Covenanting Community
Though the GOCN uses the term “congregational mission” to capture the thoughts about missional living that will follow, the term was not used here to avoid defining missional living with the word mission. Instead, the broad themes of how the church lives out the missio dei were condensed into two words: covenanting community. Covenant community is the term used by Roxburgh (1998) to describe the commitment to the practices of the way of God in the Christian community. The suffix -ing has been added to covenant to reveal the ongoing process of commitment and reformation in which the community is continuously engaged. Within missional thinking, the covenant community is ascribed four characteristics. It is shaped by an alternative story, relates to the whole of life, adopts an incarnational, servant approach, and is structured for mission.
Contrast Community – Shaped by an Alternative Story
If it is true that the loudest criticism levied against the church by missional voices is that the church has become shaped by cultural values and narratives, it is also true that the loudest plea for change in the church is for the church to be shaped by an alternative story (see Barrett, 1998; Edson, 2007; Roxburgh & Boren, 2009). Instead of being shaped by culture, the church of God is to be shaped by the biblical narrative. The biblical narrative begins to shape the covenanting community when the community “relives it as memory in ritual and repetition” (Roxburgh and Boren, 2009, p. 61). This shaping is defined as a “lifestyle of continual conversion as [the church] hears and responds to the gospel over and over again” (Hunsberger, 1998, p. 86).
As the worldview of the covenanting community is shaped by the gospel, it will be a “powerful witness” (Barrett, 1998, p. 127) as it lives with distinctly Christian practices in an increasingly secularly dominated society. Though the distinctiveness of each Christian community differs both according to the culture and the practices of the community, the point remains that the missional church is a contrast society pointing to a different and better, God-ordered way of living in this world. Each community must discern how God is asking them to live differently in context. Barrett, (1998) captures the theme of the literature, saying “to discern the points of dissent, is to be a missional church” (p. 127).
Communitas – Relating to the Whole of Life
As the covenanting community continuously lives in and with but also against culture, it will find itself pushed to the margins of society, no longer fitting in with the dominant trends of secularism. The experiences of ambiguity, uncertainty, and discomfort of marginality are defined by missional writers as liminality (Frost, 2006; Hirsch, 2006; Roxburgh, 2006). As the community endures liminality together, it becomes more than community, taking on the nature of communitas, a Latin term of equality employed by anthropologist Victor Turner and defined by Hirsch (2006) as “a common experience of ordeal, humbling, transition, and marginalization” (p. 221). The covenanting community becomes communitas as it bound together in the struggle to remain shaped by the biblical narrative in a society that pulls toward a different lifestyle.
Irrevocably bound together by the common struggle, the communitas surpasses the fake and shallow communities commonly seen in the world and often in the culturally trapped church. Core characteristics of the covenanting community living as communitas include self-giving, inclusion, preparation of all people for a diversity of ministry, and being a “communion of equal individuals who submit together to the general authority of the ritual elders” (Edson, 2007, p. 30). The communitas will “cultivate space for people to unlearn old patterns and learn new ways of living” (Dietterich, 1998, p. 152). Therefore, communitas relates to the whole of life as it creates the space for and shapes the entire individual and the entire community for mission. Indeed, mission becomes the very “fabric of one’s life” (Hunsberger, 1998, p. 97).
Contextual Ministry – Adopting the Incarnational, Servant Approach
Shaped by the biblical narrative in a secular world and living as communitas, the covenanting community takes a contextual approach to ministry by adopting an incarnational, servant perspective. To do contextual ministry, it is necessary to be in the context (incarnational) and to discern how to partner with God to redeem the context to his purposes (servant). When it truly understands its missional nature in the roots of Trinitarian theology, the covenanting community becomes a “contagious and overflowing” community of love (Dietterich, 1998, p. 149). As the community walks with and is led by the Spirit, it naturally produces the fruits of the Spirit, becoming a “new apologetic” in a suspicious culture (Dietterich, 1998; Edson, 2007). As a new apologetic, the community remains true to the biblical pattern of God forming a unique people whose existence clashed with and transformed the dominant institutions of their day (Roxburgh, 2006).
