Which Comes First: Ecclesiology or Missiology?
By Jonathan Dodson | January 8th, 2009 | Category: Missional Church | 29 commentsAlan Hirsch advocates that Missiology should shape Ecclesiology.
Christology ? Missiology ? Ecclesiology
Ed Stetzer advocates that Ecclesiology should precede Missiology.
Christology ? Ecclesiology ? Missiology
Which do you support and why?
I agree with Alan (and if I may quote him to explain why)
Why does missiology need to precede ecclesiology?
“The problem if ecclesiology precedes missiology is to make mission into a subset of the church.”
or more to the point, we need to understand that:
“It is not so much that the church has a mission, but that the mission has a church”
Hirsch…haven’t read Stetzer’s reasoning, but it doesn’t compute with me. The church exists for the sake of mission.
I think putting missiology before ecclesiology presents a DANGER of reductionism, but doesn’t make it necessary. However, I whole heartedly believe that christology–>ecclesiology–>missiology is the biblical pattern. There are certain markers of the church that are non-negotiable that we run the risk of losing, should missiology come first.
Mike – “There are certain markers of the church that are non-negotiable that we run the risk of losing, should missiology come first.”
Such as?
I would argue that Mission is a ‘non-negotiable’ that should be normative to the life of every Christian but we have allowed it to go beyond ‘the risk of losing’ it. We have in large parts of the church lost it or at the least sidelined it.
If you are (and I’ll let you speak for yourself) fearing the loss of worship, discipleship and community then I would suggest putting missiology first is not about the abolition of these but rather reassessing the ‘organizational center’ of the church.
the formula:
Christology ? Ecclesiology ? Missiology
Puts one or more of these three (most often worship) at the center of church life.
Church ends up organized around worship and mission and I would also argue true community and true discipleship become secondary.
If however we reorientation church around mission and our sense of Gods sending us out I believe worship, discipleship and community are actually improved and become more important. We worship best when we have been united together in mission. We become a stronger community as we go out and come back.
Looking forward to your thoughts
With the risk of sounding like a real simpleton – why can’t we say that scripture should shape both? I must confess I get a little nervous when Hirsch says things like ‘missiology must shape ecclesiology’ because I think to myself ‘surely I develop my ecclesiology by studying the scriptures’? If I end up with a mission-shaped ecclesiology it would be because the scriptures advocate a church on mission (at least by my reading).
The most important thing is that Christology comes first. Always good to see people agree on that first and foremost.
I would agree with Hirsch: Missiology shapes Ecclesiology
But with “shaping Ecclesiology”, I am not talking about the functions of a NT church: “Do we have elders, communion, baptism, discipline, Bible teaching, etc.”
We are talking about forms, “What do meetings look like, how is the teaching best done, how do we organize, etc.”
Do you guys agree? Or is Hirsch advocating for Missiology to influence even the functions of church?
Christopher Wright’s “The Mission of God” has been extremely helpful on giving a stronger theological and biblical basis for this.
I am not sure I can see any around the reality that these subjects (including Christology) are not always mutually informative. It’s kind of like asking who’s first in the Trinity or something like that. Our ecclesiology (on academic and practical levels) shapes how we understand and practice mission and our lives lived on mission continue to shape how we understand and be the church. In the midst of this, I would think that we are always discovering more and more about the fullness of Christ. The real problem is thinking that we can ever have a fixed and immovable point from which to begin (for you philosophers out there, feel free to interpret this as my rejection of foundationalism).
Actually, that is not what I say at all. See Breaking the Missional Code for the graphic.
My point is that scripture sets the agenda and has provides direction for all three– one does not “come from” the other but they are all derived from scripture, interact with each other, etc.
I just watched Ed’s video convo with David Fitch and what I came away with matches what he comments above.
To imply a direct causal relationship makes it seem like finding the third step means the second step is finalized, when in reality there is far more interaction and interplay between all three
I would probably add Scripture to the mix of what I said above. It is as we live out what we understand it means to be the church and live lives of participation in the mission of God that we read and interpret Scripture. There is no objective standard by which we are able to read Scripture so as to have it as an unadulterated beginning point – things like culture, community, tradition, experience, race, class, etc., preclude us from this objective perspective. I think I am with Ed on the “setting the agenda” piece, but would add the caveat that Scripture is more of a centering point (perhaps one of several centering points) than an isolated beginning point (I don’t have a copy of Breaking the Missional Code, maybe this is part of the diagram).
To my mind, God’s Eternal Purpose should precede both missiology and ecclesiology, as it’s the framework for both. And the center of that Purpose is Christ, in His fullness and unfathomable riches.
If we begin with the church, we’ll get a sect.
If we begin with mission as evangelism, we’ll get a work.
But if we begin with Jesus Christ and God’s ultimate purpose in Him, we’ll get both the church (as God would have it) and the multisplendid expression of the missio Dei.
So it seems to me.
http://beyondmissional.missionaltribe.org/2009/01/06/hello-world/
Please allow me the liberty to generalize for a moment.
I think the current state of the church necessitates a reductionist response to the formula; until it can be brought in line with missio dei. In that context I would agree with Hirsch that “Missiology shapes Ecclesiology”; to nurture a modern ecclesiology back to a Biblical Ecclesiology, one derived form Scripture as Dr. Stetzer clarified above.
Once that occurs, which many local bodies have, it becomes a chicken-egg-feathers issue.
