Previous Post – New Chiara House Pictures

When I came across Skye Jethani’s two part series called “Redefining Radical” (part 1 & part 2), I was very excited to read what he had to say.  As I read, I found myself resonating with some critical and important points.  However, I also found myself conflicted and torn.  I reread the articles a few times to try and put my finger on it.  The following is what I have come up with.  Let me start by saying that this is not a rejection of his posts- as I will note where I strongly agree with him- but rather push back in some peripheral, yet important areas that stood out to me.

The first thing that stood out to me was seeming the suggestion by Jethani that those who advocate missionalism were advocating activism.  At one point Jethani says:

“The solution I hear in many ministry settings, and the one I would have given 5 years ago, is to transform people from consumer Christians into activist Christians.”

While I would affirm that activism (both in its wider meaning and its political expressions) can be essential aspects of what it mean to be missional, to equate them interchangeably is a misrepresentation.  That isn’t to say some people make such associations, but they are exceptions.  It is no more accurate than equating evangelicalism with fundamentalism.  At any rate, it was this implication that first made me take note.

Jethani goes on to suggest:

“We pastors have a tendency to over-correct the error of consumer faith and instead make evangelism or justice the center of our life rather than Christ.”

Again, while this warning is fair, I felt as though he failed to engage with the essential connection between centering our life on Christ and active faith.  A core value within our community is the belief that a Christocentric life must by necessity produce lives that are shaped by the example of Jesus, following Him as Lord, not only worshiping Him as Saviour.

He goes on:

“Consumer Christianity is a pandemic in the American church, on that I agree. But a prescription of radical activism is not the remedy. It robs people of their joy, burdens them with guilt, and fails to draw people into a passionate communion with Christ.”

Again, I feel as though Jethani is confusing the misuse of “radical missionalism” with little acknowledgment that the problem is in the misuse, not inherent in a call to radical obedience to Christ.  Following Christ’s call is demanding- it costs us everything.  While this does not mean we should allow ourselves to be recklessly burnt out, neither should we shy away from lives in which we pay a high price for our submission to the active Lord who is at work in the world around us.

Certainly extremes can rob us of our joy and add guilt, but there are few things that have brought deeper and richer joy into my life than following Christ into the costly love of others in “radical missionalism”.  Further, while condemnation for “not doing enough” is fruitless and not God’s intention, should we so quickly shy away from legitimate conviction when our lives fail to reflect the radical calling Christ clearly articulated for His people?  It is in that place of sacrificial service to God and neighbour that often discover the truest experience of communion with Christ.

I affirm Jethani’s desire to rediscover what radical obedience looks like in the so-called “mundane”.  We too quickly differentiate and more highly praise those in “full time ministry” (not that they should not be given credit where it is due either).  However, the “mundane” isn’t radical simply because a Christian is involved.  Rather, it is when Jesus in that Christian transforms the way they live within the “mundane”.  Without this clearly articulated, I fear that Jethani’s comments could too easily allow for people to justify complacency.

He continues:

“What I had neglected for too long, and what I feel is absent in many parts of the church today, is Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7. The believers in Corinth wanted to know what kind of life most honored God; what conditions and circumstances made a Christian life significant. Was it best to be married or unmarried? Circumcised or uncircumcised? Paul’s answer, which he calls his “rule in all the churches” and repeats three times, is for everyone to remain where they are “with God” (1 Cor. 7:24). That’s a message we don’t hear often at missions (or missional) conferences.”

The last sentence surprised me, perhaps more than any other.  First, while not all Christians are called to be “career missionaries”, I unapologetically believe that there is a massive imbalance of people and resources in the global Body of Christ.  Where much is given, much is required.  So for missions conferences to challenge more believers to respond to God’s call to go to all nations is not only appropriate, but essential.

Further, with respect to missional voices (be they conferences, books, speakers, etc.), the vast majority I have encountered have advocated at their very core that Christians need to be missional “where they are”.  His parenthetical inclusion of “missional” seems misplaced.  I am not suggesting that his critique is groundless, but rather that he throws the baby out with the bathwater without adequate or fair qualification.

Later in Part 2, Jethani nails it with this paragraph, which I believe should have been the defining thesis of the entire piece:

“Of course Paul was not against changing one’s circumstances, strictly speaking, if called by God to do so. That was his experience, after all. But this takes us into another neglected teaching–the cherished Reformation theology of calling and vocation. If a person is living in deep communion with God as Paul encouraged, then he or she was expected to respond to the Holy Spirit’s calling–the literal meaning of the word vocation.”

Here we see the core problem he is addressing: Christian activism apart from vocation is like a sounding gong or clanging cymbal, because true vocation is only ever born of loving intimacy with God. My concern is that, by not making this aspect of articles central, they all too easily provide too easy rationale that excuse Christians from asking the hard questions about radical obedience to Christ.

And yet, surprisingly, Jethani seems to engage with the topic of vocation through a primarily individual lens.  To discuss individual vocation without first establishing a solid foundation of our shared, common vocation as the Church feeds into an individualism that allows people to justify inaction and ungodly action (or even well-intentioned “good” action) with little accountability.

“Rather maturity was seen by the depth of a person’s union with Christ. The truly radical life is the one intimately rooted in communion with God, through Christ, in the Spirit, and that responds obediently to his call–whatever it may be.”

Again, I wonder at why Jethani makes such a distinction between “union with Christ” and radical obedience to His commandments.  After all, didn’t Jesus Himself remind us that the expected fruit of obedience to Him would be proven in our obedience to His teachings and following His example? When referring to our obedient response to God’s call, why say “whatever it may be”?  Yes, there is individual vocation, but they must always be born out of the clearly established, shared vocation of the whole Church.  The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) is a beautiful (though not the only) expression of that shared vocation.

Interestingly, many people have quoted the following paragraph as best articulating his point:

“So I’ve come to embrace the reality that my place as a church leader is not to get people to do more for God. Rather, I believe my responsibility is to give others a ravishing vision, rooted in Scripture and modeled by my own example, of a life lived it communion with God. And there, as they abide in him, calling will happen. The Lord of the harvest will call and send workers. And he will call others to live quietly and work with their hands. Some may be butchers, and others lawyers, and some he will even call to be suburban moms. And all of their work will be holy, good, and, if rooted in communion with God, truly radical.”

It is understandable that people strongly resonate with this statement- it is powerful, admirable and godly.  Yet I found it dangerously individualistic.  Yes, personal example is important- even essential-, but what about our shared communal example?  What about the powerful Biblical patterns of calling people to uncompromising obedience?  What about the necessary prophetic corrections when leaders & peoples wandered into compromise?

As I said in the beginning of the post, it is not that I am rejecting the heart of Jethani’s articles.  Rather, I felt compelled to respond because, in warning against one very real problem, he inadvertently made it easy for people to excuse an even greater problem.  At the beginning of the piece, Jethani cited a mother exhausted by the expectations of radical missionalism.  Perhaps the exhaustion had other sources.  Perhap part of the exhaustion came from the fact that the harvest is plentiful, but the workers far too few.  Thus, a call to radical obedience is not misplaced, but more necessary than ever.  Just some food for thought.