Missional and Incarnational Life part 5

Issues of Sustainability

This post is part 5 of 5 in a series on missional and incarnation life. You can refer back to the Series Overview to see the posting schedule. I know there are plenty of important aspects of this conversation that have not been addressed. The reality is that this is meant to be a starting point for the conversation - feel free to bring other important concepts to my attention, and don’t assume because they weren’t mentioned that I’m against them or don't consider them valid. Thanks for reading and engaging in this conversation with me! - Bret

There are many obviously “spiritual” and “theological” reasons why an intentional shift toward a more missional and incarnational life of faith (and church planting) is important. I’ve written about some of these and will likely do so again in the future. However, there are also some very practical reasons why this shift must take place. 

I don’t really like these terms - practical and theological - as a distinction for this type of conversation; the theology has practical implications and the practical has theological foundations. Yet, with that said, there are things we do because they arise from our theological reflection - whether they seem to “make sense” practically or not. They may seem incredibly counter-cultural, inefficient or impractical (like loving enemies). 

But just because something seems difficult or contrary to the status quo, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t have practical benefits.

Conventional wisdom in church planting says that you raise support for 3 years on a declining scale. Several mission agencies and training networks have stated that it takes on average around $250K over 3 years to plant a church. After that a “successful” church will be self-supporting, or at least very close to it.

Implicit in this understanding are some assumptions we should consider more carefully.

Some of the primary church planting models which have been used include the mother/daughter, satellite/multi-site and high-impact “attractional” approaches. 

With a mother/daughter model a group of people - could be anywhere from 20 to 200 are “sent” from the mother church (MC). Some may literally relocate to an area, many simply begin meeting with their new group in a new location. This usually includes one or more minister(s) who served on staff with the original church and remain supported for a time by the MC. Others in leadership may be in the core group.

Whether this group meets in a cafeteria, store front or build their own church building depends on the church.

The satellite and multi-site plants are even more connected to their parent church - sometimes even using video to allow the senior minister at the main campus to continue “preaching” at the new campus.

The high impact model is more entrepreneurial. Typically a team ranging from a couple to several families will study a particular area, determine demographic and cultural issues at work.

These plants often blanket a community via direct mailings using postal routes and/or zip codes, billboards, door hangers, TV/radio commercials, personal invitations and eye-catching signage. These marketing and advertising strategies tend to communicate those aspects that the new church believe to be most central to their values or most likely to communicate to people in the area. They may focus on a family friendly atmosphere, “relevant” sermons, clearly expressed and expounded Bible teaching, diversity, acceptance or even short worship services (there’s the church in central Texas that advertises an “express worship service” - in and out in 30 minutes).

Sometimes the goal is to draw as large a crowd as possible in hopes that the “seed scattering” will lead to several seeds taking root. These new church plants will often hold preview Sundays - worship gatherings where people (both the core team and folks in the community) can get a feel for how the worship gathering will operate and hopefully generate a buzz about the new church. 

Then comes Launch Sunday; the public unveiling where the red carpet is rolled out and everyone is invited. Often friends, local Christians from other churches and even community leaders will be present. The following Sunday’s attendance is typically much lower.

These church plants are typically aware that at any given time 35% of the evangelical church is looking for a new home. Perhaps they haven’t felt plugged in their current church, they’re looking for something with a better children’s ministry, more convenient start times, they just don’t like the preacher...or any number of other reasons.

The new churches are also counting on the presence of a large crowd of people who are openly searching for meaning and purpose and who are willing give God and the church a shot, if they are invited in properly.

I point out these different approaches because they all use some similar methods for judging success in the new church. Attendance, Buildings and Cash to be blunt. This is a blog post, not an exhaustive study of each and every church. I am more than willing to concede that there are more than a few notable exceptions. And really I’m not commenting on these to disparage any particular ministry. However, I do believe that in our attempt to address our own shortcomings we (the Church) we must be willing to examine assumptions. In this case I think there are some assumptions regarding success that need to be considered.

The two primary areas of concern for the remainder of this post are 1) who are we “attracting” in these models? And 2) is financial self-sufficiency a valid mark of success?

