The video below (produced/edited by Bill Kinnon) is an interesting conversation between Alan Roxbugh and Pat Keifert. They discuss a wide range of issues, including definitions/descriptions of missional church, common views of the contemporary church, and leadership in missional congregations.

In the discussion on leadership I appreciate Keifert’s emphasis on leadership being more about time than about a position. He speaks about the leader cultivating segments of time to assist the congregation in discerning what God is doing in their local context. It is about taking the time to create environments for people to dwell in the Word. It is about having the time to be patient — to hear from God and to hear from each other.

Another topic that I found interesting dealt with Keifert’s journey towards the missional church conversation. He shares how it involved both “failure” and “discovery.” The failure involved disenchantment with his own ministry experience in a traditional church. The discovery included the reading of Newbigin’s “Foolishness to the Greeks.”

I think Keifert’s journey parallels the experience of many. There is a deep sense of  uneasiness, frustration, or even failure in a current ministry setting. Church leaders recognize something isn’t right about how they do ministry. They sense that something has changed, but they are unsure about the essence of the change, or what changes might be necessary. At some point, however, they “discover” that others have experienced the same anxiety. They “discover” authors that begin to give language to these changes. Perhaps, like Keifert its Newbigin, or Bosch; or more recently, maybe it is Guder, Van Gelder, Hirsch, or Frost. But regardless of the author, they rediscover the missionary nature of God and His church, and the reality that the church is sent into the mission field that is now North America.

This has certainly been my journey. I wonder about your experience. Has failure + discovery propelled you into the missional conversation?

I like this definition of the gospel from John Dickson:

“The gospel is the announcement that God has revealed his kingdom and opened it up to sinners through the birth, teaching, miracles, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, who will one day return to overthrow evil and consummate the kingdom for eternity.”

Later in a section titled “Underestimating the Mission” Dickson makes a helpful distinction between proclaiming the gospel and promoting the gospel.

I want to make a distinction throughout this book between the specific activity of proclaiming the gospel and the broader category of promoting the gospel. The former is properly called “evangelism,” a word that derives from the New Testament term evangelizomai, which only ever means “announcing (grand) news.” The wider category of promoting the gospel includes any and every activity that draws others to Christ (including, of course, evangelism). People sometimes use the words “mission,” “out-reach” or “witness” for this larger work, but I prefer the expression “promoting the gospel” (I’m sure I pinched this from someone else but I can’t remember from whom) because it reminds us that at the heart of our mission to the world is the news about Christ, the gospel. In my view, when “mission” becomes disconnected from the gospel, as it sadly does in some church circles, it no longer deserves to be called Christian mission.

– John Dickson in The Best Kept Secret of Christian Mission: Promoting the Gospel with More Than Our Lips

The videos below include two segments of a conversation between Alan Roxburgh and Simon Carey Holt. The videos are a companion resource to an excellent workbook written by Roxburgh titled “Moving Back into the Neighborhood.” The MBiN workbook can be downloaded here. As mentioned before, I initially thought the $30 price tag for a 77 page download was a little pricey, however I have discovered the workbook to be worth the investment.

In the videos Holt shares from his book “God Next Door: Spirituality and Mission in the Neighborhood.” His emphasis is that the neighborhood is a place where God is, and it is a place where God calls us to participate with Him. In the first video, Holt shares a tragic story that played a significant role in his journey towards an emphasis on the local context.

In the second clip, Holt speaks to the importance of fighting against the neglect of our neighborhoods. Even though most people live in a series of relational networks that function outside of the neighborhood context, we must recognize that neighborhoods remain an important piece of the fabric of society. While watching the second video, I was reminded of my favorite Eugene Peterson quote: “The way of Jesus is always local and ordinary.”

Churches throughout the Western world find themselves increasingly marginalized from society as they endeavor to relate the good news to people whose assumptions and attitudes have been shaped by modernity and postmodernity. Our post-Christian, neopagan, pluralistic North American context presents crosscultural missionary challenges every bit as daunting as those we would face on any other continent.

Unfortunately most pastors and church leaders have had no missiological training. Consequently they resort to marketing strategies in place of missionary insights in their attempts to reach out to a population that is becoming increasingly distanced from the church.

– Eddie Gibbs in Church Next: Quantum Changes in How We Do Ministry

Here are two excellent quotes from John Stott on the nature of God’s mission and how we are sent to join in that mission.

