Swinging from the Vine / 765 posts / 2,646 comments / feed / comments feed

missional - how do we get there?

comment: missional now - YES! how do you get there is the question, when folks are so used the saving/evangelism mode of being missional. i don’t know the answer, but i know i am very weary of thinking it is the church’s job to “save” folks.

This comment was in response to my missional post earlier this week. I think this is a very good question and one I don’t necessarily have any one single answer to. However, I think the question brings out some other areas of discussion that might be helpful to explore.

The first issue that comes to mind is the notion of whether or not we save folks. This is where the fundamental theological issues come into play. Recently, Alan Hirsch suggested that if one is to “emerge”, it must come after an embracing or rooting in mission.

I personally do not feel the need to question the inherited theological tradition as many of its adherents do.
…don’t emerge before you have a mission.

I originally agreed with this but after processing some of the nagging issues I had with some of Alan’s (otherwise well stated) post, I don’t think it’s that simple and certainly wasn’t for me (for the record, I don’t feel in any way that Alan and I are at odds, I loved his book and agree with almost everything the man says - and besides, he’s wicked smart and just a really cool guy). I think this CAN happen but in my experience, emergence often needs to occur before the paradigm shift toward a mission shaped faith can form. Maybe folks like Alan and Michael (Frost) emerged so long ago they have forgotten the fundamental theological shifts that had to occur first.

Either way, this question of salvation is one example. If one holds to traditional evangelical notions of “how salvation occurs” (for example), living a truly mission shaped life is almost impossible in my experience. Making a missional paradigm shift is very hard when you believe the number one most important job of all Christians is to get people saved and by saved you mean “into heaven”. And the idea that our job is to get people saved comes from certain theological understandings of very core issues such as the atonement, what is the kingdom?, etc. that must be engaged/challenged (emergence) in order to understand and embrace the missional paradigm.

To put a finer point on it, even something as foundational as our understanding of the atonement directly affects how we engage our neighbors in issues of faith. If people don’t understand what they believe about the soteriology and examine how that relates to the living out of their faith now then all they will do is enter into this missional conversation with old theological understandings.

I honestly believe that a HUGE reason why missional is getting misunderstood or distorted or co-opted is BECAUSE these very people are holding onto certain theological understandings without examining them…without engaging. They’re taking their current beliefs about salvation and subsequent notions of evangelism and trying to paste on a missional label which ultimately equates to trying to stuff a size 9 foot in a size 6 shoe.

Tony Jones explains this thoroughly in his newest book, partially by telling the story of how some in the early stages of Emergent eventually left because what they really wanted was a new packaging for an old “product” whereas others felt a strong need to gut the product. As Tony puts it, ugly theology creates ugly Christianity (paraphrase).

All of this to say - I think the question of “how do we get there?” is a good one and I genuinely believe an engagement of WHAT we believe has to occur. Perhaps a good place to start for folks trying to wrap their brains around missional is with their theology. Maybe this paradigm isn’t clicking because your theology just doesn’t fit. In which case, I’m not suggesting you have to change your theology necessarily but you might need to explore the possibility of dropping missional from your vocabulary because like a too small pair of shoes, it’s gonna cause you pain.

What shifts had to occur in your theological notions (if any) before missional made sense to you?
What theological notions have you always held that helped you live a mission-shaped faith?

Technorati Tags: missional, tony jones, alan hirsch, the new christians, theology, soteriology, evangelism

10 Comments

  1. Jonathan Brink — June 27, 2008 #

    Nice to see you post.

    I agree with your concern over “don’t emerge before you get a mission” statement. Didn’t quite resonate with me as well. I think that you may have captured where Frost and Hirsch, so far ahead they have forgotten what it’s like.

    I agree with Hirsch’s missional incarnational approach but he seems to have abandoned the emerging missional concept, which I would say comes before “MI”. It’s a spiritual formation process. Emerging open people up to the idea that God is not just sending us to heaven but is actively crashing into our world and restoring it. I found mission by being open to emerging.

  2. Mak — June 27, 2008 #

    you and I have similar experiences.

    And of course, I do not want to project my experiences on everyone else. I think there are many different paths on the EM-MI journey (I like that by the way - emerging-missional > missional-incarnational) and I don’t want to make the mistake of simply creating a new but equally rigid and narrow reactionary “model”.

    however, I think when you suggested the “spiritual formation process” concept, I think you were spot on regarding where there might be some disconnect in discussion about this issue.

    Some are looking at it from the angle/through the lens of spiritual formation and some are looking at it from different angles. Together we get a good cross section and picture of what’s going on in the Church today but if we suggest that our lens is the only lens we’re going to get into trouble.

  3. Mak — June 27, 2008 #

    I did also want to acknowledge that I recently thought of examples of those I know in real life who have had a very different experience than me in this whole missional-emerging-incarnational thing… interestingly, they’re liberal liturgical/mainliners.

    Which reminds me that it’s important to keep in mind that many evangelicals come by this paradigm shift differently than many of those in the mainline or other expressions.

  4. tql — June 27, 2008 #

    Great post. And Jonathan, I like your comment of understanding all of this is a process of spiritual formation. And, like Mak says, it starts with the question of what do you believe, and being open to the fact that you will ask yourself that question many, MANY times in your spiritual journey.

