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

13 responses to “The Comites Christi – Gay Icons”

John O’Leary

27/12/2014

Whether or not these people had sex with each other is unknowable and irrelevant. A gift that they offer to all, of whatever sexual persuasion, is the understanding that people of the same sex can have beautiful friendships marked by tender affection.

Reply
Daniel Donaldson

27/12/2014

Jesus had sex, he was human Afterall. I don’t like the way churches destroy the humanity of bible stories, making everyday life and seem dirty and disgusting (sex, being case in point ) replacing it with a self interpreted image of the divine. Maybe if the church recognised and embraced humanity, they would get more folk in the pews, instead of pushing them away.

Reply
1. Jo
  
  27/12/2014
  
  Not every human has sex during their lives. People have, by accident or design, remained chaste throughout their lives. We have no reason to believe that Jesus was married, and likewise we have no reason to suppose that he did have sex. All we have in this regard is an argument from silence. One would expect, however, that were he married it would have been his wife, as well as his mother, whom he commended to John’s care at his death.
  
  Reply
  1. Daniel Donaldson
    
    27/12/2014
    
    That’s a matter of debate. Some people can be chaste all their lives. I’m not comvinced that is the case with Jesus. The church likes to destroy humanity, make us feel guilty and dirty about being ourselves. If other heretical writings were allowed to survive, we may have a better account of the human side of Jesus.
    
    Reply
    1. Rosemary Hannah
      
      27/12/2014
      
      Actually you would probably have a much more Gnostic Christ in the destroyed writings, other worldly and detailing the orders and hierarchy of angels. In fact the New Testament as we have it is kind to our physical nature, by and large. Whether Jesus was unmarried or widowed or gay we cannot know. We do know that he touched the ‘untouchable’ and was blamed for party going. It is enough to be going on with.
      
      Reply
      1. Tiggy
        
        27/12/2014
        
        I don’t like the implication in the comment above that someone has to have sex in order to be fully human. Maybe there are less people today who go their whole lives without having sex, but it was very common in the past and not always a choice, certainly for women. Were those people not fully human?
Ann Fontaine

27/12/2014

Thanks Kelvin – tomorrow on Speaking to the Soul on the Café — Leslie Scoopmire writes about our wanting to know “what” rather than opening up to possibilities — asking “why”. Also are the images available for use?

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  27/12/2014
  
  I was unable to identify the origins of the two icons. The middle one came from the wikipedia page on St John and is in the public domain.
  
  Reply
Pam

28/12/2014

Thanks for this post. I enjoyed reading it very much. I tend to be a bit less reflective of Bible stories during Christmas days as my large family keeps me quite occupied – and we do live near the beach. I was reading Ruth 1 last night as it happens and I find the story of Ruth and Naomi to be one of love and fidelity. I don’t read their relationship as being of a sexual nature at all, my perspective. I also think black women and white women may read the Bible quite differently.

Reply
Jaye Richards-Hill

28/12/2014

David and Ruth speak to me far more than the examples you draw in the blog post. Not so sure that Naomi and Ruth is all that far-fetched either. If literature reflects life,then why shouldn’t we look for examples of LGBT folk in scripture? It’s pretty much a given that they were there, after all?

Reply
Ann Fontaine

28/12/2014

Another reflection along these lines http://www.episcopalcafe.com/speaking-to-the-soul-living-into-the-possibilities/

Reply
Kittredge Cherry

30/12/2014

I’m one of those lesbian people who gets excited about the same-sex love affirmed in the stories of Ruth & Naomi and David & Jonathan. In fact I blog about them and other “LGBT saints” (loosely defined” through Jesusinlove.org.

I don’t disagree with your statement, “Instead of asking whether a given character in the bible ‘is gay’ those of us who read from that perspective would be better to ask of all the characters – what are you saying to our lives?”

However I find that highlighting the same-sex love or “queer” people in the Bible helps catch the attention of LGBT people today who would otherwise ignore the Bible completely.

Your description of the conversation about John the Beloved Disciple is amazing. I’ve engaged in conversations about this, but it never became anywhere near so detailed as what you describe.

Today is the feast day for King David in some churches… another date to add to the gay comites Christi. Thanks for a thought-provoking piece, and happy New Year.

You can find my LGBT saints series at:
http://www.jesusinlove.org/saints.php

Reply
Kate Odling

26/12/2018

I found this interesting. Both Stephen & John were quiet, “soft” men who were sympathetic to people who needed help, I think. There are many gay & straight people who are like them. They are the quiet ones who get on with doing good deeds. I think everyone can appreciate their love

Reply