What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • The Five Marks of Mission (Useful or not?)

    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?

    ,

5 responses to “Heresy hunting”

  1. Nick Brindley Avatar
    Nick Brindley

    It is probably helpful to be clear about the distinction between “dogma” (which is best understood as the definition of orthodoxy and of heresy, of the things it is mandatory to affirm and the things it is forbidden to affirm) and “church order” (the rules about how people are to conduct themselves). These are related but by no means the same thing.

    “Doctrine” is a third thing again, to my mind. It is the body of teaching that the church affirms but is much more extensive and changeable than dogma.

    Of particular relevance is who has the authority to pronounce on these things. Denominational authorities quite properly establish church law and discipline (this needs to be done and there’s nobody else to do it) but would go beyond their proper sphere (in my view) if they tried to establish new definitions in the field of dogma.

    Reply
  2. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    I feel the need to separate praxis and doctrine, but I suppose that is probably a minor heresy in itself, in a church that hides its doctrine in its liturgy. Although I suppose the deftness of the ‘McCarthy Liturgy’ has maybe sidestepped that pitfall as deftly as an 18th century non-juring bishop side-stepping western orthodoxy and the rest…

    Reply
  3. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    To a degree I think it is a matter of tradition. Anglican churches have tended (and it is only a tendency) to insist of orthopraxis. Church of Scotland churches have tended (same health warning) to emphasise orthodoxy of belief, call it doctrine or dogma. St Andrews is not of course a C or S institution, but it used to be, certainly in my day, and to a degree in yours, heavily steeped in C of S ethos. St Mary’s trained C of S ministers and that was ALL the training they got, because then they knew Orthodoxy.

    Reply
  4. Jimmy Avatar
    Jimmy

    The links on this post have led me to think of this –

    The Inner Party – The Outer Party – The Proles.

    The model demands tight control of the middle class, with ambitious Outer Party members neutralised via promotion to the Inner Party or “reintegration” by Miniluv, while proles can be allowed intellectual (and sexual) freedom because they lack intellect. Winston nonetheless believed that “the future belonged to the proles”. Wikipedia.

    Reply
  5. Allan Ronald Avatar
    Allan Ronald

    There was most definitely a C of S ethos at St Andrews in my day [67-71]. Robin Buchanan-Smith was running a packed college chapel and one president of the SRC and one president of the Union were St Mary’s men who went on to ordination and, in one case, to be Moderator of the Kirk. Perhaps they got their orthodoxy from Matthew Black at St Mary’s and their skill in future clerical politics from their student posts…….

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Sermon – 8 August 2004

    There is something particularly apposite about reading the story of Abraham at this time of the year. For this is the time of so many journeyings. Holiday pilgrimages to worship the sun have their roots in the great quest – the journey of faith – the search for God. And that all begins, in our…

  • Full Backup

    The good news is that no data was lost during the lightening strike last night. I have managed to extract the hard drive and am currently transferring data from it to the laptop. This is being done with a new gadget – a hard drive to usb caddy. Obtaining one of these meant two trips…

  • Summer Lightning

    I have a major computer failure following a thunder storm here tonight. Presumably some kind of surge reached the computer. This seems particularly hard to take as I had unplugged the CPU as soon as the lightning started to crack. This post is coming from the laptop – the main computer won't start at all…

  • Book Review – cev youth bible ? Edited by Nick Page

    This edition of the Bible is aimed at teenagers. Well, perhaps it is aimed at Evangelical parents and other relatives looking to buy a Bible for teenagers, which is nearly, but not quite, the same thing. The Contemporary English Version is a Bible translation which uses a restricted vocabulary. It is a fairly progressive translation,…