These two references are only found in Matthew, the only gospel to use the term and who uses it only in these two references by Jesus.  Jesus said in the context of confession, “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” (Matthew 16:18; all Scripture is quoted from the New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise noted), and in the context of discipline “if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:17).

Building upon Jesus’ use of the term ekklesia to describe those who gather with affinity for his purposes, the New Testament writers used the term 115 times in the New Testament.  It never once refers to a physical building but instead describes God’s people.  Church is used in a universal sense (Matthew 16:18 Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18), to describe citywide affinity (Acts 8:1, 11:22, 1 Cor 14:23)[2], and for the most basic gatherings in houses. (Romans 16:5; 16:23; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Phil 1:1-3).  For the New Testament believers church was a living and dynamic expression of a group of people gathered and sent out on the mission of Jesus.

How the Church Got Shrink-Wrapped

With the passing of time church shifted away from a people gathered and sent out in Jesus’ name and instead became associated primarily with a physical building.  While this transition was more complex than a single person or event, the Roman Emperor Constantine played a central role.  After declaring Christianity the official religion of the empire through the Edict of Milan (AD 313), he began an aggressive project to construct “Christian temples” in AD 327 after his Mother Helena visited the “holy land”.[3]  Having adopted a pagan concept of holy temples for holy gods and goddesses (i.e. temple for Artemis in Ephesus or Zeus in Athens), he noticed that many Christians were already gathering at the burial sites of dead martyrs.  This provided what seemed like an ideal location as many believed that not only was the martyr holy but the dirt around the grave must be a holy space as well.  And so the first Christian “churches” were built on top of the graves of dead martyrs (St. Peter’s, St. Paul’s, Church of the Holy Sepulchre, etc.) and patterned after the Roman Basilica.[4]  The construction of Christian temples in honor of Christian saints changed the biblical definition of church and did much to shrink-wrap its mission.  While there are several other implications from Christendom that stunted the growth of Jesus’ mission[5], the understanding of church as a building was at the forefront.

Protestant Hangover #1: Church is a Place where Religious Things Happen.

The Christendom understanding of church, which dominated throughout the middle ages, was not significantly altered by the Protestant reformation of the 16^th century.  One of the convictions carried on was the understanding that, as Guder describes it, that church is a place where religious things happen:

“The churches shaped by the Reformation were left with a view of the church that was not directly intended by the Reformers, but nevertheless resulted from the way they spoke about the church.  These churches came to conceive the church as ‘a place where certain things happen.’  The Reformers emphasized as the ‘marks of the true church’ that such a church exists wherever the gospel is rightly preached, the sacraments rightly administered, and (they sometimes added) church discipline exercised…‘Church’ is conceived in this view as the place where a Christianized civilization gathers for worship, and the place where the Christian character of the society is cultivated.”[6]

The specific differences of what happens in these church buildings vary.  As Reggie McNeal points out, these differences shape ones self-view of his or her church and their respective differentiation from other tribes.[7]

Protestant Hangover #2: Church as Vendor of Religious Goods & Services   

A second unbiblical view that developed later was that church is a place for people to practice Christian consumerism.  This is the “producer-consumer model” where both the churched and unchurched expect the church to be a vendor of religious goods and services.[8]  The expectations of Christian consumers are high:

“They come to ‘get fed’.  But is this a faithful image of the church?  Is the church really meant to be a “feeding trough” for otherwise capable middle-class people who are getting their careers on track?  And to be honest, it is very easy for ministers to cater right into this:  the prevailing understanding of leadership is that of the pastor-teacher.  People gifted in this way love to teach and care for people, and the congregation in turn loves to outsource learning and to be cared for.  I have to admit that this now looks awfully codependent to me…We can’t seem to make disciples based on a consumerist approach to the faith.  We plainly cannot consumer our way into discipleship.”[9]

This view of Christian consumerism had its modern origins in early America.  Diverse immigration into the colonies created pluralism, which resulted in new structures called denominations.  Such a development created a functional Christendom where different denominations were both legally protected and competed for adherents.[10]  With today’s decline of Christian influence and culture in America, not only is the discipleship of such churches called into question, but also the number of consumers interested in their products is declining.  In response there are fresh questions – and critiques – regarding the role of churches and denominations.[11]   The reality is that the view of church as a place where religious things happen as well as a producer of religious goods was and still is common in North America today.

