A proper, biblical ecclesiology looks at everything the church is and does in relation to the mission of God in the world. The church does not exist for itself, but for participation in God’s mission of reconciliation. “Mission” is not just an activity carried out by special people in faraway places. Mission is the character of the church in whatever context it exists.
This hasn’t always been the way Christians have thought about the character of the church. In Christendom (where church & nation/culture were hand-in-glove, and it was assumed that almost everybody was Christian somehow), the church’s mission only related to cultures other than the dominant culture.
This was especially the case in Europe and North America. But Christendom is dying. Our context in North America is more like the New Testament context of the church, where the church is on the margins, not at the center of society. The mission field is right around us, as well as around the world. We can no longer assume (if indeed, we ever should have assumed) that everyone around us is Christian.
Nor is a missional church simply a congregation with a mission statement. All kinds of organizations have mission statements, and not all of those mission statements are aligned with God’s purposes in the world.
A missional church is a church that is shaped by participating in God’s mission, which is to set things right in a broken, sinful world, to redeem it, and to restore it to what God has always intended for the world. Missional churches see themselves not so much sending, as being sent. A missional congregation lets God’s mission permeate everything that the congregation does—from worship to witness to training members for discipleship. It bridges the gap between outreach and comgregational life, since, in its life together, the church is to embody God’s mission.
—Lois Y. Barrett in Treasure in Clay Jars: Patterns in Missional Faithfulness
Photo: Phunk
you had me up until you threw in the word “congregation.” I have been thinking about this a lot lately and based on my experience with several typical N.American churches over the past decade, I feel like “missional church” might have to leave behind the concept of “congregation.”
“Congregations” as we experience them today are fertile ground for individualism, consumerism, and anonymity. ALL of those are things that Missional Christians need to oppose at every opportunity, in favor of true relationships and kingdom-now values.
Ted, a congregation is simply a gathering of people. This congregation need not function in the same Sunday Morning Worship Service style that the church has become accustomed to, but perhaps this congregating will happen around a common table or a public square or during a time of spiritual retreat.
There is really no reason that a gathering of people (a congregation) should be defined by individualism or consumerism or anonymity. These are assumptions based on a certain model of congregating. Gathering together to share, pray, plan, and then to be scattered is as important as ever, possibly more so.
Something I’ve been challenged about is the concept of “the margins.” The idea that the church is now at the margins implies that something else is now at the centre. But what I think is becoming more and more apparent is that there is in fact no centre. What we have and exist among are nodes and hubs which have various levels of either insular and closed activity or open and engaged explosion.
Ted, I hear what you are saying and I agree with your assessment of “fertile ground” but I also think we need to redeem what it means to be the church (or congregation) . . . now for some that might mean some different language is used? Maybe “faith community”? Maybe simply “the church gathered”? Either way I like what David said that it is really just a gathering of people. But language is certainly important.
David, in regards to the margins. I like to say that in AD30 the church/christian faith was on the margins and the Roman culture was the dominant seat of culture. After AD 313 the church moved from the margins to the dominant seat of culture. Then in the mid 20th century the church began to be pushed to the margins once again and if there is a dominant seat of culture I would say it is simply the pluralist, post-modern worldview. I for one think it is actually a good thing that the church has lost it’s place of privilege. Like Reggie McNeal says in one of his talks, “It is AD 30 All Over Again.”
The language of “the margins” has been incredibly helpful for me for those very reasons. But while it is helpful, I still think it is operating under the former paradigm. When we say that pluralist, post-modernism is in the dominant seat of culture what we are really saying is that there is no dominant seat of culture, thus, there are also really no margins.
I’m hopeful that we can move beyond the clever helpfulness of “the margins” to something that more truly reflects the constantly shifting/growing/shrinking nodes that the church finds itself forming and reforming.