On the Marks of Mission

The Twenty-Fourth Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee, absolve thy people from their offences; that through thy bountiful goodness we may all be delivered from the bands of those sins, which by our frailty we have committed. Grant this, O heavenly Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake, our blessed Lord and Saviour. Amen.

While the four Marks of the Church, that it is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, might be the four traditional marks used to identify the Church, and which are referenced in the Apostle’s Creed and listed in the Nicene Creed, the Marks of Mission are much more commonly referenced in Church documents in the modern Anglican Church of Canada. The Marks of Mission were articulated by the Anglican Communion in the mid-1980s as a means of describing the central mission of the Anglican Communion as a church. There are five marks, of which only the first two are distinctly Christian, namely to proclaim the Good News of Christ and to teach, baptise and nurture new believers. The remaining three Marks are characterized more as social activism, namely to respond to human need in loving service, to transform unjust power structures in society and to promote peace and reconciliation and finally to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew life on the earth.

To be clear, while there are no Christian distinctives in the majority of the Marks (unless one considers describing the earth in terms of creation as distinctly Christian), that does not mean the Marks of Mission are un-Christian. Far from it. Yet at the same time, when the final three marks are pursued far more vigorously than the first two, it does leave one to pause and question the purposes of the marks and the broader vision of the church in terms of mission.

One could argue that the goal of the Marks is to sanctify society. It envisions a society in which violence is never considered as a tool, there is some form of justice for all, creation is respected, the Gospel is proclaimed and all people are brought to Christ. And yet, centuries before the Marks of Mission were proclaimed, St Francis of Assisi noted that, “if you sanctify yourself, you will sanctify society.”

His point was that the Anglican Church of Canada seems to be doing things backwards: focusing on, as an institutional priority, sanctifying society in some way, or rather advocating for it, while assuming that the sanctification of individuals will come later. It should not be ignored that the first Mark is to proclaim the Gospel, and yet a quick search of ‘mark of mission’ on the Anglican.ca website or on anglicanjournal.ca turns up references almost exclusively to the fourth mark of mission, that of transforming unjust structures of society and opposing violence. One news article describes a church seeking to live out the marks of mission, and its description of that points exclusively to human service, social activism but with no connection to the first two marks, and indeed an emphasis on how they avoid evangelism at their events.

The view that the social justice marks must be persued as a priority places an emphasis on social activism rather than personal sanctification, and thus implies that sanctification is a result of those good works. Yet St Paul suggests in Romans 14 that works that do not proceed from faith proceed from sin (Rm 14. 23b) and this interpretation is supported by the work of the scholastics and Article XIII. This viewpoint seems stringent, but reinforces the fact that without God’s grace, we are slaves to sin. It is in Christ that we are set free from sin, and it is through the strengthening and empowering of the Holy Spirit that we do good works in faith. Just as we are saved by faith and not works, society will be sanctified by our faith, with in turn sanctifies us, and not by our attempts simply to sanctify society through works alone.

It is important to remember this distinction between the individual, the Church and society. To go back to the Marks of the Church, rather than the Marks of Mission, which Mark is it that suggests the Church is meant to be an institution of social change? What part of Holy Scripture describes the goal for a sanctified society for which the Church is working towards?

The only real argument that could be made would be for the society of the law called for in the Old Testament for the Jews, and yet Christ fulfilled the law and the New Testament proclaims freedom from the particular laws of the Jews. The Good News of the Gospel, which the first mark calls to be proclaimed, along with Christ himself, is that there is a route to personal salvation and sanctification through faith in Christ and the reception of the Holy Spirit! It is not something that occurs through the actions of the Church, rather the Church itself is established in order to transmit this Good News and the teachings of Christ to all people in all times. The Great Commission is to do so. The Church was created to fulfil that commission, yet so far as the Anglican Church of Canada is concerned that is a lower priority.

When the Church moves beyond salvation and Scripture, as the church is doing in Canada, it risks its own authority. Looking at the third Mark of Mission, for instance, in some cases it might be clear how we are to respond to human need. Feed the hungry and clothe the poor is a simple enough prospect, but what about more complex issues? By what metric do we determine what is unjust? To some, closed communion is unjust, and yet to others it is for their benefit on the basis of Holy Scripture (I Cor 11. 27-29). Secular views of justice would suggest turning anyone away is unjust, yet Scripture itself suggests that if someone receives communion without proper preparation they receive it to their condemnation and it is therefore just that the church prevent them from receiving without proper preparation.

Exploring deeper issues of poverty, discrimination, criminal justice all go well beyond Biblical teaching and open the door to questions of how the church will base its decisions on what is unjust. It also shows the dangerous precedent of using secular reasoning to inform the Marks of Mission. Scripture makes it clear that we are to care for the poor, but when the Marks demand addressing systematic issues of injustice, it requires proscriptive efforts that go beyond what Scripture teaches. Are priests now to be political scientists and sociologists, working to determine what policies a government ought to apply in order to address issues of injustice in the world? Does it in any way fulfil a Christian calling to simply seek to use institutional powers of the church to draw awareness of outsiders to these issues?

Coming back to St Francis of Assisi it is through the individual that change must occur. It is the invisible church—the gathering of all the faithful—that must make the difference. Good works are the proceeds of faith as the Epistle of James tells us (Jas 2. 26), and it is the individuals who are called to make the difference.