To be the new apologetic in the changing culture, covenanting communities “live out their identity as Christian community in close relationship to their contexts without succumbing to the context or . . . denying the context on the basis of their identity, history or tradition” (Fredrickson, 2007, p. 46). Walking the fine balance between living in and being shaped by culture requires great discernment from the covenanting community. Discernment as a necessary tool for missional living is an incredibly common theme in the literature. At its most basic, missional discernment simply asks three questions: What is God doing? What does God want to do? How can we cooperate? (Turnipseed, 1998; Van Gelder, 2007b). These three questions give the community a “missionary vision” (Mouw, 1999, p. 13), but force the church to be flexible, patient, and open to ambiguity as it puts in the effort to allow God to bring clarity to his work in and will for the culture (Turnipseed, 1998; Van Gelder, 2007b).
Intentional Organization – Structure for Mission
The final step for the covenanting community is to intentionally organize itself to fulfill its mission, or to more accurately reflect the literature, to express its identity as a missional community.
Guder (1998) is one of the leading voices calling for missional structures. Citing the fact that form follows function, he states the structure of the church must incarnate the message and mission of God into society. Bullock (2008) picks up on this theme as well, claiming that the missio dei requires the church to take on structures and forms that engage the world. Further, Bullock writes, “How the church is organized is directly linked to its identity and purpose” (p. 105). Not wanting the reader to miss his point or fail to understand, Van Gelder (2007b) spells the form-follows-mission nature of the church with three propositions—“The church is. The church does what it is. The church organizes what it does” (p. 17).
Though the claim to structure for mission is prevalent in the literature, there is a lack of complete clarity as to what such a structure looks like or how a community is to move toward it. This lack of clarity is likely caused by the belief that structures will differ in among local contexts. Like reading a sign in the fog, the careful reader can find a two repeated characteristics that ought to define the covenanting community’s structure: catholicity, and exponential reproducibility. Catholicity, the more prevalent of the two characteristics, refers to the universal and united Church. However the church might choose to structure itself, the structure ought to be a part of and point toward the bigger whole of God’s church throughout the world (Guder, 1998; Turnipseed, 1998).
Exponential reproducibility is not a term common to the missional literature, though it is referenced by Cole (2005, 2008) as key to the structure of the church. Gibbs (2006) also uses the term, labeling missional and emerging churches as “reproducible on an exponential scale” (xiii). The covenanting community, though prepared to change and even cease to exist in a specific form if God so wills, relentlessly seeks to multiply the mission of God throughout the world. It is important to note the covenanting community focuses on expanding the mission of God, not a particular church form or structure.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Missional Literature Review - Part 9 - Common Practices of Missional Living - Theological Reflection
Theological Reflection
Missional living is rooted in a conviction that theology and missiology are inextricably tied together (Edson, 2006). A missiological approach or rethinking of theology appears to focus on three major components: God as Trinity, the Gospel as the good news of God’s reign, and the church as God’s missionary people. Van Gelder (2008) identifies all three components and succinctly defines the core of missional theological reflection:
God as Trinity
The Trinitarian foundation to missional theology is one of the most easily noted facts about missional living. Seemingly every missional writer begins with either one or two foundational principles about God stemming from his Trinitarian nature. The two principles are the economic trinity and the perichoretic trinity (Van Gelder, 2007a; Van Gelder, 2007b; Hall, 2009; Bosch, 1991; Fredrickson, 2007). As economic trinity, God sent the Son and the Spirit to be part of the creation of the world. After the fall of creation, the Father, sent the Son into the world to bring redemption and announce his reign. Both Father and Son sent the Spirit into the world to call, equip, and send the church into the world until the Son is again sent to bring the final culmination of the Kingdom. Thus, God is missionary by nature and is the foundation for the missionary nature of his people, the church. As perichoretic trinity, God is three yet one, a community of interrelation and mutuality. It is in this communal image that the church was created (Van Gelder, 2007) and in this image the church sees God’s will for the world (Padilla, 1998). Recapturing the Trinitarian image of God recaptures the image of the church.
The Gospel as the Good News of God’s Reign
A missiological theology begins with God’s nature and quickly moves to God’s mission, the missio dei. Redemption is both the mission of God and the Gospel. Made available through Jesus Christ, redemption is for the whole world (Van Gelder, 2008) and entails both absolute restorations of earthly communities and total reconciliation of humans to God, culminating in a new heaven and a new earth (Ma, 2009; Padilla, 1998). In this goal, the hostile and alienated world is brought back into God’s natural order of love, justice, and peace – the shalom of God (Dietterich, 2002; Hunsberger 1998).
