|
"I
have come that they may have life . . . ."
John
10:10
Following Jesus in the incarnation and
its relational progression helps us to understand clearly that Jesus
didn't come to establish a new religion, and that he didn't create a
new belief system or even a new way of living (code of conduct). He came to bring a totally different life for relationship
which is unlike anything we are used to and is also contradictory to
all else around. This life of qualitative difference is
distinct only to the Uncommon and distinguishes the identity of his
followers.
The life of a disciple more than
mirrors the life of Jesus Christ. It partakes of his life in
relationship and becomes an intimate part of it. It is
involvement not so much with his teachings but with his words, it's
not about his deeds but his relational acts which make it possible
to partake in his life and become a part of it. His words and
relational acts both reflect the relational work of the heart of his
person seeking the heart of our person for intimate relationship.
As the Life (Jn 14:6), he
pursues us in order that we may have life. We tend to fragment
this life into elements which we then perceive from prevailing
predispositions and biases. As disciples we need to understand
more deeply what this life is that pursues us and that we
pursue with our discipleship.
Life
or Life
The life Jesus came for us to
have is zoe, not bios (another Greek term for life).
Bios involves the quantitative elements of life related
more to what we have and do; it refers to duration, situation,
manner and means of life, subject to observation and may be
recorded, for example, in a biography. Zoe is a
qualitative term (somewhat metaphysical) which denotes the very life
force itself, the vital principle animating living beings.
Jesus used zoe for eternal life (Jn 3:16; 17:3) and for the
relational outcome of "the narrow gate" from its relational work
(Mt 7:14; Lk 13:24-27). As noted earlier, this life is
eternal relationship with God shared intimately together in love as
his family (Jn 17:3,26).
Zoe
is the qualitative difference which is only attributed to God's life
and, therefore, that which is uncommon and eternal. The life
we can have, partake in and be a part of is the very life of God
himself. This is the life of the incarnation and
what Christ came to give us--"and have it to the full" (Jn
10:10). "To the full" (Gk. perissos) means over and
above, that is, that which is beyond--beyond common, ordinary and
temporal. This verse is usually rendered with a quantitative
term like "abundantly." But that usage appraises perissos
in a comparative process and thus only focuses on the quantitative
elements of life. Bios should not be confused with zoe, nor should the distinction between them be obscure. The perceptions and expectations of a disciple depend on it, as
demonstrated by the difficulties the early followers of Christ had
in their discipleship.
Bios
is not what Jesus came to give us. Disciples need to understand the
specific life they are pursuing in discipleship. Jesus came so
we can have God the Father, to have him in the quality of
intimate relationship together in order to partake in his life and
thereby become a part of it, that is, transformed into his very
qualitative difference--that which is beyond common and ordinary
and is the more of eternity. This life is who
pursues us--no substitutes for his own life and nothing less than
the very life of God. This life is what he recruits his
disciples for, not for doing something. This is the life of a
disciple and how they need to live.
Throughout redemptive history God has
specifically identified giving of his self to his people,
which was given "to the full" in the incarnation. It began
with Abraham when God specified that he, his own self, was Abram's
portion, reward, wages (Gen 15:1). Abram was quantitatively
very rich but he shifted from the quantitative to the qualitative
presence of God, thus identifying the process of change for the rest
of us. When Israel went into the promised land, eleven of the
tribes received land from God for their inheritance. But the
priests and Levites didn't get any land. Aside from some
practical provisions for their needs, their inheritance was God, his
own self--God alone was their share. "Share" (Heb.
hoq)
means legal right and cut, allotment, and "inheritance" (nahal)
means to take into permanent possession as one's acquisition.
God was theirs, not land. Though they struggled along the way
with other quantitative elements, they and Abraham represent those
closest to God. Any apparent distinction of who gets the
qualitative substance of God (and who only gets "land") is dissolved
with Christ when he established the priesthood of all believers.
God is now ours--"to the full," nothing less.
This life is further
distinguished for disciples in "how to live' when Jesus extended our
understanding of his life (Jn 10:11ff). Using the analogy of the good shepherd, Jesus
lays down his life for us (vv.11,15,17). Our focus on this
usually is his bodily death on the cross. "Life" here is a
different term (Gk. psyche) which involves the soul or inner
person. It denotes breath, the vital breath of the soul as the
seat of desires, affections and passions which strictly belongs to
the person. In other words, psyche refers to the whole inner
person with the various aspects of the soul. It is with soul (psyche)
that Mary expressed her song to the Lord, in contrast to the outward
elements of lips and speech (Lk 1:46). This all points to
heart as the seat of
one's life.
However we define the inner person, it
goes beyond the quantitative elements (like our body or the workings
of the brain) to involve the qualitative aspects strictly belonging
to our person, for which there is no substitute. Mary
lifted her song to the Lord with her whole inner person.
That's what distinguishes this song, not the outward expressions.
Likewise, in his death, Jesus gives his psyche to us, not
just his body; he lays down his heart as well in order to
distinguish what love is (see 1 Jn 3:16).
