The Latin term Missio Dei better describes the fact that mission does not belong to the church but to God. Paul Avis writes, “Missio Dei holds a depth and power that English translations cannot capture: the mission of God, the mission that belongs to God, the mission that flows from the heart of God” (2004:2).
Therefore the church itself is missio dei or mission (Robert Benedetto). What transcends “beyond our work in building the Kingdom” is not missio Dei but missiones ecclesiae. The missio Dei (mission) institutes the missiones ecclesiae (missions) (Bosch..whom you don’t like). Mission is our service to the mission Dei, representing God in and over the world (Benjamin Shambaugh). Mission/Mission Dei is the motivation for missions/missiones ecclesiae. Missio Dei “gives us a mandate” for missions. “God directs us where to move, and we move, if we will it.”
Mission/Missio Dei – is the saving acts of God in the world – “bringing the Kingdom to earth, salvation, perfection, justification.” Missions/missiones ecclesiae – is the church’s participation in the “saving acts of God in the world.” Missions/missiones ecclesiae is “the missionary efforts of the church in participation of the saving mission of God (missio Dei) and in illustration of the love of God for the world. “Making disciples….. license to create the Kingdom with God”…and yes God propels missions, or, God propels the outreach activities of the church. The church is the instrument to be used to fulfill the Missio Dei. “The church should not function as an organizer or initiator of mission/missio Dei, but rather as an instrument that is ready for missions/missiones ecclesiae, or willing to participate in God’s mission/missio Dei in any given context” (Seung Hyun Chung, 2001).
1 comment:
I think we do agree in any respects. However, I think I don't see as strong of a delineation between missio Dei and missio ecclesia. I feel that when we do what Bosch and others terms as "missions" we can open the door for what is termed as God's mission, i.e. missio Dei, to work. Therefore, while I think, obviously, that the church and God do different things, or work different ways in the world--I think the work sometimes is somewhat interchangeable. As a consequence, I believe that, in the larger scheme of things, that God can be so inspirational to us all, that the line between Missio Dei and Ecclesia can be so fine that God is able to cross it. If you are familiar with some existential philosophy which (though an unfair summary) might hold that "there is no space between where I end and you begin"; I believe the incarnation and resurrection might lead us to that road. Whereas Bosch (and Barth) hold that the arc of human history and God get as close as they can get with the incarnation (without touching), I hold (inspired by other theologians) that the incarnation has infiltrated that arc of human history and life. I think this distinction is not one easily overcome between theologians (but it's not like they don't get along).
I like Bosch, I like Barth. Just don't agree with them full-stop when it comes to over-arching philosophy. I think you, and myself, might just disagree on the philosophical backing for this as well.
Hey, I mean, we are the church. We are made of disagreements, but still stay in the same pews every now and again.
Post a Comment