While we’re on definitions, can I just say that “missional” is a meaningless buzzword that should be dispensed with post-haste?

How do you spot a meaningless buzzword? Well, you can drop it’s use and see if anything’s lost - do we suddenly not want to grow and tell people about Jesus if we don’t use the word “missional”? I don’t think so. Likewise you can think about the opposite - were we more insular, less outreach-focused before “missional” started getting thrown around? I don’t think so.

In a sense, saying that we’re now “missional”, and therefore somehow different/better than everyone who preceded us and lacked this fine buzzword is kind of insulting to all the growth/evangelism/mission work done over the years prior.

Luke Stevens - 16 October 2008 04:55 PM

In a sense, saying that we’re now “missional”, and therefore somehow different/better than everyone who preceded us and lacked this fine buzzword is kind of insulting to all the growth/evangelism/mission work done over the years prior.

Luke,
That is just so far from what was actually said at Synod about being a “missional” church that its only contribution to the discussion is to show that you weren’t there or you weren’t listening.
Bob

I wasn’t criticizing what was said (like you say I wasn’t there), I’m just making a general point that “missional” is a buzzword. It’s redundant.

Luke Stevens - 16 October 2008 05:28 PM

I wasn’t criticizing what was said (like you say I wasn’t there), I’m just making a general point that “missional” is a buzzword. It’s redundant.

Fair enough, although in the context of a discussion that is about Synod you might have made that distinction clearer.

While we’re on definitions, can I just say that “missional” is a meaningless buzzword that should be dispensed with post-haste?

Luke, your are absolutely right...I have never taken to the word “missional”,
and after arriving home from a Ministers Conference recently, where an overseas minister spoke, he indicated that this was just a buzzword used to describe Evangelism and the Great Commission, otherwise it was a worthless word and as valuable as a crumpet...In other words, it gave the
Leadership of churches in the USA and worldwide food for thought, something to try and refocus both Ministers and Laity attention onto, for the next 5-10 years, while books, sermons, bible colleges, ministers conferences
and others declared now is the Time for the Missional Church and Missional
Leaders to be raised up and show the rest, the way forward; without really understanding the concept...And all it really did, except for some welcome invigoration, was to give Church Leaders worldwide who embraced the new concept a further tenure in their positions, like previous declarations from USA and other overseas churches in previous decades such as:
“Now is the Time for Missionary Pastors...We need Missionary Pastors at local Parish level both ordained and lay...The time for GP’s are dead!”
“ Now is the Time for the GP-General Practitioner Pastor...We need Pastors
at local Parish level both ordained and lay who were GP’s.”
“Now is the Time for the Emerging Church.”
“Now is the Time for the Toronto Blessing.”
“Now is the Time for the Universal Church to be Seeker Sensitive...”
“Now is the Time for the Welcoming Church to come to the fore...”

Yes, “seasons for everything”, but were they good welcome seasons of invigorations and refocus for the Church Universal or “seasons of distractions”, from a Greater Commitment to the Great Commission and Great Commandment to the needs of a Lost and Deeply Hurting World? I wonder…

Pastor Colin Murdoch
1986 Founder Singles for Christ Australia
An Interdenominational Ministry to Single and Single Again Men and Women
www.singlesforchrist.org.au
“MAKING A DIFFERENCE”
I

Bob,

Thanks for the clarification to my post. I agree with you that Chris Albany is notable for his graciousness in an area which often seems to generate a fair degree of rancour towards those on the other side of the debate.

Edit: Snip! ‘cos Bob’s right (see next post...)

There is no need for a postcard on the fridge. I would highly recommend anyone going into ministry (or anyone at all for that matter!) to visit certain suburbs and just sit on a bench in the main shopping strip to see the mosaic of humanity that surrounds you. You will very quickly see in Campsie, Lakemba, Auburn and similar locations that you can indeed be a missionary in your own city. The funding model is irrelevant, sorry.

