THOUGHT BUBBLE--having missions vs doing missions

As the researching and writing of my ThM thesis continues, I will be posting some "thought bubbles" for the purpose of critique and clarification. Questions, comments, and corrections are welcome.

The first work pillaged for the rubric is The Church by Edmund P. Clowney.

In the midst of Clowney’s discussion of apostolicity and holiness as marks of the church, he makes the point that the church has the apostolic mission; it does not exist in this mission. By this, he contrasts partnership and commission with the liberal (his designation) notion that the church is composed of those who recognize their salvation (in other words, every one is saved, but not everyone knows it). I fully agree with his contrast and his conclusion—we have a mission. But it did raise a question concerning the missional church: How does being mission compare with existing in mission? I also note that none of these speaks of the church doing missions. This is an important distinction. This distinction is an important critique of the historic (evangelical) church, which tends to concentrate on doing missions.

So, might an important distinction be between having/being mission and doing missions?


NOTE: This is a rumination ("1. The act of pondering; meditation. 2. The act or process of chewing cud." American Heritage Dictionary) in search of synergy ("1. The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects.")

Tag(s): missional ecclesiology

See CC License

“Unless otherwise noted Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.” http://www.esv.org/