"Missional"-- a sad case of word abuse

By Stanley Porter  |  ChristianWeek Columnist

There are some words I relish hearing because they convey to my ears all sorts of important thoughts and ideas. “Used book store” is one set of these, and if you saw my library you would know why.

“Vienna” is another—the city I consider the most beautiful in the world (sorry, Hamilton). “Greek linguistics” is not on most people’s lips, but is something that I have poured a lot of effort into over the years. “I love you” spoken to me by my wife, are probably the words that mean the most to me.

Words are important. We use them to talk about the mundane, the sublime and everything between. Coming from the mouth of a gifted preacher, the pen of a talented writer or from someone we love, they can transfix and transform us. Words can also be greatly abused. In fact, words are abused frequently, even by people who are well-meaning.

I have been tallying a number of frequently abused words. These are words that are used as if they have a clear, specific and often positive meaning, while at the same time they hide as much as they reveal.

“Missional” is one of them. The word is bandied about quite a bit, I’ve noticed. We hear people talk about “missional” this and “missional” that and even “being missional.” I am not sure what most of these people are talking about.

At first hearing it seems as if it is referring to the noble and oft-maligned concept of Christian missions. But missions are usually the furthest thing from what these people are talking about. The word also sounds like it is related to the notion of purpose or intention, but it is rarely clear to me what real purpose or intention is being invoked. I have come to believe that “missional” usually means: “doing the same business as usual, but now hiding behind a current buzz word.”

The word “church” is also widely and frequently abused. Don’t get me wrong—I love the Church as the institution that God ordained for humans to be actively a part of and to serve as a major vehicle for His work in the world. Many people, however, equate “church” with buildings, programs or denominations.

I am pretty sure that is not what Jesus had in mind when He said to Peter that he would build His Church. Jesus was referring to the body of people—like the earliest disciples—who gathered together purposefully to be His faith-filled followers wherever they were, wherever they met and whatever names or labels they gave themselves.

As you can imagine, a phrase I really dislike is “missional church.” This phrase is either redundant or meaningless. It is redundant if all one means is that the Church is to have a purpose, because that is what the Church is meant to have by its very definition.

The phrase is meaningless if all one intends is that we are trying to find some purpose for the very existence of some group that has lost its way, but wants to continue to meet in a particular building or under a particular banner. If a local gathering of Christians does not have a clear purpose for gathering—to worship and faithfully follow Jesus Christ—then giving the word “missional” to it won’t help.

Stanley E. Porter is President and Dean of McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario.

Respond to Article  |  E-mail Article  |  Print Article