I know you’re not in the habit of spending more than a minute or two at this blog per visit, but please take a few moments to view the clip:
It’s a radio interview with John MacArthur in which he critiques a short message from Tony Campolo.
MacArthur believes the primary reason Jesus came to earth was to seek and save the lost. He believes Jesus’ primary message was that of the gospel. The call to follow Him, turning away from sin and to God, allowing Jesus to pay the sin debt by the power of His death, burial, and resurrection. The result is salvation (justification), and because of that salvation fruit is born manifesting itself in a person’s life through their becoming more and more like their Savior (the process of sanctification) by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
From my own study of the Scriptures, I’ve come to hold these same views. I believe the primary function of Jesus’ ministry was one of reconciliation – to redeem an imperfect, fallen, lost world to a perfect, divine, and holy God. This view greatly affects my preaching and teaching. It affects the way I look at Scripture, my take on the purpose and mission of the church, the way I raise my children, the books I read, the activities I engage in, my relationships and the way I see people – everything. It shapes my entire worldview.
More than once I’ve taken criticism as a result of holding this view, and have questioned it on more than one occasion. Am I really correct? Have I missed something?
But each time I find myself questioning, I go back to the Scriptures only to have this view reinforced once again.
Jesus did come to seek and to save the lost – this was His mission and purpose in the world. He wrapped Himself in a physical body to carry out a ministry of reconciliation – to serve as the bridge between mankind and God. The entire purpose of the church, as the figurative body of Christ, is to continue carrying out Christ’s ministry of reconciliation.
It is all about seeking and saving the lost. I believe that wholeheartedly.
You may find yourself saying, “Now wait a second, Wes. Isn’t that downplaying other things? Does that mean social justice isn’t important?” Of course social justice is important. The God we follow is a God of justice and compassion.
“Does that mean Jesus isn’t to be enjoyed here and now?” Of course Jesus is to be enjoyed here and now. He came that we may have life, and have it in abundance … right now!
“What about love? You didn’t say anything about love – what’s up with that?” Hear me: it’s all about love. God loves you so much that He wants to save you. He loves you so much that He sent His only Son into the world to die for you. The greatness of His love is beyond comprehension, and that’s the point of this all. He desires relationship with you and everyone else, and wants to cleanse you and everyone else through Jesus to join Him in everlasting love! That’s the goal! That’s the end result we’re shooting for!
Let me ask a question – if we claim we love the world, but never get around to sharing Jesus with them, what good has our ”love” done? We took some food to the homeless shelter, we worked in the soup kitchens, we donated money to charity – these are all good things. Ok, so it’s done some good - I give you that.
But has our love done eternal good? Will our love have eternal consequences?
This is where the rub is in the argument between MacArthur and Campolo. Campolo downplays eternity, at least in this clip. MacArthur points out that the eternal is greater, and that the eternal is what matters most.
I think he’s right on.
God is love. I believe the centrality of the Christian message centers around, not simply God’s acts of love, but God’s being love.
Make no mistake: I believe the love God desires to be present in the lives of Jesus’ followers is a love that expresses itself through temporal good (helping the poor, downtrodden, etc.), BUT – if we miss doing eternal good, then I believe we’ve missed the whole point of Jesus’ ministry.
If you disagree, I’d love to hear from you. Sorry if this post is a bit discombobulated.
Happy Thanksgiving.
I had to stop listening to MacArthur because I was getting so frustrated with his assumptive, close minded, stereotypical rhetoric. I lost some respect for him after listening to him badmouth Campolo for 5 minutes.
Here’s the thing – Jesus did come to proclaim that the Kingdom of God is here. You can’t debate that, because that’s what Jesus said. I also never heard Campolo claim that Jesus did not come to seek and save the lost. And since when does “lost” only refer to a spiritual state? Was he seriously critiquing Campolo for encouraging people to work in AIDS clinics? Really? Where does he think Jesus spent most of his time? With the lost. Talking to the lost. Loving the lost. The lost don’t care if something is “old line liberalism” because THEY’RE FREAKING LOST.
Because of the internet situation where I live, I’m unable to view videos, but I thought I’d weigh in anyway.