We cannot adequately perceive the
incarnated Jesus from a quantitative reduction which merely puts his
body on the cross. Christ gave his heart for us on the cross
as well (cf. Mk 10:45), and even more importantly, he did so
throughout the incarnation. Jesus laid down and gave all of
his person, just as he came with all of him (God)--nothing
less and no substitutes. He didn't come to give us
quantitative parts of himself--only him, wholly him.
This is the life Jesus came to
share with us, and the life he expects his disciples to join
him to live as well. The life of a disciple is to share
our heart, to give me, not merely quantitative parts of me
but me and my heart first and foremost. Yet, how to
operationalize this life for authentic experience is problematic to
the extent that the function of our heart is influenced, entangled
or controlled by substitutes, lies and other reductionist practices.
Peter demonstrated this difficulty in his discipleship.
Peter pronounced in the same terms as
Jesus that he would lay down his life (psyche) for Jesus (Jn
13:37). Along with other pronouncements (see Mt 26:33; Lk
22:33), Peter didn't back up his words with action. His good
intentions were there but his main focus was on what he could do
because he depended on that to define himself. Peter didn't,
however, take into account two key areas in his life: first, how
circumstances/situations influence him (which includes the influence
of culture) and, secondly, his limitations, weaknesses and sin which
reflected his true humanity and what he was. Certainly, the
unique circumstances surrounding Jesus' passion could not
have been anticipated. Yet, avoiding the second area by Peter
reflects a misguided boldness to establish in effect some sense of
equality with his Lord, as opposed to the inequality of grace (see
the interaction leading up to Peter's declaration above,
Jn
13:33-37). In contrast to Jesus' command to love and intimate
relational involvement (v.34), Peter focuses on secondary matter
(spatial location) and doing something (vv.36,37).
Functionally avoiding limitations, weaknesses or sin in one's
practice is also characteristic of those who define themselves by
what they do.
Both of the above areas influence
discipleship, making it problematic to operationalize this life.
They both affected Peter and kept him from following through on his
intentions. That happened because he didn't focus on his whole person, only on what he did. That is, he wasn't
aware of his heart (despite his pronouncement to lay down his psyche) and didn't attend to his heart during Jesus' passion.
This counters the relational function of grace and God's
involvement.
In the actual function of
relationship, Peter was often missing Jesus' person and not really
connecting with him (cf. his other pronouncements, Jn 13:8; Mt
16:22). This is the relational consequence of functioning at a
distance from our heart and with a lower priority for intimate
relational connection. Doing something for Jesus was
more important to Peter than being with Jesus relationally.
This relational consequence is an occupational hazard for all his
followers. His relational act of grace does not function nor
does it prevail in the process--no matter how good the intentions
of our commitment or the dedication of our service.
The life of a disciple shares in the
very life of the holy God. On this basis and from this
ongoing base, disciples extend their hearts and give of
themselves for intimate relationships. To withhold heart is
not to give one's self; to withhold self is not to experience this
life. Hearts still old yet changing to the new, hearts weak yet being transformed, hearts incomplete yet
becoming whole--this is the relational outcome of the life
received only in ongoing intimate relational involvement with the
Life. A disciple's life has no other authentic identity.
Its Vocation
Unlike other rabbis who had a
reputation to maintain, Jesus' call to discipleship broke through
religious, cultural and social barriers separating the clean and the
unclean, the so-called obedient and the sinful, the dominant and the
subordinate. Depending on where you were coming from, his call
was either a burden and sacrifice (e.g., the rich young guy) or a
blessing and opportunity (like Matthew). Whatever their
circumstances it was a call to abandon their old life for
discipleship. Their identity was to be changed.
While disciples of other rabbis
studied in order to become a master or rabbi themselves, Christ's
disciples did not enroll in a learning relationship from which they
could depart as a master, a teacher. They engaged a deeper
relationship involving grace which paradoxically emphasized the
inequality with the Teacher while necessarily equalizing with all
others (Mt 10:24; Jn 13:13-17). Such adherence went well
beyond any disciples' mere learning of teachings, imitating of
behaviors or practicing a code of conduct. As Matthew in
particular emphasizes--undoubtedly from his personal experience
with radical change--Christ's disciple involves relinquishing
attachments (its priorities and hopes, not their involvement) to all
other identities in one's total life (e.g., as represented in Mt
10:37-39); the intimate relationship of discipleship is now their
complete vocation, adhering to his person and words and the will of
the Father in the new identity as his family (Mt 12:46-50).
Vocation is not what disciples merely do but vocation is the life
of relationship, which engages intimate relational work.
This is what makes Peter's denials so
painful for Jesus also (see Jn 18:15-27). Peter denied not
only being a fan identified with Jesus, a groupie associated with
him but also denied direct relational involvement with him as one of
his. As much as Peter struggled in relationship with
Jesus and angered him (Mt 16:23), hurt him (Mt 26:40), frustrated
him (Jn 21:22), nothing was more painful than relational denial
from one's own. Yet, the relational function of grace did
prevail in their relationship; Peter was being transformed such that
others soon knew he was with Jesus (Acts 4:13).
When our identity reflects the life of
Jesus Christ, this is the outcome of a relational process that comes
from being intimately involved with him. This
relational work cannot be engaged at a distance from the heart or
through shallow involvement in secondary matter but only in trust,
intimacy and submission.