The high impact and highly advertised approaches seem to assume a certain level of knowledge in the surrounding culture of Jesus and “the” Christian worldview. There is a belief that if things are done with excellence and invitations are offered compellingly then people will come.

In many areas of the country the church is realizing that this simply isn’t the case any longer. There just aren’t as many disenfranchised Christians looking for the perfect church. Here in the southwest there may still be a number of somewhat “churched” folks to attract.

Yet the reality is that as postmodern culture continues to develop, fewer people are going to be aware of Christianity’s message beyond unflattering stereotypes perpetuated in the media.

Yes, there will continue to be people searching for meaning and purpose; I’m counting on it! Increasingly however, these folks are NOT looking to the Church to help them sort through such issues. In effect, churches that continue to focus on inviting people to come to a program, even church plants, are not functioning as missionaries sent out so much as embassies inviting like minded people to find sanctuary. Some will come, drawn by the hope of refuge and many more will warily keep their distance.

Many of these churches will proclaim how welcoming and receptive a congregation they are. I recently read a comment to the effect of, “Of course you’re welcoming of those who choose to show up to your turf on your terms.” A little harsh, but...

Even in a new church plant it is possible to quickly find that the “new converts” were recently converts at another church and you haven’t had a conversation with a real live non-Christian in months. The question that must be answered honestly is, Are we okay with that? 

Also implicit here is an assumption that to be faithful and successful, rapid conversion of people who will tithe will take place.

The missional and incarnational mindset is different. Admittedly, the lack of marketing and advertising means that the crowd of Christians seeking a new church will remain largely “untapped.” Also there is the possibility of simply not connecting with anyone at all. We’ve been used to waiting for people to come to us. And when they aren’t simply wandering in the door we may wonder what we’re supposed to do!

But a personal, out-in-the-community approach gives us opportunity to engage the vast number of people who aren’t looking for a church and wouldn’t show up no matter how awesome the advertising.

Some of these people are never going to be interested in following Jesus, but many others have simply never been introduced by a person actively following Jesus themselves. Many people have heard a gospel presentation and been treated as a project or potential conquest, but never listened to or valued as an actual person.

This takes longer. There is no substitute for time when it comes to developing relationships. But even this is merely a matter of perspective.

For instance, I can’t roll out impressive numbers of conversions that have occurred in our community over the past twelve months. But, I can introduce you to no fewer than 20 non-Christians with whom I’ve developed an initial friendship. I can tell you stories of a half a dozen folks who a year ago were either antagonistic or ambivalent towards God, church or Christians and who today are engaging in overt spiritual conversations, sharing meals with our families and participating in community life. I can tell you great stories of community life developing in Shenandoah specifically because of members of that house church.

An incarnational approach also requires considerably less money to sustain. With the primary emphasis on communal life and influencing our neighborhoods through presence rather than marketing, many of the expenses normally incurred are avoided. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any expenses; young churches that choose to have a gathering beyond living rooms and Starbucks will probably need financial assistance, especially early on.

However, putting together a business proposal for a 3 year path to self sufficiency may be tough. On the one hand, many of these folks will strongly resist because the professionalization and business model are on the whole being critiqued heavily both by those outside the church and by missionally minded disciples.

 

Often these churches are going to be connecting with the poor and oppressed in our society - you know, the sinners Jesus spent so much time with. Taking up a collection here is a whole different situation than in a traditional church where that same offering plate may serve as the primary connection to the poor for most people. That doesn't mean we shouldn't still do it, but these people are less likely to give money just because someone in leadership tells them they have to. I've found that these people are often quite generous, but they are skeptical about giving to prop up an institution or to cover administrative costs. They are however, very quick to give up what they have to serve the poor (even if they fit that description themselves) or to address a tangible need in their community.

Most local church planters will find it necessary to be bi-vocational or even fully supported by “secular” employment. This means that traditional expectations on the minister’s time must be amended.

In this setting it makes sense for a church planter to obtain employment near his and/or her home and invest their time and energy in connecting with their community.

