Holy Fool

I just want you to know that I can be a bit of a jerk at times.  The thing that makes it insidious is that often I only have the courage to be a jerk to you in my head, to judge you wrongly or make an assumption and not follow it up with open and honest dialogue.  May you forgive me.

What is my point?  My point is that judgment based attitudes can often corrupt very good things.  Take Missional for example.  I love the theological concept that we, as Christ's body, are in pursuit of and working within what is called the mission of God (missio Dei).  At the core of missional and trinitarian theology lies the concept of relationship; ours to God, ours to each other, and ours together to God.  Missional practice takes us out into the world in relational ways to embody (to enflesh) the mission God is already doing/forming in the hearts of men.

For me the problem is that there is God's missionality, and then there is my missionality.

In my missionality I have tended to look down on fellow brothers and sisters in Christ that I judged were guilty of wanting 'to be fed' to 'go to church' rather than 'be the church'.  The problem with this attitude is that I replaced a judgmental attitude towards those outside of the church towards those inside the church.  Rather than saying 'come as you are' to Christians that I felt weren't getting It I spoke derisively about those kinds of Christians as consumer Christians.  I felt that they could only be part of my community if they got themselves together first and got their heads screwed on straight, or got their spiritual house in order first.

I want to apologize.  I must repent of my missionality, and again rebuild towards God's ongoing mission and towards God's heart for all of humanity.  The gospel, the good news, of Jesus Christ is not spoken at the expense of any, but it is for everyones benefit.  I ask my brothers and sisters that have heard that good news to forgive me.

A recent post on the Christianity Today website covered the news that two Neo-Reformed mega-churches pastored by John Piper and Mark Driscoll would each be starting their own degree-granting and I am guessing accredited seminaries. Many have decried this from the standpoint that they believe any seminary built up under the auspices of an iconic figure, like either of these men are in their circles, is bound to produce ministers and theologians that are indoctrinated and dogmatic in regards to a particular theological system.

I would argue though that this trap has long affected schools and seminaries that are rigidly aligned within the hierarchy of any religious institution. It is a safe bet that you will not have many undergrad theology classes in the Nazarene spectrum dealing heavily with something like a doctrine of election for instance. We do not have to be attending Liberty or Oral Roberts to find ourselves being taught with a particular theological framework and assumptions in play.

I believe it was last year that there was much turmoil at Olivet as one of the professors was rebuffed for his stance of theological-evolution. There are are many ways in which a school that is aligned with a particular religious institution can be influenced by their affiliated denominations, it doesn't require a single iconic individual. I also do not mean to single out Nazarene institutions with this particular post, as this exists across the private religious school spectrum, however the Nazarene schools are the one with which I am most familiar.

The issue I take with denominational (or church based) institutions is that they are pressured to take ecumenical and broad-based theological constructs and then recast and stamp them with their own particularity. There has been a recent push within the Nazarene church to identify ourselves as Missional. The concern I have with the Nazarene interpretation and usage of missional is that it is closely aligned with eduction in our Nazarene higher educational system. It is an ecumenical error to use the term missional in a particularistic and self-advantageous context. It is also important that if the church is serious about being missional that we move beyond the limitations of our current educational paradigm.

Rick Meigs describes missional:

A helpful term used to describe what happens when you and I replace the "come to us" invitations with a "go to them" life. A life where "the way of Jesus" informs and radically transforms our existence to one wholly focused on sacrificially living for him and others and where we adopt a missionary stance in relation to our culture. It speaks of the very nature of the Jesus follower."

In many ways missionality is a direct attempt to bring back together the realms of ortho-doxy and ortho-praxy under the same ecclesial tent. It is a shift in critical theological thinking that begins to place missiology in a paramount context to ecclesiology. In order for an institution of learning to truly be missional it must be intentional in it's incarnational presence as the body of Christ.

If missionality is to be taken seriously in our educational contexts it must be approached ecumenically and can not smack of the particularization that is inherent in denominational thinking. Missional can not and must not be reduced to a selling point for future students, rather it must be a fundamental element and core in the educational effort and graduation requirements. Missions and missional theology must be taught and required for every single degree if we are going to claim missional as a trait. It must be pervasive and and dive deeper than one or two courses out of 30. What the western church needs more than anything is thoroughly missiologically trained students, students that are not just competent in exegesis, homiletics, history and doctrine.

The second problem I have with this alignment of missional with our educational systems is that I am frankly not sure our higher educational schools are up to the paradigm shift's challenge. There is a tie to historical tradition and modernistic assumptions on the importance of a particular pedagogical method of training. There needs to be room for parish-based forms of education (somewhat ironic to my point I know) that are rooted in incarnational ministry and experience. With the technological means of today the years of needing to convene in a single geographical location to interact with peers, scholars and professors is dying and outmoded. While I understand the need for a handful of academic-track students to maintain residence that is not what the vast majority of our future ministers require or even need.

Imagine, if you will, the ability of students to live together in small cohorts of 15 or 20 in a given city or area of the world and to engage as a cohort together in missional living and education. Each group working through the same coursework and authors together in order to build community and trust. Each student is required to give a portion of their time to being present in their communities and local church bodies. What impact could this have on the missionality of our denomination?

I do not believe the method of education I propose is the best or only, but simply the one I believe would begin to transform the Nazarene church into a truly missional body of believers that is ready and equipped to engage a globalized and multi-cultural reality with a knowledge not only of history and study but of engagement and incarnation.

Recently a fellow named Bud Caddell came up with a Venn diagram entitled “how to be happy in business.” It reminded me of a similar diagram from the class notes for my 'Biblical Foundations for Missions' class. As such I wanted to replicate and mash both concepts into a single form that would help me think and hopefully spur some discussion. I would consider what I have below a work-in-progress and would appreciate any feedback or discussion it generates.

If you are unfamiliar with this general setup, each circle represents an entry point by which we as humans enter under the tutelage of Christ.  Hopefully as we progress in that process we are drawn into the center of all three disciplines, however that is not always the case.  The conundrum we often face is how do continue the process of discipling in our new cultural contexts.  I would argue that largely the core concepts remain the same, however the praxis of discipling often calls for new and varied tools of expression and instruction.  Regardless of our cultural contexts the three struggles we most likely face in the discipling process are ones of vulnerability, accountability, and exploratory spaces.  The primary catalysts for working through these struggles are cultivation, embracement, and encouragement.

Let me know your thoughts.