  5. Duncan McFadzean — June 27, 2008 #

    Mak, I think you just hit the nail on the head. I was wondering why a lot of people I talk to about missional still think that it means going out into the community and converting people to Christ through convincing them intellectually. I’ve had my head and beliefs so thoroughly mixed up over the last couple of years that even the gospel takes on a very different meaning, as does building kingdom. I think you’re right that it’s the underlying theological debate that’s key. Which might imply that emerging-missional is then the most appropriate description, as it incorporates that deconstruction/reconstruction process. Thanks for educating.

    p.s. totally failed to find that cd you were looking for a while back. sorry.

  6. Mak — June 27, 2008 #

    thanks duncan and tql for engaging this.

    no worries on the CD, maybe it’ll turn up some day serendipitously

  7. Mak — June 27, 2008 #

    thank you Duncan, you reminded me to search again and I found someone from the UK selling it on Ebay - *crossing fingers* (I don’t trust ebay until the item comes and is in good shape)

  8. Geoff — June 29, 2008 #

    Mak, I almost always agree with the things you write, so I figured it’d be only right to jump on board and say something when I agree slightly less. And it is only slightly, but let’s have a go anyway!

    “If one holds to traditional evangelical notions of “how salvation occurs” (for example), living a truly mission shaped life is almost impossible in my experience.”

    - see I’d have to disagree with that. I do think that if you allow your soteriology to overshadow your theology - then it would probably be true. But a great deal of the best influences on my life, and people who I’d consider to be living a “mission shaped life”, would hold to that traditional evangelical notion of salvation. But that doesn’t overshadow for them the commandment to love their neighbour as themselves, and they don’t see “salvation” and the beginning and end of that commandment.

    I do like Hirschy’s comment about not emerging before you have a mission, because I think that he’s trying to encourage a safeguard against theology that is put together “in the back room” - and this concept of getting your theology completely worked out before you engage with people. I think that he’s trying to say “emerging”, and growing your theology should happen in mission focused communities. Which I don’t think is necessarily in conflict with what you’re saying here.

    But maybe I’m just manifesting my nationalistic heart and backing up an Aussie I really do like what you’re saying here!

  9. Mak — June 29, 2008 #

    I think I went on to explain what my experience has been with an evangelical expression of “salvation” - I think the people you’re talking about already have a mission shaped faith that does not focus solely or even primarily on getting people saved. So what I’m saying is that the people you’re talking about are already “there” in terms of a theology that is friendly to missional.

    The only theology within emerging that I have encountered is done in mission focused communities - that’s EXACTLY HOW they are able and encouraged to emerge. so no, it’s not at conflict at all, in fact, it’s reinforcing exactly what I said. To suggest that people figure out their theology before engaging runs completely counter to the emerging way of working through theology. the emerging/emergent way is to engage theology within community - community that is Christian and non.

    I’m addressing the misuse of the term and suggesting that the reasons those abuses are happening are because certain people with certain theologies are trying to embrace missional without examining their underlying theology. Some people can “be missional” very easily because of their theological foundations. Others, cannot.

    I think maybe the problem here is that this is perceived as some sort of linear process whereas I’m not sure it always is but IF we are to talk about something that is linear in time and space, some sort of emergence often must happen in order to provide the right foundation for even thinking or talking about what it means to be missional.

    does that help explain where I’m coming from or make it worse? hehe…

    as for nationalism, well, we might have some disagreements there too LOL j/k

  10. Pingback - 50 Ways to Define “Missional” - VIII : Subversive Influence — July 4, 2008 #

    [...] Makeesha Fisher makes a reappearance on the list, stating an opposing view to Alan Hirsh’s, namely that “emergence often needs to occur before the paradigm shift toward a mission shaped faith can form.” She writes, [The] question of salvation is one example. If one holds to traditional evangelical notions of “how salvation occurs” (for example), living a truly mission shaped life is almost impossible in my experience. Making a missional paradigm shift is very hard when you believe the number one most important job of all Christians is to get people saved and by saved you mean “into heaven”. And the idea that our job is to get people saved comes from certain theological understandings of very core issues such as the atonement, what is the kingdom?, etc. that must be engaged/challenged (emergence) in order to understand and embrace the missional paradigm. … I honestly believe that a HUGE reason why missional is getting misunderstood or distorted or co-opted is BECAUSE these very people are holding onto certain theological understandings without examining them…without engaging. They’re taking their current beliefs about salvation and subsequent notions of evangelism and trying to paste on a missional label which ultimately equates to trying to stuff a size 9 foot in a size 6 shoe. … All of this to say - I think the question of “how do we get there?” is a good one and I genuinely believe an engagement of WHAT we believe has to occur. Perhaps a good place to start for folks trying to wrap their brains around missional is with their theology. Maybe this paradigm isn’t clicking because your theology just doesn’t fit. In which case, I’m not suggesting you have to change your theology necessarily but you might need to explore the possibility of dropping missional from your vocabulary because like a too small pair of shoes, it’s gonna cause you pain. [...]

Leave a comment