The “Sexification” of Missional Church
OK – here we go. Things have been stewing lately, not to mention the whole Deadly Viper controv, but also things I’ve been observing about the academic / ecclesial establishment. A black man is fired at one place with no attempt to consider racial dimensions behind the act. And then I hear at a recent Halloween party for Regent seminarians someone not only donned blackface but completely justified his behavior. And this is never addressed up here. So I’ve had enough. Dispensing with my usual policy of avoiding polemics.
At the outset I value the “missional” church. I do not disparage the missional endeavor. It is necessary and has been a tremendous blessing to the church at large. I consider myself “missional” in “orientation” (which has a funny way of replacing the word “evangelical”). However, like all good things, when overemphasized, something has the tendency to become elitist. And it pervades several areas:
Missional Education / Theology:
Why should I sit through a 3-credit class about missional theology from two white males who represent only a fraction of the population in Vancouver? (mind you I love both of these profs) – but how can they teach me how to reach the 40% minorities there? All I hear is “US going to them“. That bothers me. One student in my class even has the nerve to say “all THEY do is congregate amongst themselves. How are we going to reach THEM?” Alas, we should be hearing more from the Salter-McNeils, the Perkins, the S.C. Rahs, the Cones, the Cornel Wests… et al – but what we get in school is often more of the same.
Missional Literature / blogs / et al:
Missional ecclesiologists bore me. All they talk about is fifty ways to re-do church for the same socio-ethnic strata. Hence my previous review of Forgotten Ways (which, incidentally, my TA says he completely disagreed with) – indeed; tell me if I’m wrong. Show me a book that seriously considers what it means to plant churches amongst the uncommon milieu. Am I wrong in saying “missional literature” so often targets the same stratas of society? Friend of mine says it perfectly: “it’s not a movement, it’s a makeover. same players holding the same power talking to the same people and excluding the same people.”
Missional Movement or Missional Makeover?
I’m honestly really tired of all the anti-attractional, anti-institutional, anti-organizational rhetoric that comes from missional pundits, even big names. I feel like this desire to be so “alternative” is really just a way of saying “i’m better than you”. And that needs to be deconstructed. Sadly, by glamorizing the apostate but not the alien; the reprobate but not the refugee, the missional church has sought out only the dark, sexy, elements of society. Not all are tattooed ex-biker sinners with drug problems. Or athiestic urban hipster indy-coffeeshop campers with degrees in philosophy. This does not represent the broader society.
In the end perhaps the most profound thing I can say is this: missional theology knows volumes about a theology of incarnation, but almost zilch about a theology of ascension.
Like
That is a lot to consider. I do see primarily white males as speakers at conferences although there are some significant exceptions. There are, however, some very good examples of non-white, non-rich middle class expressions of the missional movement. Here is a great article by Mark Sayers (Australian) about the “The Emerging Missional Church Fractures into Mini Movements”, http://marksayers.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/the-emerging-missional-church-fractures-into-mini-movements/
I found it to be really helpful.
Thanks for speaking up about this.
In The Next Evangelicalism Soong-Chan Rah makes the same argument that the missional church’s approach and methodology seemingly appeal to that of upper-class, WASP demographic. You’re right in pointing this out. I’m strongly convinced that the underlying principles of “missionality” is waiting for theologians to apply to their own variegated and unique contexts. Our white colleagues merely began this work, and it’s up to ethnic guys like you and I to finish it.
@PaulDz
thanx for the input Paul.
From what I’m hearing (still incubating in seminary) things are trending better on the outside. Some of the profs here tacitly admit as well that the academic establishment is still beholden to much of the socio-ethnic hegemonies. I will concede however – what would Regent be like w/o its Anglican (Anglo-Saxon) roots? And how long do we stay here?
@Steve
thanx for the charge Steve…
Wayne — Thank you for speaking with boldness & clarity. I almost *never* see these issues raised (and I spend a lot of time in these missional circles too). Reminds me of that saying (rough paraphrase here), “Crazy people are the ones who keep doing the same things but expect different results.” Let’s not be crazy!
As Paul said above, lots of good stuff to think about here (and, as Steve said, to act upon).
Wayne – I found your blog through Eliacin Rosario-Cruz’s website. I was wondering if you know of the movement within indigenous communities around the world arising from the margins? Though it may be a side effect of what is currently brewing, much of what indigenous leaders around the world have to say brings a very strong balance to what you’re concerned with here; although, I’m not sure that the majority is allowing themselves to consider the impact of such a thing as indigenous people worshiping Christ in the way that Creator made them. In my experience, there is a lot of “tolerance” though not much interaction. For an example of a Native North American theologian, check out this article:
http://www.ministrymatters.ca/archives/2009/fall-2009/recovering-the-real-beginning-genesis-1-and-2/
If you’re interested in chatting, shoot me an email. You should have it, as it’s required for this post.
Peace.
Dan
@Dan Lowe
that sounds like “insider movements”?
@Daniel So
amen. May our meditation be pleasing in his sight, and may it rise in praxis.
Hi wayne – As a white guy that “teaches” in latin america I think about this all the time. The bottom line is you gotta be in the moment, be human, be humble. We can’t generalize. That’s the trap of race discussion.
Wayne-
I’m diggin your blog. I think you bring up a lot of interesting ideas, and as someone who’s beginning to re-engage the evangelical world, I appreciate your perspectives on trends that are taking place in Christian literature, including the “missional” craze. That word seems to be everywhere nowadays.
