the unfolding life of the missional church, part one

As always copyright Josh Cooper 2009.

In the beginning of my missional church course, I endeavored to better understand the church in mission by writing about the two characteristics of God which I thought form the foundation for mission. “The basis for mission,” I wrote in my first essay, “in a North American context – originates and finds its purpose in the character of God, and ultimately is consummated by God. So, it seems appropriate to ask – which of God’s characteristics provide a foundation for mission? The short answer is – God’s love and justice. Love and justice are inextricably intertwined in the “DNA” of God. The very “stuff” God is made of is a wonderful blend of love and justice.”

“Mission,” according to Darrell Guder “means ‘sending,’ and it is the central biblical theme describing the purpose of God’s action in human history.” While I certainly do not disagree with Guder, I’m inclined to believe that “God as a missionary” is more a result of God’s ultimate love and justice for all of creation than a distinct characteristic of God. In other words, underneath God’s “missionary-ness” is God’s love and justice. God is love and God is just, therefore, God sends.

Just as God’s love and justice are inextricably intertwined – so that one characteristic cannot be defined without the other; so too, it is a difficult task to separate missiology from ecclesiology. Therefore, the purposes of this essay are three. First, I will reflect on my own emerging missiological understandings, which includes an examination of the dynamic relationship between missiology and ecclesiology. I will spend the majority of this essay on this subject, drawing heavily from Guder et al. as a conversation partner. Second, I will discuss the role of the pastor as prophet, priest and poet as a beginning model for missional church leadership as well as the communal discernment process – pneumocracy. Lastly, I’d like to talk about how studying the missional church has shaped my style of ministry in relation to a “real-life” situation that our church is facing as we speak.

Missiological Understanding
What is missiology and what is the relationship between missiology and ecclesiology –theologically speaking as well as practically speaking? These are the two questions that I have directed the most time and attention to answering. Mission is not relegated to just the activity of the church. “Rather, mission is the result of God’s initiative, rooted in God’s purposes to restore and heal creation” vis-à-vis God’s love and justice. Mission describes the purpose of God’s action in human history. So, if mission is not merely the activity of the church, then the church must be God’s instrument and witness. “Mission defines the church as God’s sent people.”

So then, how do we shape the church to be God’s instrument and witness? A key to shaping a community to be God’s instrument and witness rests in ones ability [by God’s grace] to effectively bridge the gap between theology and practice – to bridge the gap between ecclesiology and vocation. So how is this accomplished? What would this bridge look like practically speaking?

Guder believes that a missional ecclesiology can be put into practice. “The basic function of all theology” says Guder, “is to equip the church for its calling. If that calling is fundamentally missional, then what we understand and teach about the church will shape God’s people for their faithful witness in particular places.” Specifically, a more missional ecclesiology serves the church’s witness as the church “makes disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19). Missional ecclesiology can be put into practice because it is a creation of the Holy Spirit. Missional ecclesiology is God’s creation for God’s mission. Therefore, it is our responsibility as the church to seek missional renewal. Missional renewal is undefined and the church finds itself hanging in a tension between what is visible within the church and what is invisible. Hans Kung said that the church is both visible and invisible. Instead of using term like visible and invisible, I wonder if the church is both natural and supernatural – that is, by God’s grace the church responds naturally to God’s commands by being obedient to its calling, all the while God provides the super-. The church is visible and invisible – natural and supernatural. This imagery is something that I will employ throughout this essay. So how does the church bridge the gap between theology and practice? What does it look like for the church to reflect the tension between the natural and supernatural? Part of the answer lies in cultivating communal practices by living in obedience to God’s call for His people.

So, what is your understanding of "missional church?" Is it just a buzz word? Or is it truly a concept that has been lost over time and only rediscovered? Is "missional" a part of God's DNA? In my next post I will identify ecclesial practices anf values which help define and direct missional communities.