The primal mission is God’s, for it is he who sent his prophets, his Son, his Spirit. Of these missions the mission of the Son is central, for it was the culmination of the ministry of the prophets, and it embraced within itself as its climax the sending of the Spirit. And now the Son sends [us] as he himself was sent.

And,

The crucial form in which the Great Commission has been handed down to us (though it is the most neglected because it is the most costly) is the Johannine. Jesus had anticipated it in his prayer in the upper room which he said to the Father: “As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world” (John 17:18).

Now, probably in the same upper room but after his death and resurrection, he turned his prayer-statement into a commission and said: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21).

In both of these statements Jesus did more than draw a vague parallel between his mission and ours. Deliberately and precisely he made his mission the model of ours, saying “as the Father sent me, so I send you.” Therefore our understanding of the church’s mission must be deduced from our understanding of the Son’s.

- John R.W. Stott in Christian Mission in the Modern World

A missional church is a unified body of believers, [1] intent on being God’s missionary presence [2] to the indigenous community that surrounds them, [3] recognizing that God is already at work. [4]

__________________________

Here is an interesting video dialog (produced/edited by Bill Kinnon) between Alan Roxbugh and Pat Keifert. They discuss a wide range of issues, including definitions/descriptions of missional church, common views of the contemporary church, and leadership in missional congregations.

In the discussion on leadership I appreciate Keifert’s emphasis on leadership being more about time than about a position. He speaks about the leader cultivating segments of time to assist the congregation in discerning what God is doing in their local context. It is about taking the time to create environments for people to dwell in the Word. It is about having the time to be patient — to hear from God and to hear from each other.

Another topic that I found interesting dealt with Keifert’s journey towards the missional church conversation. He shares how it involved both “failure” and “discovery.” The failure involved disenchantment with his own ministry experience in a traditional church. The discovery included the reading of Newbigin’s “Foolishness to the Greeks.”

I think Keifert’s journey parallels the experience of many. There is a deep sense of  uneasiness, frustration, or even failure in a current ministry setting. Church leaders recognize something isn’t right about how they do ministry. They sense that something has changed, but they are unsure about the essence of the change, or what changes might be necessary. At some point, however, they “discover” that others have experienced the same anxiety. They “discover” authors that begin to give language to these changes. Perhaps, like Keifert its Newbigin, or Bosch; or more recently, maybe it is Guder, Van Gelder, Hirsch, or Frost. But regardless of the author, they rediscover the missionary nature of God and His church, and the reality that the church is sent into the mission field that is now North America.

This has certainly been my journey. I wonder about your experience. Has failure + discovery propelled you into the missional conversation?

Here are the links to two very good presentations from Alan Hirsch on the topic of cultural distance in a post-Christendom context. The first video is a 19 minute talk given at the Q conference. The second clip is an expansion on the same topic in a 47 minute session at Velocity.

Over the past year I have had an increasing number of conversations with pastors and church leaders about the church’s inability to “reach” their local communities. Many local churches have come to the realization that they have lost the ability to “attract” people to church programs and events. They sense that something has changed, but they are unsure about the essence of the change and what ministry adjustments might be necessary. In most cases, the leaders have no “grid” or “framework” to rethink the form and function of the church. Therefore, they lean towards a solution that ultimately involves more of the same church growth principles and programming.

I believe, as many of you that follow this blog, that a significant portion of the “solution” begins with recapturing the missionary nature of God and His church. The “framework” that is necessary is found in the best of the missional church conversation that is taking place today.

I have been studying and participating in this conversation for the past decade. Last year I completed a doctoral project that was targeted on assisting churches in the development of a missional ecclesiology. The core of the training project included three major elements.

The first piece of the training attempted to answer the question, “What is Missional Church?” During this portion of the training we examined the biblical, theological, and missiological underpinnings of the missional conversation. We also conducted a brief survey of the history of missional church, along with exploring what others were saying on the topic.

The second portion of the training focused on understanding the cultural shifts that have taken place in North America, and how those shifts have contributed to the marginalization of the church. This second element speaks to the question of “Why is the Missional Church conversation important?”

The third element of the training dealt with missional practice, or the question, “How can an existing church cultivate a more missional posture?” In this final section of the training we focused on issues surrounding community engagement and transformation, as well as how to make incremental changes in a missional direction with resources such as prayer, time, staff, facilities, and finances.

