Recently, there has been a lot of conversation about the supposed tension between doctrine and mission. Illustrations such as a train have been used to describe the relationship between the two in order to argue that mission should drive the train rather than doctrine.[1] I think it is fair to read these conversations alongside the recent momentum that a particular missional network called the Ascent Movement has experienced which has begun to intersect with the denominational tribe that I am a part of. Yet, I also think a charitable reading of these recent conversations and events would interpret them not as intending to diminish doctrine but rather desiring to reframe the relationship between doctrine and mission due to a perceived abuse of one or both in the past. With that said, my hope in this brief article is to bring clarity to the conversation. As someone who teaches doctrine in the classroom and in the Church, I would like to provide some important clarifications in order to make sure we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Allow me to expound upon the framing of the relationship between doctrine and mission that has been historically described as doctrinally informed mission.
Definition of Terms
Before we jump in, it is important to define terms for the sake of clarity. In this article, I define doctrine as the teaching of theology in an ecclesial setting. I define theology as what we think or say about what God has revealed of Himself. This in turn makes theology (and doctrine for that matter) more about self-disclosure rather than self-discovery because it is God who self-discloses Himself to us rather than us discovering aspects of Him independently.[2] This also makes theology relational. Theology is better understood as relational knowledge rather than a mastery of data. This is an important caveat because what we do (mission) is informed by who He is, and we only can know who He is by being in relationship with Him. Therefore, communion must precede commission. With that being said, I define mission as the shared responsibility of the Church to glorify God by making disciples of all nations. It is important to highlight the joint nature of mission among the Churches. I don’t think it is any coincidence when one looks at the etymology of commission, they would notice the prefix of “com” inferring the communal essence of this mission.
Doctrinally Informed Mission
1. Doctrine informs the “Who” of the mission
Our doctrine informs our mission by giving necessary context to the “Who”? There are two components to this question. First, who is the Commissioner? Our Trinitarian doctrine clarifies that all important question. If we do not have a firm grasp on who He is that has sent us, then the mission is doomed from the start. Ecclesiology also brings affirmation to who the mission belongs to. The mission belongs to both the universal Church but also to the local Churches. There is a direct parallel to the communal nature to the Commissioner in His triunity that is reflected in the carrying out of the mission by the communion of congregations. Baptists have historically understood this aspect of mission in a unique way compared to other denominational groups.
2. Doctrine informs the “what” of the mission
Our doctrine informs our mission by answering the question as it pertains to “what” it is. What are we commissioned to do? This question can be answered by hamartiology and soteriology providing context to what the Good News actually is. I do not think it is any coincidence that teaching (doctrine) takes a primary role in the Great Commission mandate in Matthew 28. In his work, Historical Theology: An Introduction, Geoffrey W. Bromiley states that theological systems are the wineskins that hold the wine of the Gospel. Baptists, while leaving room for theological diversity as it pertains to certain soteriological frameworks, have been abundantly clear that the missionary efforts rests upon a spiritual necessity of the regenerate life.[3] This doctrinal distinction differentiates us from other denominational groups that have subjugated the mission to merely meeting earthly needs.
3. Doctrine informs the “how” of the mission
Our doctrine informs our mission by providing tangible visualizations about how the responsibility is to be carried out. Both Christology and Pneumatology can provide insight to the methods of carrying out the mission. Examining the life & works of Christ gives the epitome of what it looks like to live incarnationally. Reflecting upon the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5 also provides valuable metrics to measure the how to missiology. Our theology should inform our methodology. Baptists have historically walked this line via cooperative missional endeavors that today look like institutional agencies such as the IMB & NAMB.
4. Doctrine informs the “why” of the mission
Our doctrine informs our mission by reminding us why we are sent in the first place. It is to bring glory to God so that all of Creation might be restored into a right relationship with its Creator. Because again, if theology is relational in nature, then it only makes sense for the purpose behind the Great Commission is so that the relationship would be restored once again. It has been inferred that only mission can lead to worship. That doctrine can’t lead to an experience of being overcome by emotion. When I read Scripture (especially the Pauline letters), I find over and over again, Paul espousing on doctrinal issues and then breaking out in a prayer or hymn in the middle of his letter. Theology leads to doxology.
Conclusion
Doctrine and mission are not adversarial but actually complementary towards one another. These recent conversations about the supposed tension can be misinterpreted as doctrine is something to eliminate. Calvin is attributed with the statement that “Ambiguity is the fortress of heretics”. A lack of clarity on doctrinal issues can also be the home of shallow theology. The non-denominational domination that neglects a robust theological system for the sake of “ecumenical unity” has left the state of the broader Church in a dangerous situation. To utilize another illustration to supplement the train illustration previously mentioned, a Christian, Church, or denominational group failing to consider the weightiness of a teased out theological system is like a boat risking shallow waters. The possibility of the boat running ashore, though not certain, is likely.
The reality is, that the Ascent Movement is not devoid of doctrine as much as it is claimed to be. I find it difficult to believe that doctrine is not operative in this movement when the types of recognition given at the gathering reveal an underlying anthropological framework. The issue doesn’t appear to be doctrine and theology but rather which doctrine and theology. And if my assumption is correct, then it would appear that the mission of recent organizational developments are doctrinally driven. I guess doctrine moves the train more than we might realize. And that’s ok, because historically there isn’t a tension between mission and doctrine. The two complement one another and inform each other for the glory of God and the good of the Church.
[1] Black, Eric. https://baptiststandard.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-mission-not-doctrine-should-drive-the-train/, March 11, 2026.
[2] Note: It is also important to point out the wholistic understanding of theology as effecting the head, heart, and hands of the theologian.
[3] Article XI of the BF&M 1925, 1963, & 2000.