The gospel in missiological theology is the narrative of God’s mission. As the church reads and rereads, hears and rehears, visions and revisions the story of a God on mission to bring redemption, the church is shaped to be God’s unique missionary people. Roxburgh (1998) captures this common thought of missional writers well. He writes, “If the gospel of God’s unbreaking reign in Jesus Christ is to shape the missional church, then the gospel must be faithfully articulated, studied, explored, and heard over and over again” (p. 213). This statement points to the heart of missiological theology: the shape of the church as God’s missionary people.
The Church as God’s Missionary People
The different ways of defining the missionary nature of God’s people and the nuances to be seen in the semantics of such definitions seem to be endless. Interestingly, most (if not all) either quote, build off of, or give credit to Guder’s (1998) seminal work in the field, Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America. This compilation of essays drives home the nature of the church as active and passive representative of God’s reign, sign and foretaste of the kingdom, and the community of, servant to, and messenger concerning the reign of God (Hunsberger, 1998). The biblical images of salt and light are offered to support the church’s identity as the “eschatological community of salvation” (Hunsberger, 1998, p.86; Barrett, 1998). Elsewhere, the church is named “God’s visionary people” (Roxburgh, 2006; xv), “God’s called out people” (Bullock, 2008, p. 105), the “primary manifestation of God’s kingdom” (Hibbert, 2009, p. 324), a “hermeneutic of the gospel” (Hibbert, 2009, p. 330) and the church of the missio dei (Hirsch, 2009).
Missional living is rooted in a conviction that theology and missiology are inextricably tied together (Edson, 2006). A missiological approach or rethinking of theology appears to focus on three major components: God as Trinity, the Gospel as the good news of God’s reign, and the church as God’s missionary people. Van Gelder (2008) identifies all three components and succinctly defines the core of missional theological reflection:
God is seeking to bring God’s kingdom, the very redemptive reign of God in Christ, to bear on every dimension of life within the entire world so that the larger creation purposes of God can be fulfilled. The church’s self-understanding of being missional is grounded in the work of the Spirit of God, who calls the church into existence as a gathered community, equips and prepares it, and sends it into the world to participate fully in God’s mission. (p. 44)
God as Trinity
The Trinitarian foundation to missional theology is one of the most easily noted facts about missional living. Seemingly every missional writer begins with either one or two foundational principles about God stemming from his Trinitarian nature. The two principles are the economic trinity and the perichoretic trinity (Van Gelder, 2007a; Van Gelder, 2007b; Hall, 2009; Bosch, 1991; Fredrickson, 2007). As economic trinity, God sent the Son and the Spirit to be part of the creation of the world. After the fall of creation, the Father, sent the Son into the world to bring redemption and announce his reign. Both Father and Son sent the Spirit into the world to call, equip, and send the church into the world until the Son is again sent to bring the final culmination of the Kingdom. Thus, God is missionary by nature and is the foundation for the missionary nature of his people, the church. As perichoretic trinity, God is three yet one, a community of interrelation and mutuality. It is in this communal image that the church was created (Van Gelder, 2007) and in this image the church sees God’s will for the world (Padilla, 1998). Recapturing the Trinitarian image of God recaptures the image of the church.
The Gospel as the Good News of God’s Reign
A missiological theology begins with God’s nature and quickly moves to God’s mission, the missio dei. Redemption is both the mission of God and the Gospel. Made available through Jesus Christ, redemption is for the whole world (Van Gelder, 2008) and entails both absolute restorations of earthly communities and total reconciliation of humans to God, culminating in a new heaven and a new earth (Ma, 2009; Padilla, 1998). In this goal, the hostile and alienated world is brought back into God’s natural order of love, justice, and peace – the shalom of God (Dietterich, 2002; Hunsberger 1998).
The gospel in missiological theology is the narrative of God’s mission. As the church reads and rereads, hears and rehears, visions and revisions the story of a God on mission to bring redemption, the church is shaped to be God’s unique missionary people. Roxburgh (1998) captures this common thought of missional writers well. He writes, “If the gospel of God’s unbreaking reign in Jesus Christ is to shape the missional church, then the gospel must be faithfully articulated, studied, explored, and heard over and over again” (p. 213). This statement points to the heart of missiological theology: the shape of the church as God’s missionary people.
