The previous post, The Meanings of Missional Part 1-Responses to Frank Viola’s Three Questions, dealt with what the term missional means to me, whether I think it’s a good/useful term, and what constitutes the differences between missional and non-missional churches. This post picks up on his third question, giving more detail about what distinguishes or differentiates missional from non-missional. Part 2 was originally posted November 1, 2008, on my WordPress futuristguy blog.
Seven Critical Value Factors
for Proving Your Paradigm is Missional
The rest of the stuff on missional/non-missional is pretty technical, and I still don’t have a way to translate this down to everyday language easily yet. Sorry about that. I’m still learning on that front, and working on it. I’ll use a metaphor to try to fuse some of the concepts and concrete realities together, but at this point, it is what it is. Hopefully it contributes something to an advancing dialogue about the meanings of “missional.”
In my research writings, I’ve suggested that missional and non-missional spring forth from “deep” paradigms that are ultimately different. It’s not just that they present different “surface” methods. By this, I mean that the underlying paradigm for some models of church is inherently incompatible with missional ways of processing life, incompatible with the critical values of a mission-shaped perspective, and incompatible with its guiding theological principles, strategies, ministry structures, methodological models, and activities.
I know we don’t all agree on a definition of missional, or even on a description of what constitutes missional activities. However, I’d suggest that if advocates of a particular church or ministry state that they are “missional,” but their systems display numerous features that don’t really fit - or clearly block biblical requirements of being church - that should set off our paradigm analysis alarms.
Warning Sounds from the Walk
In fact, there’s a great illustration of exactly that from the film Anastasia. (Sorry I cannot pinpoint whether the following comes from the film version (1956), animated version (1997), or TV mini-series (1986), or some combination. But it’s there somewhere! If you figure out which, please help me out and leave a comment.)
Here’s the illustration: Years after the Russian revolution, a number of women claimed to be Anastasia, one of the daughters of the Tsar. Supposedly, all the children of the Tsar were executed when he was overthrown. If someone could prove she were the Grand Duchess Anastasia and therefore the only remaining and rightful heir of Tsar Nicholas II, she would be restored to the remainder of her family and to what wealth of inheritance had been kept outside of Russia. A woman named Anna Anderson appeared on the scene and seemed to have many possible and puzzling details that would suggest she just might indeed be Anastasia.
How would anyone be able to tell the genuine heiress from a lookalike, or from an outright fraud? Surely the telltale marks would be in the details …
A former military officer in the Tsar’s court hoped to produce an Anastasia, win acceptance for her among the remnants of Russian nobility, and with her, claim the inheritance. A specific way he coached Anna Anderson was in her posture, and grace in walking, as these skills were reared into the royals from their youth.
As a test of whether she would pass muster, he had gotten details of Anastasia’s measurements from the former dressmaker to the royal family, and had a metal template made. This panel featured a life-size cutout of what the real Anastasia’s outline would be if she were wearing a formal gown and crown. Encircling the entire cutout was a series of holes, each with a small bell hung across it. If Anna could pass through the template with princessly posture and noblest strides, the bells would remain silent. If she were not the real Anastasia, her failure would be obvious to all: If she could not carry herself well, she would not be able to carry it off with the ruse, and the bells would ring.
Fitting the Missional Template
Back to the issue of what makes a ministry model missional or not, I’d suggest that the missional paradigm template is surrounded by the warning bells of critical values. Critical values are those perspectives that are so core to the system they identify, that if they are absent, it proves the claimant to the inheritance is not genuine. If we don’t fit the missional template, these “bells” will chime in to let us know. In streetwise terms:
Every time we ring these bells …
… we prove we ain’t so mission-ell.
And so, from a paradigm analysis perspective, here’s my initial systems checklist of seven critical missional values - the “bells” that separate missional from non-missional. They are in no particular order, as they are all interconnected and all critical to proving a missional paradigm:
- Disciple-leaders
- Spiritual producers
- Personal presence
- Everyday activity
- Gift-based
- Indigenous context
- Kingdom collaboration
I’m sure I’ll eventually figure out more. However, if a model for being/doing church calls itself missional but does not integrate at least these seven elements throughout their systems, I’m pretty certain it is a misappropriation of the term.