The Unique Expressions of Church that Exist Today Cause us to Reexamine the Identity and Role of Church.           

The breakdown of Christendom today[12] has created new questions about the identity and role of church.[13]  Fresh expressions of church are increasing…internet church, organic churches, cafes, etc.  In order to assess these an important reference point is what is often referred to as the “marks” of church.  Historically, the four marks of church come from the Nicene Creed when it was revised at Constantinople in 381:  “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic”, which Guder suggests should be understood in reverse order.[14]  Apostolicity is not merely faithfulness to apostolic teaching but obedience to apostolic activity as God’s sent people.[15]  The catholicity of the church means that a particular church will be faithful to the gospel in its own community while recognizing that its approach is not the only way to share the gospel.  The holiness of the true church is less about its own spiritual state and more about how it is living out the gospel in sanctifying ways in the world.  And the mark of unity, which complements catholicity, seeks to confront the differences that divide us.  The Reformation supplemented these four marks to include wherever the Word is preached, the sacraments properly administered, and Christian discipline is practiced (the Reformed addition).[16]  While these “marks” and their supplements are a helpful in assessing the church, they are open to broad interpretation.

Take Ignatius of Antioch for example.  He understood the true church as having the presence of:  Jesus (“wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the universal church”) and the Spirit (“wherever the Spirit of God is, there is the church, and all grace”).[17]  The challenge with this approach, like the “marks” of the Nicene Creed, is the way one interprets these invariably creates much ecclesiological diversity.[18]

As an Adventist Christian I find in Scripture self-correcting resources to avoid the two Protestant “hangovers” mentioned above.  The Bible places a high priority on the teaching of the sanctuary doctrine.  It figures from Genesis to Revelation in the plan of salvation which includes its prophetic significance in the heavenly sanctuary after the Ascension.  God does not dwell in temples made by human hands (Acts 7:48) but in the heavenly sanctuary of which the earthly was patterned after (Ex. 25:8-9; Hebrews 8:5) and which the stewardship of our bodies should reflect (1 Cor. 3:16).  When Christ was crucified the curtain in the temple was torn in two and the presence of God departed (Mt. 27:51).  With Scriptures emphasis on Jesus ministry for us in the heavenly sanctuary, biblical Christians should be on the cutting edge of moving away from the Christendom model of church as a “holy place” where religious goods are consumed.  Revelation also pictures God’s people in the pre-Advent phase of earth’s history as those who “keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus” (Rev. 14:12; NIV), two descriptors which in many ways complement the previously mentioned “marks” of the church.

What is Church to You?  

How do You Recognize Authentic Ways of Being Church…Particularly those Different From Your Own?

The Bible itself bears witness to the overarching and all permeating influence of God’s mission. 

The reality of the triune God as Creator, Redeemer, and Restorer, is the origin and common link between every dimension of theology.  As Martin Kähler famously said, mission is “the mother of theology”.[1]  In this setting
of God’s heart for the world and activity in it, we reflect on the whole Bible as a missionary document.[2]  From this orientation we read the New Testament not as the history of competing parties and doctrinal struggles, but as “mission history” and “mission theology”[3], which are the beginnings of Christian history and Christian theology itself.  The New Testament does not have one clearly defined definition but rather a diversity of “theologies of mission”.[4]  More to the point, “…the New Testament authors were less interested in definitions of mission than in the missionary existence of their readers.”[5] The writers of Scripture, particularly the New Testament, are in the trenches of mission.  It can be said they are doing ‘theology on the run’.   This is not because they take theology casually but because it develops in the context of the joys and struggles of pointing people to the missionary God.  Darrell Guder describes how a missional hermeneutic is an outflow of missionary activity in New Testament:

