The order of missiology and ecclesiology

One of the key changes in my thinking over the past few years has been how I have understood missiology and ecclesiology, particularly in regards to how they should relate to each other. Of course I didn’t begin to think about them in those terms, earlier on the issue was more simply described as ‘what is the place of mission within church’ or ‘what is the church’s role in God’s mission’. Certainly one of the key Forge ideas has been that our Christology must shape our Missiology which in turn then shapes our Ecclesiology. Anyway I came across and interesting series of posts (which began here and all of which can be accessed here) recently that again sparked my interest in the issue. I’ve noted a couple of helpful points that people make in their responses to the question ‘does missiology precede ecclesiology, or does ecclesiology precede missiology?’ The points I’ve noted are biased towards my point of view, but some good arguments are made for a range of perspectives that you’ll find if you read all the different responses to the original question.

I’ve also just grabbed some basic definitions from the dictionary to help with reading this post if the -ologies aren’t really your thing.

Missiology – the study of religious (typically Christian) missions and their methods and purposes.
Ecclesiology – theology as applied to the nature and structure of the Christian Church.
Christology – the branch of Christian theology relating to the person, nature, and role of Christ.
Scott Cripps.

    “As a church planter, I will be intentional about creating a community of God’s people (ecclesiology) that are equipped and able to join God in his mission in our context. It isn’t an institutional ecclesiology, but one that is rooted in an organic, fluid, liquid understanding of the nature of the church. And it isn’t to develop a colonial posture to the context where we set-up our church community as an attractional, one-size fits all approach. A missional ecclesiology will be intentional about the journey of being God’s people in the context where we live. This might give the appearance that missiology is the priority, but under girding our missions is the fact that God has called people into a community to be the foretaste of the kingdom. In the end, to ignore either the gospel, the church or the mission is to do an injustice to God’s desire for us to be His people.”

I love how Scott brings out how complex this question is. It’s not as simple as an either/or, there’s a sense in which these things can’t be disconnected as well as a recognition that it is important to understand where they are placed.

Jamie Arpin-Ricci

“While I think there is a more complex interplay between these (and other factors), and therefore not easily defined in such linear terms, I would have to say that missiology must precede ecclesiology. The model and method of any system must reflect the purposes for which it is created. To do otherwise is somewhat like designing and building a ship before knowing which body of water you are intended to sail and/or which destination you are charting a course too.

This may not be the most biblically based approach to answering the question but it’s nice to know that it is an answer that makes good logical sense too.

Mike McLoughlin quotes NT Wright

“Often in the Church we seem to think the Church has to get its own act together or the Church has to become more perfect than it is, then if we have time and energy after that we have to engage in mission. The Church dare not imagine that it exists for itself because if it does it is making in principle the same mistake Israel was making. William Temple, Anglican Archbishop, said that the church is the only society which exists for the benefit of its NON members.

“The Church is THERE FOR the world. The Church is not there for its own sake. Precisely because it is the True Israel. Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God for the world. In the light of that when we discover what are task is we discover who we have to be IN ourselves to achieve that task. So for Paul mission is THE thing that the Church is there for, thus the Church getting it’s life together is the REFLEX of the call to mission.”

“In summary the church is called to mission, so if it is to do that well it needs ecclesiology to enable it to do the mission. So ecclesiology is unto mission and therefore missiology precedes ecclesiology.”

Wow, NT Wright just seems to say things so precisely, so perfectly. I love it.

Paul Martinson

“This question of missiology preceding ecclesiology sounds a bit like which came first, “the chicken or the egg?” I suppose my answer would be conditioned by looking at the root meaning of the words. “Missio” has to do with sending or the persons sent hence the general topic of “sentness”. “Ecclesio” meaning a gathering together assembly (church) or mob (cf Ecclesia the root word for the mob that stoned Paul), hence mobness. So from a historical perspective sentness precedes mobness. God sent Abraham before he became a nation. God sent Moses to help create the nation of Israel. The Father sent the Son incarnationally to foster the kingdom which included a mob of followers, disciples. Jesus sent the apostles before the Pentecost ingathering of souls which founded the Church.

“However, to be fair, after the initial missio preceding ecclesio, there seems to be some alteration of the schema. The apostle Paul being one example, since at his conversion his call by God to a sentness to the Gentiles seemed to integral to his whole salvation experience (Acts 26:15-18). However, Paul worked this out by submitting himself to Peter, the Church leaders at Antioch, and the Jerusalem Council (Act 9,13,15). Therefore, in a very ancient way there seems to be a dynamic partnership between sending and gathering that is non-linear and interactively connected through relationships not hierarchy. My conclusion is that sentness morphs into mobness; and mobness morphs into sentness (both are evidence that the Kingdom has come). Look what the Lord has done!”

Again the sense that the mission and the church of God can’t be disconnected is key here. Plus some very accessible terminology is helpful.

Brother Maynard

I think a key factor is that putting ecclesiology before missiology will mean that the the missiology generally begins to serve ecclesiology rather than Christology or any other (higher?) -ology. In the pantheon of theological discipline, ecclesiology comes rather near the end. Perhaps not a grave error in the grand scheme, but I think it significantly impairs the understanding and practice of missiology to put it at the end of the procession behind ecclesiology, meaning it ultimately fails to be what it’s supposed to be. It warps the interpretation and understanding of both, like antropology placed before theology proper yields an inaccurate view of both. Ecclesiology placed before a therefore ineffective missiology becomes rather empty (pun intended).”

I think this guy brings out something really important. There are large ramifications if we get this around the wrong way. I’d argue that much of the impotence that we see in the western church is a direct result of misunderstanding the place of missiology before ecclesiology for a very long time.
Len finishes the series with some comments of his own.

“Since God has always been on a mission, and since the first sent one is Abraham, there is a clear sense in which mission precedes the existence of the church.

“But if we take the existence of the church as a requisite for mission, that is, if we are talking about a missional ECCLESIOLOGY, then we might anchor mission in John 20, with Jesus breathing the Spirit and speaking shalom in the upper room. This act looks toward Pentecost; the coming of the Spirit impels the church into mission.

“But another word we connect strongly with mission.. more strongly in this generation than ever perhaps.. is incarnation. If the Spirit is the force behind mission, incarnation is the modus operandi. So now we have mission, ecclesiology, Christology and Pneumatology at the center. In reality “missional ecclesiology” is only a lens that focuses light from wider sources; a hook, which can’t be properly appreciated apart from a broader theological grid.

It is not the Church of God that has a mission in the world — it is the God of mission who has a Church in the world.

I think this last one that is my favourite quote and the one that really sums it up for me. God is a god of mission and he has created the Church for his missional purposes.