Theology, the Church and Mission

I tend to think of the Christian life from three different perspectives: our relationship to God, our relationship to the church, as the community of God's people, and our relationship to the world, as the object of God's creative, righteous and redemptive rule. Our fundamental task as the church in the world is worship - our repsonse to God. In that, we respond in particular ways to both the church and to the world. We can never isolate worship, for example, from fellowship (as we are all too prone to do in our individualistic and privatized culture), or from the mission we've been given to make disciples in the world (and here we are always struggling, flipping back and forth between worldliness - losing our 'saltiness' - and Christian isolationism - which, ironically, is another form of worldliness).

In other words, the task of the church must be theologically (--> doxalogically), ecclesiologically, and missiologically comprehended. Paul, in my mind, is the preeminent model of this balance. Who can dispute Paul's obvious theological depth? Certainly the apostle was a theologian of the first order. Moreover, he did not think his theology too rarified or sophisticated for the average church member. He expected every student of Christ to follow his profound argumentation as proponded in his many epistles. The epistle of Romans, for example, is an incredible piece of sustained, rigorous and sophisticated theological reasoning. And he expected his readers to 'get it' (Ro.15:14-15) - not easily or without serious work, but to understand it nevertheless. This is a very different methodology of 'doing church' then is common in evangelical circles today, where we assume the lowest common denominator and are told to "put the cookies on the bottom shelf." The fact is, the 'cookies' worth having, which God has embedded in his self-revelation of Scripture, cannot be found on the bottom shelf. Such gems, to switch metaphors, have to be worked at to be unearthed and thoroughly polished to be fully appreciated.

Yet, as a theologian, Paul was eminently practical. His theology was always a working theology - an applied theology. Paul was not an arm chair theologian. Arm chair theology is idle chit chat compared to the profound theology which motivated the apostle, and filled his heart and mind with awe and worship (e.g., Ro.11:33-36). Paul's theology drove him to obedience, to carry out the commission given him as an apostle to the Gentiles. And he expected that such theologizing would similarly drive his disciples into greater obedience to their high calling in Christ.

Paul was also a 'churchman'. He was deeply concerned with the health of the churches he planted (e.g., 2Co.11:28-29). He loved the church, both globally as the glorious object of God's redeeming love, and locally, in the particular churches he served. He loved and served these chruches with a passion and intensity that sets the highest pastoral standard for leaders who would follow his example (e.g., 2Co.7:2ff.).

Yet, Paul clearly was driven to preach the gospel beyond the geographic circles of where Christ was known (Ro.15:19-20). Why? Because he wanted to be obedient to the God who called him, serving him faithfully in his priestly task of sanctifying the Gentiles in Christ through the gospel (Ro.15:16). He was so driven to preach because he loved the church of God, and wanted to see it fully formed in grace (e.g., Col.1:28).

Contrast this with the false dichotomies that abound in evangelicalism today. Detailed, doctrinal concern, for example, is often juxtaposed unfavorably with the 'missional' endeavor. Theological questions and concerns are often dismissed as 'getting in the way' of the mission - an unnecessary and fruitless aside. Rather, our working motto tends to be, 'get 'er done!'- as though the mission isn't fraught with theological questions of the deepest sort, that must be thought (re-thought) through carefully and faithfully.

Pastoral ministry likewise is often set at odds with evangelism and missions. "Quit being inward focused," we're told, "and focus on the lost" (as though it were ever either/or). And theology is seen, by many, as practically irrelevant to pastoral care and church development, or even worse, as a stumbling block to church growth. Or consider 'professional' theology, in which an 'academically free' theologizing in ivory towers is removed from the everyday, mundane concerns of pastoral ministry. One has only to survey the fruit of such 'unchurched' theology to see the outcome of disconnecting theology from the practical realities of the local church. It is neither good for the theologians, their theology, nor their students. Or consider the outcome of removing theology and church practice from the demands and pressures the Great Commission places upon us. At best we are left with a 'dead orthodoxy,' in which theological truths are merely parroted, or only assumed, and, at worst, a thriving heresy. What one generation assumes, without rigorous teaching and defending, the next generation dismisses.

Theocentric, ecclesiocentric and missiocentric. Paul's example doesn't let us get away with our easy outs, predicated on such false tensions. Let us follow his example of preaching a theologically-conscious gospel for the sake of the church and God's glory.