I don’t think the reasons for Christ’s coming have to be mutually exclusive; it seems we’d do better to somehow form a view which encompasses ALL reasons. I’m not even sure we have to choose a primary reason, that will help to define the others. This list will in no way be exhaustive, but here are a few of my favorite reasons Christ came :
- to seek and save the lost
- to be obedient in fulfilling the Law and Prophets
- to be light, and testify of the truth
- to bring and give abundant life
- to destroy Satan’s works and death itself
- to show us the Father (and in human form)
- to exemplify to us kingdom life
- to usher in the kingdom of God
Like I said, I’m not sure we have to choose a primary and all-encompassing reason, provided we can fuse the above together in some way. But all the same, if I’m in charge of selecting one, it’s going to have to do with the establishment of the kingdom of God, and all that goes with it. It seems most everything else on the list can fall under that category. Just my thoughts…
Yeah, I gotta agree with James some. MacArthur was difficult to listen to after awhile.
I think, as in my debates and arguments, and the truth is found in some middle, third way, and I think that is what you are saying.
It is clear that Jesus came to seek and save the lost. Scripture teaches that. But the way that manifested itself was through the kingdom kind of work he did on earth. He simply provided what people needed, when they needed it. If that was physical healing, he heal. If the need was to fed, he broke with that person. If it was an act of mercy to a prostitute or a call to repentance for a greedy young ruler, that’s what he did.
James W. – I think MacArthur was reacting to a form of the gospel that is prevelant in our culture today that emphasizes social action above all else. Social action is a good thing, and followers of Jesus should be involved, but I think it’s a distortion of the true gospel to emphasize social action above everything else Christian. This seems to be a trend among many Christian authors and teachers today, and I think that’s what MacArthur is reacting to. I’m sure he believes working in AIDs clinics is a good thing. I honestly don’t know enough about Tony Campolo to know if the social-action-above-everything bandwagon is something he’s on or not. Most of the stuff I’ve heard from him has been good. I hear what you’re saying though, and understand your frustration.
James B. – I don’t believe they’re mutually exclusive, and I hope no one heard me say that. But every single one of those bullet points you listed could fall under the heading of ‘ministry of reconciliation.’ The mission of the reconciliation of a lost world is the glue that pulls all of Jesus’ actions together.
And Brad – I think you nailed it with that comment, man.
Jesus came to “Do the will of the Father”. The Father wanted the world to have a way BACK to Him.
Everything falls under that heading. If you start there you have a reason for every kind of work you do. The purpose of working in an Aids clinic should be to somehow change eternity for someone. The purpose of helping a drunk break free of the addiction should be to change eternity for him/her. Otherwise what’s the use? As Robert Cox said: “If I must go to hell, I’d just as soon go drunk”.
Wes, I didn’t mean that you said the reasons for Christ’s incarnation were mutually exclusive. It just seems we have to lean that way when we make and defend statements like “the primary reason Jesus came to earth was to seek and save the lost.” That means we must exclude other motives from being his “primary” reason for coming.
I have no problem with someone placing a list of Biblical rationale for Christ’s coming under an umbrella statement like “the ministry of reconciliation.” But it seems he would have to acknowledge that another individual could, with just as much certainty and Biblical support, file them under the overarching theme of “ushering in the kingdom of God.” Establishing the kingdom could just as well be seen as the “glue that pulls all of Jesus’ actions together.”
I may be looking at the whole thing too simplistically, but I don’t know that I truly understand the difference in saying…
…Jesus primarily came to save the lost, so they can have abundant life in his kingdom.
and
…Jesus primarily came to establish a kingdom in which those he saves will have abundant life.
If I myself have to differentiate between the two, then I would choose as my overarching motivation for Jesus’ coming whichever option holds mankind in a less central position. So Christ’s mission would be more about God’s eternal rule, and the salvation of mankind more about his glory, as we become loyal subjects in his kingdom.
James – why do you believe mankind isn’t central to Jesus’ coming into the world? If mankind were removed from the earth, would Jesus have still come here?
I guess I do believe it matters how Jesus’ mission is communicated. It makes a difference in how people carry it out and where their focus is.