Those who serve in a more Pauline way (moving around working with people in different locations, prayerfully engaging “people of peace” and releasing them to serve as church planters in their neighborhood) may have a harder time supporting themselves...finding a "2nd job" that is flexible enough takes a lot of creativity. Even so, few of us are likely to find that the church plants and communities we are investing in are going to be in a position to support us financially any time soon...if ever. 

Personally, I have been supported as a missionary by a group of individuals and one congregation. I am trying to get myself to the point where I'm mostly self-supporting, but its going to take a couple more years. We are dependent on God and His people to support us as we continue to pour ourselves out for others.

In the long run I believe that the church in the U.S. is going to need to be more mobile, less top-heavy and able to operate with fewer financial obligations. The missional and incarnational mindset allows for this and is, I believe, therefore a more sustainable model financially.

This model is very counter-cultural. There is constant pressure - primarily from Christians - to conform to a more status-quo, highly programmed and polished approach.

Those who are able to resist that temptation will be in place to experience amazing development of authentic community with people whom are typically never encountered in a Christian church.

Missional and Incarnational Life part 4

What Does Missional Life Look Like?

This post is part 4 of 5 in a series on missional and incarnation life. You can refer back to the Series Overview to see the posting schedule. Comments which are going to be addressed in a future post may not be responded to at length until after that post is up. Thanks for reading and engaging in this conversation with me! - Bret

Living missionally is counter-cultural even though the word “missional” has become quite popular. 

I used to joke around that if I ever wrote a book I wasn’t going to give it a catchy title because if people liked it and used it in conversation, then they’d eventually hate it and would write and say horrible things about me simply because they were tired of hearing my catchy title. 

(I’ve since realized that people are going to (and sometimes already do) say hateful things about me whether I made money selling a bunch of books or not, so I might as well get paid...if I can ever actually write something people want to read, that is.)

So, these days, as this word has been thrown around in conversations defending everything that used to be called “emerging” or before that “progressive,” I’ve had people say to me, “No one even knows what that word ‘missional’ means. Its just a buzzword and will go away.”

Probably. 

That’s the way of language and I’m not here to defend or deconstruct the term missional. However, I do find it helpful as a descriptor of a way of “doing” and “being” church in this world. The missional mindset recognizes that the Call of God is one that leads to Sending - because God is a missionary God. Missional means a turn towards the Other and towards others, because God is the Community that creates space for others to share in that community. Missional means that we do not exist for ourselves and we are not blessed for personal gain. We who would attach ourselves to this Jesus must acknowledge that it is a following, not a sitting. Our concern is participation in the fullness of life in God’s Kingdom; proclaiming to our neighbors and co-workers that there is much cause for hope, because the empires of injustice will not have the final word! 

Missional means an orientation toward the life of faith that understands the church as the people whom God has both called and sent. We have been called to join God in God’s ministry of reconciliation, not to sit on the sidelines and simply cheer for our team.

That sounds not too far off from what lots of folks have called for, so why would I call it counter-cultural? The reality is that we give plenty of lip-service to such concepts and yet the realities of our existence tell a different story. 

Brian McLaren was one of the first to really challenge me in this regard with several of his books including, More Ready Than You Realize. In that book he called us (Christians) out for being bad neighbors. Just because we mow our lawns and keep the noise down doesn’t make us good neighbors. When we go weeks, months or even years without interacting with those who live across the street, are we a good neighbor? When we miss opportunities like a block party or neighborhood picnic because we’re rushing off to Bible Study, are we good neighbors?

If we aren’t good neighbors can we really be good Christians? Its one thing to not have yet lived up to that which you are striving, but what about when being a neighbor isn’t even on our radar? 

Being a “missional church” isn’t about a new worship style or even structure. I am all about contemplative spirituality - ask anyone who knows me. I enjoy spiritual disciplines such as silence and solitude, Lectio Divina and even liturgical prayers - in fact I even lead retreats based on these practices. None of that has anything to do with being missional though.

I enjoy a more subdued worship gathering - candles and simplicity in the worship flow rather than the highly polished theatrical production - but that has nothing to do with missional.

