"Who's on first?" "Who gives a %$#@ anyway?"..

I have seen it done cheaply and cheesily,
and I have seen it formulaically programmed..

So, maybe the best way to "do" it sans cheese is to pray to "be" it.
The idolatry of "doing" (God made human beings, not humandoings) is suprisisngly tempting and ententacling, especially in the West.

For as soon as one says, "It's ultimately always all about mission, as God is all about mission."
red flags go up and red herrings show up....as they should.

How does one navigate being/doing this without using people, or making people feel like numbers or notches?

Hirsch and Frost believe the missional “genius” of a church can only be unleashed when there are foundational changes made to the church’s very DNA, and that means addressing fundamental issues like ecclesiology, spirituality, and leadership. It means there must be a complete shift away from a Christendom way of thinking, which, as mentioned above, has been attractional, dualistic, and hierarchical.
-Brisco

Len's (and Len's friends) posts on "Which comes first: ecclesiology or missiology?" are helpful:

• missional ecclesiology 1
  

• missional ecclesiology 2
  

• missional ecclesiology 3

• missional ecclesiology 4
  

• missional ecclesiology 5

• missional ecclesiology 6
  

• entering the circle(part 7)

Brad Brisco's important articles, "History of Missional Church,' "Missional: More Than a Buzz Word" and his series, "The Language of Sending"
are places I send my students who want to stretch.


One notes how often one backs into the Trinity, and the missiological nature of the Trinity in these discussions. In the old days we said things like, "God only had one Son, and he was a missionary." But beyond the fact that the words "missionary," "mission(s)"....let alone missional and missiology, of course...are nowhere mentioned in Scripture (though everywhere assumed).
Might it be best to consider all three persons of the Godhead as missional? (As long as we define the terms well, see Brisco quote above):

“God’s salvific work precedes both the church and mission. We should not subordinate mission to the church nor the church to mission; both should, rather, be taken up into the missio Dei, which now became the overarching concept. The missio Dei institutes the missiones ecclesiae.”
-David Bosch, quoted in Brisco

Frost and Hirsch must be wrestled with for anyone in these discussions. Their suggested flow is:
Christology>Missiology>Ecclesiology

Might be consider adding to the front?:
Theology>Christology>Missiology>Ecclesiology?

Or is that redundantly redundant, with Christ being fundamentally and microcosmically one with the Theos of theology? Can we actually get sidetracked from Trinitarianism by tracking too much on Jesus?

Cam we "assume" theology and christology will emerge as we "start" with missionality?


Are all such charts true and false at the same time;
as "The straight line is godless and immoral,"
as the tongue-kissing, seaside lady- friend of the French motorcycle cop would say, they are all "irrelevant...as (time/life/God) is not linear":

Brother Maynard teases that this ("Missology or ecclesiology first?") question is an "evil little trick"...as it may well be a"both/and" paradox (Alan Hirsch: "Dualistic expressions of faith always result in practical polytheism" or Heidegger : “It makes a difference where one enters the circle”); it may well be a "the two are essentially the same" (a la the classic quote by Emil Bruner, "The Church exists by mission, as fire exists by burning"); but ultimately...against everything we've been taught in Sunday School and seminary ... it may best be a "yes, missiology precedes."
As I have said (I doubt it's original with me), "The church doesn't have a mission, the mission has a church." Or as Len has..better..said: "It is not the Church of God that has a mission in the world — it is the God of mission who has a Church in the world."

-link

Steve Seamands references Moltmann (who of course has penned a classic on the Trinity, in addition to living a gentle and practical trinitarian life): "It is not the church that has a mission of salvation to fulfill in the world, it is the mission of the Son and the Spirit through the Father that includes the church, creating a church a it goes on its way."


All I know is asking the "which comes first" of someone who doesn't read all these blogs and boogs. and doesn't see themselves as theologian or missiologist is delightful and dangerous.I highly recommend it...I always learn something, or see it all in a new way.

I asked a friend the question at hand. She immediately answered, "Missiology, of course. God told Moses he was being sent; before God even told Moses what his (God's) name was." Holy smoke!
-link

Ask five random such people in your life. Especially someone who would have to ask "Uh, what is 'missiology'?"

They may answer with a version of Zappa's "Who gives a %$#@ anyway?"..
before they ponder a bit, and come up with answer that is as "palpably holy" as the said Zappa song, say ,"Well, it would seem to be this way..."

Take note and take notes.

They may know more about it than you do.
They may well be a missiologist sent by The Triune Theos to you.
It's your job to give a %$#@ and a listen.