When the Church speaks to outsiders, it is moralizing. When it is the faithful, inspired by their faith and empowered by the Spirit, who act, it is a witness to others. As we are sanctified, we will sanctify society. The Marks of Mission may not be the best guide for the Church, but they remind us of what we as individual Christians are called to do, and in particular the order in which we are to fulfil them, first by coming to faith, being nurtured in it and when it is mature to act upon it and by our good works transform society and be a witness to others that they might come to faith in Christ themselves.

On Commitment

The Second Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, who never failest to help and govern them whom thou dost bring up in thy stedfast fear and love: Keep us, we beseech thee, under the protection of thy good providence, and make us to have a perpetual fear and love of thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Language is important. Studies show that language affects how we think. Externally, the words we use reflect what we are thinking. In the context of Christianity, the words we use reflect not simply our thoughts, but also it reflects our theology and the doctrine of our church.

One big change that occurred in the 20th century was a transition from the language of submission to the language of commitment. Christians are now ones who make a commitment to Christ, accepting him in the hearts, while we now commonly view Islam as the religion of submission and indeed sometimes contrast Christianity with Islam in terms of viewing Islam as a religion that requires submission to God, while Christianity is more a religion of friendship and partnership with God.

While there is some truth in the view of Christianity as being more personal compared to Islam, to suggest that it is a partnership implies some form of equality with God, which is utterly false.

By making a commitment to Christ, we are approaching Christianity on our own terms, seeking to negotiate with God. “God, I commit myself to you, so long as it's comfortable.” It’s an attempt to retain control, to avoid submitting oneself completely to God’s authority.

This is not a uniquely modern innovation, as the Bible itself is full of examples of those to whom God had revealed his will, and who remained reluctant to submit themselves to it.

In the Old Testament, the Pentateuch contains a number of examples, including Numbers 16 when the people rose up to challenge Moses and Aaron, and even more directly in Exodus 16 when they grumbled that they had lived better in slavery in Egypt and murmured against God freeing them. Jonah’s story is another extremely well-known and clear example of someone who professes to follow God, but becomes reluctant and unwilling to follow God when God’s will conveyed to him becomes more difficult and goes against his own desires.

This phenomena is found in the New Testament as well. St Paul reminds the Christians in Galatia that he had been forced to rebuke St Peter and others when he found that they were backsliding into Jewish traditions under pressure from Judaisers. His criticism was essentially focused against those who were attempting to hedge their bets on their salvation. It was one thing to listen to one of the apostles coming by saying salvation was found in Christ and not the law, but here they were seeking to accept salvation in Christ while still following the law just in case.

Here, the early Christians were still professing their belief, but it was their actions that revealed that their words did not reflect their inner convictions. They were not willing to release control and submit themselves to God’s promise, instead resting on their own abilities to fulfil the law to secure their own salvation. It is no different when we say we are making a commitment to Christ, and no longer submitting to Christ’s lordship.

We can, in modern times, see this as well with the language of taking communion rather than receiving it. By taking communion, we view communion as something we control, with God as a passive partner. When we receive, it is God acting on us. This even further illustrates the troubling reality of making a commitment to God rather than submitting ourselves to God. When we make a commitment, we are saying, “I will follow you on these terms.” When we submit, we are saying, “I will follow your will always and in all things.” We are in effect replacing God in our lives by ourselves, making ourselves our own god. This is similar to anyone else who rejects God, but perhaps more insidiously, we don’t see it that way.

In a similar way, mission has become a new buzzword among Christians. Being a missional church, a missional community. In the Anglican Church of Canada, we no longer respect the Solemn Declaration and many Anglicans seem to see the Catholic Creeds as antiquated, but the Five Marks of Mission are a sacred charge. If you read statements from the Primate and other national organizations within the Anglican Church of Canada, you would see the Marks of Mission as the engine driving the Church.

The problem remains that mission is often defined on our own. Only two of the five marks, to proclaim the good news of the kingdom and to teach, baptise and nurture new believers, are distinctly Christian. Responding to human need in loving service, to transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation and to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth are three goals which could easily be taken from the mission statements of any secular charity organizations.

There is nothing wrong with these statements, and they are clearly inspired by Christ’s example. The problem comes when they are so easily pursued under our own commitment rather than in submission to Christ. When we are a missional community, we are a community that subscribes to missions, based on these parameters, and that’s it. The actual missions undertaken may or may not be rooted in God’s will, even when they are clearly rooted in God’s examples to us in some way or another.

We are seeking to maintain our own agency. The goal of a missional church is to perform these missions. Its engine, what powers it, is not a desire to submit to Christ or to live a disciple’s life, but rather to accomplish missions.

In his Epistle to the Philippians, St Paul describes Christ’s ultimate submission:

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Phil 2. 6-8)

Verse six might be taken by a supporter of the Missional Movement to justify their position. Christ took the form of a servant. In St Matthew 20. 28, Christ himself says, “Son of Man came not to be served but to serve,” but in both these cases, that is attempting to justify doctrine and theology with Scriptural verses rather than with Scripture. In Philippians, St Paul tells us that Christ’s ultimate purpose was obedience to God, even unto death. In St Matthew’s Gospel, Christ finishes his sentence saying, “and to give his life as a ransom for many.” In St Luke’s Gospel, just prior to his arrest, Christ prays, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done,” (St Lk 22. 42). Christ’s death was in submission to God’s will and serves as example to us.

Discipleship must be the engine of our faith and our lives. Mission will build from it, but when we do not submit and instead pick and choose how we will follow, we are not truly following God at all, but ourselves.