Trinitarian Mission: Language, Theology, and Praxis Study

1. John Clark, Martin Lee, Philip Knights, Paul Rolph, Nigel Rooms Janice Price, Anne Richards A study of language, theology and praxis from the UK and Ireland perspective Foundations for Mission

2. The Task The task of this study group is to explore how a Trinitarian understanding of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit relates to the theory and practice of mission; how the confession that God has a missionary identity impacts Christian witness; how a discernment of the Trinitarian God´s inner relationships and love impacts ecclesiology, community life and society.

3. Hypothesis Hypothesis is that what is saidpublicly about the theology of mission by UK and Ireland churches, agencies and institutions does not necessarily match up with the mission practice, understanding and outworking of those same bodies.

4. Research in Three phases • Website search for public language about mission; NVIVO analysis of that language and semiotic analysis of sites • Survey using theological statements • In depth interviews with participants about their responses in relation to praxis • National churches and agencies (GMN/GC/BIAMS) • Local churches in Nottinghamshire • BIAMS conference members

5. Findings: language • Openness to relational language • Rejection of separating language • Assent to word ‘mission’ • Struggle with priorities in mission • Struggle with how mission happens • Severe problems with mission and justice

6. Findings: theology • Missio dei is a weak driver • 3 models of misson – proclamation wins • Matthew 28 primary biblical driver • Problem: ‘is’ and ‘ought’ • Problem: theological mechanics of mission

7. Findings: praxis • Gap between what we say and what we do • Websites don’t demonstrate praxis • Gap between local and practitioners • Tensions between leadership and congregations • Tensions in national leadership • Need to root mission theology • in experience and story • Holistic mission

8. Conclusions: key learning points Language • Public mission language does not match mission reality • Websites have hidden potential that is probably not realised • ‘Mission’ has common assent but prioritising action in mission is difficult

9. Conclusions: key learning points: Language • Most response to relational language and themes • Resistance to negative, separating language • Need to contextualise what mission is in experience • Gap between leadership and ordinary Christians

10. Conclusions: key learning points Theology • Theology is a weak driver, mostly Matthew 28.19 • ‘Justice’ is a problem Praxis • Need to contextualise what mission is in experience • Gap between leadership and other Christians

11. Outcomes • Process just as important as results and felt to be useful so production of: • Tool for web analysis and thinking about design for mission messages • Adaptations of the survey for different constituencies to do mission theological audit • Template of questions for discussion or interview for mission reflection on praxis