What is the mission of the church and how does the Word of God relate to that mission? This is an important set of questions for the missional church. A dominant theme in the modern, American church has been one of strategic action. The scripture, according to this framework, is the guide/law book that provides a constitution-like set of principles for how to live life, and demonstrates the plan of salvation (the Gospel) through Jesus. The church is called to take the Gospel to the world by adopting marketing strategies and adopting culturally relevant modes of worship. The leadership style required for this mission is one of courageous vision and strategic action.
I would like to propose that scripture itself offers a different model for the nature and calling of the church. This can be seen in, but not limited to, two examples that can serve as biblical models for our mission today.
Moses did not have the written word of God. Moses encountered the Word of God from within the burning bush. God sent Moses to be a prophetic presence before Pharaoh and simply declare, “Let my people go!” This was a declaration of freedom, not a strategic plan of action. Moses waited, listened for God’s voice, then acted as directed, not knowing where it would end up. Eventually the Red Sea parted and the people walked into freedom. Then God led the people with a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. God did not reveal the plan to Moses, rather God invited Moses and the people to follow.
The key element that propelled the people was the promise that God had made to Abraham centuries before. God had committed to being faithful to this promise and invited the people to follow and trust. Moses’ leadership was one of expectant listening, discerning, facilitating the needs of the people, and being ready to move whenever the cloud lifted.
The apostle Paul did have the Scriptures—The Law and the Prophets. Yet, he encountered the Word of God in the person of the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. This encounter began a two-fold process of Paul’s interaction with the Word. On one hand, he was challenged to reframe the written word as the Holy Spirit was recontextualizing the Law of Moses and expanding the boundaries of God’s people to include the uncircumcised Jew. On the other hand, Paul encountered the word of God in the direct leading of the Holy Spirit to do and say things that contradicted his received understanding of the written word of God and most-likely contradicted his own plan. This is best exemplified in Acts 16:6-10 when Paul planned to travel to Ephesus but was kept from going there by the Holy Spirit. He traveled, instead, to Troas where he received a vision in a dream to expand his boundaries and go to Macedonia.
Paul was constantly wrestling with the Holy Spirit. He prayed that the thorn would be removed from his side. He was relentlessly pursued by his enemies and often beaten and left for dead. He struggled with his own pride, as demonstrated in his schism with Barnabas. Yet, I believe, this brokenness was necessary for Paul to be able to listen to the Word of God as Paul was invited to listen, discern, facilitate the needs of the people around him, and be ready to move when the Spirit prompted.
 It is important to note that this strategic model is the dominant mode of American thinking and the opposite of the model proposed in the missional church conversation. Here I am offering a critique of the strategic action and proposing a listening-following model instead.
 David Lose, during a dinner conversation, proposed a compelling thought about Jesus’ use of scripture in his teaching. First of all, Jesus rarely preached from scripture. Secondly, when Jesus did refer to scripture, he almost always challenged it and reframed it. “You have heard that it was said…but I say to you…” David Lose in a group discussion with the author, July 2014.