04.25.07
missional ecclesiology
Sometime last year I was browsing a blog.. I think it might have been Mark Van S.. and I noticed a reference to missiology preceding ecclesiology. That got me wondering about the shape of theological conversation, and the frames or maps we use in our many conversations.
Because.. maps are important. They help us to see what else is out there. As Milleman, Pascale and Gioja put it in Surfing the Edge of Chaos, we see with the help of boundaries. Researchers still don’t know how humans recognize other human faces; but we do know that the “edges” of sight are always critical in helping us identify who we know and who we don’t know.
So, maps, frameworks, lenses.. all are related to knowledge and learning and the process of discovery. The problems only arise when we start to identify the map with the territory. The lense is not the seeing.. it only offers what Michael Polanyi would call “tacit” knowledge.
Ok, enough philosophical mush..
I asked a bunch of friends to tell me which is more fundamental.. does missiology precede ecclesiology, or does ecclesiology precede missiology? Notice.. this is a narrow question.. I didn’t ask where Christology or Pneumatology or even Eschatology fit into this picture. Over the next few days I’ll share a variety of answers to this question, and then sum them up with my own thoughts and reflections.
First, and in no particular order, Scott Cripps.
“An understanding of the church, our ecclesiology, should be in place before our missiology. The two are intimately connected, and neither exits in some ‘pure’ state. If we explore what God has called us to be (the church), then we have a foundation for missions, and our context will then give shape to our expression of being the church. Newbiggin seemed to have this sense that the question is 3 fold, that Christology, ecclesiology, missiology all interact in this dance to help create our expression as God’s people. But for me, a foundational piece needs to be our understanding of the church. We need a platform, a rock, a solid ground upon which we jump off into the mission context.
“As a church planter, I will be intentional about creating a community of God’s people (ecclesiology) that are equipped and able to join God in his mission in our context. It isn’t an institutional ecclesiology, but one that is rooted in an organic, fluid, liquid understanding of the nature of the church. And it isn’t to develop a colonial posture to the context where we set-up our church community as an attractional, one-size fits all approach. A missional ecclesiology will be intentional about the journey of being God’s people in the context where we live. This might give the appearance that missiology is the priority, but under girding our missions is the fact that God has called people into a community to be the foretaste of the kingdom. In the end, to ignore either the gospel, the church or the mission is to do an injustice to God’s desire for us to be His people.”
John Santic said,
April 25, 2007 at 8:24 am
Len,
Great question. And I like Scott’s answer…
Your particular question has been mulling in my mind lately and upon reflection, I am not sure if ecclesiology precedes mission or vive versa. Where my thoughts are taking me is to the Trinity. My thoughts are landing on the notion that the Church bears the image of the Trinity and that the Trinity is to precede every element of our self understanding as Christians. Both eccelsiology (structure of relationship) and mission (shared action from relationship) are crucial features of the trinity and in the dynamic mutual and equal relationship of the father, son and Spirit, I can’t see how one would precede the other, but that every characteristic of God should be borne equally in the life of the church. Unless we connect ecclesiology directly to the community of the trinity that is the essence of God, then yes, I agree that the ecclesiology should precede mission, but I am leaning to equal weight on each. I am also guessing that you are defining ecclesiology in a broader sense than that.
And to Scott’s point, I agree that mission can and should germinate from the context of a community already bearing the image and features of the trinity…as a normative biblical theme of God’s action…He is calling people through a people.
I guess what I am trying to say is that if equal attention is given to every facet of the trinity from how we relate to how we act, then the Trinity should precede all and be the foundation upon which we understand our life together. If mission only comes out of and appropriate ecclesiology we perhaps limit God’s work to the Church and create trouble for us when trying to reconcile accounts of where God has worked outside of the confines of a good ecclesiology…off the top of my head I can think of the Ethiopian eunuch as an example…
In some cases mission may need to precede ecclesiology…but mission should always invite people into the trinitarian community.
Today we have plenty of examples of mission preceding ecclesiology and resulting in the reduction of the gospel to private personal salvation….thats no good either.
If an understanding of the Trinity is in place first, then I think healthy understandings of ecclesiology and missiology can be fostered…
Shane said,
April 25, 2007 at 10:18 am
Hey, we talked once before. Sorry for being off topic, but I am putting together a Canadian Christian Blogroll, to help facilitate communications in the Canadian Christian blogosphere. I wanted to invite you to be a part of it. If you are interested, please email me at mrcheevus at gmail dot com. If you know of anyone else who would be interested in joining, feel free to pass on my email. More information is on my blog at http://shiftlessmind.com/2007/04/25/new-blogroll-canadian-crossbloggers/
Thanks!
Robert Campbell said,
April 25, 2007 at 10:48 am
Thanks Len and Scott…and John,
Len looking forward to the rest.
I particularly appreciate Scott’s comment that, “neither exits in some ‘pure’ state.”
John said. “Both eccelsiology (structure of relationship) and mission (shared action from relationship) are crucial features of the trinity.”
I would respond. True, but relationship is ontollogical and mission is economic. But John beat me to it. He said, “Unless we connect ecclesiology directly to the community of the trinity that is the essence of God.”
Thanks
Scott Cripps said,
April 25, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Oh yeah… the Trinity… can I have a ‘take-back’ and try again!!!
Missional Jerry said,
April 25, 2007 at 7:23 pm
I think missiology comes from our Christology. Eccles comes from the mission.
When must know who Christ is First, then what mission He is on and that determines what our church in its context looks like.
They are stepping stones.
I believe the church is where it is becuase it has determined what it wanted to be and tried to makes its mission fit that.
Greg Laughery said,
April 25, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Good question. Seems to me that God in the OT was missional long before the church came along. Therefore, mission precedes eccelsiology.
Greg
Scott Cripps said,
April 26, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Greg,
Let’s not forget the role of Israel as God’s chosen people and how the church continues on the link of being ‘God’s people’ just now in a holistic gentile-inclusion manner. I don’t think you can seperate the OT and NT and Israel and the Church. So, I don’t disagree with the notion that mission precedes ecclesiology, I just don’t think you can argue it along the lines you’ve described.
My point of stating ecclesiology first are things like the ‘crusades’. When God’s people don’t anchor the mission in ecclesiology it is likely to become captive to any number of agendas or politics.
I believe God is a missionary God thus ‘missio dei’. But unless we actively seek to participate with God and work with Him to accomplish his ends, we will distort the mission. To do this we need to understand what it means to be the Church.
Scott Cripps
len said,
April 27, 2007 at 7:37 am
Scott,
so.. alternatively.. mission could be anchored in Christology… incarnation and self-emptying..
len
Scott Cripps said,
April 27, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Sounds good, Len!
- Scott