Lynn – good point.
Wes,
I lean the direction of mankind not being the all-embracing motivation for Jesus’ coming, because I think that may be an “ethnocentric” view of God’s purposes. I believe the ultimate motivation for the incarnation must be about God’s glory, and not about mankind itself.
If mankind were removed from earth, I don’t believe Jesus would have come. I hate to use such a poor analogy, but if there were no distressed damsel locked in the top room of the castle, the knight-in-shining armor wouldn’t go there to rescue her. But that doesn’t tell us if his primary motivation for rescue was to bring justice in the kingdom, to demonstrate his own power, to gain a wife, to impress his classmates, or even to appease his thrill-seeking, adventure-junkie personality.
I also, like you, believe it matters how Jesus’ mission is communicated, and so I fear that we reinforce the fallacy of man as the center of the universe. It sounds harsh, but ultimately I believe God receiving glory is more important than my neighbor being forgiven of his sins or gaining abundant life.
Ok, then let me ask you another question.
Why does God want mankind to give Him glory?
“Why does God want mankind to give Him glory?”
My top two answers would go something like this:
1. Because he loves us and wants us to experience eternal joy and true life.
2. Because it is right and good for God to receive all glory, and he deserves it.
Both of the above answers provide us with accurate and true statements. God does love us and wants us to experience him fully and completely. He also deserves all glory, because he is the ultimate and only true good. And there’s a great deal of overlap in there as well. I think we find ourselves in complicated arguments when we start categorizing and dissecting the purposes and motivations of God. I’m not even sure we can assume there is only one correct answer to the question.
But if there must be one answer, I myself am not comfortable designating God’s love for mankind as the ultimate motivation for all things. Because in recognizing and giving value to what is truly good, God’s love for himself must be greater than his love for us.
I think I can even see where #2 helps to answer the question behind #1. I can make the following statement:
God wants mankind to give him glory, because he loves us and wants us to experience eternal joy and true life — Because when we are able to enjoy true life in him, he receives glory that only he deserves, because God is the ultimate and only true good (responsible for that eternal joy).
I don’t think I can accurately say the inverse. That God wants mankind to give him glory, because it is good and right, and he deserves it — Because he loves us and wants us to experience true life…
He isn’t good and right and deserving of glory because he loves us. But he does love us because he is good and right.
It is this kind of “educational” pontificating that leaves the lost…LOST.
It is part of the reason the Church is shrinking in the US now. We spend to much time pontificating the mission and not enough time doing the mission.
Is it the “Overall” mission? WHO CARES…the lost still need Him!
Lynn,
I’m sorry to have upset you so. I understand there’s a trend of knowledge over action in the modern church, and we’ve got to do more than talk about it. I strive every day to fulfill my role in the kingdom.
But if, in my leisure time, I enjoy thinking and writing about theology and missions, I don’t understand the problem with that. I don’t have many opportunities to discuss these matters with others anymore, yet I still enjoy learning and being stretched.
I was excited to find Wes’s blog, and even more so when I found my ideas would be challenged, and I would be encouraged to think through and develop further my understanding of mission. But you should know that education is not my end goal.
All the same, I would suggest the problem in evangelism is not “this kind of ‘educational’ pontificating” itself. Rather the problem is when that’s all we do.
James I think you hit it with #1. I don’t think God wants us to give Him glory for His benefit so much as He wants us to give Him glory for our benefit and the benefit of the angels.
He wants us to give Him glory because that’s the way it should be, and if we refuse to do so it isn’t going to end well for us.
In my mind, God’s thinking of us when He says we should glorify Him. That doesn’t mean man is at the center of everything. God is, but it seems to me that God puts man on a pedestal in terms of Creation.
Wes, I agree with you most on the first half of the sentence in the middle. I think God wants glory because that’s what makes all of creation “right” and the way it should be. His creation (in which we ARE on a pedestal of sorts) functions properly, and has all worth and value distributed as it should be, when he receives all the glory.
I understand this properly functioning creation to be a sort of return to Eden: the full and complete reign of God, with the destruction of death and Satan, and the reconciliation of man to God.
When we are saved, all glory to God, we will experience abundant life in this new kingdom, and even share in God’s glory as his children.
