|
"Do
You Love Me?"
John
21:16
When Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene after the resurrection, he
told her to go back to his family and tell them "I am returning to my Father and your
Father"
(Jn 20:17). His earthly stay was
coming to a close, but not before he fully established the
relational progression from his Father and for his Father. His
relational work in the incarnation also established his followers in
the relational progression to the Father to be equalized from
enslavement-to-friend-to become his and his family.
Discipleship is this redemptive relational process of following
Jesus in the relational progression. Yet, has Jesus revealed enough
of his person (and thus his Father) in the incarnation to follow, so
that we can truly be called his family, and his Father called our
Father?
Yes and
no. No, in that the relational progression is not completed in its
functional fulfillment; its functional completion is the cooperative
relational work of his Spirit. Yes, in the fact that Jesus
vulnerably operationalized the relational context and process of the
progression to his Father for us to be directly and intimately
involved; in other words, God's paradigm for his people was fully
revealed as was the means to live it.
The
transition from his physical departure to the arrival of his Spirit
was a crucial time for his first disciples--particularly for Peter.
"Yes and no" needed to be grasped if their discipleship was to
continue in this relational progression. Jesus instructed them
further about the "no" just prior to his ascension (Acts 1:4,8).
The "yes" was more deeply examined in the sensitive interaction
Jesus had with Peter.
"Do you
love me?" From our
initial discussion (in Chapter 1) of this interaction, it was
identified that Jesus pursued Peter because he was not grasping
something. Jesus wasn't asking him for information about his love
but only about the relationship and his level of intimate relational
involvement. As we revisit their exchange, we further need to
connect Jesus' question with his statement ("feed
my sheep" or "take care of my sheep"), and both to his imperative ("Follow me").
Since agape love is about "how to be involved relationally" and not
about "what to do," this suggests that Jesus' statement ("feed" or
"take care of my sheep") was not about what Peter should do as a
leader of the church. Rather, it was about how to be involved with
the Father as his and with his family. It was characteristic of
Peter to initiate independent action as if he were in the lead.
Though Peter acted with good intentions, this was not sufficient to
follow Jesus. He didn't want Peter's service nor what Peter could
do for him, even with phileo. He wanted Peter's whole person
and the relational involvement of his person. This required of
Peter: (1) to follow Jesus in the relational progression and not to
stop at individual relationship with him, and thus (2) to be
relationally involved with the Father as his and with his family in
intimate interdependent relationships and (3) further function in
his reciprocal relational responsibility without distinctions.
Jesus
connected love for him (by intimate relational involvement) with
taking care of his family ("sheep") by the relational involvement
of family love. Yet, Peter needed to grasp that this family love can
only be operationalized in the relational context and process of
following Jesus in the relational progression. Otherwise, the
practice of discipleship is merely individualized and stops short in
the relational progression.
Peter's
tendency was to define himself by what he did, thus he paid more
attention to secondary matter from the outer-in. This made it
difficult at various times for Peter even to focus on what was
important about Jesus--his person and intimate relationship with
him. This happened again in this interaction when Peter was
distracted by seeing John and comparing his circumstances. This
reflected a mind-set which made distinctions not yet equalized as
family. Thus, Jesus emphatically had to refocus Peter on the
relational involvement of following him. This is the relational
imperative.
Yet,
Peter effectively functioned on a more individual basis. Even in his
rigorous experience of following Jesus, this suggests his tendency
to stop short in the relational progression. Before his departure
Jesus wanted Peter to grasp the "yes" of his incarnation, he wanted
Peter to be established in God's paradigm for the new life. With
the question of "love," the statement of "feed," the imperative of
"follow," Jesus integrates spirituality (intimate relational
involvement with God) with the corporate process of interdependent
intimate relationships as his family in the practice of family love.
The
relational message vital for all his followers to understand in "Do
you love me?" is: my whole person is very important to him
and he wants my deep relational involvement. The relational message
in "feed my sheep"
is: I am a full member of his family and he
wants me to experience new life together as his family. The
relational message in "follow me"
is: his person is the most important
and nothing is more important than ongoing intimate relationship
with him. These are the messages he incarnated from the Father, and
the "yes" he wants us to grasp, to embrace, to be involved with
him.
