Two great friends, who I love, respect and appreciate, have replied to my previous post on "The Missology that comes from rethinking heaven." Here's my defence.
My main criticism in the previous pose is NOT of a holistic missiology. My main criticism is with saying that a) the NT's vision of an ultimately this-worldly, embodied, social, physical eternity somehow implies b) that social justice and creation care should therefore be priorities of the church's mission.
Heck, I dont even care if the NT teaches "b", or even if it claims b on the basis of "a"!
I have a problem basing one's missiology on the Bible's teaching about the final world. We should base our missiology on the Bible's teaching about missology. Maybe I've gone crazy, but I think that doing so--basing a missiology on the Bible's teaching of the final, future salvation--amounts to saying, "If I was God and I had a physical, embodied, earthy, and thus social and political world, as my ultimate goal, and if I was using the church in my plan of redemption, then I would want that church to pursue in the concerns of social justice and creation care during this present time, in order to gradually begin bringing in in that end world."
Well who cares what you would do or think if you were God! I care what God thinks and wills to do. I care what God wants his church to being doing now. And that just happens to be something of native concern to the NT, and something about which the NT has a bit to say! I don't care that there are people's who perceive in the NT a holistic missiology. That's fine. I don't care, except that one day I might listen to them (i.e. read their books and consider them). Presently, as I see it, Hauerwas' account (as I understand it) resonates with my experience of what the NT actually says and emphasises: namely, that the mission of the church is of the NT is not to make this world or its structures a better place (except as those structures are existing within the community of the church), but rather the NT pretty much emphasises proclamation and working to achieve a renewed life within the community of the people of God (a community that should be ever expanding). That's how I see it. A bunch on proclamation, a bunch on bringing the gentiles in, a bunch on being the renewed people, living out and working for a community shaped by a radically different set of values (love, mercy, loving the broken, etc). That is not about reforming global issues of structures.
If he, or the Bible, teaches that creation care / social justice (or secular political reform for that matter) are the business he wants the church to be about now, then fine. Lets do it. If God or the Bible teach that and happens to base the logic of that teaching in the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God, of our present participation in the escaton, fine. At that point, out missiology would be based on Biblical teaching about what God wants the church to be doing now. But us looking at a doctrine, and then basing a missology on it, that seems like a bad way to derive our missiology. I think that the shape of the missiology for the church should follow the shape of the missiology in the Bible, not some other shape, even if that other shape is constructed using certain Biblical principles or doctrines.
Of course, my position--that one should not base their missiology on some theological premise, but instead on the Bible's own teaching about missiology--is something to think more about. On the one hand, it seems potentially limiting to theology, and I probably actually practice this deductive thing elsewhere. But, at the same time, it would be weird to base a christology straight on OT texts about messiah. hello, the NT teaches a lot about christology itself. That's my beef. I'd be happy to hear more thoughts.
My main criticism in the previous pose is NOT of a holistic missiology. My main criticism is with saying that a) the NT's vision of an ultimately this-worldly, embodied, social, physical eternity somehow implies b) that social justice and creation care should therefore be priorities of the church's mission.
Heck, I dont even care if the NT teaches "b", or even if it claims b on the basis of "a"!
I have a problem basing one's missiology on the Bible's teaching about the final world. We should base our missiology on the Bible's teaching about missology. Maybe I've gone crazy, but I think that doing so--basing a missiology on the Bible's teaching of the final, future salvation--amounts to saying, "If I was God and I had a physical, embodied, earthy, and thus social and political world, as my ultimate goal, and if I was using the church in my plan of redemption, then I would want that church to pursue in the concerns of social justice and creation care during this present time, in order to gradually begin bringing in in that end world."
Well who cares what you would do or think if you were God! I care what God thinks and wills to do. I care what God wants his church to being doing now. And that just happens to be something of native concern to the NT, and something about which the NT has a bit to say! I don't care that there are people's who perceive in the NT a holistic missiology. That's fine. I don't care, except that one day I might listen to them (i.e. read their books and consider them). Presently, as I see it, Hauerwas' account (as I understand it) resonates with my experience of what the NT actually says and emphasises: namely, that the mission of the church is of the NT is not to make this world or its structures a better place (except as those structures are existing within the community of the church), but rather the NT pretty much emphasises proclamation and working to achieve a renewed life within the community of the people of God (a community that should be ever expanding). That's how I see it. A bunch on proclamation, a bunch on bringing the gentiles in, a bunch on being the renewed people, living out and working for a community shaped by a radically different set of values (love, mercy, loving the broken, etc). That is not about reforming global issues of structures.
If he, or the Bible, teaches that creation care / social justice (or secular political reform for that matter) are the business he wants the church to be about now, then fine. Lets do it. If God or the Bible teach that and happens to base the logic of that teaching in the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God, of our present participation in the escaton, fine. At that point, out missiology would be based on Biblical teaching about what God wants the church to be doing now. But us looking at a doctrine, and then basing a missology on it, that seems like a bad way to derive our missiology. I think that the shape of the missiology for the church should follow the shape of the missiology in the Bible, not some other shape, even if that other shape is constructed using certain Biblical principles or doctrines.
Of course, my position--that one should not base their missiology on some theological premise, but instead on the Bible's own teaching about missiology--is something to think more about. On the one hand, it seems potentially limiting to theology, and I probably actually practice this deductive thing elsewhere. But, at the same time, it would be weird to base a christology straight on OT texts about messiah. hello, the NT teaches a lot about christology itself. That's my beef. I'd be happy to hear more thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment