those who’ve been the victims of it? I suspect it’s the later, and so I wonder if that means those of us in the mission business have to do some waiting, some lamenting?
And yes, if we change the word mission, then by implication we must also accept changing God, church, Christian … a lot of words.
steve
Comment by steve — February 1, 2012 @ 8:33 pm
Hi Steve – interesting question and I guess we have faced the same with ”church’. I do think sometimes words need ‘deleting’. Maybe ‘mission-al’ is worth letting go, but I am for redeeming / re-educating on what I reckon is a critical ‘word’ for the church.
Comment by Hamo — February 1, 2012 @ 10:07 pm
Please no?! While other words and concepts have come and gone in the last 25 years mission has been for me at least the one that has remained at the heart of what it’s all about…
Comment by Jonny — February 2, 2012 @ 5:49 am
I don’t think new language would be the solution. It appears to me that this particular person had a bigger sterotype around the use of particular passages of scripture and these may not be quite so easy to change!
I can understand the frustration of the person, when christians limit the gospel message to salvation prayer, reduce the kingdom to church attendance and only show love to get “another notch” on their “salvation belt” it is very sad. But Bill Johnson says “reaction to error often leads to error” and I have found this to be true. I wonder if in this case the feedback you received was from someone reacting to the error of others rather then out of a heart of what true kingdom living is
Comment by Aaron — February 2, 2012 @ 7:03 am
don’t
It is taking forever to help steer the church from Christendom to the idea that we are called to be missional by as you said seeing where God is at work and joining in
It’s not the words (or baggage) that is the issue, it is our stubborness or unwillingness to look out and find God, let alone join in.
Comment by stf — February 2, 2012 @ 9:22 am
Hi Steve,
Since I felt I never quite finished off that related conversation around the word “evangelism” I thought I might add my two cents here.
To me, the critical test of whether to leave a word behind is whether it conveys any distinct, unique meaning. I want to say it should be a “defined” meaning, too, but that’s not true (not least because it would leave us without the word God which while an interesting experiment is not a sustainable position).
In that context, I don’t think we can leave mission behind. Mission is not charity, it speaks of and to a deeper love. Mission is not hospitality, it is done even when we are guests. Mission is not an invitation, it is the “main meal”; if God is not present in mission, then God is nowhere. Mission is not “good works”, it is not an act of ourselves. Mission is not evangelism, it doesn’t point to faith, it is the unavoidable consequence of faith. To be mission, one must only act with a heart of God, with the wasteful love of God – no further outcomes are required.
But (excuse me for briefly diverting off topic) I am yet to be convinced of the word “evangelism”. If evangelism is to, for instance, “tell, show, be” then we already have language to talk about it. Granted, perhaps it is useful to be able to lump these ideas into one word. But if, as many try to tell me, evangelism is -just- those things, without any addition of purpose or intent, then why are we so intent on encouraging people to do it (as opposed to mission), or making it more accessible to people? To my mind, it is either a word without sufficient distinctiveness to warrant using, or it has a distinctiveness that means I don’t agree with it.
As far as I’m concerned, mission is a word whose meaning is worth the struggle to accurately convey our meaning. Evangelism not so much.
Comment by IainM — February 2, 2012 @ 9:49 am
Jonny,
Can I ask how much listening you’ve done to the damage caused by the fusion of English colonisation and mission?
steve
Comment by steve — February 2, 2012 @ 9:04 pm
Iain, you have a great gift for words “Mission is not charity, it speaks of and to a deeper love. Mission is not hospitality, it is done even when we are guests. Mission is not an invitation, it is the “main meal”; if God is not present in mission, then God is nowhere. Mission is not “good works”, it is not an act of ourselves. Mission is not evangelism, it doesn’t point to faith, it is the unavoidable consequence of faith. To be mission, one must only act with a heart of God, with the wasteful love of God – no further outcomes are required.” is wonderful.
Let me chew over your question re evangelism and get back to you. My initial response is that evangelism is the verbal telling of God’s story in us, in ways that make sense to the cultural world of the hearer. Thus it is a subset of mission, along with words like justice, intercession, discipleship.
steve
Comment by steve — February 2, 2012 @ 9:06 pm