The last two posts have brought up the tension between being missional and building effective community. I am continuing this discussion by mentioning an excellent article by Mark Van S in the new NextWave:
You are church before you do church. This is one of the fueling insights of the missional church movement. This isn’t a new idea…but it is pretty provocative, especially when one considers its implications. If we take Jesus at his word when he says (as recorded in John 20:21) “as the Father has sent me, I am sending you,” then we realize that our being sent is the basis of our “doing” church. In other words, missiology precedes ecclesiology…
Mark goes on to describe 6 incarnational practices to help engage your neighborhoods missionally. This is excellent material.
I have debated with others as to whether or not one can be missional and build effective community all at the same time. Some would say that the mission must be the core reason for the existence of the community (thus Mark’s comment: "missiology precedes ecclesiology"). I would tend to say that "being community" is also a core reason for existing (love one another and build up one another) however the community must still be a missional community at the DNA level.
Either way (perhaps it’s just semantics) I know that the challenge for all of us is to sustain our sending mission in a world that calls us to comfortable, passive, remote-control-tv living.
Comments
10 responses to “Yet… Missiology Comes First?!”
yeah, this series of posts has really hit home with me. i’m in seminary right now and the community/house church/simple church/thing we started almost a year ago is not very missional. we spend time being community. i’ve pushed somewhat for us to be more missional and people were on board but it didn’t happen.
if the community forms around the mission it’s easier to be both missional and community. if it forms out of the need for authentic faith community it won’t necessarily be missional. does that make sense?
Roger, this discussion came up last year during the HouseChurch convention – especially after John Eldredge’s talks regarding their community. Sadly, I’m going to have to think out loud. I’m not sure there is an answer of “one size fits all”, and it may be that to which what each individual is called. My wife is more comfortable with community while I’m more missional, and many times we defer to each other while trying to remain faithful to our “calls”.
But does the fruit of mission upset the dynamics of current community and at what points do we migrate out from community to become missional? Where do we touch the world? In the past, and perhaps even now, most feel ill-equipped to bring their faith to the marketplace. I was taught to bring people into the church, not faith to the marketplace, to bring pre-believers to the “professionals”.
But now we need a generation of gifts (we need to be the gift before we can do the gift)that can equip the saints to go out and take our faith to the street. At what point am I “fixed” enough by community to be able to go out. The previous comment by Lucas may illustrate what I mean. Their group’s heart is to become more missional, but why doesn’t it happen? It being missional out of the comfort zone? Do we not know how to bring faith to the marketplace? Are we investing to much of our gifts and energy in becoming more relational in our group when we need to be getting out? Is this something cultural from amer-I-cans? What are other non-Western cultures doing? I’ll bet they are more missionally minded? Can anyone bring in other-cultural experience and is it pertinent to us Westerners? Or, are we just bound by our Western-ness and this is just the way we are and shouldn’t change?
I have to agree with Bill’s comments/questions. (Hi Bill, didn’t realize that was you at first) I talked recently with a pastor from a church in Mexico. He says that 80% of what they do as the church takes place outside of their building. The 20% represents a more tradional, worship-service oriented expression. They seem to have real community and are experiencing growth as the towns and villages around them are affected for the kingdom.
He is from Mexico, but lived in the States for a number of years. His observation is that it is easier to reach out to the community around them because the needs of the people are so glaring and imminent, there are no monetary, technical or even cultural solutions to throw at them. It is simply a different atmosphere and set of circumstances in our two countries. The ministry and miracles they are a part of there, don’t take place when he is here in the states – so it’s not that they have a magic method.
I think we saw a natural flow of ministry and community here in the States after Katrina, which more closely relates to what he described as happening in the mountains of Mexico. Christians and communities opened up their lives and gifts to those who quite potently realized their need. Beyond this, I not sure how other western cultures are dealing with the missional/incarnational question.
At this point, I think we are all wondering how life outside institutional structures will pan out over time and how the Lord will use as he advances his kingdom.
Roger, thanks for the discussion.
Do many of us in the Western church have to experience disaster/persecution before we move outside?
Good question. Let me preface my response with the caveat that I reserve the right to be wrong.
I don’t know about disaster/persecution per se, but we’re told that it’s through trials that we’ll receive the kingdom. Also, I wonder if these trials aren’t God’s way of continually changing our perspective.
A few years ago, my wife and I both had this faint, subconscious inkling that the church was meant to be much more organic than what we were experiencing, but had no context for how these indefinable impressions could be applied. When our local congregation we were a part of imploded, we were forced out of our limited perspective as well as our limited sphere of influence and into the wilderness. We look back on that tumultuous time as one of the best things that ever happened to us. That experience as well as those since then, continue to make all the difference in understanding our place in the kingdom. Yet, we are painfully aware that we haven’t “arrived”. It’s the trek that seems to matter most. And the desert always seems to symbolize testing and trials.
For example, with the persecution after Stephen’s death, many fled from Jerusalem. Phillip was found performing great signs and wonders in Samaria. Instead of staying on in the fantastic things that were happening there, God suddenly sent him out into the desert on a wilderness road whose end led to Gaza. But instead, his goal of his trip turned out to be the Ethiopian he found along the way. Then without warning, Philip was on an instantaneous trip to Azotus – and then to Caesarea. This was an erratic, unplannable path which produced much fruit.
Like Philip and many others, Paul certainly had wilderness trials all through his ministry. When thinking of his “missional journeys”, I wonder if we emphasize the wrong word. Perhaps the more poignant element to lift from the life of the early church is found in the word “journey”, more so than the word “mission”.
