1. Susan Gill wrote: "I’m more and more convinced that all our talk about Missional Church and some of the values we’ve considered are really about discipleship. Truly being a Christ-follower is about seeking and obeying God’s will and the way we go about that will surely encompass missional values – hospitality, inclusiveness, valuing the other, art etc." I'd love to hear your reflections on the connection between discipleship and a missional outlook.
2. Graeme Flett wrote, responding to something Craig said: "As I recall you [Craig] said something to the tune of 'is it not missional when it is about the other?' I think this is a really apt thought as the word missional can become the in-cliché used to justify all sorts of entrepreneur activity and yet miss the point. I share your sentiments here. I wonder whether consideration of ‘the other’ helpfully sifts the authenticity of our own Christian spirituality! It certainly challenges mine." I'd love to hear your reflections on whether a focus on the other should play a small or large part in the definition of “missional.”
My third idea for blog posts is to make further comparisons between the idea of liminality and the topics we talked about last night. We made some connections between liminality and the leader as a poet. What about the connections between liminality and the other aspects of leadership we talked about, especially apostolic leadership?
Yesterday, before the audioconference, I looked around online to find definitions for “liminal.” I couldn’t find my notes during the audioconference, but of course they turned up as soon as we signed off. Here are some of the ways to describe the meaning of the word:
- From the Latin word, limen, meaning threshold
- A psychological, neurological or metaphysical subjective state of being on the threshold or between two existential planes
- Pertaining to threshold or entrance
- A blurry boundary zone between 2 established and clear spatial areas. Or, when referring to time, a liminal moment is a blurry boundary period between 2 segments of time.
- “a betwixt and between place”
I also found an interview with a novelist who was talking about the liminal characteristics of his novel, and he said that he believes life isn’t really being lived unless it’s a series of transformations. I was interested in the connection he made between liminality and transformation. That parallels, in a small way, what I was saying in the audioconference about my view that Christian ministry often involves liminal moments, because ministry involves watching God, through the gospel of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit, transform our lives and the lives of people with whom we minister.
18 comments:
Seeing I am home on bed-rest for 10 days after an emergency appendectomy, I thought I might kick off this series of blogs from the comfort of my bed via the wonder of in-home wireless internet!!
Taking Lynne’s first two ideas, I wonder if the Missional church is more about the “other” than about discipleship. We all come to this subject with our own filters, and mine is to have a look at things from an urban monastic perspective, which I keep harping on is more attractional than incarnational when these words are used by writers like Stetzer (hence my dislike of his dichotomising). Missional writers seem to make a big deal about the church existing for others and that this sense of the “other” has in some way or form been lost in the frantic attempt to maintain the last vestiges of the Western Main-line churches (for Murray, Sine and Minatrea) and to accommodate rampant individualism (which seems to be a Guder’s beef!). I am sure that good discipleship incorporates an element of the “other” towards those who are not disciples, but as a reaction to a perception of church-dysfunction a shift to a focus on the “other” seems to capture what many of the writers highlight is fundamentally necessary to be missional. Now back to my own lens; the small urban monastic group I belong to has a theme of being a safe place for the stranger both relationally (we don’t personally know them) and spiritually (they have no allegiance to Christian faith). For me this is a missional focus of the “other” albeit a focus of 1, verses a focus of 5000 for say WillowCreek ‘s Seeker Model or 500 for Christchurch’s Baptist Easter Camp... I can’t however see very clearly how this reaction by missional writers is about better or healthier discipleship.
Graeme Flett writes:
The word liminality has certainly found some traction in my thinking since our audio conference discussion last Monday evening. This was enhanced for me by Lynne’s description of how she saw herself being a person that aided others to pass from one side of the door to the other. I kind-of like that as it expresses a number interesting dimensions of being rather than doing. The emphasis here is not on the door-keeper but on those making or needing to make a transition from one world to the next. However the door keeper plays an important role in the relationship he or she has with those who move from one side to the next. The spirituality and leadership of the door keeper, in my mind is critical. They are trusted for who they are, not just for they can do. What the metaphor does is evoke a colourful set of images by which to explore liminality and the distinctive leadership that might be needed. I think Roxburgh picks up on this being rather than doing notion in his descriptions of the poet, prophet, apostle, pastor/teacher.
