Christian Mission
A Commentary on the Sabbath School Lesson for March 15-21, 2008
How do we make disciples?
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. (Matt. 28: 18–20)
How do we make sense of this biblical passage in light of the growing diversity we face within both our immediate and global communities? This question takes on greater significance especially in light of the shifting epistemological inquiry of our time. To “ go and tell” is unlike to “show and tell.” It assumes a sense of certainty and the conviction that what we possess is not only good, but far superior to others.
History shows that the path of sincere searchers often leads to humility and, to a large extent, the embracing of our very own humanity, our finiteness. Most graduate students can attest to this fact. Most professors know deep within themselves, but find it hard to profess (especially after all the time, money, and stress spent in education) that they know very little and that there is a lot more that remains in the realm of the unknown.
The Chinese have a saying: “The person who does not know that he really does not know, doesn’t really know.” Descarte thought he knew when he found out that he could not doubt the fact that he doubted. Then came Berkeley and Hume and Kant, who questioned his claim. And there is Wittgenstein, who suggests there are many things we can’t talk about, while Derrida questions the very language we use. The world moves toward humility and finiteness. Perhaps it is inevitable mainly because the sincere searchers naturally gravitate toward God, and when we are in the presence of the Infinite, we can only remain finite.
How does this conversation impact the great commission passage? I wonder if coming truly into the presence of God also implies coming into the existential realization of the all Infinite Presence as the Wholly Other who transcends our attempt at capturing, knowing, and defining this Being. Lao Tzu reminds us, “The Name that can be named, is not the true Eternal Name.” The God who has been reduced to the realm of the knowable cannot remain infinite. The God who can be predicted cannot be the Eternal One.
Perhaps coming to this God is coming to the presence of the One who cannot be named, the God who does what God does and acts God’s act. And the known is only that which has been revealed to us. Perhaps the only certainty is present in the Text that impacts the texture of our lives, the Word that changes our vocabulary, the revelation that is revealed in our new perspective in life. All this happens in the space between the Jesus narrative and our narrative. So where the subject-object relation in its purest form remains illusive to us all, there remains the possibility of what Professor Ann Ulanov calls, the objective subject. It is within this conviction that we find the strongest testimony we can share with others.
We all know Christ differently. There are East Coast and West Coast Adventist perspectives, fundamental and evangelical perspectives, Islamic and Christian perspectives, Southern Baptist and Episcopalian perspectives. In our personal narratives, a certain Jesus narrative may be more meaningful to some people then another based on one’s historical and sociological context. Which of this Christ do we share and make disciples from?
My personal bias is that our calling is to be known by Christ, to create a space for an encounter between the deep sense of us and the Jesus narrative. The objective subject is a two-way encounter between Jesus and us, where revelation takes place from both directions; where one reads the Text while revealing the very texture of one’s soul; where one opens up to God as one comes to experience God’s openness; where one shares the deep self as one experiences the giving of God’s very own self to us through Jesus Christ on the cross.
If our knowledge of Christ is experiential (a subjective encounter with Jesus), then following Christ emerges from the inner conviction and not through mere logical persuasion. “I want to follow because I know and I have the experience. I desire to follow Christ because my very being yearns for his presence.” Perhaps what we are called to in this commission is to know and be known by Christ, and to allow this experience to express itself without attempting to define what mission and its methodology entail.
Perhaps our mission is to be known and let this experience of being known express itself in ways that are the most true to who we essentially are. This also suggests that we refrain from expressing anything or attempting any type of persuasion if we are not convicted, if we have not had the experience, if we are not touched by the Jesus narrative. Following, in my opinion, is a question of being. It is not what I know or what I should know, but who I am. We follow because we cannot help ourselves, and if we were to attempt following without the deep conviction, we may be doing God a disservice.
How do we make disciples? In the same manner, I think. It happens when the expression “we cannot help ourselves but follow Christ” creates events and reconfigures experiences in ways that allow the Holy Spirit to touch lives, to generate a deep sense of conviction that others, too, cannot help but follow Jesus. Perhaps this is our calling.
Siroj Sorajjakool is professor of religion and psychological counseling at Loma Linda University.
Search
Recent Comments
- allenroyboy on Sects, Media, Religion: Thoughts on another post-Adventist cult
- Audrey on Sects, Media, Religion: Thoughts on another post-Adventist cult
- Alexander Carpenter on Sects, Media, Religion: Thoughts on another post-Adventist cult
- Ed Dickerson on Sects, Media, Religion: Thoughts on another post-Adventist cult
- allenroyboy on Sects, Media, Religion: Thoughts on another post-Adventist cult
- JulioCesar on La belleza del Adventismo Progresivo
- Alexander Carpenter on Sects, Media, Religion: Thoughts on another post-Adventist cult
- pat travis on Sects, Media, Religion: Thoughts on another post-Adventist cult
- Gaylene on UPDATE III: ADRA Commits $235,000 to Burma Relief
- Alexander Carpenter on Sects, Media, Religion: Thoughts on another post-Adventist cult
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
This is exactly what the apostles said themselves, "We cannot but proclaim the things we have seen and heard." Or what John wrote in his first letter, "That which we have seen and heard and handled, this we proclaim to you concerning the Word that is life."
