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?
Leave a Reply