We read the Bible using a missional hermeneutic that enables us to recognize in the scriptural testimony not only the content of our message but the way in which that message is to be made known.  The Bible gives us both the what and the how of missional obedience.  The New Testament writings were addressed to communities already in mission; the purpose of the canonical Scriptures was (and is) to enable them to continue that mission.[6]

The historical record, in addition to the Bible, speaks of the need to regain the centrality of mission in theology.[7]

As Christianity became the official religion in Europe, theology lost its missiological context.[8]  The political agreement known as the Edict of Milan between Roman Emperor Constantine and Licinius (AD 313) documents the union between church and state and the accompanied loss of mission.  Among the several causes listed was the declaration that all citizens (except Jews) were Christian by birth.[9]  This created an environment in which a missionary thrust was unnecessary.  Another more specific pronouncement of the edict, one that shaped the development of non-missionary theology, was the redefinition of leadership in the clergy-laity divide.  As the origin of the modern day office of “pastor-teacher”, this development elevated shepherding and teaching roles and devalued apostolic, prophetic, and evangelistic roles[10].  This produced theologians and theologies divorced from a missional heritage[11].  This disconnect was distributed further as theology became subdivided into four major sacrosanct disciplines:  Bible (text), church history (history), systematic theology (truth), and practical theology (application).[12]

As the awareness of mission is being reborn, new relationships are possible with and among the disciplines.[13] 

One approach has been to amend mission into an existing discipline, most often practical theology.  This approach allows the instruction of mission but only within the narrow context of church extension and in isolation from other disciplines.  A second attempt has been to advocate mission as a separate discipline in its own right (missiology).  This approach did produce more resources and influence but also institutionalized mission, divorced it from theology at large, and resulted in a missiological duplication of theology’s four-fold division.  A third major approach at a new relationship was to integrate mission into all theological disciplines.  Although philosophically ideal, this effort faded because many instructors were not fully aware of the missionary nature of their discipline and how to integrate it.

While the most effective relationship with the disciplines is yet to be seen, all of theology (if it is truly converted) must be permeated by mission. 

In moving towards this ideal it is probably necessary to offer a separate class on missiology to remind all disciplines of their missionary nature.[14]  Yet the strength of this approach, however, is in each discipline’s self-understanding of its missionary roots.  In his 1955 “Towards a Theology of Mission”, Wilhelm Anderson explores this relationship in several of the disciplines:

In reality, the missionary enterprise should find its place first and foremost in the development of the programme of biblical exegesis; for the material with the interpretation of which the exegete is concerned is the Word of God spoken to, and sent forth into, the world.  [Exegetes], who [have] not understood that [their] exegetical labours have to do with those acts of God Himself which are the source and origin of all missionary effort, [have] not found the right presuppositions with which to approach [their] work.  Exactly the same is true of the Church historian, that is, of the [person] who has undertaken the responsibility of tracing out the path of the Church among the nations and through the successive epochs of history.  For the Church, in regard to its history, can in the last resort be understood only from the standpoint of the missionary enterprise.[15]

The very survival of a vibrant theology will not be discovered by a theological treatment of mission but in a missiological agenda for all of theology.[16]  Such a focus would in essence be a rediscovery of true theology itself.[17]

Different denominations have taken different approaches in allowing God’s mission to shape them.  As a Seventh-day Adventist I find it interesting learning about how mission education and training have been conducted.  From what I’m discovering, the approach the Adventist Church seems to be taking for mission is not incorporation into an existing discipline or integration into all but independence, the second of Bosch’s three models referenced above.  With the increase of Adventist missionary presence abroad in the 20^th century there was an increasing awareness that these cross-cultural and cross-religious workers were ill equipped for their task.  As a result the General Conference created the “Department of World Mission” at the Andrews University Theological Seminary in 1966. [18]  Its primary task was to equip missionary appointees with a secondary responsibility of teaching mission education in the seminary.[19]  As the demands for resources grew, the church separated these two functions in 1990 by creating the “Institute of World Mission” (which trains short-term, career missionaries, and tent-makers) and narrowing the responsibility at the “Department of World Mission” to seminary education. [20]  While there are several other ministries that do missionary training (particularly outside of North America where over 93% of church membership lives[21]), these are the primary “official” channels in the Adventist Church.[22]  My personal experience of mission-education was strong and did include principles of missiology for western culture.  However, there does exist the perception of a “department of foreign affairs” approach[23] in regards to the “Department of World Mission” by many I’ve talked to.  However it is conceived, there exists the need in all heal

