The Trinity – Foundations For Missional Theology

The Trinity – Foundations For Missional Theology

Just about two years ago I was eating with Dr. John Franke of biblical theological seminary in Hatfield, PA. I offered to give him a conversation starter concerning a circumstance I was having in my congregation. He was caring enough to respond to my inquiry with an inquiry, asking me, What are the functional ramifications of a Trinitarian religious philosophy? I had never posed that inquiry and had no answers.

Being embarrassed that I was unable to address the inquiry, I looked for the appropriate responses. This inquiry is significant in light of the fact that we have made practical modalists out of individuals. Moreover, we have preoccupied the Trinity. It’s something troublesome, in this way it is to be discussed uniquely in the corridors of the scholarly world. When is the last time you lectured an arrangement on the Trinity? Or on the other hand even heard one lectured?

Be that as it may, all religious philosophy must be commonsense religious philosophy, and the Trinity is no special case. The combination of thought on this point and a few conversations I was having inside my doctoral work drove me to shape a few considerations not just about the useful ramifications of the Trinity yet its structure for missional philosophy.

Len Sweet instituted the adage the MRI church in a doctoral class conversation and in his book The Perfect Storm. He said that missional chapels are a joining of missional, social, and manifestation viewpoints, consequently the MRI. In any case, I will extend Sweet’s plan to a MIROR Church ©. Missional Theology should be a coordination of:

  • Missional
  • Incarnational
  • Relational
  • Organic
  • Reproductive

In being a MIROR church, we are reflecting who God is with regards to His Trinitarian nature.

Practically, this is who God is in every one of His people, mentalities and articulations. In spite of the fact that God is one, He is three and every one of those three have useful ramifications for both the congregation AND for a Christ-devotee. It is this pragmatic comprehension of the Trinity that I accept gives us the establishment for Missional religious philosophy, thought, practice and way of life.

Think with me for a second. God is:

  • missional (he sent his child)
  • incarnational (he went into our reality in the Garden, in the Old Testament, in the New Testament),
  • social (he set up a relationship with himself in the Trinity, with Adam and Eve in the Garden, and so on),
  • natural (he took numerous structures in the Old Testament – fire, mists, guests, Angel of the Lord, Melchizadek-dependent on the setting where the manifestation occurred)
  • regenerative (he repeated himself by making humanity in his own picture)

You can work this cycle through every individual from the Trinity. In doing as such, and in understanding that we are eikons of God, we come to understand that we also have those regular perspectives to our character, capacity, personality, and otherworldliness. However in light of the fact that we are broken eikons (an aftereffect of wrongdoing) we frequently fall flat in living these characteristics out in the way God proposed. Regardless, they are essential for us.

The congregation is likewise an impression of God. In this manner the congregation will have a coordination of missional, incarnational, social, natural, and regenerative characteristics and angles. Inability to incorporate every one of these characteristics is an inability to be a missional church, and in my modest assessment, a congregation in the picture of God.