Was I Taught the Missional God? « Ramblings from Red Rose

[...] Was I Taught the Missional God? Scot McKnight at Jesus Creed is beginning a new discussion on another book, Christopher Wright’s The Mission of God.? I have not read or even heard of the book, but from McKnight’s introduction it touches on many themes that I have been thinking about recently.? The premise of the book is that ‘…the Bible is about our missional God and… our task is missional…’? That is nothing new for me in and of itself, but then McKnight asks the question If the heart of biblical theology is the God of mission who forms a people to participate in God???s mission, can any theology or praxis lay claim to being biblical that does not front and center shape things through the lens of ???missional???? Think about this. Was your theology taught this way? Did you learn the Christian life this way? [...]

Souds very good. That we’re to breathe the air of mission which is the air in the Story of Scripture. That we are rescued to in turn be rescuers. Or better, we’re reconciled to in turn be ambassadors of this reconciliation. That it somehow is to be the warp and woof of who we are. Beginning with ourselves: from the inside out.
Quite interesting. I hope to get my hands on this book, soon. Seems like I might have one of his books here.

I think that regardless of one’s status in life… minority or whatever… one is called to be missional. I see no exemptions–being missional is an act of doing justice.
I also believe that any spiritual formation or discipleship must lead us to the kind of walk with God that calls us to unite with Christ not just spiritually but in mission. if we are united with Christ, we are united with him in mission.

Every Christian I know, or have ever known, every church I???ve attended, is “missional” in the sense of believing themselves and their church to be participating in the mission of God. Isn’t this term somewhat vague until one defines that the mission of God actually entails? At this point rather significant differences begin to emerge ??? particularly differences in Christian vocation and engagement with the world around. So yes ??? I was taught theology and the Christian life this way from day one. But my understanding of the mission of God has changed rather dramatically throughout the years.
On the third point regarding a missional hermeneutic: What is meant by the term an “interested” reading?

RJS,
I suspect the language quoted above — ???Fundamentally, our mission ??? means our committed participation as God???s people, at God???s invitation and command, in God???s own mission within the history of God???s world for the redemption of God???s creation??? (23) — is not the same as what you and I grew up on. It is important to have those last words, beginning with “within …”.
He uses “interested” to admit that we all come at the texts from a viewpoint, from a particular location, etc, and he wants to say that “missional” is an interested reading by one who believes “missional” is also the way the Christian life is to be lived.

I read this book last summer for my “Biblical Foundations in Mission” course at Fuller. It was a very eye-opening book. I just pulled it out again and started rereading many of my highlights and notes. One thing I appreciated about the book in general is that it pulled many of its biblical stories and examples from the Old Testament. It was enlightening to view the mission of God from this perspective. I am looking forward to your discussion of the book.

I agree with RJS: it seems that every church and Christian would agree with being “missional” broadly defined. I was taught this in church and seminary. The real disagreement seems to revolve around two primary questions:
1) what is the mission of God? In very general terms, conservative evangelicals equate it with evangelism (pure redemptive mandate) and liberal Christians with social causes (pure cultural mandate). There is still a large gap in how churches/christians answer this question.
2) how does the church exist missionally? In other words, this is a debate of ecclesiology, theological and practical. Ecclesiology seems to be the thrust of emergent and missional church movement (i.e. GOCN). I find many debates simply on the issue of “what/who constitutes church?”
I’m anxious to hear what Wright says.

BrianMcL #7-
Is ecclesiology “the thrust of emergent and missional church movement”, or is missiology the thrust- which then shapes the ecclesiology?

Brian McL,
Its been a year since I read Mission of God, but I especially remember him working through your first question. By doing missional theology through entire Biblical narrative he weds evangelism and social action so that they are inextricibly linked together. From my vantage point, he presents the most compelling case for a Holistic mission from all of the sources I’ve read (I did my thesis on resolving the missional tension between evangelism and social responsibility by rooting mission within the doctrine of creation).
“The Mission of God” has reached in places where we would never expect it. Several months ago I happened to attend a gathering of local Western Michigan fundamental-baptist pastors (GARBC) who had come together to intentionally read and discuss this book. Several came to the conclusion that their previous thinking about mission was distorted and they were trying to figure out how their churches might embrace both evangelism and social responsibility (such as poverty issues). Yes, pigs are flying in West Michigan!!!