Questions: 

What are your thoughts about moving from a theology of mission to a missionary theology?

Would it make a difference in the way we approach other fields of study?

Would it change our structure and motivations for ministries in the local church?

[image by samd]

[7]  The term was used in the context of the trinity (“mission Dei”) up until the counter-reformation, when in the late 16^th century the Jesuits first used it to describe the spread of Catholicism among pagans and Protestants.[8]  Today mission has become popularized and is defined in a variety of ways.  Reggie McNeal describes it as “the people of God partnering with God in his redemptive mission in the world”.[9]  Darrell Guder sees mission centered around the triune God and His purpose.  “His purpose has been the healing of the nations and the restoring of rebellious humanity to the relationship with God for which they were made…”[10]  Alan Hirsch, after quoting a similar statement by Guder, describes the outworking of such a view as the “missional impulse”.[11]  David Bosch, while saying there is no one single definition for mission, describes thirteen elements of emerging mission, which Stan Wood summarizes under Bevans and Schroeder’s four categories of mission.[12]  Although a bit oversimplified, many of today’s missiologists would see it as joining God in participation with the Trinity.  I like to think of it as the Triune God blessing His world through His people speaking and living His message.

While Definitions Vary, the Origin of Mission is Most Clearly Seen in God’s Nature.

The Shema Yisrael of the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 6:4) and the New Testament confession that Jesus Christ is Lord (Acts 11:17; 16:31; 20:21; Romans 5:1, 11; 13:14) together reveal a Trinitarian monotheism.[14]  Without this reality and recognition there would be no mission.  The good news of the biblical God is not only that he is Lord of all; he is also lover of all.[15]  The model for self-sacrificing and mutual love has always been expressed within the Godhead (Gen. 1:1,27; Mark 1:9-11; John 1:1-3; 2 Cor. 13:14).  Through creation God purposed to extend this love to all creation.  As a result, the entrance of sin has simply uncovered the passionate heart of God to redeem and restore wholeness in creation.  God’s missionary nature is on display to the universe (Colossians 1:19-20) as the Father has sent the Son (John 5:36-37; 6:44; 8:16; 17:18; 20:21) and the Father and the Son sent the Spirit (John 14:25-26; 15:18; Acts 1:4-8).

When Mission is Centered in God, the Church Discovers a New Context. 

Instead of the church having a mission and sending missionaries, God is the missionary who sends the church to fulfill His mission.[16]  Darrel Guder describes this renewed perspective on church:

This ecclesiocentric understanding of mission has been replaced during this century [20^th] by a profoundly theocentric reconceptualization of Christian mission.  We have come to see that mission is not merely an activity of the church.  Rather, mission is the result of God’s initiative, rooted in God’s purposes to restore and heal creation.[17]

One of the first theologians in the modern era to describe mission is centered in God Himself was Karl Barth.  After first exploring it at the Brandenburg Missionary Conference in 1932, he developed the concept of “missio Dei” (Latin for mission of God) to include the trinity’s sending of the church into the world.[18]  While the understanding of mission as participation in the trinity (though not the term) is documented as far back as the patristic era, it was Karl Hartenstein who coined the term in 1943.[19]  The 20^th-century contribution to the development of mission as participation in the trinity was to emphasize the trinity’s sending of the church into the world.  “Mission moves from the nature of the Triune God to the world through the church.  Thus, the church is the “body of Christ” for the expression of God’s purposes on earth.  Mission therefore is not primarily a ministry of the church, but an attribute of Triune God – for God is a missionary God.”[20]

Since the Church is Sent on God’s Mission, Believers Become an Extension of His Missionary Actions.