I think we agree up to here? Then we split just a little: I think you would say God does this because he loves us, and he loves us because he is love?
And I prefer to go (what I would call a step further) to God loving us and being love because he is perfect and right and good. I always want to take what I see as the final step, so that the answer to almost any question is ultimately something like… “because God is perfect and right and good, and what he does is perfect and right and good, and all glory will belong to him so that existence can and will be perfect and right and good.” (though I’d like to make it less wordy…)
Anyway, Wes, I don’t know that I’ll have much more to add on the subject, though you may need to correct my assumption of what you’d say (about God being love). But I want to thank you for hosting the blog here, and for challenging me to think through some things. I can assure you I will continue thinking about them. Thanks brother.
Hey, I enjoy the discussion man
I think His being love encompasses His being perfect and right and good. Sounds like we may be saying the same thing in a slightly different way.
And I don’t think Lynn is particularly upset – just passionate about reaching the lost.
James, where did you get the idea I was upset?
I was just trying to make a point of what I feel is happening across the country. We have talked things to death and very few are doing anything. I just want to encourage doing.
I’ll make you a deal; When I am “upset”…I’ll tell you…LOL
Sorry, Lynn. I read your comments wrongly. Thanks for encouraging doing, over talking. I agree. And you have a deal.
Your discussion reminds me of John Piper’s book, “Desiring God.” I highly recommend it. It made me think about the glory of God in ways I had not considered before.
I guess I’m a bit late, but feel compelled to respond. MacArthur’s tone was disturbing to me – he comes across as a complete jerk. On the other hand, I think your comments were right on target. How can this be the subject of so much debate and confusion? Jesus himself said he came “to seek and save the lost.” Why isn’t that sufficient? It’s a purpose statement – and it’s enough.
It’s important for his disciples to understand this simple purpose statement, because if we are to imitate him, we need to know that this is also our purpose. It’s the only way one can make sense of the rest of our lives. Everything else comes from this one purpose.
How can we effectively seek and save the lost without also showing them a bit of compassion for their physical needs? Jesus healed, but it wasn’t to attract people, and it wasn’t WHY he came – God heals, whether Jesus is here or not. Jesus healed because it served his purpose (seek and save) and because he had compassion.
When Jesus sent out the 12 and the 72 (Luke 9 & 10), he gave them the task he himself had been doing: 1) tell the good news of the kingdom, and 2) heal. The two go hand-in-hand and are inseperable, and they are both part of “seeking and saving the lost.” It’s what we do when we: “Go, make disciples, baptize, teach obedience.”
God sent His son because He loved the world. That elevates mankind. It elevates us to know that the soul of a human being is the most expensive thing that has ever existed. All creation was spoken into existence, but a soul had to be bought at a great price. And saving those souls is to work in harmony with God’s will, and to bring Him glory – just as the opposite is true. If you trample under foot the blood of Christ, there remains no sacrifice for sin.
Seeking and saving the lost is the only thing that REQUIRED Jesus’ incarnation. The kingdom already existed. People are fed and healed apart from Jesus. But the only way for our sins to be forgiven was by the coming, serving, death, burial and resurrection of Yeshua!
Every breath we draw should be consumed with partnering with Jesus in this work. Nothing else even makes sense! Why have a church at all, if not to train, strengthen and refresh weary workers? (Despite tradition, the bible never claims it’s the church’s job to worship or evangelize – those are individual responsibilities)
As for bringing God glory, you guys should read John 17 and think and pray about what Jesus was saying to his Father in front of the 11, particularly this opening:
JESUS spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.
John 17:1-6
When we do the work we’ve been given, God is glorified. The work we’ve been given is to seek and save the lost. The way we do that is by finding those who God will give us – entrust to us – and then be faithful to make them disciples, baptize them, and teach them to obey.
that’s what love is
Kirk, I’m with you 100% brother. Very insightful comment.
Thanks for adding to the discussion.
I didn’t get to see the video, but if Campolo was trying to make Jesus’ mission statement one of social justice only, then I also don’t agree.