Authentic
discipleship is following Jesus in the relational progression
together with his Spirit who brings it to completion. If our
practice (individually and corporately) is to be
relationship-specific (person to person) and to have relational
significance (heart to heart) to God, then our practice needs to
function in this redemptive relational process of discipleship as
his new kinship family.
Revelation or
Reduction: Our Accountability
In the
incarnation Jesus revealed more than his character for us to conform
to; more importantly, he vulnerably exposed his person for us to be
relationally involved with. His life didn't give us a model
to follow, but he intimately opened access to the relational context
and process for us to be relationally involved in. When
discipleship becomes following the model of Christ or conforming to
his character, it becomes a reductionist alternative.
Jesus
said to his followers in the Sermon on the Mount that what we are
and practice ("righteousness") must qualitatively exceed the
reductionists (Mt 5:20). Likewise, he said our identity as "the
light" and our function as "the salt" cannot be reduced, or they
will become ambiguous and shallow (5:13-16). Reductionist influence
and alternatives are always in constant conflict with God's desires
for his people--whether they are forms of individualism, legalism,
institutionalism, rationalism or postmodernism. Jesus continuously
leads his followers to the next level of new life in the relational
progression, while Satan is constantly promoting reductionist
Christian practice.
The
writer of Hebrews approached this tension from another angle.
Addressing persons who at this stage of their Christian life should
have been much more developed, mature, even teaching others, the
writer appears frustrated that they continued to live on "milk,"
not "solid food" (Heb 5:11-14). The writer wanted to address so
much more of Christ's purpose and function, so the following
challenge was issued: "let us stop going over the basics about
Christ again and again. Let us go on instead and become mature in
our understanding. Surely we don't need to start all over again
with the importance of turning away from evil deeds and placing our
faith in God" (Heb 6:1, NLT). This becomes the issue of what is more
palatable for popular Christian practice. Reductionism prevents us
from the meat of discipleship and keeps us focused on the less
substantive practice of milk.
Yet, as
John clearly defined at the beginning of his Gospel, the full
revelation of God's glory became incarnate with Jesus in the
relational progression (Jn 1:14,18). We are accountable for all of
his revelation (without reduction) and to be intimately involved in
all of the relational progression without stopping and without
distinctions (1:10-13)--the popular use of verse 12
notwithstanding.
This
study attempts to formulate discipleship based on a whole
Christology (including between the manger and the cross) and a full
soteriology (what Christ saved us to as well as saved us from). This puts the focus on Jesus in the proper relational
context and process of the relational progression, just as Jesus did
with Peter. Yet, as Peter demonstrated, how free we are to respond
to him depends on our perceptual framework (e.g., quantitative
reductionist or qualitative
relational), and whether our perceptions
of Christ predispose us to place him in a context different from his
revelation--namely, the prevailing context of a popular Christ,
more palatable and less threatening.
The
influence of a quantitative perceptual framework of reductionism
predisposes us, creates biases and forms a mind-set which
essentially determine what we pay attention to and what we will
ignore. Certainly, the relational perspective formulated by the
qualitative perceptual framework also predisposes, biases and
develops a mind-set. The crucial difference, however, in these two
frameworks is whether the lens (or filter) to view life that each
perceptual framework provides either distorts or sharpens reality,
clouds or clarifies the truth. Reductionist alternatives distort and
cloud, while the relational context and process of the relational
progression sharpens and clarifies.
Since
Jesus incarnated God's glory and vulnerably revealed his Father to
us, we are accountable: like the two disciples on the road to Emmaus
(Lk 24:25,31), to see his person; like Thomas and Philip
(Jn 14:7,9), to know him intimately; like Peter, to be
intimately involved with his person in the relational progression.
Discipleship must (dei, by its nature) be perceived and
practiced on his terms revealed in the incarnation, for which we are
completely accountable--without reduction and without substitution.
Summary
When the
process of discipleship is contextualized by biblical culture,
particularly the narratives of Jesus, it must function in the
following contexts:
1.
Following Jesus in his revealed context of the relational
progression.
2.
Involvement in the intimate relational context with him and thus
with his Father as his.
3.
Sharing life together without distinctions in the corporate
relational context of his family.
4.
Extending family love in the context of the world.
Identity
formation develops for his followers together in this
redemptive relational process. It is the only identity that has
relational significance to the Father. Thus, Jesus faces each of us--"Do
you love me?"
©2004 T. Dave Matsuo
Home
top of page
|