I wonder whether the imagery of a door keeper (against Roxburgh’s description of leader-as-apostle) is suggestive of a person or persons who function as protagonist(s). Their presence cultivates an environment of flux. Their own personal sense of urgency is picked up by those around in such a way that those near, awaken to their own proximity to a particular time and place. As Roxburgh states such a person thoroughly understands the crisis through which we are moving, and grasps the kind of actions that must be taken in order to engage the community of God’s people with missio dei.” A striking parallel comes to mind in a Star Wars Movie where Skywalker is thrust into the struggle of the Rebel Alliance when he meets Obi-Wan Kenobi. The initial encounter becomes a critical point of decision in which Obi-Wan (the apostle –leader) cultivates an environment in which Luke is confronted with a daring mission. Obi-Wan Kenobi’s role is an interesting one as he probes young Skywalker. In what follows, he is door-keeper /coach, mentor, father/mother figure, as well the trusted guide who holds the grand narrative of past, present and future together. As such he charts ( by his presence) each strategic step that must be taken in order for the new, yet unrealized world to emerge. The character of the person is as much, if not more than, the sum total of his or her gifts and skills. The strength of relationship becomes the formative element that influences and aids the person to transition from one world to the next. As Roxburgh and Romanuk state, “missional leadership is about cultivating an environment in which relationality of the kingdom might be experienced.”[1]
[1] Roxburgh, A. & Romanuk, F., The Missional Leader, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006, 123.
In Response to what Craig said "is it not missional when it is about the other?" I heard a brilliant quote when I was interviewing someone for our next assignment. He quoted Archbishop William Temple, who was attributed to saying "the church is the one institution that exists for the benefit of the non-believer." I have even heard the term non-believer changed for 'those who do not belong'. Although I found Archbishop Temples statement a very powerful reminder of why we are to be a 'missional church' i.e. because there are many who don't believe, I found having the last word change in the quote even more provocative. Why don't they belong? Is it because they don't feel welcome? And is it us who are really saying they don't belong? Furthermore is it a belonging to the Church or to God? In saying all this i do believe that the church does exist for the non-believer/do not belong, yet this in only one side of the coin. The church exists for those inside as well, where not only can they be encouraged, strengthen and challenged to grow in faith but where they can share their faith with others. One example is that the church needs to engage more with the workplace. The percentage of time at church compared with at work is tiny. one thing that the church could do, and maybe some are doing this, is to celebrate work and the workers in the congregation. I can remember Alister Mackenzie in the course 'Faith at Work' suggested that each week one or two members from the congregation were brought up to the front of the church and were given time to share what their work was and then the church prayed for them. Not only would this signal to the two up the front that what they did was very important, but it signaled to the entire congregation that work was a place of mission. It is the coal face of mission, where the believer and non-believer meet. It sounds so simple but in the number of churches i have been to throughout my life i don't think i have ever seem this happen. Maybe once or twice.
With reference to what Craig said about Missional being about "the other", I want to comment on the statement from the perspective of whether it should be seen as "Descriptive" or "Prescriptive". I have been in a church where this focus on the other was "prescriptive" - an instruction to be focused on the other - as a means to becoming more "missional" or at least look more "missional"... Then, I have also been in a church where this focus on the other was simply there, without any reference to it or any move to bring it into being. It was simply that people were so filled with the love of Christ and Himself that they themselves and their own ego's did not feature. The result was that new people felt an overwhelming sense of being completely accepted and they often commented on that as the reason why they returned. In my interviews for the assignment, I had several comments from the two ministers that they felt pressure from their umbrella organisations, current literature etc. to "be" more "missional" and they sometimes felt as if the aim was just for the sake of being or appearing to be more "missional". I suppose the focus on the other or being "missional" should not be a goal in itself but a description of the way things are because of Christ in us.
Ruth Johnston writes:
Greetings, I seem to be doing much mulling over Liminality which appears to have multiple meanings. I suggest that it could be the normal state of a normal church - taking the latter to indicate a fellowship with a full mixture of individuals of differing temporal and spiritual ages. given this there will always be some tugging backwards, some tugging forwards and some sitting in the middle. imagine being in a boat, you can see the horizon, you can see the beach, which way you move depends on the leadership, plural, as each group rquires a different type of leader. The church exists/lives, between resurrection and parousia and should be permanently on the cusp of history - which is always a marginal place.
