Frost and Hirsch helpfully distinguish between 'attractional' and 'incarnational' models of mission. As a heuristic tool this language allows us to distinguish between those approaches that invite people to come to our events and those where by we go as it were to where people are.
Within a broad misional intent both are valid...in the Gospel of Mark Jesus both presences himself among people and has people enter his presence (great study by Glen Stassen on Incarnational Theory of the Cross).
As I reflect on the difference between these two missional approaches I find myself interested in the question of 'power'. As a minister I have been involved I think in a range of quite adventurous attractional 'out-reach' missional activities. Often these have sought to provide culturally relevant expressions of the gospel 'dance cafe', 'multi-media presentation', 'open-youth club' etc. yet in all of these I with others have retained the power - power of event, power over venue, power over acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour, power of inclusion and exclusion. This power has often been reinforced by the implicit and explicit conventions of the buildings used - or an already established morality.
In contrast to this as I have pursued some social and leisure activities bagpipe playing, learning dancing etc. this has been done in other peoples buildings, where other peoples rules operate, and often in a context where instead of being the person with something to share I have been the person learning and as such dependant on others. These latter activities have demonstrated for me how much power I previously exerted implicitly or explicitly even if only through my socially ascribed status as a 'minister'.
People talk about being vulnerable in mission and this I think relates to questions of power. To be sure we can 'serve' in mission but often we serve from a position of power rather than from the position of 'slave'. In this respect I note that generally we prefer to talk in our translation of the Greek 'doulos' about 'servant' leadership, ministry, mission - rather than 'slave' leadership etc. It seems to me that Phil 2:5-11 etc. resists a notion of 'servant' which retains power.
I am not sure what this means for our mission. It clearly cannot mean avoiding offering compassion and creating confrontation in calling for repentance because both were aspects of the mission of Jesus. (Stassen) Yet both of these were done on the basis of no claimed external authority (power, status, validation) other than that of God inherent in the act. Indeed the external authorities (powers) rejected these claims and crucified Jesus leaving it to God to validate through the power of the resurrection.
What am I saying...risky mission may well be when we lay down all power and throw ourselves into something where we trust in the authenticating of none but God of the compassion we bring and confrontation we cause...
Okay - my question would be - what does that look like in practice...well...go join a club and do something where you are a learner, have no prescribed social status, and just be present working out what faithful witness looks like...and trust in the self-authenticating 'power' of God that embraces death and brings resurrection...
Recent Comments