I share this brief training outline as an introduction to what I would be willing to share with other local congregations. I would like to make available a customized seminar that would focus on the series of topics mentioned above. The training could be customized to any size group that was most helpful. It could range from a two hour presentation targeted to a selected group of church leaders to a full day seminar presented to the whole congregation. You would decide the best fit for your situation and local context.

I want to make perfectly clear, that I am not trying to “make a buck” off of the missional church conversation. In fact, because I am supported by a national mission organization, the North American Mission Board, I would lead such a seminar with no required fee. I simply desire to assist churches and church leaders to better understand the missional conversation, and the significant implications it has for a local congregation.

If you have questions or would like to discuss what this might look like for your church, simply email me at brad.brisco@gmail.com

Here is an extended quote from a great book by Linda Bergquist and Allan Karr. I hope to post a review for the book in the next week.

Today’s church has posed itself a serious challenge: to live according to its missional nature rather than simply organize around mission activities. This challenge is something of an antidote to the church’s previous practice of piecing together a theology out of the two “Great Commission” verses found in Matthew 28:18-20 and Acts 1:8 rather than from the entire biblical story.

When we miss the big picture — that God is forming a people for Himself and reconciling the world to Himself — it affects our ecclesiology and reduces mission to a program or department of a church. A century ago, the German theologian Martin Kahler said that mission was “the mother of theology” in that the theologizing of the early church was necessitated by its missionary encounters with the world. Over many years, other prophetic voices have tried to call us to a more authentic theology, but we have not always listened. In 1969, missiologist Heinrich Kastin wrote: “Mission was, in the early stages, more than a mere function; it was a fundamental expression of the life of the church. The beginnings of a missionary theology are therefore also the beginnings of Christian theology as such.”

As you design, refine, or re-align, these questions about the role of mission will be some of your most important decisions. Do you believe that missions are something that the church does, or that mission is something that the church intrinsically is? Your answer to this question either limits or releases people. It helps define whether the church seeks the lost, or whether we expect the lost to seek the church. Which will it be?

– Church Turned Inside Out: A Guide For Designers, Refiners, And Re-Aligners by Linda Bergquist and Allan Karr

Following is a short video (produced and edited by Bill Kinnon) that recently “resurfaced” on the internet. It is an interview between Alan Roxburgh and Craig Van Gelder.

Van Gelder is professor of congregational mission at Luther Seminary in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He is author of “The Essence of the Church,” “The Ministry of the Missional Church,” “The Missional Church in Context,” “The Missional Church and Denominations,” and editor of “Confident Witness — Changing World” and “The Church Between Gospel and Culture.” (All of which are excellent, but the last two are my favorites)

There are a couple of issues raised in this video I think are important to consider. First, I appreciate Van Gelder’s emphasis on the theological foundation of missional church. Like many others in the missional church conversation, Van Gelder sees the necessity to shift the starting point for any discussion on missional church to the topic of mission.

Instead of beginning with questions surrounding the mission activities of the church, we must start first with questions concerning the missio Dei, or what is God’s mission in our context. Or to use David Bosch’s famous quote, “It is not the church which undertakes mission; it is the missio Dei which constitutes the church.”

Second, this emphasis on participating with what God is doing raises the crucial issue of discernment. When we start with God’s mission it is imperative that we discern how He is working. We must ask, “What is God doing in my neighborhood, workplace, or school?” And the follow-up question, “In light of our gifts and resources, how does God want us to participate with Him?”

Craig Van Gelder & Alan Roxburgh – What is Missional Church? from Allelon on Vimeo.

As presented in the previous posts in this series, the explicit language of sending found throughout the Old and New Testament is substantial. Moreover, the usage of sending language “establishes such a clear picture of mission in the Bible that its unique missional character is seen unmistakably even in events and ideas where the language as such is not explicit.” [1]

There are multiple passages in Scripture that speak to the missionary nature of God and the missional essence of the church that employ terms different from sending language. For example, the widespread use of the word “go” in both the Old and New Testament “is the imperative mood of the missional idea. It expresses through mandate form what the sending expresses in description and idea through the indicative mood.” [2]

In Genesis, God told Abram to “go to the land I will show you” (12:1). There God’s plan was to bless Abram so he in turn could be a blessing. In many of the Prophetic Books the word “go” is central to commissioning of the prophets. In Ezekiel, the prophet is told to “go and speak to the house of Israel” (3:1), Amos is commanded to “go and prophesy” to God’s people (7:15), and Jonah is told twice to “go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you” (1:2; 3:1).