Our Missional God « fresh expressions…

[...] Our Missional God Scot McKnight, has just started a new series on Chris Wright’s book “The Mission of God”. His first post on missional hermeneutics is great. This book is top of my list of books to buy, so I will be reading Scot’s post’s with great eagerness… [...]

#7 Brian
I am a liberal and attend a liberal Anglican church. I would say we have a “redemptive” mandate. In fact, having recently participated in creating “vision” statements I would say redemption had top billing. And this is almost a direct quote “We are called to be the the expression of the power of God’s redemptive love for the world”. The question is more how do we express that? You can tell or you can show. Evangelicals tend to be heavy on the “telling”, liberals tend to be shy about telling and concentrate on the showing, by way of involving themselves in social causes. There is a tendency for evangelicals to concentrate on a sort of spiritual tag – “OK, I’m saved. Now I’ve got to go find some other people to save. We can work on changing our lives, once we’ve got everyone converted.” and for liberals to use their social causes as a way of believing they are working for God while avoiding making any changes in their personal life (“well, maybe I am a bit screwed up but at least I make it to the marches/ help out at the soup kitchen/ send money to the AIDS in Africa org). Obviously, I am making a generalization – there are plenty of people in both groups whose lives shine as beacons of true transformation. I believe to be missional involves both and more critically involves redemption of self and living personally in Christ first. It doesn’t do much good to explain how Jesus has changed our lives if they haven’t really changed – and this is where I think some churches, and some of us as individuals, fall down a bit – or a lot, I know I do. I don’t think we can be missional if we leave out one of the three – grow, show, tell.

Scott,
Time keeps passing and I have now finished my 30th year of teaching. And I am once again in your dad’s class. We are currently between churches and because of now living kind of near Freeport again we seem to find ourselves at First Baptist in Freeport. When we are there we go to your dad’s Sunday School class. It has been a long time since I sat in your dad’s class, but it is a good experience. Your dad quite often mentions the books that you have written. This brings me to my question. I have recently written a book. It is not of the theological nature of the type that you write. It is rather about experiences that I have had as a teacher during these past years. I was wondering, how do I go about contacting a publisher? And what publishers should I contact? Any insights that you have would be appreciated.
Thanks for any help that you can offer.
Mike Coats

Mariam #10 and Brian #7:
Mariam, amen and amen! Beautifully said. To Brian’s first question, I think the answer is really quite simple. God’s mission is to reconcile, redeem and restore. Our mission or vocation is, likewise, to be God’s vice-regents, ambassadors of reconciliation who sow little parables of the kingdom come and still coming. God is about redemption (what Brian refers to as the evangelical’s mandate) and restoration (what Brian refers to as the liberal’s mandate). These are two sides of God’s single coin.
Kevin

Kevin,
We probably agree on redemption and restoration – but Brian is certainly right about much of the traditional conservative approach. Restoration has sometimes been viewed as a distraction from the “true” mission of redemption.

This was such an excellent book. I picked it up at Urbana 2006 and read it that summer. I have recommended it to many people, but it is weighty. It is sad that so few people are familiar with Wright’s work. He has done much in taking us back and grounding us in the story of the OT. For those interested, I highly recommend “Old Testament Ethic for the People of God.” Again, weighty, but excellent. I’m looking forward to following these next posts.

Wow! Straight from Stackhouse to Christopher Wright. You’re on a roll with my favorite books. I look forward to the series.

RJS #14:
No doubt. But that’s a mistake. God’s agenda in the world is expansive. You say we probably agree on redemption and restoration. What about reconciliation? Do you not think God is about that? (-;
Kevin

Mariam and Kevin – I agree with both of you that both the cultural and redemptive mandates are essential aspects of the mission of God (though I personally believe that the redemptive mandate is the “heavier” side of the coin!). In my comment I wasn’t trying to really state my opinion, I was merely trying to state the “terms of the debate.” I still believe that my description of these two camps, while generalizations and stereotypical, are still the frontlines to this discussion. If there is any question, read MacArthur’s response to emergent and emergent’s response to fundamentalism (for two good examples, see Gibbs & Bolger’s Emerging Churches and McLaren’s The Secret Message of Jesus). So I’m anxious to see if Wright bridges this gap.
Rick – I think that’s fair. Guder talks about allowing Newbigin’s missiology to transform the church and Bosch’s trinitarian theology to transform the church.
Joel – as a fellow Baptist, I love to hear that!