Those who equate missional church with the recent turn toward contemplative atmosphere and a reclaiming of ancient practices are mistaken. 

Those who equate missional with Emergent have made a similar mistake, even though many who consider themselves participants in the “emerging church conversation” are deeply concerned with issues of missional and incarnation living (sadly, the ‘emerging church conversation’ has in many places devolved into nothing more than candles and lectio alongside the same old thinking it initially sought to critique. My cynical side says that the Evangelical money machine was too powerful and tempting to hold off forever.) 

Though I find a lot positive to say about a house church approach, it is not itself to be equated with missional church either. Things like contemplative worship and house church refer to forms - not to substance. Certain forms in certain settings may in fact be more conducive to missional life, but this isn't something that can be stated universally as though the form carried the meaning itself.

One of the roadblocks that we’ve encountered in fundraising has been the very different approach to church life that we are advocating. Decentralizing leadership, de-emphasizing programs and attendance numbers, choosing not to advertise or seek out Christians looking for a new church home, developing relationships and starting house churches among the suburban poor, engaging in the slow process of befriending skeptical folks who are antagonistic towards Christianity...all of these things can be hard for traditional churches and church folks to swallow. I understand that. 

Not having a 3 year plan to self-sufficiency makes business-minded folks nervous. I understand that too. (I have another post coming that actually addresses why this simple, missional model - though not doing much to generate financial support for the church planter - is actually a more sustainable model than even the high-impact, large Sunday morning attendance approach.) 

I do understand that this stuff is hard for some to wrap their minds around. I’ve written about the theological and Biblical foundations for the missional/incarnational approach and in the next post I’ll address some of the practical benefits as well. 

With the remainder of this post I’d like to highlight VERY briefly a few folks who are leading the way in cultivating new communities with just this type of commitment. If you would like to see examples of the missional focus being lived out in real communities, (beyond our stories of life among folks at Shenandoah, Denny’s, front yard cookouts, etc) you can take a look at these communities and ministries.

Tom Sine, on his website states about their group, The Mustard Seed Associates, “We work to inspire (plant), connect (cross-pollinate) and create (harvest). Believing God is changing the world through mustard seeds – the seemingly insignificant – MSA seeks to unleash the creative potential of ordinary people to make a difference in their communities and a world of urgent need.” In his book, The New Conspirators, he talks about the “mustard seed conspiracies” where people are transforming communities (and perhaps the world) through the small and simple rather than the large and impressive. But its the small and simple life lived rather than propositions believed, programs attended or organizations joined.

David Fitch, church planter and professor, is focusing on the launching of “missional orders” where groups of around 10 people agree to move into a neighborhood together. They share life together, worship together, show concern for the poor together. It is very hard to be an anonymous pew sitter when there are no pews! 

Elaine Heath at SMU has been starting New Day Communities (new monasticism) which are similar to these missional orders. They practice a shared Rule of Life, work for justice in their neighborhood, and engage in a way of living which is shaped by following Christ together, in full view of their “secular” neighbors everyday. 

Hugh Halter and Matt Smay in Denver are not only living this kind of life in their church communities called Adullam (Hebrew word meaning "Refuge"), they are training and equipping others to do so all over the country through the missional church apprenticeship program (MCAP). Their book The Tangible Kingdom and its companion Tangible Kingdom Primer give some very concrete glimpses into a missional and incarnational lifestyle. One of the things I really like about these guys is their stance that the “Tangible Kingdom” is not about a particular model of church. We can be for or against an incarnational living out of our faith in whatever situation we find ourselves.

Others are also dedicated to this shared vision of living missionally and equipping others to do so. Alan Hirsch’s work with Shapevine and FORGE in Australia and Cam Roxburgh’s work with FORGE Canada (formerly The Missional Training Network) have been able to bring together networks of missionally minded communities for mutual encouragement and support.

I've just recently, at Cam's recommendation, learned of the work that Martin Robinson and Together in Mission are doing in the UK. These folks are working with denominations, networks and local churches to plant missional churches.