In passages mentioned earlier the idea of going and the idea of sending are linked. In chapter six of the Book of Isaiah not only does the prophet respond to God’s question, “Who shall I send? And who will go for us?” in the affirmative; but after he does respond, God tells Isaiah to “Go and tell this people” (6:9). Moreover, in the sending of the seventy-two in Luke’s gospel they are told to go as Jesus was sending them out, “Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves” (10:3).

Finally, while the language of sending is clearly explicit in the commissioning of the disciples in John’s gospel, the language of “go” (or “going”) is evident in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20 (cf. Mark 16:15-18). However, it is still clear that Jesus,

the one who was sent on mission and who has accomplished his mission, now becomes the sender. . . . The eleven disciples are the sent ones. Jesus had called them with a view to mission (4:19). He had taught them about kingdom living (5:3-7:27), kingdom mission (10:5-42), the mysteries of the kingdom (13:3-52), relationships within the kingdom (18:1-35), and the future consummation of the kingdom (24:3-25:46) – all in order to prepare them more effectively for their mission. [3]

The shear volume of the sending theme evident throughout Scripture ought to prompt the church to examine more closely the theological implications of such language. It undoubtedly illustrates the sending, missionary nature of the Triune God. The mission is ultimately the mission of God the Father, who has sent the Son, who has sent the Spirit, who has sent the disciples – this must give the Church’s mission both its power and its authority. In the excellent little book,A Sense of Mission, Albert Curry Winn concisely summarizes the importance of having this sending theme form the church’s understanding of its nature and activity when he writes: “If the sense of having been sent defines who Jesus is, from henceforth it must define what the church is.” [4]

1. Francis M. DuBose, God Who Sends (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1983), 55.

2. Ibid.

3. John D. Harvey, “Mission in Jesus’ Teaching,” in Mission in the New Testament: An Evangelical Approach, ed. William J. Larkin Jr. and Joel William (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1998),, 129.

4. Albert Curry Winn, A Sense of Mission: Guidance From the Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981), 43.

Most of you that follow this blog are familiar with The Forgotten Ways by Alan Hirsch. It is certainly one of the most significant books in the present missional conversation. If you are not familiar with the book you can read a series of post I did here. I would also highly recommend the more recent The Forgotten Ways Handbook, which I wrote about briefly here.

To move the conversation beyond the written word, and to hear directly from Hirsch himself, check out the training videos created by Lance Ford at Shapevine. The training involves eight sessions, or “podules,” that include an introduction, a session on chaos theory, and a session on each of the six mDNA elements described in The Forgotten Ways. The eight session training is priced at $39.95, however Shapevine is currently running a special which includes the same online training in a DVD format. In other words, you can get instant access to the online training while having the DVDs shipped in the next couple of weeks.

For those of you in the Kansas City area, keep a watch out for the development of some local learning cohort groups as we work through this excellent training together.

The Epistles and Revelation

In the Pauline Epistles, there are several clear uses of sending vocabulary, “each conveying a different theological perspective within the larger salvific sphere.” [1] In Romans, Paul speaks of God “sending his own son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering” (8:3). In Romans, Paul also asks how the people can hear unless the one who preaches is sent (10:15). When dealing with division in the church at Corinth over loyalty to certain leaders, Paul states, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17). Speaking to the heart of the Gospel, Paul makes reference to both God sending the Son and the Spirit in Galatians 4:4-6:

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”

In Second Thessalonians, Paul refers to God sending a “powerful delusion” to those who have rejected the gospel (2:11). Finally, in multiple places throughout the Pauline epistles we find Paul adopting and defending the title of apostle [2] or “sent one” (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:1).

In the General Epistles, the author of Hebrews refers to Jesus as the “apostle” [3] or “sent one” (3:1). First Peter speaks of the “Holy Spirit sent from heaven” (1:12) and in keeping with Johannine tradition, 1 John speaks of the Son being sent by the Father (4:9-10, 14).

