ok, seems like there’s a lot of hair-splitting going out there (done from a thoroughly modern posture) and the hairsplitters believe we cannot use the word “missional” because, as they claim, it has no clear meaning. so there’s a big push by some intellectuals for others to “define” the buzzword “missional” before anyone is allowed to use it intelligently. i’m willing to stick my neck out and put forward a definition, although be warned–this is thick reading–something you should block of an hour to hash through, so maybe put on a pot of coffee.
missional |’mih-shen-el| adj. of or relating to mission: many seem to enjoy sitting on their haunches while derisively asking, “What does ‘missional’ mean?” all the while having a good idea what it already means, tempered with the twofold fear of actually having to embody it and also acknowledging that such a central identity to Christ-following has been long ignored in the framework of Christendom. See missio dei.
TSK notes that the word “missional” seemed to have originate in the American vocabulary in the early 1800’s. and we’re still a bit uncomfortable with it. Christ have mercy.
Filed under: ecclesia |
Tags: missio dei, missional
One Response to “toward a definition of “missional””