Van S, over at MissionThink, raises this question that came out of a previous post here entitled "Too Much Focus On The Gatherings." He says:
Chris raised a good point in response to a previous post, that it is foolish to assume that if we all just do outreach together, real community will form. The opposite is also true; outreach doesn’t naturally flow out of community. All that we are called to as the church has to be done with varying degrees of intention.
However, it is very difficult to instantly start doing all that the church ought. It takes time and energy to build towards being an authentic body of believers. Therefore, I would like to make the case that it is better to start with a sense of mission than it is to start with a sense of community. In other words, I believe community flows out of mission. Otherwise, all you are left with is affinity. This idea, that community is formed out of a common mission, is what sociologists call the principle of the "superordinate goal." A shared overarching goal requires cooperative effort. And this cooperative effort begins to override people’s differences and creates a new sort of affinity–one shaped by the superordinate goal…
I have to confess to being doubleminded. I have experienced much of my Christian life going around and around, it seems, from mission to community and then from community back to mission. I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be intentionality about both. But on the question of which one to start with, I have seen both "work" and also "not work."
I have seen (and been involved with) a church that started with authentic community as the superordinate goal and then, out of frustration and desire, transition to effective mission. This is not easy, but it can be done. Obviously, there are also many examples of groups that never make this transition.
On the other hand, there is no question that a group with a missional thrust can transition to authentic community. However, this is not a given either. In fact, I find that the type of community that forms around a goal often develops into pseudo-community that lacks the true depth of authenticity and vulnerability. Again, intentionality is required to transition a "mission group" into "community."
In a sense, I’m saying there is no right way to start. The struggle to do both mission and community is at the heart of every living Kingdom group. I believe that if we are effectively pursuing both there will be a pendulum swing from one side to another. As long as the pendulum continues to swing, this may be as healthy as we can expect.
When I wrote the post, "Too Much Focus On the Gatherings," I was, in part, reacting to the frustration of myself and others in our churches that the pendulum has swung to the side of community and our hearts are now crying out for more mission.
Thanks to Van S for his thoughts.
Comments
10 responses to “Community Out Of Mission Or Mission Out Of Community?”
Thanks for your thoughts, Roger, I think you’re right. Community and mission ought not to exist in opposition to each other, even though they exist in apposition. “Love one another” is a missional statement, and true community doesn’t happen without new growth through mission. The two are intricately connected, and starting with one or the other isn’t as important as making sure both are practiced.
-Chris, kingdom-and-principalities
OK, I think Chris makes a good point but I can’t help think of the previous post (based on Henri Nouwens piece) about how Jesus did it. He began with solitary prayer with Father God, then began to gather disciples, or meet in community and then proceeded to ministry. We are not to go into ministry alone but “two by two”. At least that’s how Jesus taught it. (Philip apparently went out on his own, as I’m sure Paul and others did). Anyway, I would have to say community must come first as far as a springboard or base for ministry. Of course, what you all are speaking of is mission. Jesus recieved his mission from Father God, up front. He passed that along and expected his disciples to pass it along. Aren’t we all part of the mission by default? What else would we be about?
I guess it depends upon how you use the word “mission.” I guess I use it in a way that is more similar to “purpose” than it is to “ministry.” Community and mission, if done correctly, are interwoven and inseparable. But I would argue one flows from the other. Community flows out of mission. Another way to say this is that the church IS its mission. The church cannot exist apart from its mission and is, in fact, dependant upon a sense of mission. The mission precedes the existence of the church. This is something that underlies the whole notion of a “missional” church; it is the idea that church IS mission. Church is also a community, but it is a community formed by the calling and mission of God.
Van S, I think you’re making a distinction based on a definition of the word “mission” that no one else is using. If the definition of “mission” is simply “purpose,” then of course community flows out of mission. No community in the history of humankind has ever existed without a purpose. We’ve all been discussing whether to start the business of church with the idea of having been sent by God (mission) or the idea to love each other (community). The concensus is that both must be present to do church, and saying that we “start” with one before the other is not a distinction that needs to be made.
For me, I keep returning to John 17:21-23 – when we are one and living in unity (community), then the world will know that the Father loves them and that the Father sent Jesus. To me, that seems to suggest that mission (the idea of having been sent by God, to use Chris’ definition) flows out of community.
I do agree that the two are interwoven, but I still see community as prior. I could be all wet, of course!
Well, a couple thoughts. I should have been clearer initially when I introduced the word “mission.” I’m not saying that the word is “simply” purpose…but more akin to that idea than “ministry.” We’re getting into semantics here, because the word “purpose” can be a flexible term too. So let me try to clarify what I’m trying to say.
Mission is the idea of being sent by God, as you point out. That isn’t equivalent to evangelism, though evangelism is part of it. By saying “mission” is closer to “purpose” than “ministry,” I was trying to clarify that mission isn’t only something a church DOES, but something that it IS. Church is, by definition, mission.
Church is also “community” by definition. I think it ultimately makes no difference which you “start” with as long as both a strong sense of community and a strong sense of mission are present.
Ultimately, my argument rests in ontology, and so it is kind of pointless to keep digging deeper. A healthy sense of mission “embraces” and a healthy sense of community “sends.” I’ll conceed that that sort of understanding is good enough.
Frank, I agree. The world knows of God’s love through our loving community. But our community was formed by the mission of Christ, so I’m thinking we’re all right in our own way.
By the way, the way I was using the word “mission” is by no means original to mwa. I was using it in the sense that a number of folks have been using it in theological discourse. But I have a bad habit of not really clarifying or articulating ambiguous or abstract words.
Ahhhh …. I think I see it now. Van, you’re saying that our mission is a continuation of Christ’s mission (in forming the community), right? Which would mean that although our mission perhaps flows out of our community, it has its foundation in Christ’s mission?
Whether I’m hearing you right or not, it’s got my feeble brain moving again!
YES! THanks, Frank. You said it much clearer than I was able to.
Thanks for your comments. I was gone for a couple of days, so it was fun to come back and read y’all. I think we did wrangle with some semantics here… hopefully the wrangling itself helped all of us clarify our thinking. I appreciate it!