I have been reflecting on the Vision Statement of my church lately, and I’ve noticed that we have a conflict. This conflict arises from the our human inability to balance two seemingly exclusive concepts. Unfortunately, the gospel of Jesus repeatedly demands of us that we balance such tensions.
The tension that I have in mind is that between characterising our community as both “dynamic” and “missional”. Our dynamism has to do with our fellowship, our ethos, our shared culture, our camaraderie. To be “dynamic” is to be Spirit-filled, having the love of God so overflow our lives and worship that we are able to transcend those barriers of gender, race, age, education, language, etc, so as to experience the “oneness” for which Jesus prayed on our behalf (John 17:20-23).
To be “missional”, on the other hand, is to be committed to outreach, to sharing the love of God and the knowledge of Jesus with our neighbours. We are called to participate in God’s mission; we commit resources, time, money, and personnel to such a task.
Herein lies the problem: to be missional is to be committed to a task; to be dynamic is to be committed to a dance. Our mission is a task-orientation; our relationships call for a person-orientation.
Can we, as a community, be both task and person-oriented at the same time? If this is possible, can we be truly successful at both?
The resolution that I propose relies on the fact that when a community is truly dynamic (i.e. “Spirit-filled”), then they are, inherently, attractive and, thus, missional. Our Western culture is so relationship and community-starved that, when a group of people fully commit themselves to authentic relationships and genuine, mutual community, they will attract others almost without any effort at self-promotion.
That is not to say that when a group is successfully missional —that is, committed to a relevant and worthwhile endeavour or cause— it will not be attractive. People are attracted to a worthwhile cause. However, most in our society will not conceive of organised religion as being a worthwhile cause. The problem is that this orientation almost seems to promote religion for its own sake, which, historically, has been a significant source of corruption.
Rather, the point, which non-religious persons fail to recognise, is that organised religion —in this case Christianity— facilitates Spirit and community. It is Spirit and community which all persons crave. We have simply lost sight of the fact that religion facilitates Spirit; indeed, spirituality is impossible without religious tradition and ritual supporting it, even if only unbeknownst to the practitioner.
Therefore, we are left with a commitment to becoming a thoroughly and authentically dynamic Christian community, which is, of itself, missional. Or, to put it another way, rather than focussing on providing good, solid, smoothly-organised programs (i.e. “task-oriented”), we should focus on being open, honest, caring, supportive, accountable, and transparent with each other (i.e. “person-oriented”) while we try our best to provide good, solid, and smoothly-organised programs. Our emphasis thus is on the relationships facilitated by our programs, rather than on the programs themselves.
When one thinks about the implications, this realisation can be quite liberating. Imagine, we can experiment, be creative, zany, goofy, and make mistakes, while still being successful in building community and fulfilling our mission! As people are drawn to our community, into our sphere of influence, then we are afforded the opportunity to gently, and with respect, share with them the reasons for our faith (1 Peter 3:15). Then, perhaps, their hearts and lives will be softened and become more receptive to the Spirit of God towards completing a glorious and transforming work in them, even as he finishes such a work in us.
All praise to the Triune God who would allow even us to participate in life-giving mission!
