In my continued graduate work, my current course instructor posed the question, “Would it be theologically accurate to say that a church that is not on mission is not really a church but something else? Perhaps, a social club? What are the implications of an ecclesiology like this?
My response was as follows:
It is completely fair and accurate to say that a “church” without mission is not really a church at all. Church and mission are inseparable, yet many social clubs of conservative moral interest continue to insist that their weekly practices are necessary and representative of the kingdom of God. If the practices of church communities were evaluated from an outside perspective, I would venture to say that most would need to remove the word “church” from their poorly designed and sadly executed marketing campaign signage (http://matthewpaulturner.net/jesus-needs-new-pr/church-signs/). Sadly, I think many “church leaders” are not aware of their ecclesiology. There exists a blind “ecclesiolatry” (ecclesia + idolatry) that self-perpetuates empty forms and habits that have improperly come to be known as “church.”
Why does the church continue to self-perpetuate non-missional-mindedness? What are the internal insecurities and distractions that promote inwardly-focused campaigns by church leaders for church communities?
Since the question says a church as compared to “the church” I assume the question is directed toward a group of believers or congregation. The purpose of local “churches”/congregations is found in acts 2:42 (They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer). Devotion to the apostles’s teachings is missional, teaching, fellowship and prayer within the “church” equips for the same outside to the world.
Local “church leaders” need to EQUIP their congregations with the intent of each individual to become a missionary within his community. This equipping is missional.
Perhaps some leaders get too focused on one aspect of this verse. A focus on fellowship could perhaps redirect the group towards being a social club.
Final Answer: No The actions within a congregation should lead to mission. Training for mission is “on mission” when individuals put it in action.
P.S. LOVE is a vital part of mission.
It would also be important to qualify “mission.” The way the community defines its mission may perpetuate the same disqualifying factors in considering whether “church” can aptly describe the nature of their coming together or being. For instance, those communities that are bent on advocating for empire worship over loyalties to Christ may need to reconsider their self-proclaimed titles.
However, within the reality that Christianity is both wide and diverse, and that the different expressions are welcomed, there are going to faith communities that promote themselves as “Christian” who affirm values and actions that we may not. Bo Sanders at Homebrewed Christianity deals a little bit with this in his recent post “Let’s Not Be To Hard On Pat Robertson” – http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2012/09/11/lets-not-be-too-hard-on-pat-robertson/
Since we may not have the authority or ability to advocate that certain groups remove “church” from their “marketing campaign signage,” how do live in community with them despite the obvious discontinuity?
Great post and responses!
I completely agree that a church that has no mission, or has a mission alternative to the mission of God’s redemptive story, should not be called a church because they are not a church. They are a social gathering, often times advocating for the very things that are against the ways of the Kingdom. They advocate for their empire, “personal rights”, and their self-interests in the name of God.
As someone who works as a pastor of a local church, under a denomination with thousands of churches I have come to see that most churches have a “clear and direct mission.” They come together as a board and spend hours working on their churches mission. They “dig in the Word” and make sure they are “Biblical.” Yet, I believe the problem with many of our churches is the mission they are deriving at is totally off.
Their mission comes from their story and this is the story they tell:
Man sinned and is evil. Jesus came to save us from sin so we can spend forever and ever and ever in a wonderful place called heaven. Our job (mission) as the church is to tell others about this sacrifice so they can be saved from sin and spend forever and ever and ever in heaven. Leave this world behind us.
That is the story, or the mission, many churches tell their communities. It is focused on sin and being saved out of this world and in to heaven with Jesus. Churches may mask this story by talking about grace, God’s love, caring for people… Too often the church neglects to tell the story of God’s redemptive plan for all things. They don’t remind people that God, through Christ’s resurrection, has already reconciled ALL things on heaven and on earth. They don’t emphasize the grace that God has already been given to all people. They neglect to tell people that God cares and is restoring this world with our efforts of love and peace.
When you tell the story of sin and getting to heaven it makes it easy to be idolatrous. That kind of story builds a religion on fear and guilt. You can profit off that kind of religion. The Church continues to self-perpetuates non-missional-mindedness because, by in large, the church is still missing a true understanding of what it means to be missional. Some churches have even adopted words like missional in their marketing because it is a buzzword, but they still neglect the true nature of the missional message.
They can’t embrace a missional understanding because they are afraid to. If they embrace a true missional understanding then they may lose finances. If they truly embrace it their church won’t look the same. If they embrace it they may actually have to embrace other cultures, religions, and political views. It would change the comfortable way they have done and are doing things. In fact, their church may not even exist in the same capacity it does currently…
And those realities are just too scary for many in the Church to embrace.
Maybe our primary/personal mission as leaders within our church, whatever our expression of church is, should be to tell a better story. How do we tell this story? What avenues are best for telling this story?