The Book of Revelation “uses the language of sending to convey a variety of theological ideas.” [4] In chapter one, the revelation is made known to John through the sending of an angel (1:1), later in the same chapter John is told to send messages to the seven churches (1:11), and in chapter five the seven spirits of God are “sent out into all the earth” (5:6). Finally, in chapter twenty-two we read that both God and Jesus send angels, one to prepare the people for what was to come, “The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angles to show his servants the things that must soon take place” (22:6) and one to give John the message for the churches, “I Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star” (22:16).

1. Francis M. DuBose, God Who Sends (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1983), 51.

2. Apostle (apostolos) is defined by it s use in the New Testament and its relationship to the three words apostello, pempo, and the Twelve. Apostello (‘to send’) is used frequently in the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles when referring to an authoritative commission. The word apostle is indebted to the Hebrew term shaliach. A shaliach, as used by the Jews, was someone sent by one party to another to handle negotiations concerning matters secular or matters religious. Harold E. Dollar, “Apostle, Apostles” in Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, ed. A. Scott Moreau, Harold Netland and Charles Van Engen (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 73-74.

3. In this case, Jesus is designated as “apostle,” a title that otherwise is never used of him in the New Testament. The title apostolos is invariably used for one sent on a commission by another, and is given specifically to the representative of Jesus sent out by him (see Matt 10:2; Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:2; 14:14; Rom. 1:1; 1Cor. 4:9; 12:28). Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 106.

4. DuBose, 52.

The Book of Acts

In the book of Acts it is common to recognize that Luke’s presentation of mission is less about the “Acts of the Apostles” than about the “Acts of the Holy Spirit,” less about the mission of the church than about the mission of God. [1] “For Luke’s narrative portrays each person of the Godhead as a “sending one,” both in commissioning and promoting mission. Each person of the Trinity is also a “sent one,” a direct agent of mission, as well as a participant working through human agents,” [2] both individually and collectively.

The individual aspect is clearly illustrated through the ministry of the Apostle Paul. The Lord appeared to Ananias and sent him to Paul in order that Paul would regain his sight (9:17). Twice Luke describes Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles with sending language, “Then the Lord said to me, ‘Go; I will send you far away to the Gentitles’” (22:21) and “I will rescue you from your own people and the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light” (26:17-18). In chapter twenty-eight Paul also speaks of salvation being sent, “Therefore I want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles and they will listen” (28:28).

The collective nature of sending in the book of Acts can best be seen in the church at Antioch. In chapter thirteen Luke records that after prayer and fasting the leaders of the church placed hands on Paul and Barnabas and “sent them off” (13:3). The next verse describes the beginning of the journey by stating that “the two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and sailed from there to Cyprus” (13:4).

Finally, in the Book of Acts the language of sending can be found in two sermons recorded by Luke. In chapter three, Peter’s messages uses sending language as he affirms God’s salvation in the sending of the Messiah: “that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you. . . . When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways” (3:20, 26). Then in chapter seven Stephen’s speech to the Sanhedrin reflects back to the Exodus story of God sending Moses back to Egypt to confront Pharaoh (7:34-35).

1. William J. Larkin, Jr. “Mission in Acts,” in Mission in the New Testament: An Evangelical Approach, ed. William J. Larkin, Jr. and Joel William (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1998), 174.

2. Ibid., 175.

When considering the theological and biblical underpinnings of the missional church conversation I find the two most helpful topics to address include the concept of missio Dei, or mission of God, and the language of “sending” found throughout Scripture.

The chief element to grasp about the missio Dei is that the mission is God’s. We are not called to bring our mission into a local context, instead we are called to partner with God in His mission. In the words of South African missiologist David Bosch; “It is not the church which undertakes mission; it is the missio Dei which constitutes the church.” We often wrongly assume that the primary activity of God is in the church, rather than recognizing that God’s primary activity is in the world, and the church is God’s instrument sent into the world to participate in His redemptive mission.

This leads to the second important topic, which is the theme of “sending” in Scripture. The reason it is important to recognize such language in Scripture is not only because it speaks to the missionary nature of the Triune God, but it also connects – particularly in the New Testament – God’s mission to our’s. This is never more true than in the Gospel of John.

The Gospel of John

The primary focus of the Fourth Gospel is the mission of Jesus: “he is the one who comes into the world, accomplishes his work and returns to the Father; he is the one who descended from heaven and ascends again; he is the Sent One, who, in complete dependence and perfect obedience to his sender, fulfills the purpose for which the Father sent him.” [1] “The entire Gospel is about sending and being sent.” [2] Therefore it is not surprising that John’s gospel is laden with the vocabulary of sending – the term and its derivatives appear almost sixty times.