Disciple-Leaders. Missional integrates around holistic discipleship, which includes worshipping, ministering, fellowshipping, and evangelizing. Other integration points lead to a far less comprehensive profile of following Christ. For instance, if a church integrates around evangelism, its mission has probably been hijacked by people with the gift of evangelism, sincere as they might be. This turns a church primarily into a preaching or witnessing outpost for sharing the faith to convert non-Christians, not maintain it as a place for equipping, empowering, and encouraging Christians to live their faith and share their life in their own spheres of influence.
Spiritual Producers. Missional views all disciples as spiritual producers, and expecting all of us to grow up in the faith and be learner-leaders. A church produces religious consumers if it overfocuses on meeting the felt needs of people, and/or does not challenge people to become who they were designed by God to be and to serve through church/community. If we look at consumerism with a long-view perspective, we’ll see that it basically keeps people babies. Being fed with milk is appropriate for babies. But spiritual adolescence is, in part, indicated by spiritual strength, the Word living in us, and overcoming the Evil One” (1 John 2:14). Spiritual maturity is, in part, indicated by knowing the Father deeply (1 John 2:14) persevering through adversity, and a host of other character qualities acquired by engaging in the practices, not just by hearing of the theories.
Consumerism basically trades on professional replacements for personal responsibility, attendance for participation, and preprocessed scriptural applications for critical reflection and devotional development. If we fail to challenge people to use their maturity and God-given creativity to become spiritual producers, we will end up with continuity (until our organization implodes from professional burnout or paradigm blunders) and we may not see continuance. (The theme of continuity versus continuance is one I’ll likely pick up again soon, as I think it deals with a potentially critical aspect of whether or not a culture or organization find sustainability.)
Personal Presence. Missonal disciples are consciously present with the people in their family, their neighborhood, their work, and their leisure. Missional relationships require more from us than being a referral resource. So, discipleship means being with people in the muck and mire of everyday life, at their level, not being (or pretending to be) above them. It is not sending people away to professionals to get fixed, as if that is the answer to all problems (and I’m not putting down the seeking of professional help for important needs). It is advocating for people, not just sending people to advocates. It is lending our own time, listening ear, and wise counsel based in biblical prescriptives and principles. It is sticking with people for the long haul, neither entering nor exiting relationships lightly.
Everyday Activity. Missional relies on an incremental approach to making a difference in the lives of people. This means “success” is measured in qualitative terms, not in quantitative terms. So, the question is never “How many people did you give a witness for Jesus, and they made decisions?” but, “What kinds of differences have you witnessed happening in the lives of people you are connecting with?” This does not mean missional-minded people are unconcerned about conversion. We’re not addicted to the conversation or to the journey. However, we refuse to treat people as drive-by targets for “The Gospel,” turning them into objects and dehumanizing them, or reducing them to a simplistic set of demographics. That would deny the image of God in them, and thus, deny their inherent humanity and worth to God and to us.
Gift-Based. Missional seeks to connect disciples with meaningful ministry that is appropriate both to their God-ordained spiritual giftedness and to their current spiritual maturity level. That requires development through training, some experiences and experimentation, supervised/mentored opportunities to serve, and continual learning once areas of ministry match are identified and entered. In my perspective, each spiritual gift is the equivalent of an espresso shot of a “one-another” commandment in the New Testament. At this point, I call the diluted one-another forms “spiritual disciplines.” (For instance, “welcome one another” is the discipline form, and hospitality is the gift form. If we don’t have the gift, we can still learn/practice the discipline form - and in fact, are commanded to do so, even if it’s a stretch for us.) I know this terminology may be confusing, since we often talk about the “spiritual disciplines” of prayer, fasting, worship, etc., but at this time I don’t know what else to call them.
