The church cannot define itself. It certainly cannot define itself apart from missions. There should be no dichotomy in function of the church as form and function are one. Some contemporary debates may use the Latin terms missio Dei against missio ecclesia with the false assumption that there is a dichotomy or dissonance between the two. When biblical redemptive history and the mission of God are the metrics, any assumed contradiction disappears for the Church. In the scriptures, the mission of God takes establishing precedence to every scriptural institution on Earth. Jurgen Moltmann said, ‘It’s not the church of God has a mission in the world, but that the mission of God has a church in the world.’  Correct ecclesiology should be preceded by missiology, “as local congregations are built up to reach out in mission to the world, they will become in fact what they already are by faith: God’s missionary people.”  

It is crucial that the church diligently assesses and reassess its activity with a missional lens. Charles Van Engen in his book, “God's Missionary People: Rethinking the Purpose of the Local Church” provides a possible evaluative criterion by using these four words: koinonia, kerygma, diakonia, and martyria. Combined a statement could be, “The church is to be a witness (martyria) in truth and power through its love for God and the world (koinonia) which encompasses its proclamation (kerygma) and service (diakonia).”  What if the benchmarks for a church’s DNA in all activity contained these four words? The life of the church could then be intentionally missional in all it does. These four principles also create the gauges of how the church can evaluate how well it is accomplishing what God has called it to become. There are also potential unintended consequences that will benefit the church as it grows in its heart to join God in mission. Church and Missions need to exist synonymously and not independently for this to be a result. “Local Congregations the world over will gain new life and vitality only as they understand the missiological purpose for which they alone exist, the unique culture, people and needs of their context, and the missionary action through which they alone will discover their nature as God’s people in the world”  Without missiological purpose, a church will struggle for life. And without a missiological lens for definition, the church has no life. 
Every once in a while you may hear something so revelatory that it redefines the purpose and the “why” behind the “what” one does. Here is an example of such a statement, “Every church that is planted should be a missionary church from the beginning.”  For a veteran pastor to hear comment and consider the implications of it is a game changer that leads to some hard questions. What if everything you thought you knew about ministry and the church was incomplete because you wrongly believed that the ecclesiology was the goal of ministry? And then consider the implications of learning that your long held paradigm was a means to an end and not the end? One would wise to inquire for an example and model from the scriptures for confirmation. Is there such an archetype from scripture that stands as a praxis that we may learn from and not just theory? The scriptures beckon us to reconsider the church through a missiological frame when we read of the church in Antioch.  The church at Antioch is a missionary church which makes it a model church by biblical definition. 
