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

7 responses to “Have you no scriptural basis though?”

Jackson

15/02/2012

Hello,
If this blog were a talk radio show, I would say something like â€˜long time listener, first time callerâ€™. I found this article very interesting and the role of the Bible in the 21st century is something that many people are hesitant to enter meaningful discussion about. Being brought up in an Evangelical tradition I was taught to hold the Bible in very high regard. However Iâ€™ve come to realise in recent years that Scripture, Tradition and Reason is the only tenable way to approach oneâ€™s faith. Old teachings do run deep, though, and the question needs to be asked, when is it appropriate to look to the scriptures as a source of authority? The flagrant abuse of the Bible to further dogmatic agendas is undoubtedly a source of frustration to many Christians, but what do we do when reason seems to lead to a stalemate? A prime example will be when Margot MacDonald eventually revives her End of Life Assistance Bill. Many Christians in Scotland will be lobbying against and undoubtedly no small number for. Now scripture and tradition would affirm the sanctity of life, but that wonâ€™t stop quite a few people allowing their opinions to be moulded seemingly by reason alone. Meanwhile there will be a great many caught in the middle of very persuasive arguments, struggling to make up their minds while desperately looking for something authoritative to cut through the confusion. Are we too scared of fundamentalism to look to the Bible for guidance in such scenarios?
Cheers!

Reply
Neil Oliver

15/02/2012

Kelvin, I’m fascinated by your blog posts this week and encouranged that your statements make such sense to me and my view of my faith and the world. Great stuff.

Reply
Helen

16/02/2012

I too have followed your blog this week with interest and have found that it has encouraged my broadening faith, stimulated by St Mary’s. Thanks for the effort and thought you have applied. Dont be too hard on Evangelicals though.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  16/02/2012
  
  Being an Evangelical taught me so much of what I know…
  
  Reply
Akma » On Miracles

17/02/2012

[…] that the BIble holds a primary place of reference for Christian life (and I acknowledge that my boss doesnâ€™t*, in the sense I propose here), one ought to have something to say about the prminence of […]

Reply
Brother David

21/02/2012

Being an Anglican educated in a United Methodist seminary, my stool has four pegs; scripture, tradition, reason, and experience, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

I have enjoyed these fireside chats good Padre.

Reply
Melissa Holloway

28/02/2012

This reminds me of a funny conversation I had with my 20 yr old son – we found ourselves discussing whether or not Kelvin was an evangelical?!!

He had taken a university course on Evangelicalism in America and I suspect it was taught by a (perhaps undercover) evangelical. Seems that one of the ideas that my son came away with was that being evangelical was more a way of doing things – an idea that we did indeed hear from Kelvin – that one has the good news and is eager for the world to know.

Of course my argument was that evangelicals do have to believe certain things, that I remember realizing I wasn’t an evangelical anymore when I couldn’t believe that there was a certain group of people, however they were defined, for whom hell was reserved. I feel there are parts of the movement that are just not benign.

But anyways, it is remarkable that someone somehow trying to put evangelicalism in the best light caused him to conclude that Kelvin fit the bill.

I think in the end we came up with the conclusion that Kelvin is able to hold a distinct theological vision in a perhaps evangelical way, having taken the best from his roots. I hope I won the day.

The whole conversation felt a little like the Twilight Zone.

Reply