mission and the triune god
In light of the recent blogs on missional Christology and the debate it raised on the role of the Holy Spirit, I thought that this comment by Newbigin clarifies so much…
“Surely there is no missionary who goes forth to preach the Gospel to others who does not know that it is only by the power and presence of the Holy Spirit that his words can accomplish anything. And surely there is no pastor who does not acknowledge that it is only by the work of the Holy Spirit in his congregation that holy lives can be produced. It may seem that in stressing the role of the Holy Spirit in the mission of the Church I am simply repeating what everyone knows. And yet I have become convinced that, even when this belief is present and vivid, there are factors in the structures and traditions of our work which can prevent the belief from becoming effective.” — Lesslie Newbigin, The Mission Of The Triune God, 29.
Comments
8 Responses to “mission and the triune god”
Leave a Reply






Don’t we call that “quenching the Spirit?” I find that much that has to do with structures and traditions quenches the spirit by their dependence upon those very structures and traditions rather than on the power of the Holy Spirit to communicate effectively with the “swarm”…I’m still processing swarm theory
amen to that. I think this is a posture thing in most churches. Once we have the posture of control over the work of God (ie how God works among us), the practical self effort kicks in. We pull levers and push buttons to tweak results while the still small voice (in His wisdom and goodness) moves aside and lets us do things our way while we still know everything.
On the other hand, the listening community of discernment never lets herself leave that posture as long as she’s listening and responding to God who is present and always ‘out there’ inviting the church to participate redemptively. I know this flies in the face of western pragmatism, but it seems to be the economy of the Spirit as we examine the scriptures.
Perhaps we should not desire to have big and lavish churches, movements, or ecclesial success stories if only to avoid the temptation to wander from the real goal; a faithful abiding love for God and neighbour.
So for me, it’s a posture thing.
great quote by the way…
Ah, yes, good posture is essential…and poor posture undermines so much of The Body’s health and vitality!
This touches on something rattling around in my head. Christology is primary, that I think is certain. However, the only people who experienced Christology directly lived about 2000 years ago. And so they became very important people.
Now, though, we have to find what filter or path to use to approach Christ and to bring Christ to people. For most of history this has been through the filter of ecclesiology. The Church is the primary witness and authority of Christ. To know Christ you have to know him through the teachings of the Church. The development of Christology went hand in hand with ecclesiology, each slowly building on the other.
This is still the primary model for most Christians. There is no Christ apart from the Church. The Pope essentially affirmed this belief recently in his latest document.
Thus, all the power structures and hierarchies form and are established because of ecclesiology is the path to Christ then there has to be an established system to make sure Christ is communicated in just the right way. The authority of those who knew Christ is passed through the Church as Apostolic succession. We can be assured the Church is the place of Christ because those who knew him passed the teachings through the generations giving authority based on this linear connection.
Even in non-RC communities this is the case, which pastors assuming and being given demi-god status as the bearers of the Apostolic authority by nature of their position behind a pulpit.
This is why hierarchies are so persistent. They are the basis of a good many people’s whole foundation of Christology. If you dispute the hierarchy you are disputing the authority, truthfulness, and teaching of Christ himself. Hence all the pesky wars and arguments.
What Newbiggin is saying then is something that might have been mentally affirmed, as the Holy Spirit has always been, like tinsel on a Christmas tree, but without real influence.
Ecclesiology became the primary source of Christology and thus it was the only really unimpeachable doctrine. Muck around with everything else but don’t get into Church order and liturgy.
Newbiggin is saying this has to change. We have to start with the idea that we know Christology not through the Church but through the Holy Spirit who will “teach us all things”. The authority the Apostles had is not passed down through hierarchical structures but is present with us through the presence of the Eternal Spirit of God.
With this then the structure, form, power, and liturgy of churches should be the most, not the least, flexible of all Christian doctrines, as we dance with whatever the Holy Spirit is doing in each particular situation to most fully bring Christology into each moment and place.
Only we’ve so gotten caught up in the shiny things of the Holy Spirit, “Ooooh, new language!” “Oooh, a pious phrase!”, “Ooooh, that man can walk!” that we lose out on the deeper aspects of the Spirit’s work in creating whole and pervasive Christological communities that reflect Christ to their particular neighborhood.
Finally, yes-yes-yes! Their is no hope without the Holy Spirit and His empowered work. He always brings us back to Jesus! He always brings us back to the original mission of Jesus.
This is good, Alan.
Bob…you have to slow down and be a little more patient here in TFW-land!
Alan really does have a method to his madness. This understanding has always been running silent and deep under the discussion…he was just looking for the right time and the right way to bring the focus!
I think also, looking at even the name Jesus used to describe the Holy Spirit reveals much: paraclete, which gets translated as Comforter, Helper, Counselor, etc. But the key is the para, to be along side. When, as Patrick noted, the shiny bits become the focus instead of Jesus, we get very side tracked. Conversely, when we try to follow Jesus without listening to, embracing, and walking with the power of the Holy Spirit that is always at our side, we become burned out, powerless shells of “faith” that turn to structure to solve our problems.
The shiny things are to build us up as the Body of Christ, point us to Jesus, experience His love and consequently pass that love into the world. However, how many have been hurt when these giftings are used to build up and sustain a structure or program instead of building up the individual and community in Christ. Newbigin is right. When we feel safe/content in our structures and programs, we do lose dependence on the Spirit. And proceeding lost of power and life leads to a very ugly dependence upon the structure leading to a vicious cycle.
I think John puts it well that we should not desire the big and lavish and dependable structures. Instead, we should avoid any system that keeps us from true love and dependene on the Spirit.
The real question is how do we bring people to God right? Wrong! How do we let God bring us to people! Here is another one. What good is wine on a rack? It is not being consumed, or enjoyed. You have to take the bottle out of the rack and pass it around so the wine can be poured out for everyone. A church building is just a wine rack. It keeps the Holy Spirit from being poured out and useful.