Free for Mission

Ecclesial Futures Pub Date : 2020-06-01 DOI:10.54195/ef12054
S. Hagley
{"title":"Free for Mission","authors":"S. Hagley","doi":"10.54195/ef12054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Working at the intersection of ethnographic and missional theology, this essay argues for the central role of fieldwork for discerning missional identity in congregations. Recent developments in ecclesiology and ethnography have clarified the embodied nature of theological knowledge, disclosing the practical wisdom and cultural locatedness of the researcher and congregation. While ethnography has been used to help congregations understand their context and discern a missional vocation, the ongoing theological and formational nature of such practices are often undertheorized in relationship to missional church. Drawing from Robert Jenson’s notion of the Spirit as God’s freedom, liberating God and creature for God’s future, this essay suggests ethnographic fieldwork as a liberative practice for the congregation, freeing it to participate in the boundary-crossing and sensemaking work of missional church. In working with congregations, I’m often greeted by some version of the question: “Are we (meaning, the congregation I’m working with) missional yet?” The question comes loaded with curiosity and concern. What, they ask, is a missional church, and would we know one if we saw it? Even more significant: how will we know when the work we are doing to renew our theological imagination and develop partnerships with our neighbors will pay off? The question comes from a good place, but it also leads into a deceptive trap, for any answer will betray the dynamism that “missional” tries to name (Guder 1998, 3–5). And yet, the question also unveils a theo-practical ambiguity at the heart of the missional church. The problem is not just that missio Dei theology holds together unreconciled tensions between the God-church-world relationship, but that the boundary-crossing practices that shape the missional vocation of a congregation are viewed instrumentally, as a means to a missional end. Congregations, seeking to identify as “missionary by [their] very nature,” and reorient congregational life through practices of missional discernment, can be forgiven for thinking of “missional” as a fixed arrival point (Guder 2015, 9). In what follows, I explore the theological significance of ethnographic practices for missional congregations. A staple of many approaches to missional renewal and missional church plants, church leaders and steering committees regularly employ the basic tools of ethnographic fieldwork to better understand their own community and their context or neighborhood (Croft and Hopkins 2015; Roxburgh 2011). In descriptive terms, these practices equip congregants for deep listening, attentive observation, and disciplined curiosity. They also place congregants in new places and with new people, drawing these experiences into congregational reflection and discernment. While neither professional ethnographers nor academic theologians, congregants are given through these practices new connections to neighbors and offered new vantage points from which to reflect upon the life and ministry of the congregation. As such, they are not simply a means to a missional end, but rather practices that already participate in God’s missional future. Congregational ethnographic fieldwork can cultivate new social realities which glimpse—and perhaps even liberate—the congregation for God’s mission in its particular context.Of course, ethnographic fieldwork is not a theological practice by itself, nor can missional theology be collapsed into ethnography. At stake in this discussion is how otherness is reconciled with the missio Dei, how one envisions the relationship between God and God’s creation, the church and God’s present and coming Reign (see Swart et al. 2009). Drawing from Robert Jenson’s understanding of the Spirit as God’s freedom and God’s future, I suggest a liberative approach to missional church. Rather than a fixed identity or a future telos, the missional church is liberated for God’s mission by and through the neighbor, the stranger, the other in and through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The church sent into the world recognizes and receives God’s “preferred and promised future” in the concrete relationships cultivated (Keifert 2006, 16). Ethnography, shaped by this missional intention, becomes an ongoing practice for missional theology, not only a step toward a missional identity.","PeriodicalId":151321,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesial Futures","volume":"114 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecclesial Futures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54195/ef12054","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Working at the intersection of ethnographic and missional theology, this essay argues for the central role of fieldwork for discerning missional identity in congregations. Recent developments in ecclesiology and ethnography have clarified the embodied nature of theological knowledge, disclosing the practical wisdom and cultural locatedness of the researcher and congregation. While ethnography has been used to help congregations understand their context and discern a missional vocation, the ongoing theological and formational nature of such practices are often undertheorized in relationship to missional church. Drawing from Robert Jenson’s notion of the