I’m going to risk being howled down (especially as a former employee of the church missionary society) and suggest that the cross-cultural nature of the work is not essential to the definition of ‘missionary’.  A missionary is a person sent to another place for a particular purpose; a Christian missionary is a person who is sent to another place in the service of the gospel.  Simplistic?  Maybe, but I do think that is at least the essence of what a missionary is.  And I certainly don’t see in the biblical laguage of sending (apostoleo, apostolos, etc.) any necessary cross-cultural component, although of course many who were sent did indeed cross cultural boundaries of one kind or another.
Bob

Bob, you’re absolutely right. I’ve amended my post accordingly… :)

Bob,

As a current member of a traditional missionary society, I have no problem with that definition. I agree the cross-cultural aspect is a secondary feature and not a core part of the definition. But does that mean local pastors and others are not sent? ;-)

It does concern me when it is claimed “we are all missionaries” because this tends to empty the term of any real meaning. Where-ever we draw the boundaries around the word, I do think it is helpful to preserve a distinction between “missionary” and other local ministry roles. This can clarify when, where and why we need missionaries.

Hi Colin
I’m all for dumping missional, as a word but not the concept.
Who is responsible for it?

Phil Nicholson - 18 October 2008 10:18 PM

Bob,

As a current member of a traditional missionary society, I have no problem with that definition. I agree the cross-cultural aspect is a secondary feature and not a core part of the definition. But does that mean local pastors and others are not sent? ;-)

It does concern me when it is claimed “we are all missionaries” because this tends to empty the term of any real meaning. Where-ever we draw the boundaries around the word, I do think it is helpful to preserve a distinction between “missionary” and other local ministry roles. This can clarify when, where and why we need missionaries.

Phil
That’s precisely where I’m coming from.  We have a tendency to broaden words out to the point where they become useless.  As to whether a local pastor is a missionary or not, it probably depends on: 1) How far they’ve been sent; and 2) How long they’ve been serving there.  I suspect many pastors go to their posts as missionaries, but over time become part of the local fabric, at which point they’re not really missionaries any more.  And before anyone jumps on me thinking that I’m somehow denigrating long-term ministries, I’m not!  I’m simply saying that the nature of the ministry changes over time.
Bob

How well is the diocese structure going to cope with entrepreneurial ministry? Lets be realistic here. If Mark Driscoll had started a church that grew large in Sydney, and consciously decided to avoid the anglican system, do you really think that we wouldn’t have found something..anything..dodgy in his theology and then lambasted him for it?
Are we really ready for ministers to do things differently? Can we cope with models of ministry and church that are different to our own? How well do we cope with this already?  Will people from these churches (or uni groups) be seen as somehow tainted, as theologically suspect? “Remember, he Chose not to be one of us”. What has happened historically to those young men and women who had different ideas?
I really hope our diocese can get this happeneing, can get Jesus out to people. But to allow entreprenerialism, you have to have flexibility, you have to have a culture where people don’t expect to be stabbed in the back for doing something different. So each of us has a role in this, even if we aren’t planting a church, we can start by not knocking the one next door

Luke said:

I just say that “missional” is a meaningless buzzword that should be dispensed with post-haste?

‘Missional’ is certainly a buzzword. And as a result is problematic because it doesn’t have a clear definition.

However I’m not sure its fair to say it is meaningless or that it doesn’t add something to the discussion.

In the context of the Diocese’s mid-term Mission report, the term is used to distinguish between two models different of evangelism and church planting.

‘Attractional’ - which is about staying where we are (ie in a church building) and starting a church which appeals to a certain demographic. The criticism is that demographic tends to address the needs of a certain niche within the existing church without any reference to the unreached.

‘Missional’ - which is about going out of the church building (onto the streets, into the pubs and onto the beaches etc) and winning coverts and then shaping a new church around them.

Whether the term ‘missional’ is helpful or not - I’m not sure.. but the distinction being made certainly is.

Onya Mike

“The one who says it can’t be done often gets run over by someone doing it.”