Church and Mission

I was caught up recently in an argument about the “mission” of local Christian communities, parishes in particular. It was an argument rather than a discussion because all of us had “skin in the game”. We all had commitments and relationships at stake here. The argument started because I had advocated making a shift from a self-focused church to a mission-focused church (Tui Motu, December 2022). It became clear quite soon that our differences weren’t just about “mission” but also about what we mean by “church”.

Identifying our “models” of the church is a quick way of pinpointing where my idea of the church is different from, or the same as, yours. Our underlying (not quite conscious) models of the church create different expectations about what we should be doing together. In the late 20th century, models such as institution, communion, sacrament, herald and community of disciples were often used as ways of focusing what were seen to be the key characteristics of the church. More recently, we have come to need models of the church that are more obviously fit for mission.

Church as Institution

One of the most persistent ways of understanding the church has been the institutional model. The church, in this model, is seen as an organisation with a hierarchical structure, run mostly by priests and bishops, assisted by vowed religious women and men. It has its own established customs, laws and roles. This model applies particularly to Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Churches but in lesser degree to other denominations also. For many people, most of the time, this organisation provides a secure (or at least best available) guide for moral responsibility and personal salvation.

Any church with a largish number of people, with its own objectives, and expecting to survive over time needs to be institutionalised to some degree. The danger in this model however is that it can allow, even encourage, a church to become bureaucratic, autocratic and controlling. People who have experience of more democratic forms of organisation often abandon it for more participative styles of being church.

This model of church can be supportive of a mission outreach but its main priorities are more likely to be focused on the church itself, its own good functioning and growth in numbers rather than outwards to the wider world.

Pastoral Care

In recent decades, the model of pastoral care has seemed more attractive than the institutional model of the church. It stresses kindness and care for others rather than lines of authority. It puts more emphasis on the people than on the organisation. It is now a widespread and strong motivator for the work of church personnel. It is also more participative. Many people, not just ministers, priests and administrators, can become involved in the “pastoral care” of others.

The foundation for this model is Christ the Good Shepherd who looks after his flock. It does not usually look too far into the deeper or longer-term implications of the shepherd’s motivation, the longer-term destination of the sheep (wool or dinner), or the implications of regarding the majority of people in the church as sheep. This is a “soft” model in the sense that it often lacks hard lines of accountability. It is more familiar with forgiving than with holding to account.

This model of church is supportive especially of a mission of compassion. Compassion often reaches beyond the boundaries of the church to anyone in need regardless of church affiliation. In this sense it is a mission action. Nevertheless, the all-absorbing needs of people in want are a priority in this model that may leave little time or energy for a mission focused on fairness in society or ecological responsibility.

Safe-guarding and Self-guarding

The pastoral care model has come under serious criticism from the new safeguarding model that followed the revelations of abuse by people in pastoral roles within churches. Pastoral care sometimes provided a cover for the actions of abusers. Especially damaging to the pastoral care model were the revelations of failures by church leaders to eliminate and prevent such abuse. The safe-guarding model requires strict accountability for any abuse of vulnerable people and the reporting of any known abuse to the relevant authority.

An important component of a safe environment for everyone, is self-guarding for church personnel themselves. Church personnel themselves may be vulnerable to false accusations of abuse. They are particularly vulnerable in situations which require confidentiality and one-on-one relationships. To protect themselves from such accusations, pastoral carers need to adopt a strategy of self-guarding. This means following strict rules about how and where they meet with vulnerable people, making sure there are witnesses to all such encounters, recording these encounters and working under professional supervision.

The self-guarding component which seeks to protect the pastoral carer from the real possibility of false accusations severely restricts pastoral care and discourages altogether many traditional forms of care. It has also brought with it a new kind of institutional model through new laws, tribunals, monitors and reporting requirements.

This model of the church includes a mission to promote an environment, both within and outside the church, which respects and acknowledges the dignity of everyone, an environment where people feel valued and safe. The safeguarding model is also intended to combat one of the major contemporary obstacles to mission, namely the abuse of vulnerable people by church personnel.

The Synodal Way

The three models of church I have noted above all have their own worth as well as their defects and dangers. All of them are interdependent; they each promote some priorities rather than others; some of them clash with others; each of them provides a corrective to the others. These models are interdependent but they are not equal and we clearly cannot follow all at once. Most importantly, none of them is specifically mission-focused. A fourth model, the synodal way, may be a way forward.

Synodality means “walking together”. It is the name Pope Francis is giving to a new process of renewal of the Catholic Church (www.synod.va/en.html). It is hoped that all members of the church will take part in this process. The process begins with everyone in the church listening as much as possible to everyone else. This process has been underway now for nearly two years and as a formal process it will culminate in the Synod of Bishops in 2014.

This “walking together” has three dimensions: communion, participation, and mission. Communion emphasises the deep roots we share in the love and unity of the Trinity. We share a common “instinct” of faith. Participation emphasises that we all have gifts to share. Mission emphasises that we can never be centred on ourselves. The church exists not for itself but in service to the coming reign of God.

This process is founded on an institutional model promoted by church hierarchy but it calls for high participation from all members of the church. It is not yet clear what the “mission” dimension will eventually become but it is at least a strong call for a better Church more fit for its mission.

It is unhealthy for Christian communities to focus too much on ourselves and getting everything right. Yet we do need to notice how the ways in which we relate to one another (the “models” we use for the Church) help or hinder us from getting on with what we are really for. Mission is about how we contribute to the evolving realm of God in the world. Church is about how we organise ourselves to make this contribution effectively.

Tui Motu Magazine. Issue 278 February 2023: 4-5