I have many thoughts on the subject (I agree with a lot of what you’re saying), but my main hesitancy with the missional emphasis is the lack of a counterbalance toward being, rather than doing. I’m afraid that the same drivenness to expand, grow, reach more people, etc might feed into our impulse to define ourselves by how much we’re doing, rather than a natural overflow from who we are. I think the message of a contemplative devotional life gets lost when the entire emphasis is on being “missional”. New missiologists might be emphasizing smaller communities over the large seeker church models of our predecessors, but the constant message of “mission” and “doing” at the expense of a quality inner life and family seems to perpetuate more really really active and overly-busy people.
I understand and appreciate much of what you’re saying, but I have some concerns about the following comment:
Why should I sit through a 3-credit class about missional theology from two white males who represent only a fraction of the population in Vancouver? (mind you I love both of these profs) – but how can they teach me how to reach the 40% minorities there?
Taken in a certain way, the question could be asked, then: What can a bunch of first century Jews teach us about missions? Or, what could Hudson Taylor teach us? While it would certainly be great to have additional perspectives on missions (not just white guys teaching) it’s best to evaluate teaching simply on the basis of the truth of the teaching. You may be doing that, anyway, but others might go in with a preconceived notion about white professors, say, and reject the teaching without regards to truth or falsehood.
@Drew
The missional “vocation” has been co-opted by a subtle self-actualizing careerism – hijacking the genuine pastoral vocation. So totally; I’m all over that. we outta hook up next time I’m home in Queens.
U sure you’re not a Regent guy?
@JO
I hear what you’re saying but here’s the thing about education – is it just about ideas or is it also a process? In other words, how are ideas not only communicated, but received, engaged, embodied by teachers who are of only one predominant demographic?
Wayne,
Putting it bluntly, who cares if the teaches of some subject are white, black, asian, aliens, angels, etc. The Bible commands us to consider everything in prayer, and test what we are taught against the Word of God…trusting that the Holy Spirit will give us the insight and convictions necessary from the Lord.
Let me reverse your point. How would you feel if I said “Why should I sit through a 3-credit class about missional theology from two Asian males who represent only a fraction of the population in the United States?” I’m pretty sure that many people would immediately wonder if I was making a racist statement.
Why does the content have to be qualified by the color of the person teaching it?
This sort of thing shouldn’t even be a question.
MATT: HAVE YOU NOT READ ANYTHING PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR THE PAST 10 COMMENTS?
Your smugness is irritating, and by reversing MY POINT you’re missing the point entirely. I’m not going to condescend and even try to answer your arguments anymore. You seem to like arguing for arguments sake, and that’s called ‘trolling’. Don’t waste my time anymore if you just want to continue this argumentative streak.
Wayne,
I’m saddened by that response from you. I thought you actually wanted to discuss issues, and any discussion is always bettered when somebody presents a different point of view (not wrong, just different).
I guess I will have to accept that you prefer to discuss volatile topics with people who will just chime in and agree with you.
The conclusion I come to is that you have decided to label me simply because you don’t agree with my point of view, and dismiss my opinion. I haven’t dismissed your opinion — rather I have debated it with you.
Oh, and the attempt at throwing out cute internet speak like “trolling” is just sad. I am clearly not trolling, and if you wish to label this as such, so be it.
I’ll leave you to talk about issues and chat it up with people who only agree with you, as you clearly aren’t interested in having a real debate.
God Bless
Matt
I appreciated your post, Wayne. A lot of stuff for me to digest and reflect on. Thanks!
@steph
Thanx Steph. It’s been great to follow up w/ your “grace in small things” meditations…
@Matt LeClair
Matt: STOP WASTING MY TIME.
For me to banter with an armchair theologian would be endurable if that person approached the table with a level of humility as opposed to an argumentative attitude. Why I put up with your insipid challenges to everything I write I don’t know.
For me, issues of oppression, race, even gender roles come into play everyday in life and death situations as a pastor. 30 minutes ago I had to minister to a family who just lost a patriarch. How the grieving women carry on is of utmost concern to me. Don’t use me to bounce off your theological side-hobby when these issues are of the utmost praxis for me. I have better things to do. If you wanna come around here to debate, do it to learn, not to win. And fewer times a day at that.
I see.
You now call me names and insult my intelligence (“armchair theologian”).
You imply that your knowledge of theology is superior to mine. HOW DARE YOU. No one can know the mind of God — we can only grasp at glimpses. You have no right to EVER put yourself above me in such an arrogant way. Shame on you.
I think that it is great that you are in the ministry, Wayne, and I’m sure that you do experence much that others don’t have opportunity to through your counseling.
I have continued to discuss these issues with you (and others) — but as I said, it seems that you aren’t interested in actually debating. You don’t take my statements and look to refute them (especially with some scripture, perhaps?). Instead you choose to attack me personally in order to attempt to discredit the things I have written.
In any case, I’m sure you won’t respond, or if you do it will be to attempt to censor and dismiss me once again (much like how you removed me from your Facebook list…highly mature, that…are we back in high school?)….so this can’t possibly be wasting your time.
Matt. you keep talking about a debate.
Why do you want to debate with me so much?
Where’s the debate? I’m not debating with you. I’m tired of having to re-school you on the elementals of subjects which you attempt to speak so authoritatively on.
Maybe because its an interesting topic?
For what its worth, I’m tired of being labeled, dismissed, and demeaned.
Perhaps we should just agree to disagree…or maybe a better way to put it is agree that the discussion isn’t going anywhere any longer.