Jan Clark writes:
This week I was meeting with one of the people I am interviewing for our second assignment, in the conversation he pointed me to the new issue of our national magazine, “Anglican Taonga” to the interview with Jim White, the new dean of the College of the Southern Cross.
“I know one young guy who left college to enter a parish, and to all intents and purposes he’s doing a good job. His congregation likes him – but he’s actually caring for his grandparents’ generation, he’s caring for his elders. Is that what we need most from our young clergy?
They’ve been through some tough times as they try and mesh in with each other. But what’s happening is that he’s doing a really good job of bending his will to theirs. That’s why they like him.
Instead we should be releasing him to do some cool and creative things for the under 40’s.”
I was thinking about this in relation to the discipleship and missional outlook that was raised from Susan’s comments. I think that within the Anglican church our poor performance in discipling has led us to a situation where there is often a model of ministry that expects that those who are within the church will be consumers of a huge amount of the ministry resource the church has. We see it described here as the bending of ‘his will to theirs’ phrase. There is something radically wrong with the church when followers of Christ aren’t well incorporated into the faith and haven’t developed practices of studying the scriptures, praying and serving. We need to know the stories of our faith, to have our lives informed, challenged and shaped by encounter with Christ. A consequence of theological illiteracy is that we don’t examine our life as a community of faith alongside the gospel’s missional values.
White in the interview in Taonga also talks about clergy not being steeped in priestly stuff, “study of scripture, prayer and so forth.” Don’t know if it’s a chicken and egg situation but I think that an important question to consider as we delve into missional church issues is the formation of nurture of all members of the body of Christ. Leaders cannot share what they haven’t found for themselves. Nor do I believe can we be poet, prophet or pastor if we haven’t engaged in the spiritual disciplines that the church has treasured.
Interesting article as we address some of these issues.
Dellwyn Moylan writes:
I have been thinking about the concept of third space. Two thoughts came to mind as I thought about this. If space one is work, space two is home and space three is church how is it for people who work for the church as either laity or ordained, volunteer or paid. A few years ago I worked part time for the church some times it was more full time than part and a lot of my other activities and social interaction where connected to the church. I was almost in a Christian bubble as one of the readings describes. So I wonder how it if for those who work for the church that their third space of church is also their work space. The other thought is that for more and more New Zealanders and western countries the church holds less of a place of importance than it has in the past. For many people now I would think that their third space would be more likely to be the shopping mall or in the case of many people I associate with it would be the sports field. A friend who is a Minister once commented on how people flock to sport matches especially rugby but they do not flock to church. It is as the one reading says ‘we not longer have the home court advantage’, ‘we are playing away from home’. What is the sport body doing that is so right that attract so many and what is the church doing that is wrong so turns so many away? Why are people so happy to invite a friend to go to see a sports fixture with them and so reluctant to invite someone to go to church with them? Or why are people so reluctant to tell others they are people of faith and yet have no problem telling them the support a certain rugby tem unless of course it’s the Highlanders and then they too would probably be reluctant to admit their support of their team. (just kidding from a Crusader fan) Why are Minister who once proudly robed now choosing not to show whose team they are on but only to happy to wear their team jersey around? Why are people happy to miss a great sermon at church to see alive game of ruby on TV? For me this is all about how we see that third space church. In society the place of religion, faith and the church in many cases is diminishing and rapidly.
Kingsley Ponniah writes:
I found Jan’s blog and particularly her comments about the discipling process within the Anglican Church rather interesting. But I wonder whether what she describes as the church’s “poor performance in discipling” is because people “aren’t well incorporated into the faith and haven’t developed practices of studying the scriptures, praying and serving”. I have no doubt that this may be true for many people but as I reflect on the situations of other people including my own, I wonder if the problem could be the very nature of our discipling process. I remember having to attend classes when I turned 13 to prepare for Confirmation that would make me a full member of the Anglican Church and able then to receive Holy Communion. Classes were held every week for 6 months and conducted by the Vicar. During that time various aspects of Christian doctrine and discipleship were covered. We were taught how to do daily devotions and we were expected to do them and come prepared to share what we had learned from them. Prior to the Confirmation Service each of us had an interview with the Vicar and he led us to make a personal commitment to follow Jesus. The one thing that I do not remember my Vicar speaking about was my commitment to be involved in Christ’s mission in the world. The impression I had all through my preparation for Confirmation was that I was being admitted to full membership in the church with its privileges and responsibilities. I could receive communion and any other support or ministry I needed from the church and in return, I had to serve in some capacity to ensure that the church could continue serving its members. I will not dismiss the value of my Confirmation classes because they did lay the foundation for my faith journey. But they did not alert me to my missional responsibility or prepare me for mission. This, not only might explain the situation the Anglican Church finds itself in where those within the church are the main consumers of the church’s resources, it raises the question whether the discipleship process is complete without the “sending aspect”. When Jesus called the first disciples, they were called to “be with him”, so that they could listen to his teaching, observe and learn all they could, and then “be sent out” (Mark 3: 14). Discipleship, as Jesus did it, was a preparation for mission. Perhaps the church needs to examine its own discipleship process to ensure that it leads to people being equipped and enabled to engage, not just in service within the church, but also in mission to God’s world.
