Vol 3:4 Can Jesus be our Starting Point for Engaging in God’s Mission?

I am still reflecting on Craig Van Gelder’s and Dwight J. Zscheile’s The Missional Church in Perspective: Mapping Trends and Shaping the Conversation.  To reiterate, in this book, Van Gelder and Zscheile are exploring how the missional conversation has unfolded since Missional Church was published in 1998.  The conversation has moved in different directions, many which are indeed not very missional, but reframe perspectives in missional language which have little to do with discerning where God is active in the world. 

This week I would like to offer some reflections, perhaps even some questions for on-going study, regarding a critique they have regarding Christology as a starting point for participating with God in God’s mission. 

Referring to Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch’s ReJesus, Van Gelder and Zscheile express that “Frost and Hirsch fail to realize that the trinitarian understanding of God’s mission they use to frame their Christology is in fact a theological missiology – a missiological framework that defines the interrelationship of God, church, and world.  They choose instead to make Christology [rather than Trinitarian theology] their starting point . . .” (p. 80).

As an Anabaptist this is also a critique I need to ponder since Anabaptists have a Christological preference in expressing what discipleship and mission entails. 

As they continue their critique, they argue that having Jesus as the starting point for engaging in mission “tend[s] to  (1) diminish the role of the Spirit in the life of the church as well as in the world; (2) foster an understanding of church as a contrast community within the world that seeks to emulate the example of Jesus; and (3) reduce missiology to an applied discipline, thus eclipsing its richer biblical and theological assertions” (p. 80).

For me, I believe the only way we can begin to participate with God in God’s mission is through Christ – and therefore, in desiring to participate in the Trinitarian mission, we can only enter into that mission through a Christological engagement and understanding – because as John reveals, Jesus is the only one who has seen God, is God, and is in closest relationship with God, who makes God known to us (cf. John 1: 18).  Likewise, Paul expresses in Colossians 1: 15 that Jesus is the image or the icon of the invisible God.  We cannot know God, participate in God, or participate with God in God’s mission unless we enter into relationship with Jesus and participate with Jesus in his participation in the mission of God. 

Christology, then is key, but perhaps it depends on what kind of Christology we hold.

I believe the starting point for engaging in God’s mission is Christology, but the kind of Christology that is necessary is one that engages us, through Christ Jesus, to participate with God in God’s mission in the manner in which Jesus was involved in mission. 

I think Van Gelder and Zscheile rightly express that this requires more than an emulation of Jesus – it requires more than following the teachings of Jesus in the expression of our discipleship – it requires our participation in Jesus.  What this leads to is our continuing the ministry of Jesus in the world – what Ray Anderson, in The Shape of Practical Theology, describes as christopraxis.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a pastoral colleague a couple of weeks ago.  He is in the midst of writing a monograph on comparing Micah 6:8 with John 14:6, comparing mercy, justice and walking with God in relation to Jesus being the way, truth and life.  Our conversation that afternoon, over coffee, reflected upon Jesus being the way and demonstrating the way we are to participate with God in God’s mission.  This requires more than a mere emulating of Jesus, because mere emulation still leaves us to try and engage in God’s mission in our own ways.  Only as we participate in Jesus do we begin to be integrated in the way of Jesus, in which Jesus is the way.

Such a Christology rooted in participation of Christ – as Christ participated with God the Father in mission, must then be the starting point for our engagement of the mission of God.  Such a Christology does not diminish the role of the Spirit, because the way of Jesus embraces the Spirit of God – all that Jesus did in ministry was by the power of the Spirit – how can we do otherwise, unless we only emulate Jesus and not participate in Jesus. 

Further, such a participation in Jesus, shapes us to live as the incarnate people of God, the incarnate body of Christ within our world, within our cultures.  We are not merely a contrast community, as Van Gelder and Zscheile critique, as if we could separate ourselves from the world – but like Jesus, as we participate in Jesus, we are engaged with the world and in the world – we are instead a new kind of humanity in the world.  In the expression that Stan Hauerwas uses – we are a community of character in the world, demonstrating as Jesus demonstrated, a different way of being human, a different way of being a human community in the world.  Being different is not merely being a community in contrast, we are a community showing a new way of being human in the midst of the brokenness and death narratives of the world.  This also is dependent upon the Spirit of God – for Jesus was dependent upon the Spirit to demonstrate the character of new creation.

And in light of this, such a missional understanding of Christology frames missiology as being no mere applied discipline.  Rather, it seeks to give expression to the way we are a new human community in the world because we participate in Jesus, who participates in the trinitarian mission of God.  Jesus, and Jesus alone, is our entry into participation with God in God’s mission – and so a missional Christology is the rightful starting place – in fact the only starting place for our participation with God in God’s mission.

I realize that what I am expressing here is a quick overview and just a beginning of my exploration of the connection between a trinitarian understanding of mission and Christology – and I realize it requires more in depth investigation, yet, I believe we cannot understand God and God’s mission without a missional Christology. 

So, I invite your reflections as well – that we may engage in theological dialogue together.