I like the emphasis upon worship leading to mission, then mission returning to worship. I am not sure that it means there is some kind of reciprocation here, but at first glance, there is a suggestion of it.
On a related note, I was reading Brian Edgar’s book on the Trinity, and he observed that while formal categories are OK, such as revelation or love, we really need to pay attention to God as the God of Israel, i.e., make sure we’re really dealing biblical monotheism as we negotiate understanding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
That and Wright makes sense to me: although plenty of people have plucked a verse here and there, and called it “the biblical basis for missions” (me, too: ouch), Wright’s attentiveness to the identity of God opens us up to knowing God and being lead into his mission. His discussion on Jesus is great here.

Scot,
This reminds me of NT Wright’s emphasizing that the gospel is first a declaration: “Jesus is Lord.” YHWH is Lord in Jesus. Gospel obedience then is first of all faithfully making God in Jesus known in the world. So, my question is: when is invitation needed? That is, when do we invite surrender to this YHWH-who-is-Lord-in-Jesus?

John,
Yes, I see what you mean by connecting this Wright to NT Wright. C Wright, though, focuses more on the mission of God to make himself known in the whole world.
On invitation: first, genuine proclamation of God in Christ is itself invitation as attended by the Spirit; second, the logical implication of this proclamation is to turn to, love and obey this God.

This is good stuff. I like how this informs what the good news is, and what it hopes to accomplish in the world.
Relatedly, everytime in this series that I hear “God’s mission to make himself known”, I feel like it bears repeating what we, or rather the scriptures, mean by “known.” Not only do our modern understandings of knowledge constantly pull us into a detached way of ‘knowing’, but we are also flooded with information about so many things, most of which just blends into some kind of collage wallpaper in the halls of our minds. For the biblical concept of knowledge, though, phrases like “fruitful connection”, “productive submission” or “active partnership” come to mind. God is either ‘known’ in a productive way or he is not known at all.

Also, when I hear of ‘knowledge of God’ and ‘mission’, I think we’re still in a (good) shift of concepts. When I hear the phrase ‘knowledge of God’, I think about what constitutes ‘orthodoxy’, which often is a list of teachings about Jesus as opposed to the teachings of Jesus (and, significantly, his being Lord of the earth usually isn’t one of those teachings about him, practically speaking; his role in the afterlife, on the other hand, is generally emphasized).
Perhaps this is what bothers me about the concept and elevation of ‘orthodoxy’ vs. the idea of a ‘knowledge of God’: Biblically, a ‘knowledge of God’ is both the information about God and a proper response to it. Orthodoxy, by contrast, is only half of this concept, by definition (or so I’m told ). Yet, we tend to discuss ‘orthodoxy’ in the West as if it were the more important and complete ‘knowledge of God.’ To use N.T. Wright’s terms, we’ve muddled these concepts in evangelical circles at least.
Scot, when are you and Tony going to have the ‘orthodoxy’ discussion? Perhaps the above is part of what Tony is thinking as well.

BTW, I raise this because if even part of our mission is to ‘make God known’, that mission can be very different depending on what kind of knowledge we’re trying to spread to throughout the world.

Scot #3,
Thanks. This is helpful, but I wonder if we need to be as persuasive as Paul when in 2 Cor 5 he faithfully declares God’s reconciliation with the world in Christ (what God has accomplished), but still exhorts the Corinthians in v 20, “Be reconciled, then, to God”(what human response is expected).
I think it is accurate to proclaim and live-in-community the embracing Gospel of God, yet offer appeals to respond as well. Do we just let the Spirit make the appeal? Why didn’t Paul just let the Spirit make the appeal? I ask because in some emerging conversations it seems the proper thing is just “proclaim” in word and deed and never call for a response. Like it’s tacky somehow to ask for a human response. In almost every encounter of a person with Jesus in the Gospels, Jesus gave the person something TO DO. Am I correct?

I gave my friend John W. a copy of this book last year. I don’t know if he’s read it yet, but if you’re interested, he might be willing to meet with folks in the Chicago area to talk about the book.

I like to think that one of the reasons that David was a man after God’s own heart was because he understood God’s desire to make Himself know beyond Israel to the world. When he stepped out to fight Goliath, he said, “This day the LORD will hand you over to me..and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel.” His motive was not about getting to marry the king’s daughter, or getting rich, or getting out of having to pay taxes. He wanted the world to know that the God of Israel was the one true God.He understood the mission.
Certainly his understanding of monotheism and mission resulted in some great worship.

Sorry to not write on topic but I was googling Emergent Ecclesiology for a paper I’m writing and I saw a post you made about one day writing what you thought was the emergent ecclesiology (if there can/should actually be one) but I never found out if you did? If you did could you email me the link or the article? Much thanks