Mission Alive, the church planting network we’re associated with has a similar commitment to community. The emphasis on moving from theology to practice can and should stand in opposition (in part) to decision making based on “what works” or through market analysis.

I give you these examples not as an indicator of those who’ve gotten it right or to say that these churches, communities and ministries are more holy than something else. I'm certainly not suggesting that this is an exhaustive list of the all things "missional" - that isn't even possible because the whole idea of missional life means that most of the occasions where it is being lived are never seen by the larger world. My goal here is simply to provide those who are wondering, “What does this look like?” and “Is it even possible for this to exist beyond idealistic dreaming?” with some tangible examples of folks who are living similarly to what we’re attempting. 

While there is a growing community of churches seeking to operate with these principles, we are still in many ways blazing new trails in our American context (its new to us, even though it would seem quite familiar to the many of the very ancient followers of Christ). We’re trying to sort through logistics and things like funding, but make no mistake we are already seeing the transformative impact this way of life can have - on us and on our new “sojourner” friends (as they are referred to in The Tangible Kingdom).  

That is why I don’t have any problem asking people to come together and help us with the financial resources to continue this missional living experiment. It is hard right now and we must continue to evaluate where we stand and how things are progressing. However, in my next post I want to address practical issues like the financial sustainability of this model.

Missional and Incarnational Life part 3

From Theology to Practice...and From Ministry to Theology

This post is part 3 of 5 in a series on missional and incarnation life. You can refer back to the Series Overview to see the posting schedule. Comments which are going to be addressed in a future post may not be responded to at length until after that post is up. Thanks for reading and engaging in this conversation with me! - Bret

We began this series of posts by considering the problem of church becoming inwardly focused and dedicated primarily to the protection of the institution. We then considered the theological and Biblical foundations for a more missional/incarnational life.

In dealing with this, and really any, issue of our faith we must maintain a certain amount of tension in how we proceed. Some will want to spend time working out the theology, as we have been doing up to this point and others will want to consider the practical realities. Both of these are needed; both flow into one another, and any who would focus solely on one at the expense of the other, in actuality, despises both.

We must move from theology to practice, but we also move from ministry to theology. What this means is that we make a huge mistake if we begin considering an issue based solely on “what works” and not on theological reflection. I believe that “church growth” folks often do precisely this. We study market trends, successful business models, cultural analysis and opinion polls and then move forward democratically along the most supported path - it is the American way.

This model was also used throughout scripture - and it always ended tragically. Solomon in all his wisdom, knew how to study the sociopolitical world of the ancient Near East and he made strategic alliances, building an enormous empire in the process. We thus consider him to be a highly successful king. However, in the account of his kingship we see that he broke every single command that God gave to the people through Moses (in Deuteronomy) as to how a king should behave.

Not only that, he enslaved the Israelites! This people, intended to be God’s proclamation of light to the world; meant to be a message that no longer would the Lord stand by as people were oppressed, were now enslaved by their own “godly” king.

Throughout the remainder of their history, Israel’s kings would make strategic alliances and carefully study the market to determine the best course; they modeled decisions on the highly successful leaders of the time, located in powerful empires and every time it lead them down a path to destruction. Even good king Josiah (our son’s namesake) was killed when he made one of these ill-advised (by God through the prophets) political moves.

Church planters face this risk constantly. So often we are out on the frontier with little or no support or reinforcements. There is constant pressure (from without and within) to make concessions in order to establish self-sufficiency and financial stability. This pressure does not typically stem from theological reflection but rather from “what works.” And this is not the place from which we should make our decisions.

However, we also must move from ministry to theology. Planning out our theology in a closet, choosing to remove ourselves from our context (or determining what we’ll do apart from a context) is never going to be completely faithful. The Church exists in time and space and as such we can only deal with the present state that we actually encounter. We don’t formulate theology apart from the Church - for that would not be Christian theology - and we don’t formulate theology apart from culture - for that would deny the Incarnation.