While there is a variety of vocabulary used to describe the sending concept in the Fourth Gospel, [3] the concept is most often “expressed by different variations of the verbs pempo or apostello.” [4] The verb pempo, which is commonly translated as “to send,” occurs 33 times in John as compared to the Synoptic Gospels where the word is found four times in Matthew, once in Mark, and 10 times in Luke. [5] The verb apostello has the basic meaning of “to send forth,” and can be used of persons or things. [6] “When the object of the verb is a person, apostello often has the connotation of a commissioning, which transfers the authority of the sender to the person being sent.” [7] On account of the frequency of these two verbs it would appear that both words are of equal importance to the Johannine concept of sending and are virtually synonymous in John, however the question of synonymity has created significant debate in the past few decades. [8] Nevertheless, regardless of the position one takes on the nuances of the sending vocabulary in the Gospel of John it is difficult to overemphasize “how deeply the sending concept relates to Jesus’ identity. Almost every page of the Fourth Gospel breathes with a passage in which Jesus expressed who he is in terms of his sense of being sent.” [9]

When considering the sending motif in John’s Gospel there are at least three major areas of exploration: (1) Jesus’ mission and the origin of that mission, the Father who sends; (2) the fulfillment of the mission in the sending of the Holy Spirit to the disciples; and (3) the continuation of Jesus’ mission through the sending of the disciples into the world.

“It is part of the fundamental structure of any sending, even the sending of a mere human being, that the one sent does not follow his own will, but that of the sender, and that he does not speak and act in his own name, but represents another.” [10] This structure is clearly evident in Jesus’ relationship with the Father as depicted in the Gospel of John. Jesus, the sent one, is to know the sender intimately (7:29; cf. 15:21; 17:25) and to live in a close relationship with the one who sends (8:16, 18, 29; 16:32). Jesus came not to do his own will but the will of the Father who sent him (4:34; 5:30; 6:38-40), to speak not his own words but the words of the one who sent him (7:16-18; 8:26-29; 12:49; 14:24), and not to do his own work but the work of the Father who sent him (5:36; 9:4). The sending relationship between the Father and the Son speaks to the very heart of the gospel: “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him” (3:17).

In addition to the theme of the Father sending the Son, the Gospel of John speaks twice concerning the sending of the Holy Spirit. [11] In John 14:26 the Spirit is sent by the Father: “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” And in John 15:26 the Spirit is sent by the Son from the Father: “When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father.”

Of special importance in John is the linking of the mission of Jesus with that of his followers as the “sent ones.”  “The disciples’ mission is essentially the same as the mission of the Son and the Spirit – to bring glory to God and to bring to the world forgiveness of sins and spiritual life.” [12] In Raymond Brown’s commentary on the Gospel of John he explains the continuity of mission in the following way:

The special Johannine contribution to the theology of mission is the Father’s sending of the Son which serves both as the model . . . and the ground . . . for the Son’s sending of the disciples. Their mission is to continue the Son’s mission; and this requires that the Son must be present to them during this mission, just as the Father had to be present to the Son during His mission. [13]

After his conversation with the Samaritan woman, Jesus sends his disciples to reap the harvest (4:38). In the high priestly prayer Jesus prayers to the Father for the protection of disciples as Jesus sends them into the world (17:18).  And shortly before Jesus ascends to the Father he commissions the disciples to evangelize the world. “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (20:21). Here John in one pericope repeats once again three main aspects of mission he has been developing throughout the gospel: (1) Father has sent Jesus into the world, (2) Jesus sends his disciples into the world, (3) the Holy Spirit is sent to enable disciples in their mission. By themselves the disciples are inadequate to fulfill the mission, yet by receiving the Spirit they receive authority and so also become God’s “agents, or sent ones,” the apostles. Referring to this verse, John Stott remarked that the church’s mission finds precise articulation in the Fourth Gospel:

The crucial form in which the Great Commission has been handed down to us (though it is the most neglected because it is the most costly) is the Johannine. Jesus had anticipated it in his prayer in the upper room which he said to the Father: “As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world” (John 17:18). Now, probably in the same upper room but after his death and resurrection, he turned his prayer-statement into a commission and said: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). In both of these sentences Jesus did more than draw a vague parallel between his mission and ours. Deliberately and precisely he made his mission the model of ours, saying “as the Father sent me, so I send you.” Therefore our understanding of the church’s mission must be deduced from our understanding of the Son’s. [14]

