In this third post from the MGB Comm Observation Deck, I want to make an observation about our church’s theological conversation. It’s an observation about a technical term that is becoming both very helpful and at times quite frustrating. It’s the word, “missional”.
From the New Form of Government to the PCUSA Fellowship Letter, from the vision statement of almost every Presbytery to the video podcasts from our Stated Clerk, from Presbyterian Global Fellowship to the NEXT conference, everybody is talking about the church being “missional”. But this is our third observation:
Missional is the “coin of the realm” but we don’t all agree on its “value.”
To recap what we have observed from the “balcony” so far:
Observation #1: For Presbyterians, the Process IS the Product.
Observation #2: Almost everybody agrees that something has to change.
And now, Observation #3: Missional is the “coin of the realm” but we don’t all agree on its “value.”
While the idea of the “missional church” is very engaging and at the center of the church conversation in very interesting and inspiring ways, there is not widespread agreement on what “missional” means. For some it is a way of saying “global mission” with a catchy new label. For others it is a way of saying something about “urban ministry” or “local mission” (instead of just writing checks to missionaries), for others it’s a reframe for service projects in local communities. For, still others, it seems like the newest fad or catchy theological trend.
So while, we (mostly) all believe the church is to be missional, but we don’t all agree, or maybe even understand what we are saying by using the term. Indeed, a significant part of the “missional conversation” is a conversation about definition. Since this is an observation, I won’t offer my own, but instead want to suggest two very basic “missional” concepts where I believe we do have (or at least should have) widespread agreement And allow me to do so by way of quotation and stipulation.
First quotation:
“Mission determines the forms and structures needed for the church to do its work.” Nfog G-3.0106
“The congregation is the church engaged in mission in its particular context…The congregation is the basic form of the church, but it is not of itself a sufficient form of the church.” Nfog G-1.0101
In a court of law, when two sides want to agree on a fact and move on to another point of contention, they make a stipulation. They concede one point to address another. And in essence I want to ask: Can we agree on these two points so that we may begin to move on to others that are in need of further consideration?
• Mission determines structure.
• The congregation is both primary to and insufficient for mission.
In one sense these points should be easy to agree upon. They are from our New Form of Government and both express thoughts from the current Form of Government. But before assuming that we are all in agreement (the Nfog is, of course, up for debate), I’d like to ask:
First, do we agree that MISSION, specifically, the Mission of the Triune God expressed for the whole world determines the forms and structures of the church? It’s first God’s mission, not ours. It’s first God’s mission, not the church’s, not the denomination, not even the individual Christian. The Mission of God revealed in Jesus Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit to redeem and renew all of creation determines our structure. Can we agree on that? Do we also agree that when the MGB Commission considers “models” from Middle Governing bodies, the primary consideration should be whether the proposed structures further the Mission of the Triune God in the world today and not any political, personal, institutional, traditional, historical, organizational, economic or societal aim? Can we stipulate this?
Second, do we agree that the congregation IS the basic form of mission, and thereby the basic form of church? Do we agree that the congregation in its particular contexts is the foundational and primary place where the MISSION of GOD engages the need of the world? The congregation (and not the denomination nor the individual) is the foundational, first line engagement of God to the world.
Third, do we also agree at the very same time, that the congregation in and of itself is NOT sufficient as the church? That in order to fulfill the mission of God, we need more than congregations? We need forms and structures of SOME kind beyond the congregation. We need them to witness to the unity of the church, to engage in mission in ways that are beyond the scope or ability of a local congregation, for discernment, for learning, for leadership development and calling and perhaps a few other things that support and strengthen the mission of the congregation.
So, once again, here are the first two stipulations: What do you think?
• Mission determines structure.
• The congregation is both primary to and insufficient for mission.
Now, frankly, I want to caution us all not to agree too quickly (Oh, who am I kidding? We are Presbyterians. We don’t agree quickly on anything!). And this is where we need some good thoughtful theological critique. This is where I want to pause and take an extra moment or two. Do we all realize what we would be stipulating?
- As I see it, we would be agreeing that any structure or form of church BEYOND the congregation must serve and further the mission of the congregation in a local, particular context. The congregation does not serve the mission of the presbytery, the synod or the denomination, but the reverse. Indeed, the mission of GOD in the world is discerned and expressed in and through the congregation. And any structure that we use beyond the congregation must be understood by its value to the congregation.
- As I see it, we would also be agreeing that neither the denomination nor the individual is the basic expression of mission. The local covenant community of Jesus-followers living as a witness in its context (however that is structured) is primary. Now, to be sure, individual believers are called to live and serve the mission of Jesus. But the cornerstone of missional thinking is the primacy of the community as the agent of Christ’s mission for world.
Do we agree that the congregation does NOT exist for the “mission” of its individual members but that individual Christians and the denominational structures are called to live out their callings within a local context and as part of the body of Christ in mission together? Can we agree on this, too? (This one may be more difficult for most of us, so steeped in the individualism of enlightenment modernity or expressive post-modernity….But I have written a bit about this before--shameless plug here.)
Okay, another observation, two stipulations and hopefully a more robust conversation. What do you think?