Spirit as God’s freedom, liberating God and creature for God’s future, this essay suggests ethnographic fieldwork as a liberative practice for the congregation, freeing it to participate in the boundary-crossing and sensemaking work of missional church. In working with congregations, I’m often greeted by some version of the question: “Are we (meaning, the congregation I’m working with) missional yet?” The question comes loaded with curiosity and concern. What, they ask, is a missional church, and would we know one if we saw it? Even more significant: how will we know when the work we are doing to renew our theological imagination and develop partnerships with our neighbors will pay off? The question comes from a good place, but it also leads into a deceptive trap, for any answer will betray the dynamism that “missional” tries to name (Guder 1998, 3–5). And yet, the question also unveils a theo-practical ambiguity at the heart of the missional church. The problem is not just that missio Dei theology holds together unreconciled tensions between the God-church-world relationship, but that the boundary-crossing practices that shape the missional vocation of a congregation are viewed instrumentally, as a means to a missional end. Congregations, seeking to identify as “missionary by [their] very nature,” and reorient congregational life through practices of missional discernment, can be forgiven for thinking of “missional” as a fixed arrival point (Guder 2015, 9). In what follows, I explore the theological significance of ethnographic practices for missional congregations. A staple of many approaches to missional renewal and missional church plants, church leaders and steering committees regularly employ the basic tools of ethnographic fieldwork to better understand their own community and their context or neighborhood (Croft and Hopkins 2015; Roxburgh 2011). In descriptive terms, these practices equip congregants for deep listening, attentive observation, and disciplined curiosity. They also place congregants in new places and with new people, drawing these experiences into congregational reflection and discernment. While neither professional ethnographers nor academic theologians, congregants are given through these practices new connections to neighbors and offered new vantage points from which to reflect upon the life and ministry of the congregation. As such, they are not simply a means to a missional end, but rather practices that already participate in God’s missional future. Congregational ethnographic fieldwork can cultivate new social realities which glimpse—and perhaps even liberate—the congregation for God’s mission in its particular context.Of course, ethnographic fieldwork is not a theological practice by itself, nor can missional theology be collapsed into ethnography. At stake in this discussion is how otherness is reconciled with the missio Dei, how one envisions the relationship between God and God’s creation, the church and God’s present and coming Reign (see Swart et al. 2009). Drawing from Robert Jenson’s understanding of the Spirit as God’s freedom and God’s future, I suggest a liberative approach to missional church. Rather than a fixed identity or a future telos, the missional church is liberated for God’s mission by and through the neighbor, the stranger, the other in and through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The church sent into the world recognizes and receives God’s “preferred and promised future” in the concrete relationships cultivated (Keifert 2006, 16). Ethnography, shaped by this missional intention, becomes an ongoing practice for missional theology, not only a step toward a missional identity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
任务免费
在民族志和宣教神学的交叉研究中,本文论证了实地考察在教会中辨别宣教身份的核心作用。最近教会学和民族志的发展阐明了神学知识的具身性,揭示了研究者和会众的实践智慧和文化定位。虽然民族志被用来帮助会众理解他们的背景和辨别宣教使命,但这些实践的持续神学和形成性质往往与宣教教会的关系理论不足。从罗伯特·简森(Robert Jenson)关于圣灵是上帝的自由,为上帝的未来解放上帝和造物的概念出发,本文建议将民族志田野调查作为教会的一种解放实践,使其自由地参与宣教教会的跨界和意义创造工作。在与会众一起工作时,我经常遇到这样的问题:“我们(指与我一起工作的会众)宣教了吗?”这个问题充满了好奇和关注。他们问,什么是宣教教堂,如果我们看到它,我们会知道吗?更重要的是:我们如何知道我们所做的更新我们的神学想象力和发展与邻居的伙伴关系的工作何时会有回报?这个问题的出发点很好,但它也导致了一个欺骗性的陷阱,因为任何答案都会背叛“使命”试图命名的活力(Guder 1998,3 - 5)。然而,这个问题也揭示了宣教教会核心的神学与实践的模糊性。问题不仅在于神的宣教神学将神-教会-世界关系之间不协调的紧张关系联系在一起,而且在于塑造教会宣教使命的跨界实践被视为工具,被视为达到宣教目的的一种手段。会众寻求“本质上的传教士”,并通过宣教分辨的实践来重新定位会众生活,可以原谅他们将“宣教”视为一个固定的到达点(Guder 2015, 9)。在接下来的内容中,我将探讨民族志实践对宣教会众的神学意义。作为许多宣教更新和宣教教会植堂的主要方法,教会领袖和指导委员会经常使用民族志田野调查的基本工具来更好地了解他们自己的社区及其背景或邻里(Croft and Hopkins 2015;罗克斯堡2011)。用描述性的术语来说,这些实践使会众具备了深入倾听、细心观察和有纪律的好奇心。他们也把会众安置在新的地方,和新的人在一起,把这些经历纳入会众的反思和分辨。虽然既不是专业的人种学家,也不是学术的神学家,但会众通过这些实践与邻居建立了新的联系,并提供了新的有利位置,从中反思会众的生活和事工。因此,它们不只是达到宣教目的的一种手段,而是已经参与神的宣教未来的实践。教会人种学的田野调查可以培养新的社会现实,从而瞥见——甚至解放——在特定背景下上帝的使命的会众。当然,民族志田野调查本身并不是一种神学实践,也不能将宣教神学瓦解为民族志。这个讨论的关键是如何调和他性与上帝的使命,一个人如何设想上帝和上帝的创造,教会和上帝现在和未来的统治之间的关系(见Swart et al. 2009)。根据罗伯特·简森对圣灵是上帝的自由和上帝的未来的理解,我建议对宣教教会采取一种解放的方法。宣教教会不是一个固定的身份或未来的目标,而是通过邻居、陌生人和其他人,在圣灵的服事下,为上帝的使命而解放。被差派到世界上的教会,在培养的具体关系中,承认并接受上帝“偏爱和应许的未来”(Keifert 2006,16)。民族志,被这种宣教意图所塑造,成为宣教神学的持续实践,而不仅仅是迈向宣教身份的一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Characteristics of a 'common good building' Church of England Church Nigerian Pentecostal Mission in Europe: Ecumenical and Secular Relations in Britain A Congregational Study on Mission Readiness: Toward a practical ecclesiology of practical action Balancing visible and invisible belonging for Korean Migrant Missional Churches in Aotearoa New Zealand Missional Discipleship in Post-Pandemic Korea:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1