Looking forward to the series. My training was focused on evangelism and discipleship – and missionary work was what you did overseas…or in some other non-native culture. To have a missional hermeneutic resonates with me, especially in the work/ministry we are doing.

Brian #18
You Wrote:
“I agree with both of you that both the cultural and redemptive mandates are essential aspects of the mission of God (though I personally believe that the redemptive mandate is the ???heavier??? side of the coin!)”
The cultural/stewardship mandate (along with community with God and each other) is the purpose for which we were made. It is about God’s eikons “filling the earth” reflecting his glory and dominion to creation, to each other, and back to God. “Redemption” means “redeeming” things back to this order of existence.
The redemption mandate is temporary. One day redemption will be complete. The cultural/stewardship mandate is eternal and is continuous between the old and new creations.
It is not a contest of supremacy between the two mandates but rather it is to see them as inseparable aspects of God’s mission in the world. To rate one above the other is to me a bit like asking which is more important to breathing? Inhaling or exhaling?

Michael #20 – I can buy that. The only reason I emphasize redemptive is that because we are cracked eikons it is only possible to completely fulfill the cultural mandate now and for eternity through redemption found in Christ. Therefore, because of sin, it seems that redemption is the key to living as an eikon. Not in contest, as you say, but redemption does seem to have priority theologically. Simply put, we have to “redeem things back to this order of existence” before we can live in that order of existence.

The sadest of the poor are the one’s that can’t see that they are poor. Plenty of that here and abroad. Civility is a poor meter of the heart.
The whole secret of progress is the doing of the thing we know. There is no other way of progress in the spiritual life; no other way of progress in the understanding of that life; only as we do, can we know.
“Truth in Jesus”- Unspoken Sermons, Second Series
George McDonald

Brian #21
???Simply put, we have to ???redeem things back to this order of existence??? before we can live in that order of existence.???
What concerns me is the content we give to ???redeem.??? Evangelical circles have frequently reduced redemption to personal salvation. The thinking goes that if we concentrate on ???saving souls,??? then one day these saved souls will transform the created world. It won???t.
If we teach new disciples that focusing on ???saving souls??? is paramount, then they will teach their disciples the same. Their disciples will in turn teach there disciples the same. Unless somebody breaks the cycle and starts teaching the creation-stewardship mandate, it will never be addressed.
I think our role in redemption is in giving witness in action and in interpretation. When we live faithfully according to God???s creation-stewardship mandate we give windows into the future of the new creation to come. That becomes a dynamic witness to the world but it must be interpreted. As we offer interpretation (the ???good news??? of the coming new creation) and invitation, our lives become ???demo models??? of our interpretation. New disciples are drawn by both word and deed.
I???ve harped on this before but look at our work lives. Contemporary Christianity has little to say that integrates our daily work with the larger things of God. Our work is at best instrumental. It puts food on the table, it forms our moral character, or our maybe our workplace is a staging ground for personal evangelism. The idea that our work has intrinsic value that connects with the larger things of God is absent. Why? Because priority is given to ???saving souls??? and little reflection is given to what it is we have been saved for: Relational mission – Being the image of God in the world as his stewards/co-regents, living in perfect relationship with God and with each other.
We may be closer in thought than I think. I’m just being sensitive to the spirit of Christianity in our age that is oblivious to the creation-stewardship mandate.

Michael, I appreciate your words and concern. I think we are very, very close.
However, the distinctions we are discussing was the impetus of my first post today. Everyone agrees with being missional as RJS pointed out, but we disagree on what that means, which makes the whole discussion very difficult. Defining the mission of God is critical and will be hotly debated, as it is in the church today.
Our discussion reminds me of a discussion/debate that David Turner and Scot McKnight had at a GRTS Talking Points. Turner emphasized the “personal salvation” while McKnight emphasized the community. I agreed with both, but in a particular order: personal salvation leads to community. We aren’t saved as community and we are saved through creation-stewardship mandate, we are saved through personal faith in Christ. This may be abused, but seems to me to be biblically faithful. To state it in terms of our discussion, I believe personal salvation enables us to fulfill the creation-stewardship mandate.
I greatly appreciate your sensitivity and contributions. Lord knows I’m still figuring all this out!

