Ben Sternke is one of the Midwest Missional Learning Commons co-conspirators (a word I got from Bill Kinnon). His recent post nailed what some of us have been trying to say about the ecclesiology – missiology question. This is the last post I’ll make on this subject for a long time, I promise, but Ben did such a great job of summing up what I’ve been trying to say (saying it better that I did) that I just had to post some quotes from his fine post.
Ben said:
In all the deconstructing and rethinking of church practices that seems to be going on today (a good thing in and of itself), it seems that sometimes we get to the point of thinking about whether God really needs the church to fulfill his purposes for this planet. To put it slightly more theologically: How does the church as the people of God fit into a missional theology?
Ben then quoted himself from a previous post about Simon Chan. He said
In the first chapter of Simon Chan’s Liturgical Theology, he asks the question of whether the church is to be primarily understood as the instrument through which God will accomplish his purpose in creation, or rather the expression of that purpose itself. Is the church here to work for the fulfillment of God’s purpose in creation, or is the church itself the fulfillment of God’s purpose in creation? If the church in the instrument of God’s purpose, then we understand it primarily in functional terms; what it does. But if we understand the church as itself the expression of God’s purpose, we look at the church in ontological terms; what it is…
But what if the church is both the expression of AND the instrument of God’s purpose in creation? Which seems to be what Dave Fitch is saying when he argues that ecclesiology IS missiology and vice versa. In the end, I think that any paradigm that seeks to place missiology “ahead of” or “prior to” ecclesiology (ala Hirsch) is problematic, because the church always ends up being provisional and/or optional.
To put it bluntly: Yes, God needs the church.
Read the wholepost here.
This was all provoked by my interview with Frank Viola this past week. Thanks Frank and good to connect a little bit with you.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Thanks for sharing this.
If you don’t mind, I’ll add in my ‘two.’ It’s a model of missio Dei theology that I’m working out. Take it for what its worth…
It seems much, much more “problematic” to me to think of God as *needing* anything than it is to think of the church as ending up “provisional and/or optional.” It is a problematic dilemma of which I am certain you are fully aware: How can God, a perfect being, *need* anything?
It would seem to me that in our missio Dei theology, a model of God’s . In our theology of the missio Dei, it seems clear to me that a paradigm of Divine abundance would be far superior to a paradigm of Divine need.
This is a model of abundance that seems to make more sense to me. It seems to make more sense to me that God doesn’t *need* the Church (the corpus Christi) in the process of re-creation and redemption any more (or any less) than he would need the Adam (the imago Dei) in the process of creation. As I see it, it was not out of a lack in Himself, or a ‘need’ for human co-creativity that he created the Adam. It was out abundance, out of the overflow of God’s joy and (“Good”) pleasure in His creative activity. Out of the *excess* (not *need*), He wanted to share this joy of creativity with humanity.
As there seems to be a striking analogy between the imago Dei (the Adam) and the corpus Christi (the Second Adam), it appears also that this analogy might hold true between the missio Dei via imago Dei and the missio Dei via corpus Christi. It would likewise not be out a lack or need that God in Christ missions through the Church. It is out of excess and abundance of joy. We are graced by the overflow–not recruited because of the need–to be participants in the joyful, life-giving re-creativity of Christ.
At least that’s what seems to make sense to me. But this is, of course, based on a chain of reasoning into which I could not go in depth here.
Blessings…
Adam
Sorry for just barging in without saying “hello”! I’ve been reading your blog for a little while, but haven’t responded yet. Thanks for your work.
Missiology precedes ecclesiology?
How can that be?
Missiology is the study of Christian mission. So you study the church in mission before the church exists?
Sounds like a dog chasing its own tail, before it’s grown a tail!
Ah, says the theologian, that’s paradox, and therefore profound!
Adam good clarification.!
Of course I don’t think Lohfink, a Catholic, would ever see “God needing the church” out of his own lack. Right? Rather God acts through a particular, visible people out of his strength and abundance. For he seeks out of his grace and abundance to safeguard the freedom (not in a Kantian sense) of human beings (not because he has to out of lack, but as an extension of his very character). You can see that even in the quote I posted from Lohfink. This is why the metaphsyics of Milbank and the ecclesiocentric post foundationalism of Hauerwas can sometimes get along quite well (and then again sometimes not get along). Yet where they might disagree is over the appropriation of figures like Barth (Hauerwas more friendly for post foundational reasons, Milbank antagonistic for metaphsycial reasons).
It seems that the both/and, both instrument and expression of the kingdom, that Ben and David are getting at here is summed up nicely in the biblical image of fruit. Fruit is both an end in itself, the “expression” or product that the plant exists to create, and it is also the means or the “instrument” by which it produces more fruit. Maybe that’s why its used so much in scripture.
In GOCN circles, we often use the language that the church is “a sign, a foretaste, and an instrument” of the kingdom. I like that language.
“Sign” by itself works in this both/and way. I sign is a picture or expression of something, as well something that points the way to the thing itself.
Depending on your sacramentology it also works to say the church is a “sacrament” of the kingdom of God.
Jeremy, I think without the language of sacrament there are some things we cannot articulate. Steve, mission can proceed ekklesia if, 1. Jesus is sent from all eternity; 2. an atlernate reading of John 20 as Moltmann, that “as the Father has sent me so I send you” expresses not merely an economic event but something in Godself where the life of the disciples is linked to God through the eternal Word.
Adam
Sorry, but as an ordinary human being I can’t get my head round all the academic jargon. However I know that God needs his church.
1Co 12:21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
There is only one head of the body, and that is Christ. He needs feet. Blunt and simple.
Yo Francis,
Thanks seriously for the comment.
Sometimes the discussion on this blog vascilates between academic and practical. I hope we have both here. I hope we have the patience to tolerate both at times when either academics can’t relate to real life church, and/or ministers and practicioners can’t understand the issues of academic discussion. I believe both need each other to push and pull. I wish and hope that those not familair with some of the lingo and figures bandied about here, still have the freedom (and courage like you) to post a comment for it keeps academic discussions grounded as well as furthers a kind of dialogue(practical theology) I want this blog to be about.
Thanks …
DF
Hi,
I would like to agree with both Adam and Francis, although, I think in more feminine terms. To me, creation is an integral part of who/what the church is. People cannot live without creation. Creation is saved through mankind. The purpose of the church cannot be separate from how we live in and with creation.
Many times throughout the Bible, the Church or the Israelites are referred to as a bride to God or Christ. Adam is a complete man, and at the same time is incomplete without woman. God is complete as god, yet love required him to empty himself for his bride. The love of the bride for her husband fills the void made when he empties himself for her.