Dellwyn Moylan writes:
I have read with interest Ott’s Reading 24 on Team Ministry. The concept of Team Ministry as they described it is foreign to me. My understanding from looking at Team Ministry in the area I live in is some what different and I am struggling to see how the two concepts can both be described as both Team Ministry. I come from a Presbyterian perspective. Where I come from we have a variety of Team Ministry. We have a married couple who are in Team Ministry because the two of them lead the parish. We have another husband and wife who along with a paid children and family worker and youth worker are classified as a Team Ministry. In another parish we have had Team Ministry where a resource minister from outside the parish was employed for so many units a month to work with the parish but especially alongside Locally Ordained people – two in this case to ensure the parish continues to function. About three years ago a co-operating parish on the area became the second Presbyterian parish in New Zealand to have a local ministry team. There were two people ordained as Locally Ordained Ministers, one person ordained as a Deaconess and about twenty other people inducted into various roles such as leaders of worship, preaching, Christian Education, these people along with the parish council ensure that the functions and the ministry continue to happen even though there is no Nationally Ordained person ‘in charge’. About a year ago a Ministry Resource person was Ordained into the parish part time as they are a part time Minister in another parish. Their role is to work with and alongside the parish. But non of the Team Ministry’s that are functioning here are the same as described in Ott’s reading. I wonder how others have experienced Team Ministry in their area and denominations. The one thing I particularly note is missing in our local models is the small study group component.
I was intrigued by Susan’s comments about the links between discipleship and missional values. I think many of the readings have challenged me to consider that much of what we call discipleship can easily become maintenance. As Jan pointed out, the church becomes consumers of Christian education, conferences and alike forgetting that these are designed to incorporate us into the mission of Christ.
My problem with discipleship as the overarching theme for the incarnational life is that it so often relegates mission, when mission is the goal of discipleship. It can be a case of the tail wagging the dog if you get my meaning. I agree with Susan in principle but I worry that the language of discipleship is far to one-dimensional. Discipleship for many is about their self-development and mission becomes a bye line.
Of course the other big issue about discipleship is control. As church leaders how much of discipleship is following the denominational line about what we think you must know and how much lets God do a work within the Christian and the community. Here I am challenged by McNeal (page 69) who sees discipleship based on a love relationship. His idea of a marriage enrichment seminar strikes an accord with me. Knowledge and understanding is important but so is constantly falling in love with Jesus.
I prefer the missional and incarnational language of being ‘Christs witnesses’. Guder encourages us to use the mandate to be witnesses to Christ in every dimension of our community life (page 159). In my pastoral setting, discipleship is a loaded term and I am not sure if people would get the link between it and mission.