The outworking of this paradigm is an observable and alternate social order that reflects God’s redemptive purposes.[21]  The church is His instrument to bless the world.  Visions of wholeness such as the new heavens and new earth (Isaiah 65:17-25) are not mere depictions of the future but what God is calling the church to help the world experience now.  As Jesus prayed, may the Father’s Kingdom be done on earth as it is in heaven.  And no longer can we think of His Kingdom limited exclusively to the church because a redeemed and restored world is what He is after.

These perspectives can give us greater appreciation for the diverse and unusual ways God works in the world.  As we seek a Spirit-guided life, true success will come through recognition of who this missionary God is and what the message of Jesus is all about.  And as we do we come to understand that the Bible is not primarily about us but about God.  The Scriptures…Mission…Church…all find their significance as an extension of God’s missionary heart.

What does mission mean to you?

How does our understanding of mission shape our views of church, Scripture, and our calling?

10.  Control is Key to our Sense of Well-Being.  A person with no control over their life feels powerless.  However, having control in something as simple as having a key to your house gives you options.  Options create choices…choices can create safety…and safety is key to feeling at home.  Facebook offers choices…which pics, who to friend or unfriend, what to post, etc.  But are we better off for it?

9.  Having too much Control over our Lives Generates a Similar Outcome as Having None.  If someone made all of your decisions you’d feel powerless.  Likewise if you are constantly bombarded with infinite options you feel overwhelmed and stuck.  Underchoice and overchoice are not healthy.  The limitless options for social networking create an overload of choices:

“Overchoice keeps us average because it prevents us from focusing for very long on any one thing.  And focus is absolutely essential to doing things well, whether it’s building a model boat or building a relationship.” (p.101)

8.  Hyperconnection leads to Hyperreaction.  Too much information creates information overload.  Too many relationships creates relational overload, or “hyperconnection”.  A hyperconnected person reacts through “continuous partial attention” or CPA.  CPA is partial attentiveness to multiple outlets simultaneously.  For instance…impulsive checking of facebook, twitter, and emails, often in the presence of face-to-face contact with others.  A person with CPA feels most alive – like a coffee buzz – when they are continually updated.  This is not the same as multi-tasking.  A multi-tasker aims to be more productive; a person with CPA just doesn’t want to miss anything.

7.  Facebook’s Culture of “Status” Often Changes How we Relate to One Another.  By posting “status updates” we are tempted to prioritize the communication of what’s clever rather than what’s genuine.  ”In effect the hyperconnection of Facebook changes the nature of our relationships by turning our friends into audiences and us into performers” (p.111)  Obviously, such friendships based upon status-seeking and self revelation are born of different DNA than those based upon maturity and mutuality. 

6. Constant Communication is Blurring our Sense of Self.  We all have an “invisible entourage” based upon the status updates, tweets, and other headlines we may read.  Without spending enough time alone it can be challenging to know if what we are thinking is truly our own.  Are we living in response to the group think of “a thousand imagined voices” rather than our own hearts?  When this “invisible entourage” is removed it messes with the hyperconnected self:

“The anxiety that [people] report when they are without their cell phones or their link to the Internet may not speak so much to missing the easy sociability with others but of missing the self that is constituted in these relationships” (p.143).

5.  Collapsing Social Contexts Brings Together People Who Normally Would not Communicate.  This can be a great way to raise awareness for an issue and spread a message exponentially.  Traditional boundaries between employers and employees, students and teachers, parents and kids, have been shattered.  One of the challenges to such an online life is the revelation of inappropriate intimate details.  I know a young man who proposed to his girlfriend by updating his facebook status to “engaged to”.  His girlfriend, after receiving a notification, called him up to chew him out.  He responds with other inappropriate posts and…well…the “relationship” has obvious trust issues.  The collapsing of social contexts can be most helpful or harmful.

