Gemeenschap ouf van Opdracht of Opdracht uit Gemeenschap?
Geschreven door Mark Van Steenwyk: 30 november, 2004
Chris bracht een goed punt in antwoord op a naar voren vorige post, dat het dwaas is om te veronderstellen dat als wij allen enkel samen overtreffen, zal de echte gemeenschap zich vormen. Het tegengestelde is ook waar; overtref natuurlijk stroomt niet uit gemeenschap. Dat alles worden wij geroepen aan aangezien de kerk met variërende graden van bedoeling moet worden gedaan.
Nochtans, is het zeer moeilijk onmiddellijk om te beginnen dat alles te doen de kerk zou moeten. Het vergt tijd en energie naar het zijn te bouwen een authentiek lichaam van believers. Daarom zou ik het geval dat willen maken het beter is om met een betekenis van opdracht te beginnen dan het met een betekenis van gemeenschap moet beginnen. Met andere woorden, geloof ik communautaire stromen uit opdracht. Anders, is allen u wordt verlaten met affiniteit. Dit idee, dat de gemeenschap uit een gemeenschappelijke opdracht wordt gevormd, is wat de sociologen het principe van het „superordinatedoel.“ roepen Een gedeeld overarching doel vereist behulpzame inspanning. En deze behulpzame inspanning begint de verschillen van mensen met voeten te treden en leidt tot een nieuwe soort van affiniteit-één die door het superordinatedoel gestalte wordt gegeven.
Het is waar dat dit doel geen evangelism moet zijn… maar ons welomlijndste superordinatedoel is de Grote Commissie (of u in Matthew, Teken, John, of Handelingen bekijkt). Sommige kerken hebben „authentieke gemeenschap“ of „reconcilliation“ als een soort unstated (of verklaard) superordinate doel. But I think the most effective superordinate goals for a church are ones that are missional…ones that develop their shared ethos around a shared outward goal. But by no means should we assume that real community will happen automatically if we share the same goal. But the building blocks will be much more available than if we didn’t start with a shared goal at all.
for further reading . . .
- None Found
I agree heartedly, I think you have a healthy view of mission and community. I would add that not only should community form out of mission, but part of the mission ought to be “specifying” the community, else the community will lack definition (I think a good example of this lack is Campus Crusade for Christ, which has a very clearly defined mission, but since the culture of their community isn’t part of that mission, they often have a very vague sense of their own self-identity as a community). This is why I think “Love one another” is a missional statement. Mission isn’t just about the shared outward goal, its about the deliberately defined cultural values of the community itself that I think help fuel the outward mission.
I feel like I’m coming into a conversation about 5 years too late. Can someone humor me and explain a little bit about what being a “missional” church is deferent from one that does not call itself “missional”?
And “community”, is this not a very slippery topic? What is community?
Both “missional” and “community” are indeed subjective concepts. I use the word “missional” in the way that is used by contemporary missiologists/theologians. Though many claim the word “missional,” it is usually ascribed to a certain ecclesiology developed by people such as David Bosch, Lesslie Newbigin, Darrel Guder, Craig Van Gelder, Alan Roxburgh, etc. There is a group called the “Gospel and Our Culture Network” that is perhaps the most indicative of “missional” ecclesiology (www.GOCN.org). They start with the assumption that the church doesn’t DO mission; the church IS mission, by its very nature. The Church is never at home in any culture, instead it participates with God in embodying and communicating the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
A “missional” church isn’t a different flavor or type of church. The difference is that a “missional” church has a different definition of “church” and seeks to live out that definition in whatever culture they are in. There are some implications of doing church “missionally.” I reccommend that you read The Empirical Indicators of a “Missional Church” for an idea of those implications.
To me, a community is any group of people who share a common ethos or culture. This is a very broad definition, but it is functional.
So, what I am saying in my original post is that the sort of church “community” described in the New Testament must emerge out of the church’s sense of mission.
As someone who grew up in a mainline church, I sometimes have a hard time with the idea of the “missional church” because my experience in both the evangelical and the mainline was that church is an affinity community and so this idea seems new, and frankly a bit contrived to me at times.
Then again, I do buy into it, so there you go.
I think both community and public witness (whether by words or deeds) must somehow grow together. But, this discussion reminded me of something out of ch. 4 in Missional Church: “Before the church is called to do or say anything, it is called and sent to be the unique community of those who live under the reign of God.”
Earlier in the same chapter it was suggested that evangelism move away from the idea of “recruitment” to the idea of “an invitation of companionship.” If we are going to extend an invitation of companionship to others, then we better have some sort of community for them to come to.