Faith's Edge

III. Christology, Missiology, Ecclesiology
There is a popular saying among those who hold to a missional understanding of the church: Christology informs missiology and missiology informs ecclesiology. In other words, as Christians we get our understanding of what our ministry lives should look like from an understanding of what Christ’s ministry life looked like. That understanding of our ministry lives should then determine the shape that the local expression of the body of Christ (the church) takes. We must then begin with an understanding of the work of Jesus Christ.
For centuries, the church has debated as to how to properly explain the existence of God in the form of Christ. One of the most important affirmations came out of the Council of Chalcedon. In this creed, the church declared that Christ was both “fully human” and “fully divine” simultaneously. Daniel Migliore quotes in Faith Seeking Understanding that “according to Chalcedon, Jesus Christ is ‘fully divine, fully human, two natures in one person, without confusion or change, separation or division” (172). How these seemingly dichotomous natures truly coexisted may always remain a mystery, but we can understand more about humanity and the nature of God by examining the ways in which Christ lived out his dual natures.
Though I want to focus my discussion on the incarnation, it is important to say a few words about the atoning work of Christ that was done on the cross. I reject any understanding of God that would show God as a bloodthirsty dictator who can only be satisfied by human sacrifice. Though this was never said explicitly, I believe this is the view of the atonement that I grew up with. The violence committed against Christ on the cross is the violence of humanity against God. I suppose the best description of my understanding of the atonement is what Daniel Migliore refers to as the moral influence theory. In this model “Christ shows God’s love in such a compelling way that we are constrained to respond in wonder and gratitude” (Migliore, 185). Jesus’ crucifixion simultaneously reveals the full extent of the love of a God that is willing to become vulnerable for God’s creation while also exposing the full extent of the evil of humanity. What has become so compelling to me as my theology has evolved is that God loves creation enough to be fully vulnerable to it, risking not being loved in return. It is in this love that Christ reconciles rebellious humanity with its Creator.
As crucial as the atonement of Christ is, it is in the incarnation of Christ that we discover the mission of Christ and therefore the mission of the church. Through the incarnation, Christ redefines for us what it means to be human, what it means to be God, and what it means for the human and the divine to be in community. He redefines humanity by being radically free to love God and neighbor, and by not using power in abusive ways. He redefines what it means to be God by being vulnerable, but ultimately doing the things that only Yahweh can do. He defines what it means for humans to be in relationship to God by having within himself the perfect union of self-giving love and a faithful response and announcing the in-breaking of the kingdom of God.
The fourth Gospel begins by telling us that the Word of God became flesh and dwelled among us in the form of Jesus. Paul adds to this understanding in Philippians 2:5-8 by saying that this dwelling was a self-limiting of the One who had the divine nature within him. In the incarnation, we are given a particular model of how ministry can be done. Jesus shows us an example of one who condescends to those in need without being condescending. The incarnation also gives us a model of ministry being done in contextual ways. Jesus’ ministry was completely dependent on the time and place in which he ministered. Jesus knew the things that any first century Palestinian Jew would have known. He was a product and student of his culture. He both knew the needs of those around him and the images and stories that would be most effective in his context. The fact that so many of his parables reflect the agrarian nature of his society demonstrates a high level of cultural awareness. Theologians have debated whether or not Jesus entered the world with full intellect, full awareness of His mission, and full spiritual development. This would, of course make sense with the concept of Jesus being fully divine. However, in light of what is seen in Jesus’ ministry, it makes more sense to say that Jesus “was deeply influenced by the cultural and religious heritage of his people” and therefore he “grew and matured physically, intellectually, and spiritually” within the context of his community (Migliore, 174).
I referred earlier to Luke 4:16-18 as Jesus’ mission statement. In it he refers to a ministry that is focused on particular demographics of people, namely those imprisoned, those infirmed, and those oppressed. Jesus’ ministry reflects concern for those groups, particularly in his healing ministry. Furthermore, Jesus’ ministry reflects God’s desire that those who have been rejected from community will once more be restored to it. Often those that Jesus healed were the ones that the Torah law would exclude from being part of the covenant community. Jesus does not express the nationalistic aspirations of his culture’s elite. Nor does he express the xenophobic tendency to close the door on those outside of the community of faith. As Migliore emphasizes, “Jesus cannot be properly understood if he is seen apart from the covenant of God with the people of Israel or if the scope of his saving work is limited to certain individuals or to a select group rather than reaching out to the whole creation” (Migliore, 167). In Christ, all are invited to God’s table. God’s new family being created in the work of Jesus has none of the boundaries that are created by social stratification or as Paul puts it in “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female (poor nor rich could be added to this as well), for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians: 3:28).
It is from this understanding of the work of Christ in his earthly ministry that I adopt my missiology for the church. When I speak of missiology, I am not speaking of the classical understanding of missions that the church has employed. I believe that all Christians are engaged in missions. That has much to do with the postmodern, post-christian context in which the majority of the world finds itself. I see no reason to understand missiology strictly in terms of understanding cross-cultural experience; though I would argue that there is nothing more counter cultural in 21st century America than to truly follow after Christ. My understanding of missiology encompasses the entire “Missio Dei”. It is the church’s mission to continue the community-building work which Christ began. This understanding sees the healing ministry of Christ as a means to an end, the end being the restoration of community.