The Church as God’s Missionary People
The different ways of defining the missionary nature of God’s people and the nuances to be seen in the semantics of such definitions seem to be endless. Interestingly, most (if not all) either quote, build off of, or give credit to Guder’s (1998) seminal work in the field, Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America. This compilation of essays drives home the nature of the church as active and passive representative of God’s reign, sign and foretaste of the kingdom, and the community of, servant to, and messenger concerning the reign of God (Hunsberger, 1998). The biblical images of salt and light are offered to support the church’s identity as the “eschatological community of salvation” (Hunsberger, 1998, p.86; Barrett, 1998). Elsewhere, the church is named “God’s visionary people” (Roxburgh, 2006; xv), “God’s called out people” (Bullock, 2008, p. 105), the “primary manifestation of God’s kingdom” (Hibbert, 2009, p. 324), a “hermeneutic of the gospel” (Hibbert, 2009, p. 330) and the church of the missio dei (Hirsch, 2009).
Monday, March 29, 2010
Missional Literature Review - Part 8 - Common Practices of Missional Living - Cultural Analysis
Cultural Analysis
There is a belief in missional circles that God works within a culture to bring redemption, but does not destroy the culture (Fredrickson, 2007). The church, reflecting the mission of God, seeks to do the same by living in, with and against culture at the same time, seeking to bring it under the Lordship of Christ (Fredrickson, 2007; Hiebert, 1996). To bring culture under Christ, it is necessary for the church to develop “public theology” (Van Gelder, 1996, p. 43). Also called “local theology” (Edson, 2006, p. 27 ; Roxburgh and Boren, 2009, 100), or a “theological reading of sociology” (Van Gelder, 2007, p. 39), a public theology is a contextualized approach to understanding Scripture for and in a particular location. In order to develop a public theology, missional authors contend that the Christian community needs to live “between gospel and culture” (Hunsberger & Van Gelder, xvi) by knowing how it is shaped by culture and how the gospel will shape the culture.
There seem to be three components of public theology suggested in the literature: theology, cultural analysis, and mutual interpretation. As theology will be the topic of the next section, it is not included here. Though it is a major section of the GOCN effort to help congregations become missional, relatively little has been written about analyzing the culture apart from the broad pictures offered of the North American context. More research needs to be done to effectively help the church engage in specific, cultural analysis. Fredrickson (2006) offers some help, saying that the church should take note of demographic indicators and the ecclesial landscape of the context. Clearly, this is not near enough help, but the academic literature offers little more. Neither does the practitioner-oriented literature help much as it contains mainly anecdotes in different contexts.
Fortunately, the literature on mutual interpretation is not so sparse. Mutual interpretation “best explains the relationship between a missional congregation and the context as they coincide together in space and time” (Fredrickson, 2006, p. 49). Taken from the revised correlation theory of Tracy and Bronning, mutual interpretation envisions a complex dialogue between church and culture, with both sides asking questions and offering answers (Edson, 2006). The church dialogues with the Gospel in order to then represent the Gospel in dialogue with the culture. Hunsberger (1996) states the nature of the dialogue profoundly, saying, “The Gospel meets the culture first here in us. . . . Similarly, the culture meets the gospel first here in us who are the hermeneutical lens through which it may be perceived” (p. 297).
The missional literature reveals a growing, critical reflection about intentional engagement with culture. In fact, contextual interpretation, ministry, and theology appear to be three of the hallmarks of missional living. For missional living to remain grounded in God, though, it must be combined with thoroughly biblical theological reflection.
There is a belief in missional circles that God works within a culture to bring redemption, but does not destroy the culture (Fredrickson, 2007). The church, reflecting the mission of God, seeks to do the same by living in, with and against culture at the same time, seeking to bring it under the Lordship of Christ (Fredrickson, 2007; Hiebert, 1996). To bring culture under Christ, it is necessary for the church to develop “public theology” (Van Gelder, 1996, p. 43). Also called “local theology” (Edson, 2006, p. 27 ; Roxburgh and Boren, 2009, 100), or a “theological reading of sociology” (Van Gelder, 2007, p. 39), a public theology is a contextualized approach to understanding Scripture for and in a particular location. In order to develop a public theology, missional authors contend that the Christian community needs to live “between gospel and culture” (Hunsberger & Van Gelder, xvi) by knowing how it is shaped by culture and how the gospel will shape the culture.
