#missionshift

(This post is part of a conversation happening here about the book MissionSHIFT.)

The heart of MissionSHIFT is made up of three core essays- representing the past, present and future of mission, and the multiple responses of scholars and leaders to each specific essay. The first essay presented to us is by Charles Van Engen, who writes "Mission" Defined and Described. The main point of this essay is to provide a historical context to how the Church has defined mission over the last two thousand years.

The words mission and missional are tossed around like buzzwords, but a widely-accepted definition doesn't really yet exist. While I don't think the purpose of MissionSHIFT is to provide a remedy to that issue, it will surely aid in bringing focus to the conversation. I think this is a discussion that's vital to our future direction, and I'm eager to engage in and learn from it.

While I won't pretend to completely understand every concept presented by Van Engen or his responders (advanced theological debate is still fresh to this new seminarian), I do want to highlight a few thoughts that stuck out to me.

***

Van Engen emphasizes that a proper definition of mission must begin emphasis on the concept of being sent, which is more in line with the Greek language used when referencing what we call mission in the New Testament (p. 10-12).  

The bottom line is that as Christians (and thus inherently missionaries), we recognize that we are sent by Jesus Christ to accomplish His work, not a denomination or ministry. When we understand that, we can begin to hone in on a basic definition of mission. More importantly, when we see ourselves as "sent" by Christ, we are less likely to deceive ourselves into thinking that simply providing "ministry" from our building is carrying out mission. Often, local churches equate the expansion of the kingdom of God with the expansion and use of their facilities. While I think that attractional model of ministry has had an impact on changing lives, the fact of the matter is that it consistently leads to churches settling into a pattern of making decisions based on what will bring people to the church.  While this is in no way an evil question to consider, my guess is that a truly missional church would never quote Field of Dreams before making a decision about ministry. 

Jesus didn't say, "If you build it, they will come so you can make disciples of all nations..."  He said go. What would the kingdom look like in our communities if we began investing our energy into ministries that were characterized by their being sent rather than staying?

***

Van Engen offers up seven characteristics he believes are essential for a truly missional church (p. 24-25).  Consider it a litmus test and critique your own church against them.  A mission church would understand itself to be:

Contextual:  part of a larger context of a lost and broken world so loved by God.

Intentional:  existing for the purpose of "following Christ in mission."

Proclaiming:  intentionally sent by God in mission to announce in word and deed the coming of the kingdom of God in Christ.

Reconciling:  a healing presence in its contexts, locally and globally.

Sanctifying:  a faith community gathered around the Word preached, thus personally living out its truth and serving as a purifying influence to society.

Unifying:  an embracing, enfolding, gathering community of faith, anxious to receive persons into its fellowship.

Transforming:  "the salt of the earth," a transforming presence as the body of Christ in mission, called to be, embody and live out in the world the biblical concepts of mission.

While I would agree with all of the qualities Van Engen identifies as being displayed by a missional church, my concern is that it's far too easy for a church to consider themselves in concert with this list while never actually carrying out God's mission beyond their own doors.  So in what ways can we discern if we're truly embodying a missional church by these standards alone?  How can church leaders give themselves a gut check and evaluate how their churches are living out mission?  One might think that it should be a fairly obvious critique, but I don't think it's that easy.  How can we help churches rethink their strategy for carrying out God's mission and better understand how to embrace their "sentness?"

***

Finally, Van Engen provides his own tentative definition for mission (p. 27).  He means it to be in no way taken as Gospel, but I think it's worth reading and considering.  Pray about it, and let me know what you think:

God's mission works primarily through Jesus Christ's sending the people of God to intentionally cross barriers from church to nonchurch, faith to nonfaith, to proclaim by word and deed the coming of the kingdom of God in Jesus Christ through the Church's participation in God's mission of reconciling people to God, to themselves, to one another and to the world and gathering them into the church, through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, by the work of the Holy Spirit, with a view to the transformation of the world, as a sign of the coming of the kingdom of Jesus Christ.

I realize that this definition is wordy and many of us would prefer something more concise and simple to plug-in to our own theology (but again, I don't think it's that simple.  So what in this definition sticks out to you?  Is there anything you disagree with?

There was plenty more to consider and wrestle with, and if you'd like to do so, come join the discussion over at Ed Stetzer's blog.

***

So, obviously, these thoughts give way to some questions to ponder:

So, in your opinion, how do you define God's mission for the Church? What does it look like for the Church to be on mission today?

For most of the last two years, I've really wrestled with the question of what God's mission for the Church is and how that is carried out in the 21st century.  More specifically, as someone who feels called to someday lead a local church- what do I understand the God's mission for the Church to be?  These questions became a major focus in my life as I enrolled in seminary last fall and began taking classes with an emphasis on evangelism and mission.

Two voices stood out amongst the authors we were assigned to read:  David J. Hesselgrave and Ed Stetzer.  Not only did their works challenge me, but they created a thirst to learn more on the subject and begin defining what "mission" was.  When the opportunity to participate in a book discussion on MissionSHIFT, a book they edited together, I jumped at the opportunity.

So here's how this works.  A discussion is being held on Ed Stetzer's blog as we work through the book.  When it comes time to comment on the next section, I'll post my thoughts here and link it back to the discussion.  There's a few dozen other people who will be doing the same thing.  If you follow the links back to Stetzer's site, you can enjoy the full discussion on the ideas presented in the book.  If you'd like to participate, go pick up a copy of the book and join in.

Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts as we dive into this.  I know many of the people following my blog are folks who have strong views, thoughts and opinions on the Church and I think we can have a pretty tight discussion that will hopefully grow us all.  So don't be afraid to chime in.  That's what this is all about!