Previous Post – Deviant Sexuality
Recently on the Out of Ur blog, Skye Jethani posted a two-part post entitled “Has Mission Become Our Idol?” (Part One and Part Two). Related to his forthcoming book “With: Reimagining The Way You Relate To God” (Thomas Nelson, Aug. 2011), Jethani expresses strong concern with a pattern he sees increasingly common among Christians today:
“When we come believe that our faith is primarily about what we can do for God in the world, it is like throwing gasoline on our fear of insignificance. The resulting fire may be presented to others as a godly ambition, a holy desire to see God’s mission advance–the kind of drive evident in the Apostle Paul’s life. But when these flames are fueled by fear they reveal none of the peace, joy, or love displayed by Paul and rooted in the Spirit. Instead the relentless drive to prove our worth can quickly become destructive.” (source)
Warning against what he calls “missional activism” (or “missionalism”, borrowing from George McDonald), Jethani believes that making the mission of God central to our Christian identity not only fuels the fear of insignificance in those who can’t measure up, but also replaces God as the central focus of our faith. Tying our sense of worth and identity- even our acceptability before God & others- to the works we should do for God is a recipe for burn-out, addiction and a misdirected faith. In part two of the series, he goes on to use the famed Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) to illustrate how God calls us to something different (more on that shortly).
Jethani’s cautions are valid (as I affirm in my post, “The Miracle of Justice”). After all, so much of Jesus’ teachings (as well as those of His apostles) underlined the fact that we do not find identity or security in fulfilling external acts, but only through entering into relationship with Jesus Christ through His redemption. However, I feel that Jethani goes too far in his analysis, confusing that pursuit for identity with a commitment to mission itself. While he acknowledges the importance of active mission, in his attempt to place God before mission (a valid and necessary distinction), he drives to large a wedge between the two. The resulting (potential) divorce poses a greater danger to the wider church than the one he warns against in the first place. Let me try to explain where I see this happening.
To illustrate his point, Jethani relies heavily on the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Comparing the two sons, he says:
“The older son lived for his father. And for his service he expected a reward. In this way he really is no that different from the younger son. Neither boy was particularly interested in a relationship with the father, instead both were focused on what they might get from him. The younger son simply took what he desired while the older son, being a more patient and self-disciplined person, worked for it. Their methods were night and day, but both sons desired the same thing and in neither case was it the father. In other words, both sons sought to use their father. Both were jerks, one just happened to be of a more socially-acceptable variety.” (source)
Jethani goes on to say that the older son’s sin was obviously not his desire to be obedient to the father, but rather that he sought his significance and worth through that obedience. While such a lesson might be drawn from the story, this is where I believe Jethani departs from the more central concern of the parable. Less to do with significance and worth, Jesus was confronting the Pharisaical arrogance that their security (and seniority) before God was defined by their adherence to the Law- note, adherence more than obedience. Further, it was the pride in their adherence over and against the unclean, unacceptable “sinners” that inspired Jesus’ telling of the parable in the first place.
The complexity of what Jesus is saying in this (and the two preceding) parables cannot be overlooked. While a general sense of what Jethani is suggesting might be true, I do not believe it is at the heart of this parable is calling us to. I wish I could spend more time unpacking it, but instead I will highly recommend Kenneth Bailey’s must read book “The Cross & the Prodigal: Luke 15 Through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants” (IVPress, 2005).
Asserting by the father’s response (Luke 15:31-32) that what he (and thus God) wants above all else is our presence with Him, Jethani asserts:
“What brought the father joy was not the older son’s service, but his presence–having his son with him. This is what the father cares about most, not his property or which son receives more of it. While the sons are fixated on the father’s wealth, the father is fixated on his sons. This is what they both failed to understand, and it is what both Christian consumerism and Christian activism fail to grasp. God’s gifts are a blessing and his work is important, but neither can or should replace God himself as our focus.” (source)
On the face of it, who could argue with such a statement? Of course God’s primary concern is with His relationship to each of us. It is not about what we can get out of God, nor about what we must do for Him. We must love God, and such a love requires presence, to be with God. In this, I have no argument with his point. However, when we read the father’s response to the older son, there is something we should not miss:
“‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’” Luke 15:31-32
That the father links in a single sentence the affirmation of his sons presence with him and that all he owns is also the sons, should not be overlooked. Yes, the father wanted intimate, loving relationship with his sons, but his sons presence included being with his father in the family business (thus the reference to shared ownership). Unlike today, that affirmation of shared ownership is not akin business partners with equal shares in their business, but something far more meaningful. The son’s shared ownership of all that the father had was an affirmation of the fathers acknowledged blessing and acceptance of his son. This is what makes his reconciliation with the younger son so radical, as that son had relinquished his right to sonship in the act of liquidating his inheritance. Further, the father longed for the brother to join him in welcoming home his brother and in the celebration if his return, which is, in fact, itself central to the mission of God.
The point here is that Scripture doesn’t so quickly divide between presence with God and participation in His mission. In fact, we are reminded again and again that it is in participation in God’s mission that we are genuinely encounter the presence of God. While this doesn’t invalidate Jethani’s legitimate caution against idolizing mission, his means of responding to it produces a division that is not present in the very parable he uses to make his point.
Why is this an important division to address? While there is a need to address the dangerous trend of those seeking identity and significance through activism rather than relationship with God, the solution is not to minimize mission. The very act of dividing presence with God as separate from participating in His mission will only further separate people from that very presence. Instead of framing presence with God as a higher calling than participating in mission, we need to help people understand that the motivation for participating in God’s mission is that very presence, which then accomplishes the task of reducing the tendency to earn God’s approval through activism.
While the risks that Jethani point out are real and must be addressed, I am convinced that the opposite extreme- that of people justifying the mediocrity of their active participation in God’s mission- is a far greater risk to the church today. I fear that these articles might unintentionally contribute to this problem by present the unnecessary division. Thus my response here.
My relationship with my wife requires intimacy and presence. Yes, that includes (significantly) time and energy to be with her alone, relishing in each others presence. However, just as important (and with much, much higher frequency), our presence with one another happens as we share life together fulfilling the so-called “mundane” tasks of life together- raising our children, keeping our home, earning our wages- all with a commitment of love, service and self-sacrifice. It is the very intimacy and love that we share that motivates us to serve together towards our common vocations.
In the same way, I believe that the best response to the trend that Jethani points out is not to create a hierarchy of priority between presence and mission, but rather to encourage an active presence with God that significantly (though not exclusively) includes participation in His mission, motivated by love and relationship, not fear, striving or pride.
I’d love to hear your thoughts, so please weigh in below.