Michael,
Have you read, “Heaven is a Place on Earth” by Michael Wittmer? He specifically addresses what you are talking about throughout his entire book. It was one of the inspirations for me writing my thesis (check out #9) a few years ago. I am seeing more and more books and articles addressing the creation mandates so I believe the evangelical church is finally waking up that this life is more than saving souls, the five purposes of purpose-driven life, or whatever spin is put on it….

Scot,
I am very interested to follow this series. I am just finishing the book for my Old Testament Theology course. I am also reading Wright’s books: Knowing the Holy Spirit Through the Old Testament; Knowing the Father Through the Old Testament and Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament. I am with you on finding Wright’s approach as generous. Wright’s work has made an impact on my thinking. Looking forward to the conversation here.

#25 Joel
I have read Wittmer and appreciated it very much. I’ve also found works like Paul Stevens’ “The Other Six Days,” Miroslav Volf’s “Work in the Spirit” and Darrell Cosden’s “A Theology of Work” helpful on this topic.

Brian #24
If I haven???t been clear so far, let me be clear here: I firmly believe in the need for personal salvation. What I???m resisting is the distillation of God???s mission down to personal salvation.
???We aren???t saved as community and we are[n???t] saved through creation-stewardship mandate, we are saved through personal faith in Christ.???
But what is faith in Christ? Faith without works is dead. Isn???t the ultimate expression of our personal faith in Christ to do what God has called us to do; to be his faithful stewards of creation as we give witness to the coming new creation and invite others to be a part of it?
We may not be saved as a community but we are saved into a community where our oneness in community gives witness to God. The NT makes clear the God calls out ???a people??? for himself, not isolated individuals, to be his witness. We are not saved through creation stewardship but are saved into a life of creation stewardship.
Personal salvation is essential. Fair enough. But by way of analogy, eating food is also essential to our existence. Is it the end for which we were created? Personal salvation is essential to our eikon existence. But is it the defining feature of the mission of God in the world?
“…I believe personal salvation enables us to fulfill the creation-stewardship mandate.”
It may enable us but we will not act in response to the creation-stewardship mandate as long as we have distilled our mission down purely to personal salvation.

I was given this book for my graduation recently so I look forward to reading it with you.
Thanks for these.

I’ve added this one to my order and read list. I’d like to add another nuance to this thread of discussion though. There is a dimension to this that is much more individual/personal than “just” ecclesiological. Sure the church needs to sort out this continuum of personal salvation/redemption to socio-cultural/creation stewardship. But, so do I in the daily living of my own personal life. Os Guiness (The Call) writes about finding my own sense of personal place in God’s work. Shane Claiborn writes about “stages of conversion” in a way that also suggests that individual faith in Jesus’ person and His way is one of my conversions. Yielding to the culture and community of God is another conversion. Recognizing a call to conserve and preserve the natural creation or to seek economic justice for the impoverished is another conversion. Seems to me that God’s mission is to move people through this series of conversions, individually and en masse, toward the emergence of the Kingdom here as it is in heaven. I like to sort of expand the “bubbles” that Brian McLaren sketched out in Generous Orthodoxy–where different faith groups perceive difference sub-sections of truth, but never the whole Truth–so different folks perceive different parts of these conversions, and we pray to all move increasingly toward a fully converted life and heart. This seems like the core of “missional”.

late to the game here but i finally picked this book up last week and am really enjoying it so far. maybe your series will be good inspiration for me to keep up!

Haven’t read the book yet, but will be following the series.
I’m not feeling like looking up the references right now, but will do it if anyone’s interested, but David Bosch answered the question “Is everything mission” with a definitive “no”. For example in Witness to the World he stated explicitly that the church has tasks which is not mission (if I understand him correctly).
I believe this is an important question which need be addressed: “Is everything mission?”, or maybe: “Is everything we are supposed to do mission?”, or even: “Is everything God does missional?”. Well, maybe you’d touch on those later on.

interesting blog posts… and a few shout-outs « my contemplations

[...] Scot McKnight started a series on Our Missional God which I’ll be following. A topic which I’m particularly interested in. I posted on this? as part of? the 50-man missional synchroblog. [...]