The way I see it…
Great discussion
I’d have to agree with Ed. The Church is the agent through which God’s mission is carried out, and so in that sense I think ecclesiology must precede missiology. I think the biblical pattern in both the Old and New Testaments indicate this—God calls a people to himself (first Israel, now the Church), constitutes them under his rule and pours out his blessing on them, and then sends them out to be his agents and witnesses in the world.
That being said, I think Ed makes a very important point above that it’s not all cut-and-dried and one doesn’t directly come out of the other, but the three all have a very important interaction.
Ed clarifies:
My point is that scripture sets the agenda and has provides direction for all three– one does not “come from” the other but they are all derived from scripture, interact with each other, etc.
I agree with this.
The first thing I thought when reading the question about what comes first, is that the question seems “made up.”
Obviously, defining of terms is helpful (one of the things Ed and David talk about in the first installment) but I would simply refer back to Ed’s comments on what could potentially be lost, or presents dangers in, by placing “missiology” first. He talks about how it’s a subset of theology. That to me rings in agreement with the concept of allowing Scripture to inform and shape all three of these categories in ways that interact and help shape each other.
I think Frame’s multi-perspectivalism is quite helpful here.
Having just watched Ed and David’s video – for me at least, there seems to be some confusion about what missiology is. At least in that what I understand missiology to mean and the way in which I think perhaps Hirsch would refer to it (although I can’t speak from him) seemed a little different to the way Ed and David use it.
In the video, Ed and David seem to give the impression that missiology starts with conversation about context and culture – rather than with theology. But for me, this is why it’s so important that it’s Christology which comes first before Missiology.
Our Christology, coming from scripture, which forms the starting point for our Missiology – deciding “what our mission is”. This then that forms the starting point for figuring out “how that would look for us” in terms of Ecclesiology.
Defining it this way, I have no problem agreeing with Hirsch.
I’d also be interested to see where people would start to place Eschatology in the context of these other three.
Just spotted Frank’s earlier comment:
So, Frank, would you be okay with making the statement: Christology -> Eschatology (God’s eternal purpose) -> Missiology -> Ecclesiology
Or would you define “Eternal Purpose” as broader than that?
James. It depends on how one defines or identifies the Mission (missiology). Since I see the Mission of God as the equavalent of the Eternal Purpose (see the link in my comment for an explanation), then I would agree with the idea that missiology (should) comes before and shapes ecclesiology. Meaning, knowing and encountering the Lord Jesus Christ corporately produces the ekklesia. And knowing, experiencing, and expressing His fullness fulfills God’s intention.
God is after a house/a building; not a scattered group of living stones.
If, however, we define missiology as the winning of lost souls, which it’s often defined as, then the Eternal Purpose shapes all of it. Since the Eternal Purpose precedes both the fall and redemption. I wouldn’t put the Eternal Purpose in the realm of eschatology as it’s far broader than that.
By my lights, the beginning point and the end point is the Eternal Purpose of God in Christ — that ought to shape all things spiritual.
So it seems to me anyway.
[...] | A really rich discussion on “Which Comes First? Eccleisology or Missiology” here. [...]
The question was created to generate theological precision and biblically faithful practice. It appears to be doing just that. (Forgive the misconstrual of your position, Ed, that was not intentional.)
To say that missiology is the primary shaping element for ecclesiology is reductionist. The church is much, much more but not less than mission. The church is a Christ-centered community. Mission will cease one day but community will not. Thus, if ecclesiology is primarily defined by missiology, we are in a bit of a pickle come new creation. Moreover, the marks of the church will be quickly watered down if not jettisoned, if the primary shaping element is missiology. In the name of mission, the church is, in some sectors, being reduced to evangelistic and contextualized practices, with very little attention being given to the historic marks of the church and the biblical dynamics of community and discipleship.
No problem, Jonathan. It was a good discussion.
The problem seems to be that a circle cannot be drawn with a straight line.
Beginning with Christ, the church is in Him, with Him, to Him, and through Him; both the result of and the agent of God’s eternal purpose or mission.
As per the last comment, this must be understood in the larger picture of what the church is.
However, in the narrower scope of the church’s mission in the world, I agree with Alan’s conclusion that mission is the organizing purpose around which church organizations structure their existence and activities.
Winning souls cannot be made a purpose in itself. Let’s say someone wins me for the Lord. Why was I won for? So I win somebody else for the Lord. And I win somebody for Him. Why? So he can start winning someone else for the Lord. And he does. Why? … This goes on forever. I win so I can win so I can win so… There is no point in all of that.
There has to be a greater purpose. For example, God loves having children. That could be a good reason. Or, even more, God wants to bring forth a counterpart for His Son, Jesus Christ, and we are caught in the middle of it, of this process. Now that’s a purpose!
Good discussion.
A few months ago, Andrew Jones (TallSkinnyKiwi) had a simmeraler thread on his blog. Here is the link if anyone would like to read it.:
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2007/04/is_mission_the_.html#trackback
As I see it are we not all the church individually living in community as the church. If Christ’s bride is the church then how can missiology be primary? We are all called to missions in our life right where we live, should not the church be the agent that builds, and shapes are missiology?
[...] 23, 2009 in Uncategorized We had a great discussion in a previous post trying to figure out which should take priority in determining a missional [...]
[...] Dodson • Jan 23rd, 2009 • Category: Featured, The Latest We had a great discussion in a previous post trying to figure out which should take priority in determining a missional [...]
Christology (nature) -> Missiology (function) -> Ecclesiology (form)