But Kirk, you write:
“How can this be the subject of so much debate and confusion? Jesus himself said he came “to seek and save the lost.” Why isn’t that sufficient? It’s a purpose statement – and it’s enough.”
I think it’s a subject of debate, because there are numerous other texts in the Bible that give slightly different mission statements, some of them also spoken by Jesus himself.
I don’t have any problem with people holding “seeking and saving the lost” as the primary reason Jesus came to earth. But I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as you all make it — as if no one can make an argument otherwise.
I think the core of my argument is that man can be, and certainly is, elevated — but not above God himself (not that you guys are saying this). There’s a reason the first command is to love God with everything — the second to love our neighbors. I believe God must do the same — love himself first, and mankind second. I think everything else must come not from the purpose of seeking the lost, but rather the purpose of loving God. That’s why I hold the glory of God as the purpose even for Christ seeking and saving the lost. Kirk, I thought you handled the glory bit really well in your post.
Is there a lot of difference in what we’re saying? Or do I misunderstand?
Christopher J. H. Wright suggests in his book “The Mission of God” (a book I highly recommend) that we should stop asking what is the “primacy” of God’s mission and begin asking what is the “ultimacy” of God’s mission. I believe the same can be applied to the subject of salvation (understanding the salvation and mission strongly connected to one another). The primacy is wherever we start…with justification, social-justice, etc… However to say either of these trump one another is to miss the ultimacy of God’s salvific mission. What does it mean to be saved? Is salvation merely to be set free from the guilt of our own sin? While that surely is important, that is not the only problem we have in a fallen world.
I suggest that when we look at the totality of scripture and the flow of its narrative, we see a cosmos created as God intended it to live but then, due to sin/evil, that created intent has been lost and now God is at work redeeming the cosmos to once again live as it was created to live. This is why Israel was not just redeemed to enjoy the blessing of God but was also called to live the way of God in order that the rest of the nations would follow suit (this is the implication behind Israel being called a “priesthood”; cf. Ex 19.3-6). And this is why Jesus came, to not just give us the life God created us to live but to show us how to live this life so that others might learn of this (kingdom) life. This is the good news Jesus was preaching (the kingdom of God has appeared); that God’s way of life is being restored upon this world, that the *new* way of life is breaking into the fallen and corrupt way; that poverty, imprisonment, blindness, and oppression was coming to an end (cf. Lk 4.16-21). And this is what we see in the church when we read the book of Acts, a people who were holistically having their life redeemed to its created purpose (e.g., Acts 2.42-47). And finally this holistic picture of all of life redeemed is the vision of the “new heaven and new earth” in Revelation (cf. Rev 21.1-8).
The dichotomy between the spiritual and physical is shaped too much by his Calvinism and also by a platonic assumption that is being read into scripture (at this point, I would also recommend reading some of N. T. Wright). God is interested in redeeming us to the life he created us to live and to bring about such holistic redemption, God must set us free from sin/evil not just so that we can worship him but also because our sin/evil prevents us from living the life he has created and is redeeming us for. But it is not just our sin/evil that we must set free from if we are to truly experience redemption. We must also be set free from being the victim of sin/evil which is manifested in such issues as poverty, violence, slavery, etc… Jesus’ ministry ecompassed all of these elements without allowing one to serve the other and as followers of him, we are called to no less of a ministry. That may begin with telling someone the truth about their sin or it may begin with offering them some food and shelter but to limit are ministry as one or the other or to prioritize one over the other is to misunderstand what God’s redemption is and will be in the eschaton and is to woefully misunderstand what it is to be harbingers of the kingdom of God (the good news Jesus preached and was a harbinger of).
Also, for those interested, my former professor, Dr. John Mark Hicks, is doing a series on the comprehensive view of salvation which I believe will further show why McArthur’s view falls short. Here is the link to Hicks’ blog (http://johnmarkhicks.wordpress.com/).
Grace and peace,
Rex
I meant to say that the dichotomy between the physical and spiritual is shaped to much by *McArthur’s* calvinism…
Grace and peace,
Rex
I listened to McArthur…I would say first that his argument is not with Tony Compollo but with Jesus because we, fortunately do not need to speculate too much about what Jesus would say if he came to earth since Jesus DID COME TO EARTH and DID SPEAK. And what was his message…
“And he said “that the time has been fulfilled and the reign of God has appeared; repent and believe in the good news” (Mk 1.15, my translation).