There seem to be three components of public theology suggested in the literature: theology, cultural analysis, and mutual interpretation. As theology will be the topic of the next section, it is not included here. Though it is a major section of the GOCN effort to help congregations become missional, relatively little has been written about analyzing the culture apart from the broad pictures offered of the North American context. More research needs to be done to effectively help the church engage in specific, cultural analysis. Fredrickson (2006) offers some help, saying that the church should take note of demographic indicators and the ecclesial landscape of the context. Clearly, this is not near enough help, but the academic literature offers little more. Neither does the practitioner-oriented literature help much as it contains mainly anecdotes in different contexts.
Fortunately, the literature on mutual interpretation is not so sparse. Mutual interpretation “best explains the relationship between a missional congregation and the context as they coincide together in space and time” (Fredrickson, 2006, p. 49). Taken from the revised correlation theory of Tracy and Bronning, mutual interpretation envisions a complex dialogue between church and culture, with both sides asking questions and offering answers (Edson, 2006). The church dialogues with the Gospel in order to then represent the Gospel in dialogue with the culture. Hunsberger (1996) states the nature of the dialogue profoundly, saying, “The Gospel meets the culture first here in us. . . . Similarly, the culture meets the gospel first here in us who are the hermeneutical lens through which it may be perceived” (p. 297).
The missional literature reveals a growing, critical reflection about intentional engagement with culture. In fact, contextual interpretation, ministry, and theology appear to be three of the hallmarks of missional living. For missional living to remain grounded in God, though, it must be combined with thoroughly biblical theological reflection.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Missional Literature Review - Part 7 - Common Practices of Missional Living
Common Practices of Missional Living
There are clear foundations or basic principles to the missional living or missional church being called for by so many authors, scholars, and practitioners. Though he lists a few extemporaneous foundations, Brisco (2009) correctly identifies three core truths to missional thinking: (a) God is a missionary God; (b) the Church is God’s missionary people; and (c) missional living is about actively participating in the missio dei, a Latin term meaning “the sending of God” (Waters, 2009). These same principles are echoed by the Center for Parish Development in Chicago, Illinois. A publication produced by the center to define the missional church lists three truths as well: God is a sending God, the church is a sent people, and the people discern and participate in God’s mission (Center for Parish Development, n.d.).
These three principles represent extreme claims, not in the sense that they are radical and offensive, but in the sense that they are comprehensive and seek to define fully God, Church, and Christian living. God is at his core a sending God. The church “live[s] into the imagination they are, by their very nature, God’s missionary people” (Roxburgh, 2006, xv). Speaking of the Christian life, McNeal (2009) says “missional is a way of living” (xiv). Bosch (1991) agrees, noting that “the entire Christian existence is to be characterized as a missionary existence” (p. 9).
The literature shows clear agreement on the three foundation principles of missional living. Expressions of missional living are much harder to delineate as many have tried to list the characteristics and practices of missional people. To create clarity, it is helpful to consider the three-fold focus of the Gospel and Our Culture Network (GOCN). The GOCN seeks to help Christian communities become missional by researching and writing in three areas: cultural analysis, theological reflection, and congregational mission (Hunsberger, 1996). It is important to note the order. The GOCN believes that he missional community moves from culture to Gospel (theology) to mission. Van Gelder (1996) spells the focus out more clearly by identifying the three questions the missional church asks: What kind of world do we live in? What is the good news of the Gospel in this kind of world? How can we be the body of Christ in this kind of world? These three questions will form the basis for which missional living will here be defined. Missional living, according to the broad themes found in the literature and identified by the GOCN requires cultural analysis and theological reflection in a covenanting community.
There are clear foundations or basic principles to the missional living or missional church being called for by so many authors, scholars, and practitioners. Though he lists a few extemporaneous foundations, Brisco (2009) correctly identifies three core truths to missional thinking: (a) God is a missionary God; (b) the Church is God’s missionary people; and (c) missional living is about actively participating in the missio dei, a Latin term meaning “the sending of God” (Waters, 2009). These same principles are echoed by the Center for Parish Development in Chicago, Illinois. A publication produced by the center to define the missional church lists three truths as well: God is a sending God, the church is a sent people, and the people discern and participate in God’s mission (Center for Parish Development, n.d.).
