To be missional, as I understand it, is to say: the heart of God is to be restored to his creation. We are told that from the beginning of Scripture God has been on a mission to be in relationship with his creation. Abraham has been cited as demonstrating this when God initiates a conversation with Abraham in Genesis 12. God creating the universe and humanity in order to be in relationship, God seeking out "Adam and Eve" in the garden, and his speaking to Noah to warn about the flood, do not always get the attention they deserve, even though they support the concept of God on mission because some family members hold that Genesis 1-11 are not historical (by any means). They hold that these chapters, as well as others, are similar to the parables Jesus told, or allegories that prophets used. Thus, in order to appeal to a large audience, the missional camp often begins with Genesis 12. For this those who wave the missional banner should be applauded. Furthermore they should be applauded for bringing to light that God wishes for the Church (some may cringe at using such an "institutional word") to participate and be a means through which God restores himself to the rest of creation.
Where I break with the missional camp is in the assertion that God's most primary desire is to be restored to his creation. I would argue that God's primary desire is to express love through relationship. Before God formed the universe (however, you feel that happened) the triune God (3 persons, 1 being) was in relationship with himself. Before God sought "Adam & Eve" in the garden God was in relationship with them. More than I am missional, I am Love-oriented.
As I look at scripture I see a God who is driven by a fundamental love, which is foundationally relational. It is this desire that motivated God to create, and motivated God to pursue his creation. I would contend that creating and pursuing stem out of God's love which is expressed in relationship. Thereby, God being missional is merely a bi-product of God's love.
Perhaps, the missional camp would agree with me on this, if this is true then there title is rather misleading, as it puts mission in the forefront and love in the background. Missional also puts the emphasis on action what we are to do, rather than who we are to be. From what I know about Missionals love is to be the primary means by which the mission is progressed, yet making mission the focus leaves Missionals open to the same critique many express regarding the church. The critique of being focused on doing Christianity and not being Christians. Consequently, I would rather focus on God's foundational love and let mission be its outpouring.
TSB VIII
2 months ago
9 comments:
I think they are too intimately related to be separated. "God so love the world that he sent..."
I would agree that love and action are connected,does move to action, hence my last sentence. As the John 3:16 quote demonstrates it is love that motivated the Father to action. We must never give mission supremacy over God's love. Love is the foundation!
Maybe I'm missing exactly what you think is at stake, Dave. Do you really think that a church focused on living reconciliation will be critiqued for 'doing Christianity' as though it's a bad thing?
(I also think there are some Trinitarian assumptions at work here. If love is the foundation, it never exists without the structure of activity on top of it. It's like Lewis' illustration of a book with a book on top of it from eternity...)
Sometimes we trye to create apples and oranges, when only apples exist. Mission and relationship are all one package.
The scripture says, "Faith without works is dead.” In the same vein relationships need work and works.
Having said that "The Church" for many years has seemed to be on the program (doing) merry-go- around.
An emphasis on relationship is a good thing as long as we remember that ministry still needs to be accomplished (yes done).
Having a coffee and fellowshipping is great but not enough if one of the fellowshippers needs a roof for the night or dare I say it needs to be saved.
AP & MSL: I will attempt to respond to both of you in this one response.
I think that when we make "mission" the focus, the doing, then we are simple reshaping the religious structure. I think it is very easy for us to get caught up in "doing Christianity". By this I mean, we get so caught up in our humanitarian efforts, or leading someone through the four spiritual laws that we forget loving the person.It becomes all about getting the job done. I am not trying to "create apples and oranges" merely recognize the tree these fruits are produced from (a good tree produces good fruit). As Paul says,if we can do many great things, but if we do not have love then it we are just a clanging gong.
We have a tendency to have a "just tell me what to do" attitude. Give me the rites & rituals and I will do those. I want us to move beyond this idea and allow for an entire reorientation,an entire transformation, an entire sanctification, a perfected love of our being. When we allow this to happen then the "doings" that we so often focus on to prove our faith will unavoidably happen because love motivates to action.
What James is getting at is true faith or "true religion" motivates to action. He's not saying do these things to prove your faith, but that true faith will result in these things. Let's stop focusing on the fruit and start focusing on the tree we are.
Hey Dave,
I think you have some good thoughts there, and ones I can agree with. My problem is the bifurcation you make in God himself. Humans can sunder mission from love, but I do not think God can. When you write that "God being missional is merely a bi-product of God's love," the manufacturing metaphor creates a false 'space' between product and resource. The resource (God's love) is necessary to his mission (product), but in a way that they are never separated. Humans can create all sorts of trouble between love and mission, I would agree.
So,I think I would better hear your critique if it was grounded in human frailty, always needing to abide in God's love, rather than in God. Or, to put it as NT scholar Robert Mulholland has, "Don't be in the world for God. Be in God for the world."
I see the concern there. Like all theologians we face the challenge of attempting to perceive an infinite God through an finite lens. I say this cautiously, even revelation has it's limits when communicating to a limited being. As finite beings our perception of action is necessarily connected to time. Unless, we are willing to go with some of our postmodern friends who argue that time is an illusion and there is only becoming, which in itself, has inherent problems. I say all this in an attempt to recognize the limitations of what I am about to say as it is related to time. If action is necessarily linked to time,then time began with God's first creative act. As I'd referred to before God created he was in a love relationship with himself. I do not understand how being in a love relationship requires action, however, I do understand that a love relationship leads to expression of this love.
Perhaps, it'd be more fruitful if I just asked you, why mission must be a fundamental essential of God's character, rather than being the outpouring of that character?
Hey Dave,
I have no problem saying God is missional in a different way from God is love, as love is God's essence. I only wish to keep a close connection between the two so that they are not unnecessarily overly distinguished. I am not concerned to make mission part of God's essence ("fundamental essential"), but not to bifurcate what God does too heavily from who God is. The Old Testament used five ways to describe God's action: word, law, wisdom, Spirit, shekinah/Glory. As you know, the New Testament authors apply God's word and wisdom to Jesus, making God's creative act very close to who God is. The New Testament writers also apply the metaphor of 'the body' to the church, to describe who they are to be and how they are to live. This is why I am pushing back a little here, noting that I agree with your point that being overly concerned with doing can lead to a loss of direction and place of simply loving God and being loved by him. I think your critique is best placed elsewhere.
Post a Comment