My sense is that we, the church, tend to try to create our missions without God, while it’s the journey He leads us on that brings the most glory to his kingdom. In an earlier discussion, I defended the book: “MegaShift”. Since then, I’ve heard an interview with Jim Rutz. In response to a question about what he was trying to accomplish with this book, he said something to the effect that he was trying to “start a move of God in the United States” like what he’s seen happen in other parts of the world. I’m not comfortable with that language. But, I think it is indicative of our natural tendency to try to make things happen. Philip and Paul didn’t have time to make things happen because they were committed to following the father on a path that would really manifest the kingdom. Personally, my problem is that I usually don’t think I’m trying to make things happen in my own power until hindsight brings things into focus.
Roger, I believe the discussion you started specifically concerned the role of church and the balance between being inward or outward focused. But, I think that discussion and what I’ve been rambling about are closely related. So far, as I’ve stumbled along in this journey, I’m really becoming convinced that the inward/outward dilemma is really a mcguffin. Theologically, I’m beginning to believe that what we accomplish in our gathering of believers as well as what we accomplish in the marketplace will naturally extend out of our intense relationship with the Father. Practically, I’m not there yet, but that’s my desire and I think it’s the path he wants to leads us on. Sorry for going on and on, but these things have been on my heart for a while and I wanted to share them with others and hopefully get some feedback.
Chris, I couldn’t agree with you more!
************************************************************************
“what we accomplish in our gathering of believers as well as what we accomplish in the marketplace will naturally extend out of our intense relationship with the Father.”
************************************************************************
Why do we focus on religion and ritual (which are not necessarily bad in and of themselves) instead of relationship? Could it be that we are constantly conditioned to focus on such things? What if we constantly conditioned ourselves to focus on what really matters……and what if we could agree on what really matters as an entire body. Imagine the power in that.
I am learning that above every other “calling” in my life, I am first “called” to KNOW GOD! All other “callings” and leadings are secondary to that. Could it be that as Pastors/”Professional” Clergy we have placed our gift/”calling”/vocation ahead of HIS Calling to have a vital relationship with Himself? Do we think much more highly of ourselves than we think of The Father…..I know from my own experience, that has been my biggest problem: trusting in me more than in Him. Just when things are going successful in my eyes….I realize that I am not successful in the eyes of the one who really matters…this leads to my brokenness. Once broken, then and only then, can we be used by God to BE JESUS to the world…..and frankly I don’t think God gives a rip if we work as a Pastor or a construction worker or whatever…..as long as we are Being Jesus to those around us. What if all of us, who call ourselves Christians, were really being Jesus to all those who live within our sphere of influence…..then we would have CHURCH!
Thanks for your thoughts Chris…..and listening to my ramblings.
I too will have to think out loud and will try to be as brief as possible. My experience of house church to date ( I have been a part of 3 different groups in the last 6 years) is that after the honeymoon period wears off we settle down to an informal meeting time. I think Bill hit on something…. I really think that it is wrong for us to assume that just because we’ve gone from the building to homes that we will know how to bring our faith to the marketplace or to our neighbors. We are ill-equipped to do so. If we are ill-equipped then how do we become eqipped? I believe church is multi sided…. community and mission…. the inward journey… defending the poor… learning the incredible depths of Christ…. and so much more…. yet we all seem addicted to a church structure where we meet and argue about what we do in that meeting. In the end I wonder if any of us has the time to enter into the depths of what church is and what it can be.
So how do we make the transition from people who want a meeting to creating a church with depth… and that takes time energy and resources…. The key point isn’t community vs mission but community and mission vs a weekly meeting….
Community can be missional if it remains permeable. If our communities become closed to the outside world, we can hardly call our groups, “biblical communities.” I think that there are three core values that are inseparable: holiness, mission, and community. I believe that theses are rooted solidly across the Canon of Scripture. We are called to be holy (to reflect/represent the divine character in our personal and corporate lives) so that we can connect others to God through Jesus Christ (mission). We then relate with one another as the people of God (community) in a group with permeable borders that always has room for new persons and is even willing to split into new groups for the sake of others.
I really enjoy reading this blog. Thanks for the conversation.
Socretes said, “Be, then Do.”
Aristotle said, “Do, then Be.”
Sinatra said, “Do Be Do Be Dooo….”
(I like small words.)
I agree with the brother who said that Missiology and Community both flow from our relationship to the Father. Amen, brothers.
We gather unto Christ. The rest will work out.
I must be a sick person but I really enjoy this kind of discussion 🙂
“Some would say that the mission must be the core reason for the existence of the community (thus Mark’s comment: “missiology precedes ecclesiology”). I would tend to say that “being community” is also a core reason for existing (love one another and build up one another) however the community must still be a missional community at the DNA level.”
My church when I first started attending was only 17 in number but has rapidly grown. It is this issue of community/mission which has been at the core of it all. We have seen the “believe belong become” tradition of my church turned into “belong believe become”. In other words a greater emphasis has been placed on speaking to peoples heart. Making them feeling part of the community. As a result we have been far more community orientated. However, this has drawn a large number of church “drifters” or even worse “consumers”. As a result of these drifters or consumers the ethos has once again shifted into a desire to become a mega church. This is not my hearts desire at all!
I have seen a full circle take place. From mission to community, back to mission. And I have come to these conclusions thus far;
Community by itself will not grown the church. Mission without community is useless because it doesn’t perform the process of evangelism. The emphasis of community is best within the framework of mission. Why do we have community? To fulfill the mission!
For me the process of evangelism is speak to peoples heart, next their mind, then finally the spirit or soul. Community is vital for this first stage of evangelism and also vital for the continuing of cycle.
Man I hope this makes sense!