These three principles represent extreme claims, not in the sense that they are radical and offensive, but in the sense that they are comprehensive and seek to define fully God, Church, and Christian living. God is at his core a sending God. The church “live[s] into the imagination they are, by their very nature, God’s missionary people” (Roxburgh, 2006, xv). Speaking of the Christian life, McNeal (2009) says “missional is a way of living” (xiv). Bosch (1991) agrees, noting that “the entire Christian existence is to be characterized as a missionary existence” (p. 9).
The literature shows clear agreement on the three foundation principles of missional living. Expressions of missional living are much harder to delineate as many have tried to list the characteristics and practices of missional people. To create clarity, it is helpful to consider the three-fold focus of the Gospel and Our Culture Network (GOCN). The GOCN seeks to help Christian communities become missional by researching and writing in three areas: cultural analysis, theological reflection, and congregational mission (Hunsberger, 1996). It is important to note the order. The GOCN believes that he missional community moves from culture to Gospel (theology) to mission. Van Gelder (1996) spells the focus out more clearly by identifying the three questions the missional church asks: What kind of world do we live in? What is the good news of the Gospel in this kind of world? How can we be the body of Christ in this kind of world? These three questions will form the basis for which missional living will here be defined. Missional living, according to the broad themes found in the literature and identified by the GOCN requires cultural analysis and theological reflection in a covenanting community.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Missional Literature Review - Part 6 - The Church as Stewards of Change
The Church as Stewards of the Change
A final theme prevalent in the literature on missional church concerns how the church ought to respond to the changes taking place in culture and in the church. In choosing how to respond best, the church faces many temptations. One temptation is to resist the change, sticking to the old way of doing things in the name of remaining true to Scripture (Hall, 1999; Van Gelder, 2007). Resistance, though, will only keep the church separated from culture and will leave it no room to be influential. Another insufficient option is relevance. When the church tries to be relevant, it becomes both “captured” and “intimidated” by culture, not fully loyal to the gospel and not fully engaged in the context (Hunsberger, 1996). The third temptation of the church is simply to resign, give up, and let the changes run unchecked and keeping the Gospel from having its full impact. Instead of utilizing any of these strategies, missional authors suggest the church seek to “steward the change [emphasis in original], asking for positive meaning that is in it and endeavoring . . . to direct the process toward its potential goal” (Hall, 2008, p. 73).
To steward the change, the church first needs to accept the loss of its “old story” (Roxburgh, 2008, p. 76) and see its new “powerlessness” or marginality as a
creative opportunity for change” (Randall, 2007, p. 230). This acceptance requires dealing with the present crisis with the earnest sincerity without succumbing to it (Bosch, 1991). Van Gelder (2007) suggests the church should be both reforming (confessional) and forming (missional).
Though the voices calling for change can be pointed and harsh, in the end their tone is often optimistic. The goal of the criticism is not deconstructive, but constructive, seeking to build missional communities throughout the West. To best understand what missional thinkers hope to construct, it is necessary to take a detailed look at what defines missional living.
A final theme prevalent in the literature on missional church concerns how the church ought to respond to the changes taking place in culture and in the church. In choosing how to respond best, the church faces many temptations. One temptation is to resist the change, sticking to the old way of doing things in the name of remaining true to Scripture (Hall, 1999; Van Gelder, 2007). Resistance, though, will only keep the church separated from culture and will leave it no room to be influential. Another insufficient option is relevance. When the church tries to be relevant, it becomes both “captured” and “intimidated” by culture, not fully loyal to the gospel and not fully engaged in the context (Hunsberger, 1996). The third temptation of the church is simply to resign, give up, and let the changes run unchecked and keeping the Gospel from having its full impact. Instead of utilizing any of these strategies, missional authors suggest the church seek to “steward the change [emphasis in original], asking for positive meaning that is in it and endeavoring . . . to direct the process toward its potential goal” (Hall, 2008, p. 73).
To steward the change, the church first needs to accept the loss of its “old story” (Roxburgh, 2008, p. 76) and see its new “powerlessness” or marginality as a
creative opportunity for change” (Randall, 2007, p. 230). This acceptance requires dealing with the present crisis with the earnest sincerity without succumbing to it (Bosch, 1991). Van Gelder (2007) suggests the church should be both reforming (confessional) and forming (missional).