The Incarnation of Jesus was not a new move for God. God walked in the garden in the very beginning, God came near to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, God was with Moses, Aaron and Miriam, God heard the cry of the oppressed Israelites in Egypt and through the prophets regularly called Israel to hear the oppressed in their midst. When “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” as John’s gospel says, he did so just as we’re told that God had chosen to dwell and walk among his people (Leviticus 26) and will one day choose to do fully in the creation of the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21).

But though this move is not unique for God, the incarnation of Jesus is a seminal moment for us in so many ways. Not the least of these is that time and space are shown to be valuable to God. Jesus did not appear in a universal form when he came near. It wasn’t just into humanity that Jesus incarnated, it was our way of existing - in a place at a certain time. Jesus took on the cultural forms and language of the occupied Israelite people in the midst of the powerful Roman Empire. He spoke their language, wore their clothes, observed their way of moving about (we saw when the people tried to press in on him and he “passed through their midst” that Jesus could have moved about as he pleased.)

So therefore theology, if it is to be Christian theology, must take into account The Other (God), one another (the Church) and the others (society).

Theological reflection begins with God calling us to ministry in a particular time and place. Our practice of ministry begins and continues in that theological reflection. That tension (and harmony) must be maintained.

Changing Everything and Changing Nothing

The need to move from ministry to theology and theology to practice can be seen in pretty much any issue that we undertake. For our purposes here, allow me to address two particular ones that we've dealt with/are dealing with in our context.

In the midst of conversations about emphasis on and participation in missional church planting we've come to a few conclusions. One is that community needs to be an important value in our life of faith. However, if we conceive of community apart from an actual ministry context it is very easy to romanticize the whole concept. This can lead to a naive love of the idea of community more than the thing itself. 

Community is often spoken of as a nice, warm, secure experience - and to be sure these can be among the benefits of community. But the reality is that community is difficult, painful and messy. It requires sacrifice, patience and compassion beyond what we'd often like to give. 

Similarly if we take the concept of community without reflecting theologically on the idea we can end up with something that in reality falls short of true community. We may look to facebook, fraternities or social organizations and develop a set a shallow connections to lots of people; good for potluck meals but useless in the midst of crisis or confusion. We may talk constantly about the importance of community, but we couldn't tell you what "it" is or why its important...other than it seems kinda Jesusish.

However, if we start by reflecting on the understanding of God as Community; a relationship of love and mutual submission, an emptying of oneself on behalf of another, we get a more complete view of community. We can understand the "why" - we are created in the image of God and God has been revealed to us in the form of unified community of Three-in-One. We can understand "how" - we submit ourselves to one another, not putting our own desires at the top of our list; we recognize that Christ has a claim on our life and isn't merely a commodity to be added to our already busy schedule. The specific "whats" can then be worked out in our context.

Similarly, as we deal with a missional approach to church planting we seek to connect with disconnected people, reenter our neighborhoods as agents of God's Kingdom and encounter God through participation in relationship rather than passive receipt of goods and service. We offer a needed (and hopefully loving) critique to models of "church" that fail to emphasize the call to be transformed into the image of Christ for the sake of others. We talk about spiritual formation for the purpose of joining God in the ministry of reconciliation in our community. 

In the midst of our fervor, we may set about changing everything and end up changing nothing. We may move to a house church model, we may begin meeting in a bar or coffee shop, we choose not to meet corporately at all. And yet if all we change is the location where we passively receive religious goods and services, we've changed nothing.

It is easy and tempting to focus our critique and call for change on things like structure because they are tangible aspects which are easy to see - and they may very well need changing. Even so, we need to think theologically about what it is that really needs to change. We've talked before about the disappointing possibility of merely changing our emphasis on "church as place" in the sanctuary or coffee shop to "church as place" in the living room.

Must change occur? Yes, I believe so - or at least, it needs to continue occurring. But change needs to happen in our assumptions about the purpose and function of "church" and what it means for us individually and as a community to give our life to Christ. If my concern is what my personality needs for worship; if our focus is making everyone happy then we still need change...regardless of where we meet. 

If we're able to "do church" without feeling the pinch of Christ's claim on our busyness, finances, choice of leisure activities or commitment to the oppressed; if our change only affects our formal (or apparently informal) gatherings without calling us out on the rest of our lives then we haven't changed anything.

