Further Thoughts on "Mission"
In the comments regarding Tony's post of the WNC Vision-Mission Document, we ran into some controversy and throat-clearing concerning diction. Wilson and I were averse to (unreflective) deployment of military language and metaphor. I suggested "mission" as an alternative to vision, being that it is rooted in a (the?) central motif of the New Testament (all scripture?); namely, the election (calling and sending) of God's people within the dramtic and revelatory structure of (the) covenant(s).
The Socratic King derisively suggested that "mission" is a throughgoingly martial term. Upon further lexical and etymological review, this is (as I suspected) not the case. "Mission" comes from the Latin mittere, which simply means "to send." "Mission" enters modern usage in the the 16th century specifically as a designation for "the sending of the Holy Spirit into the world." It is only later that its usage becomes associated with combat, and loosely interchangeable with sortie, raid, etc.
While this may at first seem a bit of lexical pedantry, I think it brings into view a larger issue concerning our language. First, we often simply use words without being fully cognizant of their connotations (and denotations) - cue (post)structuralist/deconstructionist critique. Secondly - and more importantly, Tom's not unsurprising reaction shows the depth at which martial-commercial modalities of thought have gripped us. A term whose entry into modern usage is theological and ecclesial has become immediately and exclusively with the military.
The question may remain as to whether or not mission can be recuperated and/or retrieved from its derivative meaning/usage. The larger question remains as to whether or not our thought-forms, speech, and actions can escape the gravitational force of military-industrial usage.
The Socratic King derisively suggested that "mission" is a throughgoingly martial term. Upon further lexical and etymological review, this is (as I suspected) not the case. "Mission" comes from the Latin mittere, which simply means "to send." "Mission" enters modern usage in the the 16th century specifically as a designation for "the sending of the Holy Spirit into the world." It is only later that its usage becomes associated with combat, and loosely interchangeable with sortie, raid, etc.
While this may at first seem a bit of lexical pedantry, I think it brings into view a larger issue concerning our language. First, we often simply use words without being fully cognizant of their connotations (and denotations) - cue (post)structuralist/deconstructionist critique. Secondly - and more importantly, Tom's not unsurprising reaction shows the depth at which martial-commercial modalities of thought have gripped us. A term whose entry into modern usage is theological and ecclesial has become immediately and exclusively with the military.
The question may remain as to whether or not mission can be recuperated and/or retrieved from its derivative meaning/usage. The larger question remains as to whether or not our thought-forms, speech, and actions can escape the gravitational force of military-industrial usage.
posted by Anonymous at 12:42 PM
3 Comments:
Prince,
I was expecting at least a referenced to the OED in that post.
And your final paragraph beat me to my question. Does perception equal reality? If "mission" is perceived as military, does that mean it is martial even if it had not originally been so. I think so. Though I would not say that "mission" is entirely military in nature. But that is certainly a big part of its meaning. It is also a business term (i.e. the mission of our business is...). I think the word is still plenty good enough to use in church. It hasn't been co-opted enough to ditch it.
Tom
It hasn't been co-opted enough to ditch isn't the way we should look at it. Then we are still subject to foreign usages of our language, waiting until it has become too co-opted so that we must ditch it.
This is the problem with trying to have relavent language, language that resonates with this or that generation. It is not 'in the world but not of the world,' it is in many ways the opposite, for the church becomes everything the world is but still thinks of itself as distinct, of the world but not in it.
Now that might be taking the language debate a little too far, and I hate alarmism as much as anyone, but it can be dangerous, that's what I am getting at.
While I can understand how the term "mission" can have military connotations, it's actually not the first thing that comes to my mind. To me, "mission" evokes some sort of Christian outreach that extends in some way beyond previous realms of outreach. Hence, "missionaries," "mission boards," "mission agencies," etc. That could just be because I'm preceded by three generations of missionaries and I've grown up in a mission-centered environment. If that's so, it just illustrates Derek's dictum, "Usage is meaning."
Post a Comment
<< Home