Though the voices calling for change can be pointed and harsh, in the end their tone is often optimistic. The goal of the criticism is not deconstructive, but constructive, seeking to build missional communities throughout the West. To best understand what missional thinkers hope to construct, it is necessary to take a detailed look at what defines missional living.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Missional Literature Review - Part 5 - Commonly Held Reasons for Change: Argument from Missional Hermeneutic
Argument from Missional Hermeneutic
The final starting point for those who call the church to adopt a missional lifestyle is a missional hermeneutic, “a framework within which to read the Bible” (Wright, 2006, p. 26). Recently, a growing number of major publications are centering full biblical theologies upon the mission of God (see Bosch, 1991; Wright, 2006; and, to a lesser extent, Beale, 2004). These works portray the Bible as a story of a missional God on mission in the world through a particular people.
Of this particular people, Wright (2006) states that the Bible is a narrative of the “indefatigable self-commitment of God to bless all the nations of humanity through the creation of a people as the vehicle of his goal of redemption” (p. 532). The pattern of God’s work is “in” to “out,” beginning with his people and moving to the families of the earth (Brownson, 1996). Abraham is called by God and told to become a blessing, Israel is redeemed out of Israel to be the covenant people of God among the nations, Jesus announces the coming reign of God for Israel and Gentiles, and the early church made Jesus’ proclamation a reality. Wright (2006) indicates the importance of the church recognizing the missional nature and pattern of the Biblical narrative, with the observation that “this is the people to whom we belong. This is the story to which we are a part. This is the mission in which we are called to participate” (p. 532).
Those who see a missional hermeneutic as a starting point for calling for the missional change in the church encourage Christians to see the Bible as more than just a bunch of facts and stories that can help them live good lives (McNeal, 2009; Wright, 2006). Instead, the Bible should be as a missional narrative that guides the community into missional living. In this approach, the Bible is seen to exist for a missional purpose, God is seen to be a missional God, and the people of God with whom the church shares an identity is seen as a missional people (Wright, 2006).
The final starting point for those who call the church to adopt a missional lifestyle is a missional hermeneutic, “a framework within which to read the Bible” (Wright, 2006, p. 26). Recently, a growing number of major publications are centering full biblical theologies upon the mission of God (see Bosch, 1991; Wright, 2006; and, to a lesser extent, Beale, 2004). These works portray the Bible as a story of a missional God on mission in the world through a particular people.
Of this particular people, Wright (2006) states that the Bible is a narrative of the “indefatigable self-commitment of God to bless all the nations of humanity through the creation of a people as the vehicle of his goal of redemption” (p. 532). The pattern of God’s work is “in” to “out,” beginning with his people and moving to the families of the earth (Brownson, 1996). Abraham is called by God and told to become a blessing, Israel is redeemed out of Israel to be the covenant people of God among the nations, Jesus announces the coming reign of God for Israel and Gentiles, and the early church made Jesus’ proclamation a reality. Wright (2006) indicates the importance of the church recognizing the missional nature and pattern of the Biblical narrative, with the observation that “this is the people to whom we belong. This is the story to which we are a part. This is the mission in which we are called to participate” (p. 532).
Those who see a missional hermeneutic as a starting point for calling for the missional change in the church encourage Christians to see the Bible as more than just a bunch of facts and stories that can help them live good lives (McNeal, 2009; Wright, 2006). Instead, the Bible should be as a missional narrative that guides the community into missional living. In this approach, the Bible is seen to exist for a missional purpose, God is seen to be a missional God, and the people of God with whom the church shares an identity is seen as a missional people (Wright, 2006).
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Missional Literature Review - Part 4 - Commonly Held Reasons for Change: The Argument from Personal Revival
Argument from Personal Revival
Comprising much less space in the literature than contextual change and institutional crisis, personal revival of faith is nonetheless a starting point that has led some authors, scholars, and practitioners to call for a missional transformation of the church. Part of the reason this starting point takes up less space in the literature is that it is much more difficult to identify and often cannot readily be separated from the other three arguments of context, crisis, and hermeneutic. It is in the literature being produced by practitioners that personal faith is most often a major starting point (see Chan, 2008; Halter & Smay, 2008; McNeal, 2009). Chan’s (2008) anecdotal beginning to his book on real Christian living, Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God, is a perfect example of this starting point:
We all know something is wrong.
