Voices: The relationship between doctrine and mission

EDITOR’S NOTE: Other responses to Eric Black’s March 12 editorial on mission and doctrine are available here and here.

Recently, there has been a lot of conversation about the supposed tension between doctrine and mission. Illustrations such as a train have been used to describe the relationship between the two in order to argue that mission should drive the train rather than doctrine.

I think it is fair to read these conversations alongside the recent momentum a particular missional network called the Ascent Movement has experienced that has begun to intersect with the denominational tribe I am a part of.

I also think a charitable reading of these recent conversations and events would interpret them not as intending to diminish doctrine, but rather desiring to reframe the relationship between doctrine and mission due to a perceived abuse of one or both in the past.

My hope is to bring clarity to the conversation.

As someone who teaches doctrine in the classroom and in the church, I would like to provide some important clarifications to make sure we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Allow me to expound upon the framing of the relationship between doctrine and mission that has been historically described as doctrinally informed mission.

Definition of terms

It is important to define terms for the sake of clarity. Here, I define doctrine as the teaching of theology in an ecclesial setting. I define theology as what we think or say about what God has revealed of himself.

This in turn makes theology, and doctrine for that matter, more about self-disclosure rather than self-discovery, because it is God who self-discloses himself to us rather than us discovering aspects of him independently.

This also makes theology relational. Theology is better understood as relational knowledge affecting the head, heart, and hands of the theologian, rather than a mastery of data.

This is an important caveat, because what we do (mission) is informed by who God is, and we only can know who he is by being in relationship with him. Therefore, communion must precede commission.

With that being said, I define mission as the shared responsibility of the church to glorify God by making disciples of all nations.

It is important to highlight the joint nature of mission among the churches. I don’t think it is any coincidence when one looks at the etymology of commission, they would notice the prefix of “com” inferring the communal essence of this mission.

Doctrinally Informed Mission

1. Doctrine informs the “who” of the mission

Our doctrine informs our mission by giving necessary context to the “who”? There are two components to this question.

First, who is the Commissioner? Our Trinitarian doctrine clarifies that all important question. If we do not have a firm grasp on who he is who has sent us, then the mission is doomed from the start.

Ecclesiology also brings affirmation to who the mission belongs to. The mission belongs to both the universal church and also to the local churches.

There is a direct parallel to the communal nature to the Commissioner in his triunity reflected in the carrying out of the mission by the communion of congregations. Baptists have historically understood this aspect of mission in a unique way compared to other denominational groups.

2. Doctrine informs the “what” of the mission

Our doctrine informs our mission by answering the question as it pertains to “what” it is. What are we commissioned to do?

This question can be answered by hamartiology (doctrine of sin) and soteriology (doctrine of salvation) providing context to what the good news actually is.

I do not think it is any coincidence that teaching (doctrine) takes a primary role in the Great Commission mandate in Matthew 28.

In his work, Historical Theology: An Introduction, Geoffrey W. Bromiley states theological systems are the wineskins that hold the wine of the gospel.

Baptists, while leaving room for theological diversity as it pertains to certain soteriological frameworks, have been abundantly clear: Missionary efforts rest upon a spiritual necessity of the regenerate life. This doctrinal distinction differentiates us from other denominational groups that have subjugated the mission to merely meeting earthly needs.

3. Doctrine informs the “how” of the mission

Our doctrine informs our mission by providing tangible visualizations about how the responsibility is to be carried out.

Both Christology and pneumatology (doctrine of the Spirit) can provide insight to the methods of carrying out the mission.

Examining the life and works of Christ gives the epitome of what it looks like to live incarnationally. Reflecting upon the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5 also provides valuable metrics to measure the “how” of missiology.

Our theology should inform our methodology. Baptists have historically walked this line via cooperative missional endeavors that today look like institutional agencies such as the International Mission Board and North American Mission Board.

4. Doctrine informs the “why” of the mission

Our doctrine informs our mission by reminding us why we are sent in the first place. It is to bring glory to God, so all of creation might be restored into a right relationship with its Creator.

Again, if theology is relational in nature, then it only makes sense for the purpose behind the Great Commission is so the relationship would be restored once again.

It has been inferred that only mission can lead to worship. That doctrine can’t lead to an experience of being overcome by emotion. When I read Scripture, especially the Pauline letters, I find over and over again, Paul expounding on doctrinal issues and then breaking out in a prayer or hymn in the middle of his letter. Theology leads to doxology.

Conclusion

Doctrine and mission are not adversarial but actually complementary toward one another. These recent conversations about the supposed tension between them can be misinterpreted as doctrine is something to eliminate.

Calvin is attributed with the statement, “Ambiguity is the fortress of heretics.” A lack of clarity on doctrinal issues can also be the home of shallow theology. The nondenominational domination that neglects a robust theological system for the sake of “ecumenical unity” has left the state of the broader church in a dangerous situation.

To utilize another illustration to supplement the train illustration previously mentioned, a Christian, church, or denominational group failing to consider the weightiness of a teased-out theological system is like a boat risking shallow waters. The possibility of the boat running ashore, though not certain, is likely.

The reality is, the Ascent Movement is not devoid of doctrine as much as it is claimed to be. I find it difficult to believe doctrine is not operative in this movement when the types of recognition given at the gathering reveal an underlying anthropological framework. The issue doesn’t appear to be doctrine and theology but rather which doctrine and theology.

If my assumption is correct, then it would appear the mission of recent organizational developments are doctrinally driven.

I guess doctrine moves the train more than we might realize. And that’s OK, because historically there isn’t a tension between mission and doctrine. The two complement one another and inform each other for the glory of God and the good of the church.

Jordan Villanueva is instructor of Christian studies and assistant to the president for Hispanic relations at Howard Payne University. This article is adapted and republished from Villanueva’s blog by permission. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.