4.  Healthy Christian Community has Four Ingredients.  First is a shared history together which creates a sense of belonging.  Second is permanence…how you develop shared history.  Third is proximity.  Fourth is a shared vision of the future…the idea that we’re all going in the same direction.  Social media is excellent at providing the fourth ingredient.  It’s easy to network with groups who share your values.  Where it fails is in the first three ingredients of authentic community.

3. What Happens Online is Connection but it is not Community.  Disembodied connections can be – and are – meaningful.  Taboo issues can be discussed anonymously and are often dealt with more openly virtually.  It is connection, but it is not community.

2.  For Today’s Generation, Community is Not a dichotomy between “Real” & “Virtual” Relationships but a Composite of Both.  Rice suggests we must move beyond debating which brand of community – “real” or “virtual” – is better.  Instead we must develop an inclusive view of both.  Pursuing this will mean a recognition that the consumerist self – not virtual communication – is at the heart of the problem in any form.  Without a grace-oriented life our experience of community will be superficial and self-serving…be it “real” or virtual”.

1.  What Do You Think?  OK…honestly I ran out of time for this point.  But seriously…how do you relate to our increasingly hyperconnected world?

 

 I’ve had the opportunity to listen to a few of these guys and they are radical about God’s vision of community that includes a countercultural view of greatness, economics, and ministry.  But it’s the theme of abandoned places…those that are remote, undesirable, and often dying…that I find most challenging.

Hartgrove shows through Scripture & history how God’s vision to renew His people involves relocation:

“Monasticism lasts longer and is more powerful than any other form of resistance we’ve seen to mainstream society in the West.  The real radicals aren’t quoting Che Guevara or listening to Rage Against the Machine on their iPods.  The true revolutionaries are learning to pray.”

 

 

ME:   “Hey, what’s up?”

J&D:  ”Well, we’re just coming by to let you know we’re moving out of state.”

ME:   “We’ll sure miss you guys.  It’s been great having neighbors we can trust. Wanna come in?”

J&D:  ”First we want to let you know that whenever we move we ask God to show us someone we can bless. Out of all our neighbors we feel impressed to give to you.”

ME:   [feeling a little awkward] “Oh that’s really thoughtful. Since I’m a pastor I know plenty of people in need that I can share with.”

J&D:  ”Yes, we know [we'd built trust with one another sharing our life stories].  Which is why we want you and your wife to receive our gifts.  Stay here and we’ll be right back.”

[Five minutes later we watch the husband and wife pull into our driveway on a nearly new riding lawnmower and a self-propelled mower.]

J&D:  ”Now come with us.” [I rode in their truck for several trips between our houses.  During this time they blessed us with:  new solar-powered patio furniture, electric tools, refrigerator & freezer, and so much more that I have already lost track of.  All of it was new or nearly new and in my estimation easily added up to around $10,000].

ME:   [After we finished unpacking and were sitting around together] “If you don’t mind me asking, why are doing this?”

J&D:  ”You guys know we are not church people.  But we do believe in God and that He put us here for a purpose.  We have an agreement that whenever we move away, we always look for someone in the neighborhood to give to.  It makes us happy and we hope our example will inspire others not to hang on so tightly to their stuff.”

Wow!  I found out after more conversation that this is the 5th time they have done this, sometimes giving away larger items such as a new car to a single mom when they lived in another state.  And they are not the wealthiest family around.  The irony is my wife & I were actually planning on having a yard sale the following weekend to downsize for the birth of our second child and make a few bucks doing so.  We cancelled the yard-sale & passed a lot of stuff on.  More importantly we were humbled by the generosity of our non church-going neighbors who quite honestly shamed us in what can easily become a myopic view of life.

I find it amazing how God surprises us when we spend time coming close to the people around us.

Some of you might want to know if I have their address?  I do.  And all I can say is that once again someone will be blessed.