Anyway, missional focuses on living into and living out BOTH spiritual gifts AND disciplines, but avoids organizing around roles and jobs. For instance, there is no spiritual gift of parking lot attendant, or of child check-in clerk. Those are roles, and helpful ones, but they are not spiritual gifts. Almost anyone could fill them, based on generic disciplines of serving. A system that is generic-discipline-based and not spiritual-gift-based typically lacks development of gifts for specific service. Which means only certain people get to use their gifts. Which means some (most) people are blocked from being spiritual producers in the very area God intended. So if it is not gift-based, it is not missional. In his book, Are You Committed? Connecting God’s People with Meaningful Ministry, my friend Jay McSwain suggests we should spend 80% of the time we serve in gift-based activities, and 20% in discipline-based activities. If we reverse that approach, perhaps we’ll still be doing “good” works, but will it be the wisest and best use of our providential giftings for service?
Indigenous Context. Missional integrates around local people, local cultures, locally produced materials, local applications of scriptural principles. It shies away from relying on outside people with their generic programs and universal thoughts on biblical principles. At best, local disciples produce their own Bible studies and resource materials and ministry partnerships - and they can do that because they are committed to each disciple developing his or her giftedness. If that is not currently possible, then at least the local people adapt materials produced by others, with a critical eye toward ensuring the results are holistic and fit local cultural circumstances without compromising Scripture. (In short, if the global conceptual platitudes don’t fit the local cultural platform, then something needs to be adjusted.)
Kingdom Collaboration. Missional involves trust-based collaboration - covenant, if you will - instead of forms of unity or partnership based in simply being together, believing together, or serving together. It’s far more than doctrinal statements or doing projects. We could consider Kingdom collaboration as a communal form of wrestling with the Spirit together and “working out your salvation [together] with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12-13). This makes sense in light of Philippians 1:6 where the you is plural, not singular, if I remember correctly. That means we need to understand the disciples at Philippi being in partnership with Paul for the gospel and “being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you [i.e., you all together as a Body] will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus” (NIV).
Kingdom collaboration is a community parallel (fractal) form of Body life as found in individual churches. Each gathering of disciples is to the Kingdom what each spiritually gifted individual is to the Body. If a partnership or association lets one person or church or perspective dominate, or refuses the appropriate gifts each gathering could bring, then that is dictation - not collaboration. And there are organizational forms disguised as collaboration among decentralized groups of disciples, but they are in fact are something else.
And again, an important disclaimer: I do not mean to diss all forms of church. In paradigm analysis, I’m looking at the consequences of underlying assumptions and systems. If people are being harmed outright, or harmed indirectly through gaps and excesses in their congregation, that should ring some bells - even if it’s not the missional bells. And, often, a methodological model creates spiritually harmful - though unintended - consequences that keep people from being disciples, or from being spiritually productive, or from giving their personal presence to others, or from developing their God-given spiritual gifts, or from living both peaceably and provocatively in their context. It is not enough to look at the apparent blessings and growth on the surface, and excuse away the harm being done underneath.
So, to me, this is all about connection and sustainability instead of irrelevance and toxicity. I am trying to get us to look at the systems that any church operates in, what its underlying paradigms is, and what inherent consequences - good and bad - come from that particular synergy of paradigm, culture, and context. If there are “genetic predispositions” to church systems diseases in our paradigm, wouldn’t we rather know what they are and how to fix them, if possible? If I didn’t believe we should change and could change, I would change and spend my time on other endeavors. Why waste precious time and effort on something that couldn’t make a difference?
A few final questions for all you do-it-yourselfers out there:
- Does our current ministry model “ring the missional alarm bells”?
- How many of these seven bells will be clanging on the missional template, and which ones?
- How loudly does our bell ringing clash with our claim of being mission-shaped?
- What are some other possible critical values of being missional that should be added to this list? How are we doing on those missional practices?
© 2008 Brad Sargent.
Brad Sargent