Finally, in an excellent commentary on the Gospel of John by Craig Keener he offers a similar summation of the importance of the commissioning passage in the Fourth Gospel for the life of the church:

Whereas the sending of the Son is the heart of the Fourth Gospel’s plot, its conclusion is open-ended, spilling into the story of the disciples. Thus the church’s mission is, for John’s theology, to carry on Jesus’ mission (14:12; 17:18). Because Jesus was sending “just as” (kaqws) the Father sent him (20:21), the disciples would carry on Jesus’ mission, including not only signs pointing to Jesus (14:12) but also witness (15:27) through which the Spirit would continue Jesus’ presence and work (16:7-11). [15]

1. Andreas J. Kostenberger and Peter T. O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 203.

2. Johannes Nissen, “Mission in the Fourth Gospel: Historical and Hermeneutical Perspectives” in New Readings in John: Literary and Theological Perspectives, Essays from the Scandinavian Conference on the Fourth Gospel Arhus 1997 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 215.

3. In addition to the most common use of the verbs pempo and apostello, analogous to these are erxouai, ecerxomai and katabaino; prepositions that are used with the sending concept are apo, ek and para; other terms that relate to the concept are agiazo, didwmi and entellomai; verbs that describe the return of the emissionary to the Father are upago, poreuomai, anabaino, and metabaino. Johan Ferreira, Johannie Ecclesiology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 167.

4. In John’s gospel the term pempo is used approximately twenty-three times for the sending of the Son, all in articular participial forms: eight times in the nominative (5:37; 6:44; 7:28; 8:16, 18, 26, 29; 12:49); seven times in the genitive (4:34; 5:30; 6:38, 39; 7:16; 9:4; 14:24); seven times in the accusative (5:23; 7:33; 12:44, 45; 13:20; 15:21; 16:5); once in the dative (5:24). Apostello occurs seventeen times in reference to the sending of the Son, in indicative forms only. Martin Erdmann, “Mission in John’s Gospel and Letters” in Mission in the New Testament: An Evangelical Approach, ed. William J. Larkin, Jr. and Joel William (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1998), 210.

5. Ferreira, 168.

6. Ibid., 167.

7. Ibid.

8. For an excellent overview of the debate see Andreas J. Kostenberger, “The Two Johannine Verbs For Sending: A Study of John’s Use of Words with Reference to General Linguistic Theory” in Studies on John and Gender: A Decade of Scholarship (New York: P. Lang, 2001), 129-147.

9. Francis M. DuBose, God Who Sends (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1983), 49.

10. Michael Waldstein, “The Mission of Jesus and the Disciples in John” Communio 17, (Fall 1990): 319.

11. For an excellent study on the priority of the Holy Spirit in mission see Hendrikus Berkhof, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Richmond, John Knox, 1964). Berkhof argues that there has been a serious theological neglect of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the work of mission. He writes: “In Roman Catholic theology, the Spirit is mainly the soul and sustainer of the church. In Protestant theology he is mainly the awakener of individual spiritual life in justification and sanctification. So the Spirit is either institutionalized or individualized. And both of these opposite approaches are conceived in a common pattern of an introverted and static pneumatology. The Spirit in this way is the builder of the church and the edifier of the faithful, but not the great mover and driving power on the way from the One to the many, from Christ to the world. In one of the very rare theological works on the relation between the Spirit and mission, the American missionary Harry R. Boer writes: ‘Much has been written about the work of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of men, but very little about his crucial significance for the missionary witness of the Church.’ This situation is probably to the detriment of the mission, but surely to the detriment of theology, which suffers a great impoverishment indeed in that it is oriented to situations far more than to movements. In neglecting rather than reflecting the great movement of the Spirit, it distorts the whole content of faith and is an accomplice to the individualistic and institutionalistic introversion and egotism still found in the churches today” (Berkhof, 33).

12. Geoffrey R. Harris, Mission in the Gospels (London: Epworth, 2004), 177.

13. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1970), 1036.

14. John R.W. Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World (Downers Grove, IL: InterVaristy, 1975), 23.

15. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 1204.