This doesn't mean that there aren't practical issues of form and structure which can and should be considered - only that those issues come out of the deeper issue of who we are being transformed into.

In the final two posts of this short series, I would like to consider some of these practical issues. Specifically I want to sketch not only a working definition, but a somewhat tangible description of what “missional” and “incarnational” life may look like, and then I want to address the issue of “sustainable models in ministry.” Neither of these posts (and not even the series of posts) can possibly come close to saying all that needs to be said about these topics. My desire is to provide, for some, a starting point and for others, a place to continue the conversation.

Missional and Incarnation Life part 2

Towards a Missional and Incarnational Theology

This post is part 2 of 5 in a series on missional and incarnation life. You can refer back to the Series Overview to see the posting schedule. Comments which are going to be addressed in a future post may not be responded to at length until after that post is up. Thanks for reading and engaging in this conversation with me! - Bret

Before the beginning there was Community. God, the Community of Love, which we refer to as the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit had a perfect relationship of mutual love and respect. This isn’t to say that there were three gods - there is One God and this God is the essence of Love. Love does not exist and is not expressed in isolation, it is expressed in community. 

This God, this Community of Love was not incomplete; the Trinity is the definition of completion. Community needed nothing, Love lacked nothing. Love was eternally expressed within the Community of the One God in Three Persons.

While the Community of Love was not incomplete, neither is God static. The nature of True Community is expansive. It is dynamic. It is always growing and bringing into itself everything around it. The relationship of the Community, being rooted and established in a deep indescribable love, felt compelled to create. For that is what love is and what love does, it continually creates expansive opportunity for love to be expressed. 

So God, the Community of Love created. God brushed away the darkness, stepped into the midst of chaos and brought forth solid foundations. God molded and formed an unbelievably expansive and expanding universe, and in an inconspicuous section of all that began to paint with beautiful strokes a landscape that was begging to be enjoyed.

This is the first thing we know of God’s actions. I suspect that this is not the first thing that God has ever done, but when it comes time to tell the Great Story to the children, God begins with the episode of creating the universe. 

The storytelling is masterful. We don’t often recognize it because we’re too busy trying to determine the age of the earth from the geneology or determine where dinosaurs fit in. Or we argue whether or not the order of creation could in fact be suggesting evolution since the progress tends toward increasingly complex life forms. Meanwhile we miss the amazement of eavesdropping while the Transcendent Other speaks a universe into existence and then immediately are invited to watch as the Immanent One walks in the garden, kneels in the dirt and breathes life into nostrils. 

This is the astounding Story of the One who is completely other and yet is the image in which we were created. This is the Story of the Originator of all life, showing not a sense of detachment from this creation project, but rather a profound posture of love and care. This is the Story of the Community which has existed since before time, making room within the Community for others to exist and find a home. This is the Story of the God who comes near.

This is The Story.

When we begin talking about developing a missional theology, this is where we begin: in the beginning. We don’t have to begin with modern ethnographies or cultural studies, we don’t even have to begin with the Incarnation of Jesus (we’ll get to that in a moment), because from the very inception of our universe the Lord has revealed a missionary nature.

Speaking of theology through narrative is more than just a device for communication; the medium is part of the message. God as a Community of Love is understood best by participation in the Story. Story is relational; it is communal. This language of community is essential to begin grasping the centrality and reality of Love in the character of God. 

Over the past few years, my theology has become increasingly Trinitarian. That is not to say that I would have denied the Trinity before, but rather that it was merely something to which I assented without treating as practically essential to understanding and experiencing the life of faith. All importance of faith was found in Jesus. 

However, by focusing on the existence of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in eternal Community of Love I am able to appreciate that the Trinity is “not a piece of ‘high theology’…but something that has a living, practical importance for every Christian. The human person, so the Bible teaches, is made in the image of God, and to the Christians God means the Trinity: thus it is only in the light of...the Trinity that we can understand who we are and what God intends us to be.”

