Comments on: The Relational/Missional Dilemma

By: Jay

Jay — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:10:20 +0000

If you commented on this, you may want to check out my followup post: http://onlywonder.com/2010/02/08/the-missionalrelational-dilemma-the-flip-side/

By: The Missional/Relational Dilemma (The Flip Side) « Only Wonder Understands

The Missional/Relational Dilemma (The Flip Side) « Only Wonder Understands — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:09:25 +0000

[...] } As I’ve thought about the comments on my last post, it seems that somehow folks think I am arguing for an “either/or” [...]

By: mbcoudal

mbcoudal — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:51:30 +0000

Yes, maybe church is not about “making people happy.” But I don’t see anything wrong with churches helping people pursue a deep and lasting happiness by entering into deep and lasting relationships, with oneself, with one another, with God.

So much in popular culture right now, I think, is looking at Why are we happy? How can we help one another attain happiness? I happen to be reading the book The Happiness Project so I can see a lot of research and a lot of appeal in this direction.

One overwhelming direction in the pursuit of happiness is that we find happiness in connection to others. And we do, we must, connect with and to people beyond our usual social milieu in our churches. Like you, Jay, connected beyond your comfort zone to help defeat the English Only legislation. Which is commendable.

Any way, my opinion? it’s more important to help each other be happy, feel loved, ask the big questions, be deep, live with brothers and sisters than to be right. Being right doesn’t make you happy. Yet, I think, in our churches we have valued being right over being loving.

By: Tracy L. Taylor

Tracy L. Taylor — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:35:47 +0000

I believe that as Christians we are called to keep 2 commandments which are 1)To love the Lord your God with all you heart, mind, soul and strength 2)To love your neighbor as yourself. To keep these 2 commandments we must be in relationship with God, those in our congregations and those outside our congregations. We must build a relationship with God first and know Him. Those in the ministry must help those in our congregations do the same. It is then that we can address and go after our mission as the body of Christ helping those in need out of our great love for Christ. I agree that we cannot be inwardly focused only taking care of ourselves but being in ministry requires us to help others in our congregations understand that we need to keep the 2 commandments above all things. By doing this our missions will be accomplished for the tranformation of the world. Now I have heard it said that by allowing our congregations to go into the mission field, wherever that may be, and putting them to work wherever the need may be, this allows them to enter into and grow in relationship with God and each other. This is quite possible but relationship needs to be included in the mission equation.

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:47:40 +0000

Marilyn, please here me when I say that I recognize the importance of relationships, and agree completely that any dismissal of the importance of relationships by church leaders in the pursuit of “productivity” (my word, not yours) misses the boat. And I don’t believe that a missional focus can be imposed from the top down, but rather works best when arising from the relationships that exist within the congregation. My fear comes when relationships become the only focus, when everything a congregation is doing is inwardly directed, with little concern about what happens outside the walls. When that happens I think that this gathering of people moves from being the active body of Christ in the world to being something very different.

By: Marilyn Kasperek

Marilyn Kasperek — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:37:16 +0000

While I agree with much of this, my concern is that for some church leaders rather than helping develop and build ownership of the mission they become task oriented and dismiss all relationships as collateral damage. Vision is clearly needed – where there is no Vision the people perish – however I think if clearly defined and articulated a gifted leader can benefit from existing relationships in building ownership and inviting others to join – not assuming that because they have done it another way they are not open to change – I believe that well developed relationships are the means to moving forward, not the roadblocks. It is not about making everyone feel happy it is about having everyone respected and provided with as much information as possible. I think if we use that leadership model we can move forward, and those left behind will have made the choice – not we making it for them and wondering why they are so hurt.

By: Jay

Jay — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:02:42 +0000

No, I don’t think we are disagreeing at all, and most certainly I would affirm that there is a symbiotic connection between relationship and mission. You’re right that it was relationships that led me toward the Metro General advocacy, while in the case of the English Only work I was drawn by the injustice of the legislation. And I am willing to fully admit that I’m making a bit of a generalization in this post to make a point. It’s based in seeing too many congregations in the U.S. who fail to be in mission (Read Dan Dick’s post at UMMethodeviations on the Sin of Nomission) and find themselves struggling in quicksand because they think that church is about friendships and not a calling to something much more. Relationships are very important and provide a means of knowing God at a deeper level. But they aren’t the only thing, and I see more congregations than not flailing about, locked in popularity battles for power, due in part to their inability to identify something beyond themselves that God is calling them to.

By: Kara

Kara — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:56:45 +0000

Jay – Maybe it’s an issue of the chicken or the egg. If you were to ask most people associated with Nashville for All of Us they would probably have a story to tell about someone they know, or a story they have heard, or a relationship that was/is affected by the motivating legislation. I wonder if your own involvement with Metro General Hospital evolved from a pure commitment to mission or has its roots in a relationship with someone who was deprived of adequate health care, or received excellent health care at Metro.

We came to Malawi without knowing anyone, without relationships; but we came trusting the relationships of friends and colleagues who had already built relationships here. And we have learned very quickly that our mission will not go anywhere without developing relationships first. Thus, part of our rationale for extending our mission commitment.

Jesus never allowed us to be comfortable with our current relationships. Jesus always challenges us to build relationships with those whom we never considered inviting to the table. And the mission – whether chosen intellectually, Spiritually or through relationship – will surely cause tension or even divides in some of the relationships we hold most dear.

I don’t think I’ve said anything to disagree with you. Mission unites us and brings us into the kingdom-building work that so many of our churches avoid at all costs. But there is an important role that relationships play in the motivation and trust level with those for whom and with whom we are in mission.

Thanks for this post!