If nothing else I have discovered new terminology, metaphor and imagery in this paper to last a while. Liminality is one of those terms. I think the idea of liminality is relevant to where we are in Christendom. In the audio conference of 28/4 one of the things we discussed is the possible connection between liminality and Leader as poet. The imagery that comes to mind to describe the connection/interaction between the two is that of a midwife assisting in the birth of a brand new baby into the world. If liminality is standing in the gap and ‘pertaining to threshold or entrance’ then it fits with the strange imagery in my mind. The other definition of liminality that may fit here is the anthropological definition involving the rite of passage and demands a change in the participants (Victor Turner, “Liminality and Communitas,” in A Reader in the Anthropology of Religion, ed. Michael Lambek (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003). Loren Mead tells us that we are on the verge of the third paradigm shift in Christendom. The first was the Apostolic age followed by the Christendom age. We are now at the end of that second age and we are finding ourselves in betwixt awaiting for what’s next (Loren Mead, The Once and Future Church: Reinventing the Congregation for a New Mission Frontier (Bethesda, MD: The Alban Institute, 1991). The result is the church, both globally and local, is locked within this tunnel of doing things the old way or experimenting with new things. We can perhaps understand better the term Emerging church from there. It is emerging but we do not know what exactly it is going to be like. Much like the birth of a new baby, we know there is going to be a baby but what is it going to be like and who will it look like. The leader as poet fits the role of the midwife for the role they perform in facilitating and making the ‘emerging’ process much easier. Much more so do poets and orators make any transition that much easier. Think of Martin Luther King. His oratory facilitated the birth of a new America that was locked within the tunnel of doing things the old way and changing a new. Think of Winston Churchill who with his oration skills in using the power of the word facilitated the war efforts of England. Think Mahatma Ghandi and his use of the word to help people overcome the challenges of birthing an independent India. Think of our Lord Jesus Christ and his words ended the Old and brought in the new. I those examples I can come to accept that leader with a pen is as powerful as a leader with a sword.
We are in the threshold of something new. There is an emerging church for an emerging new paradigm. We need a leader who is good with words, whose tools are words, metaphors, stories and symbols to speak us through the transition tunnel. We need words that reframe our task, words that refresh our hearts, words that restore human beings to God (Billy Graham for a season), a wordsmith who can communicate what God is saying to the world and to the church and one who we cannot tell what denomination the orator/poet belongs to.
If we place the ‘focus of the other’ at the heart of being missional, are we not in danger of reducing missionality to human idealism? I recall the words of Ray Anderson; ‘Without Pentecost as the beginning…the church becomes the incarnation of a human ideal rather than the continuing mission of the incarnate One, Jesus Christ.’[1] Doesn’t God’s mission go well beyond human progress or altruism on the horizontal plane? In continuing the mission of Christ, are there not times when we will have to say ‘no’ to the other? Just as God has said ‘no’ to the current order which our world still labours under (and which faith confesses is not to be clung to). Can we really be for the ‘other’ when we are called to challenge our readiness to fight evil with evil and turn the other cheek? Can we be for the ‘other’ when we are called to overcome evil with love; to take up our cross and bear the blows upon our own body? Can we be for the ‘other’ when we call individuals, communities and even nations to bear the cost of forgiveness? These options often make no sense to the ‘other’, and rightly so. Murray Rae writes ‘these options for dealing with evil…have little to commend them…they can be…ventured only in the light of the full story of God’s overcoming of evil through the life, death and resurrection of Christ.’[2]
I really want to echo what Werner Schreiber wrote on 4 May 2009. To be missional is descriptive rather than prescriptive; it is the natural out-working of what it means to be ‘in Christ’. To be ‘in Christ’ means to faithfully articulate the missio Dei in our church’s life. This means to embrace both the horizontal and vertical dimension of the missio Dei. A missional church that is primarily focused on the ‘other’ is a church in danger of concerning itself primarily with this-worldly activities and interests. The missio Dei is more than human liberty, peace or freedom in this world. I think David Bosch summarizes what I am trying to express here, quite beautifully:
The church-in-mission…is not identical with God’s reign yet not unrelated…it is a ‘foretaste of its coming, the sacrament of its anticipations in history…living in the creative tension of, at the same time, being called out of the world and sent into the world.[3]
[1] Ray S. Anderson, Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches (Downer’s Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2006), 189.
[2] Murray Rae, “Forgiveness as Foreign Policy,” in CHTX 231/331: Coursebook (Dunedin: University of Otago, 2006), 399.
[3] David J Bosch, Transforming Mission, Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004), 11.
Chris Ambrose writes:
One of the descriptions that have been made of the missional/emergent church is that of liquid church (Pete Ward, Liquid Church, Hendrickson Publishers/Paternoster Press, 2002). At that time he started by stating that he had a health warning – liquid church does not exist yet. He set about to imagine a different way of being church. The concept of fluidity and non-rigidity could have some appeal in the examination of missional churches and how we see church operating today in Western (New Zealand) culture.
Pete Ward imagines church as a series of relationships and communications rather than a gather of people at a particular place and time. He talks in terms of webs and networks rather than assemblies of people.
