Mission: The Ministry of Reconciliation
Reflections on chapter 7: Michael Kinnamon and Jan Linn, Disciples: Reclaiming Our Identity, Reforming Our Practice. (Chalice Press, 2009).
As I work my way through this important book -- whether I agree with everything stated in the book or not -- I am reminded of why I became a Disciple. I'm not by birth a Disciple. I came to the Disciples gradually, being introduced during my college days to this movement. Over time I began to sense that it offered me a home, and I've embraced its vision and purpose. Chapter 7 reflects on the question of mission under the subtitle "The ministry of Reconciliation." I wrote a similarly titled article for the Lexington Theological Quarterly (Vol. 30, Spring 1995, pp. 1-28). In it I raised questions about the Disciple understanding of Global Mission. I was a bit more conservative back then, but I wanted to offer what I considered a balanced understanding of mission, one that offered both evangelism and social justice -- under the rubric of reconciliation. It's been a while since I read through the article, but I expect I'd make some adjustments today. However, I'm still committed to a theology of mission that is rooted in our call to be agents of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5).
But the task at hand is to consider the proposal in this book, and the authors suggest that we might better understand the Great Commission as calling on us to not "make disciples" but rather to teach the nations. Making Disciples is something the Holy Spirit is entrusted with doing -- not us. Kinnamon and Linn are open to the inclusion of evangelism in the definition, but they raise questions about implementation. Specifically they raise concerns about the mission imperative to plant 1000 new churches. There concern is that in our eagerness to start new Disciple churches we have been bringing in existing non-denominational churches without asking them to embrace the Disciple ethos/identity.
While they have concerns about implementation -- the root issue is understanding identity and purpose. Mission is, they offer, not something we do, but it is something we are -- its part of our identity. If the ministry of reconciliation isn't part of who we are, we won't engage in it authentically, if at all.
But what is reconciliation -- it is a matter of transformation -- of becoming someone/something new. They write:
This is a ministry we engage in together with others in partnership -- especially as we think about ministry outside the United States. We're no longer the mission senders -- we're partners in Gods mission.
Thus, they offer some conclusions:
1. "Identity and mission cannot function in a community of faith that extols the virtue of diversity without having a genuine commitment to covenant." (pp. 88-89). We must be committed to working together -- even when there are differences, so that our diversity doesn't devolve into subgroup rivalries.
2. "Disciples will continue to live in fear of death as long as institutional amnesia remains prevalent." (p. 89). We need, they say, to remember our history so we can remember who we are. Our commitment to mission will be aided by studying our history. They make an important point: "Because so many Disciples think we have no defining story, we have trouble finding a consensus around a shared ethos" (p. 89).
As we live out this ethos, we live in a pluralistic context. In looking at this context, it is suggested that our way forward is our commitment to ecumenism. The witness they offer is that we can and should witness to salvation in Jesus Christ without putting limits on God's grace.
Now, I know that in my 1995 article I wouldn't have found this definition sufficient -- I pushed for a great commitment to pursuing conversion. But the question is a good one, and offers the possibility of sharing our faith commitments without pushing people to conversion -- that is, after all, the work of the Spirit. By taking this step it is believed by our authors that we can live peacefully and justly in an ever pluralistic world. That is the challenge for the church today -- and for Disciples it means considering how our own identity forms our response.
As I work my way through this important book -- whether I agree with everything stated in the book or not -- I am reminded of why I became a Disciple. I'm not by birth a Disciple. I came to the Disciples gradually, being introduced during my college days to this movement. Over time I began to sense that it offered me a home, and I've embraced its vision and purpose. Chapter 7 reflects on the question of mission under the subtitle "The ministry of Reconciliation." I wrote a similarly titled article for the Lexington Theological Quarterly (Vol. 30, Spring 1995, pp. 1-28). In it I raised questions about the Disciple understanding of Global Mission. I was a bit more conservative back then, but I wanted to offer what I considered a balanced understanding of mission, one that offered both evangelism and social justice -- under the rubric of reconciliation. It's been a while since I read through the article, but I expect I'd make some adjustments today. However, I'm still committed to a theology of mission that is rooted in our call to be agents of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5).
But the task at hand is to consider the proposal in this book, and the authors suggest that we might better understand the Great Commission as calling on us to not "make disciples" but rather to teach the nations. Making Disciples is something the Holy Spirit is entrusted with doing -- not us. Kinnamon and Linn are open to the inclusion of evangelism in the definition, but they raise questions about implementation. Specifically they raise concerns about the mission imperative to plant 1000 new churches. There concern is that in our eagerness to start new Disciple churches we have been bringing in existing non-denominational churches without asking them to embrace the Disciple ethos/identity.
While they have concerns about implementation -- the root issue is understanding identity and purpose. Mission is, they offer, not something we do, but it is something we are -- its part of our identity. If the ministry of reconciliation isn't part of who we are, we won't engage in it authentically, if at all.
But what is reconciliation -- it is a matter of transformation -- of becoming someone/something new. They write:
Reconciliation is not only what God has accomplished through Christ in the divine/human relationship, it is the goal toward which our relationship with one another is directed. The key, though, is understanding that Christians don't do reconciliation except as we are reconcilers. The old mental frame called us to be agents of reconciliation. The new image calls us to become reconcilers. (p. 87).
This is a ministry we engage in together with others in partnership -- especially as we think about ministry outside the United States. We're no longer the mission senders -- we're partners in Gods mission.
Thus, they offer some conclusions:
1. "Identity and mission cannot function in a community of faith that extols the virtue of diversity without having a genuine commitment to covenant." (pp. 88-89). We must be committed to working together -- even when there are differences, so that our diversity doesn't devolve into subgroup rivalries.
2. "Disciples will continue to live in fear of death as long as institutional amnesia remains prevalent." (p. 89). We need, they say, to remember our history so we can remember who we are. Our commitment to mission will be aided by studying our history. They make an important point: "Because so many Disciples think we have no defining story, we have trouble finding a consensus around a shared ethos" (p. 89).
As we live out this ethos, we live in a pluralistic context. In looking at this context, it is suggested that our way forward is our commitment to ecumenism. The witness they offer is that we can and should witness to salvation in Jesus Christ without putting limits on God's grace.
Building on our historic claim that we are Christians only, but not the only Christians the 1989 [World Conference on Mission and Evangelism of the World Council of Churches] invites us to expand this statement to say that we are the people of God only, but not the only people of God. This would reflect the Disciples continuing efforts to build interfaith bridges of understanding and reconciliation" (p. 92).
Now, I know that in my 1995 article I wouldn't have found this definition sufficient -- I pushed for a great commitment to pursuing conversion. But the question is a good one, and offers the possibility of sharing our faith commitments without pushing people to conversion -- that is, after all, the work of the Spirit. By taking this step it is believed by our authors that we can live peacefully and justly in an ever pluralistic world. That is the challenge for the church today -- and for Disciples it means considering how our own identity forms our response.
Comments