Grace and peace,
Rex
Jamesbrett, I don’t know if we are saying different things or not really. You write that there are:
“numerous other texts in the Bible that give slightly different mission statements, some of them also spoken by Jesus himself.” I’m unaware of any other mission statements that describe Jesus’ purpose.
There are others that describe what he actually DID … like when John’s disciples are asking if he’s the one, and he tells them to describe what they see and hear. But that’s not his purpose – it’s his activity.
Other statements like our being “created in Christ to do good works” still fit under our main purpose statement: to seek and save the lost. It’s the ultimate expression of love for God and others … isn’t it? Isn’t that the one thing that completely sums up the whole deal? What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul? If that’s true … then ‘making disciples’ is the ultimate expression of worship and obedience to the two great commands, the golden rule and all of it.
As for trying to separate the physical from spiritual … I think it’s lame. If I’m striving with all my might to make disciples – how can I POSSIBLY ignore Matthew 25.31-46? I know lots of “christians” who are totally oriented toward social programs and others who ignore them … but both should be an obvious error to anyone who really struggles to understand Jesus.
I believe we do ourselves and our churches a disservice by overcomplicating this. We aren’t called to UNDERSTAND, but to OBEY. I’m pretty sure I could debate the best scholars in the world on the subject of salvation and find flaws in their ideas. Punching holes in abstract arguments isn’t hard (for me). What’s hard is to stop typing right now and go talk to a guy on the street as Jesus would. And what’s harder yet is getting other disciples to effectively communicate the good news of the kingdom at work, on vacation, or in the stands of their kids’ soccer games. One very simple way to get them to understand it is to remind them that they have only one central purpose: seek and save the lost. It’s the only permanent thing we can do on this earth. Then the rest of it is technique. Visit the sick and imprisoned – be kind to those who are outcast – love your enemies – care for those who need it. All those things are HOW Jesus sought and saved.
I’ll bet you a thousand dollars that the regular readers of this blog all can DO this with the understanding you already have:
Go
Make Disciples
Baptize them
Teach them to obey Jesus
and when you do those things, you’ll quickly discover that the disciples you’re making are going to want a very succinct idea of purpose so they can obey. Remember that a disciple is himself a disciple-maker, not a theologian.
If this is simplistic, I understand – but I think ‘simple’ works best.
Kirk,
Here are just a few of those other mission statements, though I should be clear I’m not suggesting these don’t entail salvation. But I’ve never, in any of my statements, suggested that seeking and saving the lost is not of great importance. I’m just saying that we find ourselves in complicated arguments when we start categorizing and dissecting the purposes and motivations of God. I don’t think it’s any more intelligent for me to say Jesus came for God’s glory than it is for others to say, “No, it was to seek and save the lost.” That’s why I’ve tried to preface most of my comments by explaining that I’m not sure we can separate out all Jesus’ purposes in coming… and when we try, I don’t think it’s as simple as some are making it.
Mt 5:17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
Jn 12:46 “I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.”
Jn 10:10 “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.”
Jn 18:37 Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth.’
1 Jn 3:8 “The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.”
And I agree that we can’t, nor should we attempt to, separate the physical from the spiritual in our lives. I was just stating that when our first love is saving the lost, I think we find ourselves in a whole lot of trouble — serving out of our own power. I’m not suggesting that’s what any of you are doing, but that is a danger when we are passionate for others before we are passionate for God.
As for the simplicity of mission, I’m not trying to complicate it. And I’m not in any way suggesting we have to understand all of this, before we can do mission. [For most of this conversation, I've been trying to ride the fence between "there's no need to separate Jesus' purposes" and "if we try, then I would say this."]
But I would make mission (and in my life I do) even more simple than you have. I’m not comfortable telling people they have only one central purpose: to seek and save the lost. It seems to me our one central purpose is to love God. And mission is a natural outflow of/from that purpose.
I see a direct correlation between each one of those verses and Jesus’ defeat of sin.