Being trained as an organisational person I struggle with the way of operating in such a loose network that is not particularly structured and yet we see many such communities being advocated in many areas of society today. However I would see that forces of social structure would mean that eventually some set type of structure would become inevitable.
I see some sense of fluidity and networking happening even in “main-lines” churches today. Leaders and others met in a series of different situations with others of “like mind” to either fellowship or to work on projects. These groups shift and change over time and over subject matter. Denominational loyalties are not now as strong as they once were and many of these groups work across a variety of theologies and understandings.
Liminal seems to suggest places and times of transition, potent and powerful times and places but not places for us to remain. Within them resides the potential for transformation that is more likely to be realised if a person is companioned through and encouraged by the vision of another who has already passed this way. Perhaps the poet enables the person to bring to expression, to language and make sense of what has been, in light of what is being revealed as new. Perhaps the apostle is the one who has already passed this way and ensured there are signs and marker posts for those who are to follow as well as communities of nurture and identity.
If Christian discipleship is an ongoing process of transformation then this might suggest we are part of communities of people in constant process of negotiating liminal moments and so in need of the full bevy of leaders with different gifting. The culture of Christian community, as Guder suggests of culture, is thus dynamic rather than static. Perhaps if we examine more closely this Christian culture - that is familiar with negotiating the transition of liminal times, that knows vulnerability leads to new life, that recognises the importance and hope of wise companions through such times - we might uncover something of the church’s missional purpose and presence.
Ruth Johnston writes:
Driving home last night after the audio-conference, on an empty motor-way, I was mulling over the conversations regarding team ministry; I was also considering, if I was reading them aright, that, although we are learning new words and seeing fresh possibilities, many of us are wondering how to "put legs on them". So, how many of us already have teams in our fellowships without recognising them? eg. AAW, APW and whatever any others call the equivalent. AAW is the Association of Anglican Women and is, always has been, missional, before the word was in common usage. it could probably be more so. Home groups/house groups - imagine if each one deliberately had an outside focus agreed to by the whole group. Prayer groups, mission groups - encouraged to include a local focus in their agendas. Vestries, managment committees, led to look at the true reason for managing!
We can only start where we are, perhaps we need to take a fresh look at the people we have, a God's eye look. if we are moving in the right direction we should find that God has all things prepared already.
I ran this thinking past a group that met ths morning and the faces went through a transformation, from "yuk" at the word "team" to surprise "Oh we are already basically are" this included the "Minister"!
No, they are not the fully covenanted, serious teams of our readings, but our main covenant has to be to Jesus who will draw us into close effective fellowship with each other - when we are in earnest about it.
Once upon a life-time ago I taught Bible in Schools, my home-group nurtured me and prayed for me - it was what Ruth did, therefore it is our concern. During that same life-time another woman also taught, in a different school, she had a 2yr old, so he was brought to my place, which was near the school. It was what she did, therefore it was my concern. Team ministry???
Ive been looking at Anglican spirituality- the theology of becoming holy. Although Anglicanism in the sense of Cranmers book of common prayer has its roots with Richard Hooker and John Jewel the ecclesia anglicana reaches back beyond 597 with the mission of Augstine. The Celtic inheritance of text in Englsh rather than Latin has monastic roots similar to those of the nmissional church that we have been talking about. The prayer book ( 1662 one) hass provision for a Benedictine style daily office with morning and evening prayer grounded in Scripture ( Guder's ecclesial practises?). The shared meal- Holy Communion ( cultivating the breaking of bread?)- the belonging togetherness that has at its heart the indwelling of Christ. There is a rythm to the old prayer book as the mysteries of faith are celebrated and expressed thoughout the year with festivals and saint's days. Baptism, marriage and burial draw the Christian mystery into the three important stages of human life.
Is it possible that the missional church is in fact a return to an updated model of early chirstian thought?
Hraeme and Susan's comments about the link between discipleship and missionality are ointeresting. Jesuit rule as I understand it begins with quite rigorous discipleship (growing closer to God) but ends in the outworking of mission within the community.
Its a bit like prayer- if you intercede for some one or something this invariably leads to action- at the the promting of the Holy Spirit- you have to be careful what you pray for! So for me there is an unquestionablelink bewteen discipleship and the missional church. The closer one becomes aligned to the heart of God, the more driven ( sent) one is to do something ablout his world.
Post a Comment