If missiology is determined by the ministry of Christ then the shape of the church should be determined by our missiology. As Paul says, the church is the body of Christ (I Cor. 12:27) and though it is made up of broken humans, it is Christ’s representatives to the world. Therefore, any understanding of the church must include the idea that the church exists to further the mission of Christ. In my mind, that means that the church’s primary role is a social one. I look at the often quoted Micah 6:8 as a benchmark for understanding what the church should be. Justice, kindness, and humility should be at the heart of what church is about.
I credit a book I have recently been engaged with for some of my newer thoughts on what the church should be. The book entitled The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st Century Church encourages church leaders in the west to begin thinking with the same minds that missionaries have had for centuries. It encourages an incarnational and contextualized vision of the church and advocates a rethinking of the traditional models of church that spread during the height of Christendom. The authors, Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, describe three overarching features of what they refer to as the missional church. The first feature is that the missional church is “incarnational and not attractional in its ecclesiology” (Frost, 12). Their understanding of an incarnational church is one where sacred space is not required to encounter the Gospel. “Rather, the missional church dissembles itself and seeps into the cracks and crevices of a society in order to be Christ to those who don’t yet know him” (Frost, 12). This stands in opposition to attractional, “if you build it, they will come” models of church which becomes overly focused on buildings, programming, and performance. The second feature is that the missional church is “messianic” not dualistic. This goes hand-in-hand with the incarnational feature in that it sees creation as holistic and integrated instead of divided into profane and sacred. The final feature of the missional church for Frost and Hirsch is a non-hierarchical leadership structure. The missional church “abandons the triangular hierarchies of the traditional church and embraces a biblical, flat leadership community that unleashes the gifts of evangelism, apostleship, and prophecy, as well as the currently popular pastoral and teaching gifts” (Frost, 12). The intent of this is not to jettison organized leadership altogether, but to instead hold all kinds of leadership as equally beneficial to the life of the church. I would also add some thoughts from Gustavo Gutierrez on this subject. In his book Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, Gutierrez states that the church’s function should be evident in its structure. The church then needs to display in its operation and hierarchy values that are consistent with the in-breaking kingdom of God and not the values of the society. “The break with unjust social order and the search for new ecclesial structures – in which the most dynamic sectors of the Christian community are engaged – have their basis in this ecclesiological perspective” (Gutierrez, 148).
Simply put, while I believe strongly in the mission of the church, I have grown increasingly disenchanted with the shape of the church and the level of apathy that is often associated with addressing the current structure’s shortcomings. I believe that less of the church’s energy and resources should be focused on Sunday morning worship and the ABC’s of church culture (attendance, building, cash). Instead, leaders within the church should be focused on building community, especially among those to whom community is typically denied. This is what Christ did. It should be noticed that Frost and Hirsch wrote their book primarily in response to observations of the large, mainstream, evangelical churches in the West. I do, however, find that their work also speaks to the needs of the mainline denominational churches in this country.
Before moving on, one more important function of the church must be pointed out and that is the proclamation of the Gospel. I believe the quoted passage from II Corinthians is the heart of the Gospel message; in Christ, God reconciles humanity to God’s self. John 3:16-20 also is a fundamental passage (for me and many others) in terms of understanding the Gospel. This passage highlights that God’s motives are motives based in love. I also think it is important that any understanding of the Gospel includes the notion of eternal life with God. This hope for eternal comfort in the bosom of the Creator is especially important to the proclamation of the Gospel to oppressed people groups. Ephesians 2:3-10 also provides a great progression of a life lived in the Gospel. It is a progression from a life in sin to a life lived doing the work that God designed for each of us to do. The Gospel is also an announcement of the imminence and arrival of the reign of God (Mark 1:14-15). It is an announcement that requires response in the form of repentance. This metanoia is not just a one time changing of our minds and direction. It is a daily decision to live a life that is consistent with the values of the kingdom of God. The focal point of the Gospel is of course the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Gospel must contain all of theses components and those of us that proclaim the Gospel must reject unhealthy focusing on one aspect of the Gospel (particularly the death) to the exclusion of the others. As a worker in ministry, I believe that it is incumbent upon me to both proclaim the message of the Gospel and trust in its efficacy. I believe that the Gospel has the power to change hearts and minds and the ability to liberate people from bondage of all forms.
One more function of the church that I will touch on briefly is the administering of the sacraments. At their best, communion and baptism are affirmations of the community we find in Christ. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s directory for worship describes the sacraments as “sealing the promises of faith within the community of faith” (W-3.3601). The sacraments are “palpable enactments of the Gospel by means of which the spirit of God confirms to us the…love of God in Jesus Christ and enlivens us in faith, hope, and love” (Migliore, 280). The sacraments symbolize the grace of God to the community and remind us of our common bonds in Christ. My theology has not always been a heavily sacramental one. What I find appealing about sacramental theology is the idea of using common elements as signs of God’s grace thus continuing to combat the church’s dualism.