blog posts
Missio Trinitatis, Part Two: Clarifying the Conversation
Last week’s post on Why the Missional Conversation Must Change got a bit of attention last week, which we are grateful for. The response was overwhelmingly positive, with many of you “in the trenches” commenting on how helpful it has been for articulating issues you face every day as you seek to live lives of mission and discipleship. We are excited to continue to engage the Family on Mission theme this year.
There were also a few questions, and a bit of pushback (which we love!), so we wanted to respond this week by clarifying two things to help further the conversation.
WHAT WE MEAN BY FAMILY
Many people wondered what we mean when we say “Family” on mission. In the back of our minds, sometimes we have an image of Mom and Dad and their 2.4 children in a house they bought in the suburbs with a white picket fence.
This is not what we mean. We aren’t excluding that from the definition of family, but when we talk about being a family on mission, we are referring to what Jesus did. He gathered disciples around him (who obviously weren’t related to him), and instead of just having them carry his bags and be his “work associates,” he treated them as members of a new family he was building. When Jesus’ own mother and brothers come to “take charge of him,” (because they assumed he was out of his mind), he said, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” Then pointing to his disciples he said, “Here is my mother and my brothers and my ___, for anyone who does the will of my father in heaven is my mother and brother and sister.”
Amazingly, Jesus was drawing new boundary lines for what “family” is! Not just those we are related to biologically, but those who are in community with us on mission with Jesus. For Jesus, the waters of baptism are thicker than blood. What What Jesus is doing in calling disciples to be with him and to represent him is simply re-creating a family (because he came from a family representing a family: the Trinity).
DEI & TRINITATIS / EVOLUTION OF ARTICULATION
Which gets us to the Missio Trinitatis thing. Some people brought up that the theology of Missio Dei has always been implicitly trinitarian and communal, so there was no need to change the language. And while we acknowledge that Missio Dei has indeed always had the Trinity at its center, we are simply observing that in many cases the methodology that springs from this theology is still thoroughly individualistic.
The reason for this is that as the missional conversation has gotten more and more mainstream, this trinitarian focus has been diluted and assumed. As a result, people take the (yes, thoroughly trinitarian, yes) concept of Missio Dei and pour it into the container of Western individualism, thus producing a methodology of sending out individual missionaries.
So while the Missio Dei doesn’t cause individualistic mission all by itself, it does get co-opted by Western individualism. For this reason we are suggesting that beginning to talk about the Missio Trinitatis and being “Families on Mission” could be a helpful way of evolving and nuancing the conversation in a way that better equips people to truly hear the theology in a way that leads to a methodology consistent with it.
The way that we talk about this phenomenon at 3DM is that we need to pull our unconscious competence back to conscious competence, so we can better equip others. Any time competence is unconscious (we don’t know what we know), we can’t actually train anyone in it, and our methodology isn’t reproducible. It’s like a brilliant quarterback who can’t explain to anyone else how he does what he does. He can teach people generally about being a quarterback, but because his true competence is unconscious, he won’t be able to reproduce himself, no matter how excellent his play or eloquent his speech.
The communal methodology of many in the missional world has been unconscious competence that needs to become conscious competence so that those who are steeped in the individualistic methodology can learn how to function in a new way. Moving to conscious competence always involves becoming explicit about what has been implicit, so that it becomes reproducible.
We are simply noticing many churches trying to embrace missional theology and practice that are still sending out individual missionaries. As the missional conversation becomes more mainstream, we’ll need to become more explicit about what kind of God we are saying is on mission. Shifting our language to Missio Trinitatis and “God is Family on Mission” is a punchy way of getting at that, a way of evolving the conversation to address the gaps in understanding and practice we are seeing.
It’s interesting, because we remember when the term “missional church” first began to make the rounds in the Christian world. Many theologically astute listeners objected, saying, “Isn’t every church missional? That’s implicit in the definition of church.” And technically, they were right, just like those who say that the Trinity is implicit in the Missio Dei.
But the word “missional” actually became a helpful qualifying word that brought an awareness that has been pulling the church back toward her true identity and calling. This is how language creates culture. We are simply suggesting that Missio Trinitatis could be a helpful qualifying term that does a similar thing, helping the church rediscover her identity and calling of being a family on mission, and not lone rangers on mission.