However, within that proclamation, we have gospels as varied as John and Mark, letters as varied as Romans or Galatians and James, and separate missions to the Jews and Gentiles. This all within the first forty years after Jesus' death and resurrection.
And the early church struggled with such diversity. Yet, they moved forward into the known world, always, it seems, trailing after God, trying to make sense of Him and their mission as they went. Should we be any different today?
Frank
Thanks for your comment about diversity and how the early church dealt with this issue. I think you are right. My only discomfort with what we have done in the past has to do with all the energy we spent thinking up arguments, strategizing plans to convince others to bring them to our 'reality.' I am of the opinion that our calling is mainly to focus on Christ and allow this to find its natural expression. I think we are called to bring God to the people and not the people to God, bring the church to the people and not the people to church. Just a thought.
Siroj Sorajjakool
Are you not implying that these actions, "bring God to the people" (if achievable) and "bring the church to the people," are one and the same - or identical? How exactly shall we "bring God to the people"? as well as "bring the church to the people"?
I was just trying to contrast between bringing people to God and bringing God to the people. The former focuses on us and what we have and what is good about us that you need to come and be a part of. Bringing God to the people is focusing on the people in relation to God...the God who incarnates, the God who seeks to understand the life and the living situations and what is going on in the lives of others. This also reflects the church I believe. There is the church that only understands herself and everything about her and why everyone should come and join her. And there is the church whose desire is to really know where the people are, what they think, how they cope with life, what matters to them etc. I believe this is the 'how' of doing church, that we explore two texts...one is the Word of God and the other is the lives of the people we seek to minister to.
I believe "bring God to the people" would imply that we examply a life after Christ that people will see God in us. That as a christian we seek to be more like God thus the concept of "being" is more important than the doing. "Bring the church to the people" which is more similar to bringing people to God tends to have an emphasis on the doing part; it's purposeful with the idea that others should be "saved" because we are saved. We "insist" on the people see the God we see instead of allowing God to manifest Him/Herself through the experience of the people because of the God they see in us.
I thought we didn't really bring people to God, or bring God to the people. God does that himself through the Holy Spirit by inviting you into a relationship with Him. And then, disciples are basically apprentices who learn from their teacher by doing, but are transformed through the experience, want to share it, and ultimately desire more.
“The Name that can be named, is not the true Eternal Name", but I think the God who names himself makes himself known. How else would we know about God except that he reveals himself to us? God is mysterious in many ways, and we may not understand him altogether, but I'm happy to say I do feel a personal relationship with Him in moments of meditation and complete surrender of devotion. The question here seems to be how to translate the personal relationship you have with God and make it universal? You can't. You can only hope that your spark ignited an interest.
We can, as the author mentioned, spend time thinking up ways to convince others of what we have, or trying to define mission, but it's kind of out of our control, really. Evangelism has morphed from the tent crusade of fire-and-brimstone preaching to one-on-one relating. I am in no way condeming corporate worship, but seriously, I spend more time on my laptop then actual physical contact (is that normal?)
If we are in the world but not of the world, how do we become socially active without politicking for support? We want to be the light in the darkness and the salt of the earth, yet be politically correct. We want to stand out but we don't want stand up for something. God doesn't need spin and/or PR, he needs a network he can rely on :) The key is from the other article on Josh Merritt: Don't trailblaze by yourself: cooperate together sensibly and you'll get more done, don't worry about what you're supposed to be doing, just do something. Learn by experience, like the disciples. A church that grows together, grows forever...
I frankly, did not get what the commentary was driving at all. It seemed obscured by so much "insider" verbiage that the message vanished. Perhaps I am just getting old and tired. On to the next page.
I believe that learning does indeed lead to humility and, as disciples making disciples, it's important that we point people to God and avoid inserting ourselves between them and God. We can't "make disciples" if we are not first and foremost humble disciples ourselves.
As time goes by human beens , become more complex, in the way the gospel is presented, in the way we think, and even experience the Almighty.
You cannot give what you dont have, and the God experience is so personal so different, that it all sums up to reflect the image of Jesus in the way you live, only so others will be atracted to Him, it is just that simple, was not this the reason the Lord chose ordinary people?
Let us not complicate the Gospel anymore.
It is an honor to be part of this great mission , God bless
Lorenzo
Isn't the simple answer that we point people to Christ and not ourselves?
I'm all for the idea of the simplicity of the gospel and especially the way we live our lives as an expression of God's love. But in relation to the simple gospel, my personal opinion is that life is complex and that the community and the world we live in is complex. And if we really want to understand the people we need to serve and minister to, we need to be ready for something pretty complex in order to have an insight into the reality of others. I personally think that it is when we can graps this complexity that we can really move back to simplicity again but it is no longer that innocent simplicity but the simplicity that emerges from the complexity of human life. So yes, I think simplicity of the gospel is essential.
It is simple if we yield to non-action on our part and believing that God does the rest. At times we are too "purposeful" with our own "being"--desiring to make sure that others are led to God,etc, that this "action" on our part creates the complexity that we struggle within and with others at large. Being "simple" is so simple that it's hard to stay with it.
Post new comment