If you want to cause a stir among people in the ministry word, one way is to distinguish between “mission” and “missions” or contrast being “missional” with being a “missionary.” This is more than arguing semantics. Words matter. Words import all kinds of implied theology since words carry assumptions, many of which are subtle and hidden. Perhaps, our wording of things may contradict our stated theology and values; over time, certain ways of speaking undermine sound thinking.
Unpacking this would take a book. I only have a blog and, for now, would prefer to write my books on other topics. Because this is a touchy subject for many people, I’ll take a few posts to unpack the issues, hoping to defuse tension in some quarters while for others highlighting why the topic matters at all.
First, let’s define terms. Generally, when people talk about the “mission” of God, they refer to God’s purpose(s) in the world, such as his glorifying himself through his redeeming the world from sin and corruption. A commonly related Latin term is missio dei, literally meaning the “mission of God.” By “missions,” people usually refer to the work of Christians crossing an ethno-cultural barrier in order to evangelize, church plant, and similar ministry. The key is crossing cultures. One might think in terms of the “Great Commission”: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . ” (Matt 28:19). FYI–the word for nations is ethne, from which we get our word ethnicity.
It follows that to be missional refers to those who participate in God’s mission in the world. Christian are foreigners––”strangers and aliens”––in the world (cf. 1 Pet 2:11), hence, we have the adjective “missional,” to live as a missionary for God. On the other hand, a missionary, according to its conventional usage over the past few hundred years, refers to those Christians who cross a culture, facing various ethno-linguistic obstacles to the gospel.
I don’t want to go off on tangents about what the etymology of the word “mission.” I find those rather fruitless as they could be used by either side of the debate using differing perspectives. Even if “missio” words have the idea of being sent, it could be said a “missionary” is sent by God and/or by a church; or, a “missionary” is one “sent” into the world or to another country. Keep in mind “mission” and “missionary” are not words you’ll find in the Bible. Put away the dictionaries. In distinguishing “missional” from being a “missionary,” I simply use “missionary” in its traditional sense over the past few hundred years.
So how do people talk that makes this all confusing? With things like the “emergent” movement, the “young, restless, and reformed” movement, and the like, it’s common to hear Christian leaders exhort followers to be “missional,” to be a missionary in their own neighborhood, and so forth. “Everyone is a missionary.”
Some people, like myself, love the how this term brings with it a fresh vision for living intentionally, as people “in the world but not of the world.” However, there is a concern. To paraphrase Stephen Neil, if everyone is a missionary, then no one is a missionary. The issue is not about the correctness or honor of a title. The fundamental concern is what this phenomenon means for the work of cross-cultural missions. Might it chip away at the impetus for cross-cultural missions? Or, as some may counter, wouldn’t we expect the increased “missional” language to actually raise awareness and the motivation for moving your home to preach the gospel in a foreign setting?
Let me be clear. I love the emergence of missional language. The issue I raise is whether is alright to collapse being missional into being a missionary such that we say, “Every Christian is a missionary.” On Twitter, someone asked me whether one could be missional but not be a missionary. I replied, “Can you be feminine and not be a female?” More directly, here’s my claim: Missionaries are missional but missional people are not necessarily missionaries.
If you are tempted to leave a heated reply in the comments, wait until you read one of the forthcoming posts. Even if you have strong opinions, the other side’s view is not so completely backwards as to warrant the disrespect of not seriously listening to it. Instead, I’d ask people to post their thoughts as to the relevant issues involved. What questions need to be considered? What is at stake and not at stake? We don’t want to get word right and miss the point altogether.
Here are two recent posts that are food for thought:
Why the missional movement will fail (from Mike Breen’s blog)
Two BIG Misconceptions about Missional (Brandon Hatmaker’s blog)
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In