That’s my point, though. There is also a direct correlation between each of those verses and establishing a kingdom, or bringing abundant life, or creating a new Eden, or bringing glory to God, etc. It seems that if there are not direct correlations in every motivation for Jesus’ coming, then he would have been on two different missions at the same time — and that is not so.
This discussion feels like guys discussing the Lakers or Kobe Bryant. Is the objective to make baskets? Is it to win games, make money, or create team unity? Is defense mostly to stop the oponent, or steal the ball? It’s not like any answers are particularly wrong, but there can be confusion over differences between ‘mission statement,’ purpose, and goal … and in then end, it can get more confusing than helpful.
Wes’ second paragraph in the original post started with this sentence: “MacArthur believes the primary reason Jesus came to earth was to seek and save the lost.” I think that paragraph is just about perfect. It starts with ‘primary reason,’ then the message, then results … it was pretty good.
My feeling is that the best coaches start with simple things, like THE coach, John Wooden starting by teaching his guys to put on their socks, or Lomardi introducing guys to a football. There’s a simple progression like this in the disciple-making process. Sure, we’re part of a kingdom, but kingdom concepts are baffling to CA college kids who have no idea what it’s like to be under a king. The concept of redemption – of buying someone’s freedom – is also alien to them. Teaching them what Jesus meant when discussing the exposing light or the Tanakh or the other concepts involved in the statements you mention … it’s not useful, imo. Not wrong, mind you, just not useful.
When Jesus said his purpose in coming was to seek and save the lost, it sounds to my ears like: Jesus came to win games. Of course he’ll have to suit up, and stay in bounds and score baskets and play defense, but all of those things come under the heading of his central purpose. He simply could NOT have accomplished ‘seeking and saving’ without becoming incarnate, fulfilling prophecy, etc. – just as one cannot win the game without baskets, etc.
God is glorified when we bear fruit (John 15.8). But our church members are mostly barren. We send guys to college and grad school to “understand” deep theological principles, but most lack a clear vision and few indeed know how to simply teach a regular guy. There’s no focus. So we have churches filled with the third soil/plant in Jesus’ parable about the sowing of seed … healthy, deep rooted plants, but barren. Fruitless.
Because I believe that, I like a purpose statement for Jesus that’s not a theological treatise, but a simple statement under which all others can be understood … because it’s USEFUL. It’s not only true, but it actually works.
I believe Jesus did this, and I teach it … if you walk around with a simple thought in your head: “My purpose is to seek and save the lost,” it will inform you. It tells you how to talk to people, whom to help, how to spend your time … it provokes you to be effective.
Okay, I’m getting too preachy and probably annoying and maybe condescending … and I’m sorry if that’s true. Like I said in my first post: I feel a compulsion in these matters. I’ve worked for different kinds of businesses, and there’s a huge difference between them in terms of productivity. healthcare, for example is a very wasteful industry – but manufacturing is a marvel. These guys are SO productive, it’s astonishing. Anyway, being part of modern “Christianity” feels a lot more like healthcare than manufacturing. Lots of smart guys, doing some really good things – but at an incredible cost of resources … and so many more could be saved if we were more practical – effective – useful.
I’ll stop pestering you guys now.
thanks for endulging me.
As I suggested earlier, which may have gone unnoticed in an unusually long comment for me
, do pick up a copy of…
Wright, Christopher J. H. “The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative.” Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2006.
This book is dealing with the very issue being discussed on this blog. The book is biblical theology at its finest. Wright is an Old Testament scholar with experience both in Christian missions and academics. His book will take on a biblical study with thurough exegesis of many biblical passages from both the Old and New Testaments, showing how they are coherently related and expressive of God’s ultimate mission. I believe Wright sucessfully debunks the idea of that either forensic justification from sin or social-justice have presidence over the other and instead showing from the Bible why both, along with other aspects of mission, are equally important and cannot be divorced from each other if we are to be a part of carrying out God’s *ultimate* mission.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Didn’t go unnoticed, Rex. Thanks for the recommendation.
[...] Significance of Names in the Bible Jump to Comments The other day we had a lively discussion about the primary purpose of the ministry of [...]