The Trinity is a starting point for theology because it says something essential about the nature of God, as revealed to us by God. The One who created was not in isolation but has existed since before time as an eternal community of mutual love and submission. We cannot understand the Father apart from the Son nor the Son apart from the Spirit. It is in the relationship between the Three-in-One that God is experienced by humanity. 

We are the people of this Story. We are the rememberers of the Story of God, the Community of Love. Not only this, we are the story of the Community of Love in action. This understanding of God teaches us how to receive one another, to speak of salvation, to engage in mission and even to praise the God who has come near to make Community possible.

Missional theology is not, for me, simply the latest fad in how to “do church.” It is a way of talking about the very nature of who we are as followers of Christ. It may be that in the future we’ll use different language for one reason or another - I don’t really care about that. The point here is that we understand some very essential components of our life of faith.

When God came near to Abraham (or really Abram, Genesis 12) it was made clear that God had chosen this man and his family to be blessed. This blessing was not just the equivalent of a spiritual lottery. Abraham was being called to serve as God’s instrument of blessing for the whole world - all peoples on earth were to be blessed through him.

When God came near to Moses it was for the deliverance of the oppressed people crying out in Egypt. When the people were given their covenant and called God’s people, their very calendar was set up to serve as a source of hope and deliverance for all people, especially the poor, overlooked and mistreated folks at the margins of society. Check out the description of the required festivals in Deuteronomy 16 - celebration was mandatory and even the poor and strangers were to participate. This meant that the wealthy were to make sure that everyone had something to bring to the table and something to eat when they got there!

When God spoke through the prophets he rejected religion which was based on a transactional adherence to rules, laws and doctrines. We like to scoff at those legalistic Israelites...but there’s no difference between what they were being chastised for and the modern day expectations that people dress properly on Sunday, sing and worship in the prescribed way and attend the proper numbers of services while we walk past the poor, make disparaging comments about the politicians and supporters in the other political party and generally complain about not “getting something out of church today.” 

I’m not trying to single anyone out or be hateful, but I do want it to be clear that we have very little room to feel superior to Israel - our sins tend to be quite similar.

Probably the most disheartening sin of Israel is that they forgot the meaning of their calling. They, like the Church, were called to be sent; blessed to be a blessing. Rather than serving as a light to the nations they went about building their own empire...which crumbled around them. 

The Incarnation of Jesus is a seminal event in history to be sure. It is not the first time that God has come near and it is not the first time that God was pleased to make his dwelling among us nor will it be the last (compare Leviticus 26:11-12; John 1:1-14 and Revelation 21:3 - same word for dwell, “tabernacle,” in all three). 

But it was and is the pinnacle that history points to from the past and future. Jesus made flesh (bringing it very close to home for us) the very nature of this God, which had been modeled to humanity since the beginning. It is at this point that for the first time (that we’re aware of) God not only dwells among his people, God dwells among the people as one of them. 

God’s might is not understood in spite of Christ’s emptying and becoming vulnerable (again, not the first time that God has risked pain...read the prophets, especially Hosea). As Karl Barth said, “He is distinguished from all other powers by being able to do what He wills to do.”

God’s power is seen in Jesus’ free decision to set aside the splendor of heaven on behalf of his creation. Love, the concern for the other for the other’s sake, showed itself in power precisely through the choice to descend in weakness. 

Our very existence is predicated upon God’s concern for others and thus demands our concern for the Other and others. We cannot have a faith which is truly Christian and claim that it is, “between me and Jesus” or merely about me being able to do what I want to do in the way that fits my personality. Such a statement is pure nonsense in light of a God who exists as community, who regularly extends outside of that Community to invite others into community and who has created us in this image.

Missional life is essential because it is the only life that can be truly human; it is the only life which functions (be it ever so elementary and clumsy) as Christ. The Church is not the Church if it exists merely for itself, to protect its own institution, or even to privately worship God. The Church is only the Church if it serves as the lighthouse to all the world; a banner declaring that God’s redemption is coming, let the oppressed rejoice and the oppressors tremble!

*The references for quotes in this essay are available upon request.