Organization or Mission?

Denominations, argues Craig Van Gelder, rest on an “organizational” conception of the church that thinks of the church in “primarily functional terms” according to which “the church is responsible to do something on behalf of God in the world” (24). Citing Martin Marty, he claims that this is “a turning point in the history of the church, one that departed from the previous 1400 years ofthe church’s self-understanding” (26).

What this seems to involve is an understanding of “the church” fundamentally in terms of its structures, its denominational offices and programs: “By the 1830s, what had earlier been committees or boards made up of active pastors and lay leaders became formal, denominational agencies at the national level with permanent staffs. The purpose of such agencies was to plan for and coordinate the expanding denominational ministries.” This ecclesiology spread throughout the middle decades of the 19th century, affecting virtually every church. Beneath the confessional differences, Van Gelder discerns “a common genetic code” (27). This genetic code made it easy for churches to evolve as management styles shifted. Churches as well as business and bureaucracies became enamoured of “scientific” management.

The issue is not that the church has staff members and coordination. The issue is that denominational churches think of the church as the organization that is led by those in the head office.

In contrast, Van Gelder sketches the outlines of a “missional” and Trinitarian ecclesiology: “This missional understanding has the world as its primary horizon, and the church is placed at the center of the activity in relating the kingdom of God to the missio Dei. The church’s missional self-understanding is grounded in the work ofthe Spirit of God who calls the church into existence as a gathered community, equips and prepares it, and sends it into the world to participate fully in God’s mission. . . . mission is no longer understood primarily in functional terms as something the church does—as is the case for the denominational, organizational church—rather, it is understood in terms of something the church is, something related to its nature. This means that mission is not subsumed under ecclesiology, as in the established church where the church is seen as the primary location of God’s activity in the world; rather, the missional church shifts the focus to the world as the horizon for understanding the work of God and the identity of the church” (30-31). 

Missional ecclesiology means splicing new code into the church’s genes: “The genetic code of the missional church makes it missionary in its very essence. Congregations are created by the Spirit and exist to engage the world missionally, bringing God’s redemptive work in Christ to bear on every dimension of life” (33).

It’s an inspiring vision, but a few questions arise. Grant that the church is missional in its essence, that mission still requires some degree of coordination, planning, and organization. Van Gelder knows this (he says that the missio Dei related to the work of God and His kingdom is the “framework” for organization). Given the thrust of the article, he doesn’t put much flesh on that admission.

More serious is an historical objection to Van Gelder’s argument. Denominations are arguably the result of an early form of missional ecclesiology. The Presbyterian Church took its familiar denominational form – with its own mission and educational agencies, its denominational organizational structure, etc. – in the 1820s, on the premise that “the Presbyterian Church is “a missionary society” (see Fred J. Hood’s contribution to Denominationalism, recently reprinted by Wipf & Stock). This conception of the denomination as missionary society involved a deliberate withdrawal from interdenominational voluntary societies; the “missional” conception of the church in this case reinforced denominational autonomy and separation.

On the affirmative side: Fresh efforts at catholicity and unity have often appeared in mission settings, and it is certainly one of the dynamics in Europe and North America: To the extent that we train ourselves to re-see our world not as mission-sending but as a mission field, to that extent our divisions will appear destructive and often downright silly.

(Van Gelder, “Rethinking Denominations and Denominationalism in the Light of a Missional Ecclesiology,” Word & World 25:1 [2005] 23-33.)