All Ministry is Designed (Whether you Know it or Not)

I’m in an ongoing process of organizing sections of my masters thesis, on the uses of design thinking as a resource for ministry contextualization. So, I’m posting snippets here, to practice what I preach, and “ship something” quickly, to learn from it in the real world.

I’ve been reflecting on a hypothesis that I’ve held for some time — all ministry is designed, whether we know it or not. The question, then, is under what conditions, towards what ends, and with what level of effectiveness? More below.

…However, the challenge immediately presents itself in how to enact the breadth of the Missio Dei, in particular times and places and cities and communities, by particular individuals in particular churches and other mission-oriented groups. Mission is an applied task, the calling of the practitioner, and something as simple as “loving your neighbor” or “being on mission” is fraught with all kinds of interpretive issues, trade-offs, and constraints. All mission has an implicit theology, philosophy, and vision that is modified by the particularities of our time and place, because the church is fundamentally enculturated. Our missional decisions, however scripturally grounded, are always being shaped by a confluence of factors and realities, whether we realize it or not. Our mission and ministry can have more or less fidelity to the scriptural narrative, it can more or less aligned to the situational context, and it can be more or less effective in inviting Gospel-driven transformation in the lives of real people, and we can be more or less aware of our particular approach to doing mission in the world.

Said differently, all mission is designed, but not all missioned is designed intentionally, and not all mission is designed well.

HOW MISSION IS FUNCTIONALLY DESIGNED

If mission is designed, whether implicitly or intentionally, then what are the dimensions which shape the practical missiology of a person, a community, a church, or a mission-driven organization? Many would likely affirm and agree to most of the Biblical theology of mission, and the corresponding ends and means that has been outlined , yet the fidelity to that narrative and its fruitfulness in the lives of people varies widely — and is often the source of conflict. Below is a (brief) outline of a number of the philosophical dimensions of practical mission design, that often live under the surface of our “encultured” ministry practices.

Mission Assumes a View of God. Do we emphasize God’s justice, or God’s liberation, or God’s wrath, or God’s grace, or God’s creativity, or God’s love? Do we work for justice, forgiveness, reconciliation, or judgment? With patience, apathy, or urgency?

Mission assumes an understanding of Christ’s work on the cross. Do we emulate Jesus’ incarnation, his ethical vision, his critique of the religious authorities, or his politics? Was his work on the cross payment, liberation, or victory? What does his resurrection say about the world?

Mission assumes a view of the Holy Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit real, or not? Does he give us inalienable gifts, or not? Can he actually heal and bring about miracles, or not?

Mission assumes an understanding of what the church is. Is mission the work of individuals, or small groups, or the gathered community? Is bigger, better? Does membership matter? Do para-church organizations or missions organizations have legitimacy in mission?

Mission assumes an anthropology. Are people intrinsically good, and need to be cultivated? Are people intrinsically bad, and need to be saved and fixed? Are the experiences of our neighbors something to be celebrated or critiqued?

Mission assumes a view of stewardship and effectiveness. Is the responsibility of mission up to us? Can we be more or less effective, or is the work of the Kingdom ultimately up to the Holy Spirit? Are we responsible simply to be faithful, or also to (attempt to be) fruitful as well?

Mission assumes an epistemology and truth-criterion. Where can we derive meaningful insight from? Can we glean insights on how to do mission from social science, art, culture, or business? Or is our mission and ministry shaped solely by our theological convictions? Against what standard do we evaluate our mission and ministry work?

Mission assumes a particular view of culture. Is culture good, bad, or neutral? Something to be imitated, welcomed, critiqued, or avoided? Is there anything to be celebrated in culture or marketplace? What levels or culture or sub-culture are governing our own worldviews, and how might they be informing or governing the worldviews of those we want to serve?

In short, our task of loving our neighbor, proclaiming the kingdom, and making disciples of all nations gets significantly more complex, as we evaluate all of the philosophical and practical considerations that govern our approach.

Many people, churches, and organizations are often unaware of the design tradeoffs and interpretive steps present in “doing ministry,” and are often guided by unchecked assumptions, particular priorities of Biblical theology, and the culture and pattern of whomever they were formed by as Christians themselves.

The implication is that mission design takes significant wisdom and nuance and discernment, and the answer to “how to love my neighbor well” is often decided upon far too quickly, with too little intentional reflection.

To really reflect on how to design mission and ministry well is to invite a whole new world of complexity — and that comes with a high cost — but to be ignorant of one’s implicit ministry philosophy might be more costly in the long run.