-al is a suffix. It’s meant to illustrate the concept of ‘pertaining to’, such as traditional for the word ‘tradition.’ That which is traditional pertains to anything that leads one to think of traditions. But somehow, in Christianity, the suffix -al has changed to incorporate a nuanced transition. No longer is the suffix merely describing the root word. The new word has come to displace the root word, as if the root word itself was deficient.
Take for example, the word ‘incarnation’. This is a strong word, a powerful word, and a richly theological word that explains how gracious our God is in becoming a man so that He might understand us in every way, yet without sin (Heb 2:18). Yet, add on the -al suffix and we get the word ‘incarnational.’ The word no longer points to the gracious work of God’s Son, but now refers to contextualization in culture. To be incarnational in youth ministry is to entertain, to be cool, to dress like the youth. But somehow, what is often lost in this pursuit is what the original incarnation was all about, the Savior Jesus Christ.
The nom du jour is the word ‘missional.’ Missions was always meant to have in mind Matthew 28:18-20, where we are to make it our mission to tell people about Christ. But once again, to be missional often leaves Christ out of the picture and leads to mere empty contextualization. The means have taken over the end goal and the murkiness of Christ in culture is found once again. Now, if one opens a cafe, sings ambiguous songs that have nothing of the Gospel, and serves coffee in a ‘Christian environment,’ one is being missional. If one has rave parties, so long as there are no drugs involved, then one is being missional. Missional is being current, being fresh, being relevant, being authentic. But I wonder if being missional presents the Gospel. I wonder.
There is a place for contextualization. Without it, we might as well be radical anabaptists who separate themselves from the world like the Amish. There is certainly a place for reaching the lost, the lost of all kinds. But the question remains, “Does methodology in reaching those lost affect the genuineness of transformation?” Methodology does matter for better or for worse. I just wonder if -al is for the better or for the worse.
- Plenary 4: Mark Driscoll
- Virtual M. Div. - Preaching
- Justification and N.T. Wright Again
- Child First, Fellow Believer Second, Husband Third, Father Fourth, Pastor Fifth…Asian, somewhere lower…
- The Necessity of Extra-Curricular Bible Study?
Darrell Guder has a good little book titled “The Incarnation and the Church’s Witness” where he discusses the use of the word “incarnational” to describe our witness while not diluting THE incarnation event. I have posted a handful of excerpts inlcuding this one:
http://missionalchurchnetwork.com/darrell-guder-incarnational-mission/
Sam
Insightful post. In a rush to be incarnational, I wonder if we haven’t bypassed the glory of the Incarnation. Beholding the Incarnation not simply as a metaphor for contextualizing but rather as the mystery of the glory of Christ.
Interesting points…but fairly scathing I think, without a fair shake at either definition. While you are right to point out the “cheaper” manifestations of these notions, there are deeper and constructive expressions as well. While language isn’t all, it is a subtle move to make the noun form move from a static noun to something that expresses movement. In that sense, I think it helps, and in agreement with you, I think such movement has to be informed by the deeper doctrinal foundations that you speak of, but it’s not to tear the word sans -al down, it’s actually an aide to help us stop thinking of those notions as a one-time event.