—
We love the conversation! Feel free to comment below. Please note that we need to approve every comment (because of some spam issues), so don’t panic if your comment doesn’t show up right away. We read them all!
About Mike Breen
Subscribe
Enter your email address to subscribe to the 3DM Leadership Blog. You'll receive notifications of new posts by email.
16 Responses to Missio Trinitatis, Part Two: Clarifying the Conversation
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to this Blog
Enter your email address to subscribe to the 3DM Leadership Blog. You'll receive notifications of new posts by email.
This clarifying language has been transformative for both our nuclear family and our church family. It was only after inviting an extended family into our lives to live on mission together in our neighborhood that our nuclear family really began to move as a pack and unite around mission as well. The clarifying language of “families on mission” was a key part of people deciding to join with us.
We just didn’t have it in us to do it alone. We needed the added energy, support and spark of an extended family united by one baptism and one Spirit. It has changed everything and the fruit being multiplied in the lives of those around us is obvious to see.
So grateful for this conversation!
Thanks Andy! Great feedback. I love how the humility of needing help was what drove you to family on mission!
Mike, I like the “nuancing” concept. It seems to me that what you’re doing is redefining language and trying to take it back from the hands of misuse in American/Western culturized Christianity. You seem to be challenging us to again think about how Jesus actually did it. You’re asking us to quit defaulting to individualized/independent, perhaps even personality/celebrity driven cultural philosophies. That’s what interests me in what you’re putting forward. How can we be more aware in our cultures of when we are acting independently - when God is actually asking us to slow the pace down and work communally, as He is?
And I also love your desire to offer theology which is practical. Combining mission with the Trinity, or family on mission … makes me think and assess. Where is our independence and culture of keeping control played out in my ‘family’ - or in me?
It’s a tough discernment for me - to decide if God is saying “be the forerunner; be the first to move; go before know” vs. if God is saying “who’s your family; how can you invite them to hear and move with you?” All kinds of muck around those issues.
Essentially, it seems Jesus called disciples to go and do, regardless of whether others would go - or receive (Paul mission with the Gentiles or many of the prophets, for example). But Jesus also sent disciples together; and he connected people to entire groups in the mission (Samaritan Woman, sending out the 72, for example). So … hmmm.
Do you believe we’re always called to operate communally, as in 100% of the time? Does our ‘independent’ sense of mission/call help to define “who” our family is (POP)? And, in terms of leadership, how do we define the direction without taking independent steps others might not be willing (yet) to take?(i.e. what part does personal responsibility to respond in obedience play?)
Over the past few years, the movement around missio dei has helped me describe for other Christians how God didn’t just go to church and sit in a pew! I want to keep the movement - moving disciples to be and do, 24/7.
Of course we want to keep the “movement” as well, Sandy! While we do believe that God calls us to operate communally (hard to be a “body” of Christ with only one member!), all healthy communities have leaders who are going to lead the family. And oftentimes the family is defined by who goes with you when you lead.
Just a question actually. Is it Trinititatis or Trinitatis? I saw it’s spelled both ways in the article. And I was curious the root of the word and where it developed. I’d like to do a word search on it!
Thanks. I appreciate the article.
It’s Trinitatis - was misspelled once! Fixed it - thanks for the heads-up.
Great reading and great learning, I come from reading “The Forgotten Ways” & “The Forgotten Ways Hand Book” which emphasizes the Missio Dei .. but also teaches on “Communitas”.which is “family”. It is refreshing to see teaching reviewed challenged and changed where necessary. We need to move our thinking from “independence” to “interdependence”.
Thanks for advancing this discussion! We’re trying to learn about an “excluded middle” in our thinking. Agreed that we have understood the mission of God individualistically and so have sent out individuals almost as “superheroes” of the faith. And agreed that Jesus’ vision, implemented thru His apostles, is the founding of “families of families”, i.e. churches. And those families do have a “family business” of local influence and local witness. But we don’t see churches planting churches in the NT. We seem to see apostolic teams, rooted and sent by “families on mission”, out planting new families. In our family on mission, we’re trying to unlearn some old forms, and take seriously this excluded middle of teams (not individuals) sent by the family. will look forward to more of your thoughts and teaching!
