Missional language does not do justice to the joy, mystery and fullness of life Christ invites us to share with the Triune God. 

Mission often paints mental pictures of a task to complete, more than pictures of a life to live.  Like the Blues Brothers on their "mission from God," anything that did not obviously contribute to the completion of their mission was treated without respect.  So when we see individual conversion, or serving marginalized peoples, or saving our planet as THE mission then everything else plays second fiddle.  Because of this subtle singularity communicated through missional language, dualism is reinforced.  This dualism suggests, "missional is important, everything else is less important."  Church work is important - web design is less important; working in a homeless shelter is important - working at the holiday inn is less important; working to save the rain forest is important - doing yard work at home is less important. 

We don't believe that God is more concerned with what we do than who we are; God has always been interested in us as whole beings.  Generally we say we believe that what we do is inextricably linked to who we are and vice-versa.  A thoughtful reading of most missional texts will reveal that mission naturally flows out life with Christ (see Jones, Newbigin, Mead, Bosch, Guder, to name a few).  So why choose language that inadvertently emphasizes task completion? 

Often church and organizational leaders like to stress a singularity of mission so that they can encourage more Christians to attach themselves to the leader's vision or mission.  This is a great way for leaders to get their pet projects done, to make a name for themselves, grow large ministries, and of course bring honor to God.  The much harder thing for a leader to do is to help the people in their relational networks uniquely express Christ.  That kind of unique Kingdom service may be hard to take credit for.

At this time I have chosen the language of incarnational living instead of missional living.  The language of incarnational living more meaningfully emphasizes living Christ in and through his followers in any and all relationships, situations, and cultural contexts.  It places the mystery of life with Christ at the center of each follower's life and each faith community's life together. 

Incarnational living invites all Christ-followers to flesh-out their uniqueness, encouraging the totality of their being to be seen as a reflection or embodiment of Christ.  When people and their subsequent communities see their "being" as inevitably making the invisible Christ visible through their lives, then every interaction, every act, every moment of stillness becomes a Christ moment.  This explodes the singularity of mission; now life becomes mission in a holistic sense.  Mission is inevitable when Christ is incarnated, but without incarnation mission looks a lot like busy religiosity. 

When Christ is incarnated through you and me, we will be looking for ways to empty ourselves in the service of the Father by serving others as the Holy Spirit guides us.  We become active participants in a Divine dance through which all of creation is being reconciled to Christ.  This is a dynamic faith process that will always find unique expression through each follower of Christ and each cluster of Christ-followers.  So much so that one person incarnating Christ out of their uniqueness may appear to be in direct conflict with another person incarnating Christ out of their uniqueness - but fear not, God is big enough to handle such occasional difference. 

Of course there is not a genuine dichotomy between these two phrases.  Mission is always lived out of our being and incarnational living always results in doing.  Every person (Christ-follower or not) and every organization is missional, and the more purpose driven in the execution of their mission the more they are viewed as successful.  There is nothing uniquely Christian about being missional.  Christ-followers may espouse a mission that serves God and others - but we are not alone in such selfless service, nor are we entirely selfless.  What does set Christian mission apart is that Christ is lifted high, He is made visible.  What makes mission Christian is that Christ is incarnated.

I choose to emphasize incarnational living precisely because only in and through the living Christ is "mission" Christian.  Don't waste your life living missionally and trying to get others to live missionally; live Christ and life in its fullness is yours, live Christ and the hope of purpose is yours, live Christ and mission… well it's simply inevitable.

Thanks for this dwight. some great thougths. sounds like the church leaders must let go of some stuff to make this work. not so safe feeling!
--Todd ( toddhiestand at gmail dot com ) on 12/2/2005; 2:36:20 PM

Thanks for the refreshing perspective. I get tired of the marketing driven mission movement. I think that 'to be' conscioulsy 'in' Christ is mission. Jesus in me the hope of glory.
--nigel majakari ( nigel at interyouth dot ch ) on 1/20/2005; 7:01:27 PM

So, this is an argument for foundational paradigms. Or, it could be an argument against attempting to simply graft one paradigm to another, which usually results in a shift in language but not a fundamental change in praxis.

I'm with you.. and for those who haven't yet read it, grab Frost and Hirsch "The Shaping of Things to Come" or check out my review here: http://www.nextreformation.com/reviews/shaping-review.htm
--Leonard Hjalmarson ( lenhjal at telus dot net ) on 1/12/2005; 2:08:15 PM

I am the product of a "mixed marriage" (Jewish and Protestant) and I am equally proud to have both. As a result, I am open to a variety of religious experiences and points of view. Yours is one of the more truthful statements I have read in a long time. Though my leanings actually stray to the East (Indian/Asian traditions), I can clearly see your path of 'walking the walk' rather than just 'talkin it up' is refreshingly true, for any faith and mystic tradition. The closer one comes to realization (of a devotional relation) the more differences melt into one another. I believe you more than hint at that toward the end of your article. Congratulations.
--Christopher Flory ( florydance at earthlink dot net ) on 11/9/2004; 6:53:17 AM

Good article by Dwight. I’d be interested to know more about how he’s worked this out in the context of his faith community. I’ve resisted forming any kind of mission or vision statement for my community because of what Dwight talks about – though I certainly did not have the words to put to it until now (thanks Dwight). I help lead a congregation of folks who are really wanting some kind of vision or mission statement because they feel that we are too ill-defined in what we are about – they want a concise way to describe who we are when they 1. try and describe their church to friends/colleagues, and 2. to help us as a community know what we are to say ‘yes’ to and what we need to say ‘no’ to. Certainly the tension of trying to embrace the mystery and immenseness of living as a follower of Jesus is something to pay attention to – we’ll never encapsulate it in one word. I see a larger issue here at work – the weakness of language. I think there’s as much intentionality (though it ‘feels’ more holistic) in the word ‘incarnational’ as there is in ‘missional’ – where the rubber hits the road is in how this is worked out. Hopefully folks will pay more attention to HOW we go about being missional or incarnational rather than the words we use.
--Ryan bd ( ryanbd at yahoo dot com ) on 3/25/2004; 12:26:32 PM

"Often church and organizational leaders like to stress a singularity of mission so that they can encourage more Christians to attach themselves to the leader's vision or mission. This is a great way for leaders to get their pet projects done, to make a name for themselves, grow large ministries, and of course bring honor to God. The much harder thing for a leader to do is to help the people in their relational networks uniquely express Christ. That kind of unique Kingdom service may be hard to take credit for."

I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Until church and organizational leaders take note of the above, we will never "be" missional, let alone incarnational.
--Mike ( mbabcock82 at sbcglobal dot net ) on 2/15/2004; 6:09:45 PM

Dwight,

Thanks for making an important clarification of the risk and practice of a dualistic perspective that looms on us as we seek to follow our Lord. Incarnational is inclusive and you make an important contribution and distinctive awareness to the discussion.
--Park ( pbsjr9 at aol dot com ) on 2/10/2004; 4:49:45 PM

The reason I don't choose to live incarnationally is because I have no choice. I am embodied and am glad I have a choice to pursue my mission, oops, my calling in Christ.

Thanks for the insights Dwight.

n
--Neil ( ntibbott at yahoo dot com ) on 2/9/2004; 4:42:34 PM

Great article Dwight - thanks for summarizing much of our discussion on incarnational living these past few weeks.

Your article is clear, concise, and compelling.

Peace
pc
--pc ( peace-full2 at comcast dot net ) on 2/9/2004; 10:13:16 AM