The Salty, Light-Bearing Church

Steve Thomas

A VERBAL MYSTERY

A little over twenty years ago, the neologism[1] “missional” began to appear frequently in Christian publications. For some, it still has a jarring effect similar to hearing the verbized (yes, that is a word — regrettably) noun “disrespect.” Such distortions of perfectly good nouns seem to develop in one of two places: either on the street as slang or in academia as specialized terminology. Both probably gain traction for the same reason: buzzwords seem cool for a season.

What does “missional” mean? Definitional (oops) clarity remains elusive, perhaps because the word form broadens the scope of the more precise “mission.” Grammatically, as an adjective, it identifies things pertaining to or connected with a mission. The problem is that apparently everything is connected to “the mission.” The abundant and growing literature displays an ever-widening application: missional living, missional counseling, missional preaching, missional communities, missional coffee (seriously!), and so on.

CORE ELEMENTS

Past generations of Christians (who usually preferred their nouns to function as nouns) insisted that Jesus Christ commissioned His followers to carry out one mission: make disciples in every nation (Matt. 28:19–20). He established and empowered an agency to carry it out: the local church (Acts 2). He entrusted a message to her to protect and proclaim: the gospel (1 Tim. 3:15). If “missional” is just a way of repackaging and encouraging renewed effort, then one can applaud the work while cringing at the grammar. However, that does not seem to be the case. The actual missional movement (as opposed to those who simply like the cool new terminology) promotes theology and practice that threaten the health of the agency and the integrity of the church’s message.