Unfortunately, things came up as I was preparing for graduation and moving that prohibited me from posting while my thought were fresh, but I will try to make some comments that are in line with the comments I have already made.
It is exciting that the RCA’s leadership is pressing the denomination to plant churches and revitalize existing churches. It is great that the RCA is excited about participating in the Missio Dei (Mission of God). These are exciting times when a denomination, or individual church for that matter, starts to press forward in mission. I really do mean these statements; there is no sarcasm. For some one with very optimistic eschatology, it is great when churches are intentionally seeking to transform communities through the proclamation of the gospel in word and deed.
But…oh yes there is a “but”…if you have read the report to Synod on the Missional Structures, or if you have read any of the material that the RCA has published or endorsed on Missio Dei you may begin to wonder, as I have, what they really mean by mission. Is “mission” self defined? What exactly is “mission?” What is the premise that this missiological enterprise is to be built on? What is the role of the Scriptures in this “mission?”
I ask these questions not suggesting that the RCA has not defined these terms. I ask these questions because it seems that if the attitude behind the language is that if we can get everyone “on board” with “mission” (undefined or overly broad), then all the other issues fall into place. But, it seems, that in order for this to happen a more defined concept seems to be necessary.
Saying the right word many times does not mean that everyone has the same concept of what that word means (this is an issue I have with adopting Belhar, for more info see my post on the Belhar Confession). In fact, repeating a word too much can sometimes lessen the strength and meaning of that word. For example, I have a tendency to tell my wife many times in the course of a day that I love her. Now, this seems like a great thing, but there are times when she has to say, “Why?” She wants to know if I really have substance behind what I say. And I appreciate that she does this because it could become just another word, instead of a word that actually expresses how I genuinely feel.
Repeating the right words, does not necessarily mean anything if those words are devoid of definition. (We do this all the time in the church. We use the right language, but if those words are not communicating true definitions, then they are useless. In theological discussion both liberals and conservatives can be using the same words while meaning completely different things. Common words that this happens to in the church: Grace, Worship, Love, Gospel, Salvation, Justification, Jesus, etc….)
Pardon the pun, but a good word on words from my Dutch brother.
From my (non-Dutch) side of the American Presbyterian tradition (speaking about the big picture in very broad strokes) it seems to me that one way to sum up the history of Presbyterianism in America is one big debate over (a) the definition of the Missio Dei and (b) the practical implications of this definition for the church’s obedience (c.f. WSC question 1).
As I, D.V., enter the fray within whatever denomination, I hope to follow your footsteps in not being satisfied with ambiguities over truth for the sake of “relevance” or “impact.” Along these lines it has been surprising to me (a relative newbie to all things Reformed, Dutch or otherwise) to observe that many in the Reformed tradition seem to jump so quickly to pragmatic, American-dream/modernity-based “solutions” (i.e. bigger is better, newer is truer, more the merrier, etc.) when these very impulses run contrary to the heart of what the Reformed tradition holds in trust. If we lose what we hold in trust for the wider church, then we might as well vote to become independent, parachurch ministries.
I suppose the hope of finding meaning for our words is to throw ourselves (again and again) back on The Word, studying together to show ourselves approved unto God and living in obedience to what we discover therein.