What is in Kelvin's Head?

The Five Marks of Mission (Useful or not?)

18/10/2012

Following on from my diatribe about the word Missional the other week, here’s another thing.

Are the Five Marks of Mission which are so very often discussed in Anglican circles as useful as people presume?

Here I would have to say that I believe in them all. I think they are all lovely, vital, necessary and holy and all the rest.

However, the question that I find myself coming back to again and again is to ask whether the Five Marks of Mission somehow end up functioning as a buffer between good church people and any discussion of effective evangelism.

It seems to me that there might be other marks of mission. Like conversion, for example, of oneself and others. Or growth, maybe, of some kind or another.

Just wondering.

In case you don’t know, the Five Marks of Mission are held to be these:

To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
To teach, baptise and nurture new believers
To respond to human need by loving service
To seek to transform unjust structures of society
To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth

My hunch is that a tiny handful of the people in my home congregation would have heard about the five marks and maybe one or two would be able to name them.

Once again, can I state that I’m not disagreeing with any of them. It is just that, notwithstanding the usefulness of the Marks as some kind of checklist, I fear greatly the idea that people might think they are a descriptor of mission.

It would be good to hear testimony of souls being added to the kingdom by the naming of the five marks?

Anyone?

Anyone want to admit to sharing my questions?

Five Marks, mission

8 responses to “Bin Ladin”

Hermano David | Brother Dahâ€¢veed

02/05/2011

I agree with him entirely.

Then I think my friend that you join him in a conclusion that at this moment cannot be substantiated by fact. There is no evidence that bin Laden was executed. He died in a fire fight when the team tasked with his capture tried to do so. To claim more than the facts currently state is to jump to a conclusion based in personal prejudice.

Aside from that one discrepancy, I also agree with much of what he said.

Reply
Agatha

02/05/2011

It did occur to me that the UK does public rejoicing (see Friday) better than the US (see this morning).

Reply
Rosemary Hannah

03/05/2011

We have no room for complacency – remember ‘Gotcha’ in the Falklands war???

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  04/05/2011
  
  Yes, that was vulgar too.
  
  Reply
David

04/05/2011

Irrespective of the terrible atrocities masterminded by individuals such as Osama Bin-Laden…and…regardless of the improbable scenario of his being captured alive and put on trial, the rejoicing that followed his death was both tacky and tactless. Comments (albeit by family members of 9/11 victims) alluding to …”God placing him in Hell to rot for eternity…” similarly did nobody any favours. If anything, the backlash from extremists eager to avenge his death (martyrdom?) will now cost further innocent lives. The phrase that jumps to mind is: ‘least said soonest mended…’

Reply
ryan

04/05/2011

I’m not sure that pacifist prooftexting is any lbetter than the other kinds. It’s surely morally permissable to celebrate the death of a legitimate, significant military target. And much of the “fanning the flames” rhetoric is inane – people can argue over whether nominally Islamic terrorism can be appeased , but the idea of Al-Queda dialing back their actions or reforming their ethos because (say) the world didn’t overly celebrate killing Bin Laden is ridiculous. Wouldn’t capturing him alive and forcing him to endure infidel courts be even more provocative than a martyr’s bullet and burial at sea?

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  04/05/2011
  
  I don’t think I like the idea of celebrating the death of anyone, Ryan.
  
  That’s the kind of thing we find too often in the Bible, isn’t it? And it is vulgar there too.
  
  I don’t like lynch mob mentality no matter who is on the receiving end.
  
  Reply
ryan

04/05/2011

Indeed – I agree that the “get it up ye!” response very much does not represent humankind at its best. But not celebrating *anyone’s* death is quite different, to me, to the most popular current arguments that largely emphasise that Bin Ladin personally is an inappropriate figure for Sic Semper Tyrannis triumphalism.

I found the Vatican’s reaction interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Europe

Reply