At first I thought it was just me. Then I stood before twenty thousand
Christian college students and asked, “How many of you have read the New
Testament and wondered if we in the church are missing it?” When almost every
hand went up, I felt comforted. At least I’m not crazy. (p. 19)
Chan and the students to whom he spoke have what Junkin (1996) calls “restless, lonely, hungry hearts” (p. 309) that realize something different needs to take place in their faith and their churches. The realization of the need and the long for something different are the catalysts for the changes that take place in the practitioner’s life or ministry.
Three missional themes found in the literature seem to be rooted in the author’s personal revival of faith, whether scholar or practitioner or both. These themes are eschatological hope, sacrifice and suffering, and social justice. Ma (2009) claims Christians need to recapture a “universal theology of hope” (p. 189) that points the church and the world to the future reign of God and prepares them for its coming. Laing (2009) also calls for a renewal of the eschatological perspective of hope, claiming its implication will be “missionary obedience” (p. 20) among believers.
As the church looks toward the eschaton, it is to sacrifice itself and offer itself up for suffering that it might be used in the redemptive purposes of God (Turnipseed, 1998; Waters, 2009). Instead of sacrificing, Turnipseed (1998) says Christians have too long allowed the poor, marginalized, and weak to be suffer and calls the church to “refuse to tolerate the sacrifice of others” (p. 532) any longer. If this call is to be heeded, the third theme, social justice, will also be realized.
Both in the church and in the world, people are exhibiting signs of increasing altruism, desire for personal growth, and hunger for spiritual vitality (McNeal, 2009). This increase is placing pressure on the church from all sides to become more missional in its nature and in its ministry. If the trend in the literature holds true, this will be a major theme in the literature, church, and world for at least the next few decades.
Comprising much less space in the literature than contextual change and institutional crisis, personal revival of faith is nonetheless a starting point that has led some authors, scholars, and practitioners to call for a missional transformation of the church. Part of the reason this starting point takes up less space in the literature is that it is much more difficult to identify and often cannot readily be separated from the other three arguments of context, crisis, and hermeneutic. It is in the literature being produced by practitioners that personal faith is most often a major starting point (see Chan, 2008; Halter & Smay, 2008; McNeal, 2009). Chan’s (2008) anecdotal beginning to his book on real Christian living, Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God, is a perfect example of this starting point:
We all know something is wrong.
At first I thought it was just me. Then I stood before twenty thousand
Christian college students and asked, “How many of you have read the New
Testament and wondered if we in the church are missing it?” When almost every
hand went up, I felt comforted. At least I’m not crazy. (p. 19)
Chan and the students to whom he spoke have what Junkin (1996) calls “restless, lonely, hungry hearts” (p. 309) that realize something different needs to take place in their faith and their churches. The realization of the need and the long for something different are the catalysts for the changes that take place in the practitioner’s life or ministry.
Three missional themes found in the literature seem to be rooted in the author’s personal revival of faith, whether scholar or practitioner or both. These themes are eschatological hope, sacrifice and suffering, and social justice. Ma (2009) claims Christians need to recapture a “universal theology of hope” (p. 189) that points the church and the world to the future reign of God and prepares them for its coming. Laing (2009) also calls for a renewal of the eschatological perspective of hope, claiming its implication will be “missionary obedience” (p. 20) among believers.
As the church looks toward the eschaton, it is to sacrifice itself and offer itself up for suffering that it might be used in the redemptive purposes of God (Turnipseed, 1998; Waters, 2009). Instead of sacrificing, Turnipseed (1998) says Christians have too long allowed the poor, marginalized, and weak to be suffer and calls the church to “refuse to tolerate the sacrifice of others” (p. 532) any longer. If this call is to be heeded, the third theme, social justice, will also be realized.
Both in the church and in the world, people are exhibiting signs of increasing altruism, desire for personal growth, and hunger for spiritual vitality (McNeal, 2009). This increase is placing pressure on the church from all sides to become more missional in its nature and in its ministry. If the trend in the literature holds true, this will be a major theme in the literature, church, and world for at least the next few decades.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)