The Upstream Collective recently went to London and Paris on a Jet Set vision trip. We took 26 pastors and church leaders (and a couple wives) to Europe to see first-hand what missions looks like in that post-Christian context. These trips have always been successful. 90% of pastors who participate find ways to become directly involved in missions within 6 months of the trip.
My favorite part of our Jet Set vision trips is the casual conversation that happens over coffee and on the subway. When you get a group of church planters and leaders together, we sort of geek out on theology, social trends, and technology. This trip was a great mix of highly motivated church planters. They saw the challenge of ministry in these global cities and had some great ideas for strategic engagement there. But every conversation seemed to come back around to one sticking point: The Stateside pastors/planters felt that the workers in the field had a low ecclesiologicaly relative to their missiology.
I think the pastors had a good point. Missionaries, acting as “free agents” without direct oversight from any local body of believers, were almost entirely focused on building relationships, studying culture, and looking for ways to move into spiritual conversations. I’ve written extensively here about the importance of these things. But I’ve also written here about the same concern the American pastors had– that the missionary teams were working hard to start churches without actually being a church.
The fellowship of believers is a powerful thing. The presence of the church can serve as an example of Christ-centered community that is attractive, incarnational, and redemptive. But these orphaned church planting team has to do quite a bit to make up for the fact that they are not churches. Outside the care, gifting, leadership, and authority of a local church, they’re in a spiritually dangerous place.
Some missionary teams join local churches (when there are any), hoping to be “adopted” by them as they work to plant new churches. But these local churches had no part in the missionaries’ confirmation of calling, formation, preparation, or sending. They don’t often share a common vision for church planting among their own people. Consequently, missionaries can be frustrated, sidetracked, or rejected by existing ministries among their people group.
When missiology is at the forefront– when it “precedes” ecclesiology, we send missionaries separate from the local church to do mission on behalf of the church. The result can be an isolated missionary that is estranged from God’s organizational structure, the church.
More soon…
Unless writing a lot makes one a "writer," Ernest is a former missionary. After more than six years in Western Europe, he moved to Portland, where he drinks too much coffee and over-analyzes human behavior. For more about Ernest, visit the About page where you can read a long-time reader's interview with him. Or, if you don't mind waiting a very, very long time, send him an email.
I think a poignant example of the biblical relationship between ecclesiology and missiology is found in 1 John chapter 1, in the various verses in which it mentions the term “fellowship.”
The last part of v. 3 states that “our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” As I understand it, this is talking about a personal relationship with God. It is talking about the result of repenting of our sin, believing in Jesus, having our sins forgiven, and being reconciled with God. This is the objective of our evangelism, and, to a large extent, our missionary proclamation and ministry.
The first part of v. 3 states, however, “that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us.” As I understand this passage, the foundation for the proclamation of fellowship with the Father and the Son shown in the last part of v. 3 is the pre-existing mutual fellowship of those doing the proclamation. When we invite the unconverted to enter into fellowship with the Father and the Son, we, at the same time, are inviting them to share in the fellowship we have one with another. In other words, our ecclesiology precedes and forms an important part of the supporting framework for our missionary proclamation. We must first be the church in order to invite the unconverted (and unchurched) to “have fellowship with us.”
V. 7 also says, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another.” In other words, as I understand it, our missionary proclamation will lead to transformed lives, which, in turn, will lead those whose lives are transformed to share fellowship with the Body of Christ (i.e. the church).
As a result of all of this, I believe it is crucial for a missionary team to be “in fellowship” with the rest of the church in the locality in which they are working.
While it may indeed be true, in some cases, that:
“these local churches had no part in the missionaries’ confirmation of calling, formation, preparation, or sending. They don’t often share a common vision for church planting among their own people. Consequently, missionaries can be frustrated, sidetracked, or rejected by existing ministries among their people group,”
I think that, if we try to short-circuit this biblical pattern we will ultimately be undercutting God’s established way of accomplishing the missionary task.
In some missionary settings, the Body of Christ in a particular setting may be divided among themselves. In such a case, the cross-cultural missionary must try, as much as possible, to live in fellowship with the entire Body of Christ, not just one faction or another. Whether or not this means becoming “members” of a specific local congregation may vary according to context and circumstances. But, in general, I think it is a pretty good idea, as long as it does not keep you from engaging in the task you were sent to do. Sometimes, it may be necessary to build trust with a local congregation in order to facilitate a working relationship in which this is possible. This may require patience, but, in the long run, will be worth it, in my opinion.
In other settings, there may not be any real church functioning yet. In this case, I believe it is imperative for the missionary team to model the church for the new believers. This should ideally include sharing the Lord’s Supper, and practicing the various “one anothers” of the NT. If the missionary team are all outsiders, though, there must be an intentional effort to make the church they are modeling as culturally indigenous as possible to the people living in the area in which they are working, so the transition, once there are local, indigenous believers functioning as the church in that area, will not be too drastic.
David,
I love that you brought up fellowship. I don’t know which “side” of the discussion you’d put yourself on, but I think the “missiology–> ecclesiology” guys would agree with you. If the church exists to organize believers on mission, then the fellowship of believers is part of the incarnation of the gospel. In other words, our relationships with one another speak loudly about who God is and what He does in our lives. They are pictures of redemption, restoration, grace, and love. The fellowship we enjoy (or, at least we should enjoy) is attractive to outsiders, and effectively pushes them toward Christ.
I’d add Hebrews 10:24-25 “And let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more, as you see the day drawing near.” Here we see that through fellowship we encourage one another in mission.
Thanks.
For the time being, at least, I think I would come down as seeing missiology and ecclesiology as a “chicken and egg” thing. Missiology always drives sound ecclesiology. And sound ecclesiology should always be the foundation of our missiology. Whenever we emphasize one to the exclusion of the other, we are likely to get off base.