Love that Dru! Look forward to engaging with you more.
Thanks for the clarification! It is truly appreciated.
Even though I remain skeptical of the linguistic change that is being introduced, I’m grateful for your clear articulation as to why you chose the ‘Missio Trinitatis’ language.
I think that even this slight diversity in our theological conversations will help us all to gain a fuller understanding of doctrine, whether we decide to adopt the phrase or not.
Keep challenging!
Proverbs 27:17
“Iron sharpens iron,
So one man sharpens another.”
Thank you for reminding us of the cultural bias that keeps us from gaining an accurate biblical picture of the life/mission we are called to live! As you said, in the modern, western world when we hear the world “family” we automatically think of a mom and a dad and a couple of kids. When we hear the world “house” we automatically think of a single (nuclear) family dwelling. When we read in Mark 2:1 that Jesus was “at home” was assume he was in a single family dwelling where a nuclear family lived. Not true! He was in an extended family compound where several nuclear families, along with some close friends, shared life and a common vocation together. This is the missional context of Jesus and his disciples and is meant to be ours as well. Unless we develop language which pushes us beyond our assumptions us to see ourselves, our families, and our Kingdom vocation in a more biblical perspective, the content of the missional conversation will continue to be misinformed by the cultural bias of the individual. Thanks for giving us “missio trinitatas” as a way of shaping a more biblical conversation about the mission of Jesus in the 21st century west!
Dear colleagues, (family members),
Being related to translation of the Bible and knowing the importance of ensuring that the target audience fully understands the language being used to transmit a message, I really wonder why
Latin is being used which isn’t understood by the majority of the fellowship. Why not take the time to find a way of clearly expressing the family component of the God Head in very clear English for
English speakers and clearly translating the terms in other languages if that is required.
I appreciate that some terms may need multiple phrases or definitions to ensure that the meaning is finally clearly understood but that probably is better than using Latin and still having to make it understood.
This is a response to a subject that is significant to any Bible translator who knows the importance of finding what is termed the dynamic equivalents which endeavours to ensure that the intent and impact of the words from the speaker end up transmitting the clear and correct meaning to the hearer.
Thanks for your comment David. I think the term “Family on Mission” is our “dynamic equivalent” phrase for the reality we are pointing people towards. Missio Trinitatis is a “dynamic equivalent” phrase for the missional theologians out there to grab hold of, since it relates to Missio Dei which has become common parlance in the missional discussion. Hope that makes sense David!
While I understand the points made above about unconscious competence I wonder if the emphasis on mulitplication of disciples has helped produce a focus on indviduals. That is, because we want to multiply the focus is on training or discipling as many indviduals as we can and then sending them out to train more. I have seen this in our church where there is this huge push to get people leading MC and the message is constantly “You can lead an MC” not “we”.
Great point, Don. I do think you’re right, and when unconscious competence in leading a family on mission is combined with an intentional emphasis and training on disciple-making, the results are probably very much like what we are seeing! The key is to develop a more fully-orbed training model of “discipleship” that brings in the competencies of participating in and leading families on mission. That’s essentially what we are up to this year at 3DM.
It is an interesting discussion looking again at the mission imperative. I have recently been reading that the contextual approach to mission i.e. where the context shapes mission became popular in the 70′s. Writers were rediscovering the missio dei and the belief that we should expect to find prevenient grace outside the church - in other words the call of the mission-shaped church was to ‘find out what God is doing and join in.’ But according to James Hopewell this notion was largely replaced by ‘mechanist’ approaches espoused by church growth experts. In the race to put bums on pews soteriology took on a very narrow and individualistic form which no doubt suited the western context. The missio dei serves as a corrective, although I am still wondering why so many churches in the UK that claim to have adopted it are planting ‘messy’ churches - a model of church which is yet again from the ‘mechanist’ stable. The missio trinitatis is a welcome shift towards an organic approach to mission - the context may well shape the mission but the mission is not undertaken alone but by a collective which reflects the trinity. I use the word ‘collective’ as sadly, in the UK, I suspect the word ‘family’ has too much negative baggage, even within the church, to be of much use. ‘Together in mission’ offers the hope of fusing together the missio dei and the missio trinitatis - it really is God’s mission and he invites disciples of Jesus to share in it together.