We don't have narratives of Peter's
transformation between John 21 and Acts 4, but the narrative of that
interim time does reveal practices in his discipleship reflecting
significant change in Peter. Just prior to his ascension Jesus
passed on a command "to wait" (for the Spirit, Acts 1:4).
Waiting was not easy for Peter; for example, he didn't even wait for
an answer from Jesus whether to defend him with swords in the garden
of Gethsemane--Peter just struck (Lk 22:49,50). Yet, now Peter waited (Acts 1:12-14). He
also embraced words from God to guide them (Acts 1:15ff), not his
own predispositions and biases (though not yet free from all his
biases, as noted in Gal 2:11ff). What these now reflect more
significantly in Peter's discipleship is submission to his Lord and
God. Furthermore, when people were astonished at his healing
of a crippled beggar (Acts 3), he said in effect that it was no big
deal (v.12); this was the relational outcome of his trust, intimacy
and submission to Jesus (v.16). This seems to reflect that
Peter turned the corner in how he defined himself--not by what he
did but by his intimate relationship with Jesus.
The relational work of submission
functionally interacting with our trust and the honesty of our heart
is fundamental to discipleship's vocation and its process of
intimate relationship with Jesus. It is somewhat ironic that
Peter was with Jesus after his ascension more than when he
was physically present. Certainly, we have to factor in the
arrival of the Spirit (which we will discuss later) but he came as
Jesus' relational substitute to extend the relational work Jesus
started. As noted earlier, God doesn't do all the work in our
relationship; we are each accountable for our part of the relational
work. Peter's relational work in Jesus' physical absence--despite all his relational struggles during his physical presence--is an encouragement to our discipleship. Together with the
relational work of the Spirit, we can expect to experience more with
God and anticipate greater outcomes in our discipleship. It's
an expectation Jesus had for Peter and he has for us (Jn 14:12).
Its Vulnerability
God made us for relationships and the
alternative to that is independence--that is, doing our own thing and
doing relationships only on our terms. Western democracy has
come to mean this independence and being free to do our own thing
more than free to be a people. This condition is compounded by
a global economy which, for example, increasingly blurs Western
boundaries and loyalties. This kind of environment has many
subtle influences on Christian thinking, if not beliefs.
Democracy is not the ideal of God's kingdom, nor should the
independence of democracy be the Christian norm.
Freedom could be used either to pursue
our independence and thus "be apart" (with degrees of distance) in
relationships; or it could be used to open us to others to connect
more and to be involved for intimate relationships. The former
in effect abuses freedom for oneself, however socially acceptable
that practice may be; globalization of the economy has had this kind
of repercussion, as does the use of personal relationships on one's
own terms. When freedom is used to open us to others, this
effectively shares freedom with others for relationships together;
and it also exercises freedom as an opportunity to submit oneself to
others for their sake as well as for one's own.
This issue is of huge proportion for
discipleship. Paul dealt with the abuse of Christian freedom
in 1 Corinthians. Yet, we have to understand this issue more
fundamentally than just a situation, a behavior or even a belief.
Independence counters the relational design and purpose of God.
In the relational progression of the incarnation from servant to
friend to family member, it is crucial that the process of
discipleship not get stuck in the servant stage. Practices of
independence frustrate this progression.
When "servant" remains our primary
identity for discipleship and our focus becomes imbalanced with
serving, relationship with Christ increasingly becomes about what we
do rather than being together. This happens because that is
the nature of a servant-master relationship. By definition and
structure there are limits to how close the relationship can get and
how much can be shared between them. That restricts the
relationship from experiencing the qualitative difference of God,
leaving a servant essentially with a quantitative focus on secondary
matter. The relationship may seem good on these terms but that
is as far as it goes. This, however, is not God's terms for
our relationship as the relational progression reveals.
The structured distance in a
servant-master relationship parallels the relational distance many
Christians experience with God--either intentionally as a comfort
zone or inadvertently from a lack of awareness or understanding.
Such distance is not God's desire for our relationship, nor is it
characteristic of a relationship between friends. It is this
progression to friends which is important in discipleship.
A friend is not a title or loose
association as it is used widely today. Friend is a
relationship with a deeper function. In the world of biblical
times, the main ideals of friendship included loyalty, equality,
mutual sharing of all possessions, but most notably an intimacy
in which a friend could share everything in confidence.
Moses was considered a friend of God because "the Lord would speak
to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend" (Ex 33:11).
David gives us a sense of the process of being friends: "The Lord
confides [Heb. sod signifies a conversation among friends] in
those who fear [trust] him" (Ps 25:14); the relational outcome of
this, as the verse continues, is they will truly know (yada)
him and his covenant love and faithfulness.
As Jesus said about authentic friends,
sharing everything with one another (even deep secrets) is
characteristic of being friends (Jn 15:15). A servant (Gk. doulos, indentured servant, slave) might be loyal but would
never experience intimate sharing as friends. In the process
of discipleship the functional change from servant to friend is not
automatic, even over time. Such intimate relationship from God
is contingent on those who rightfully trust him (as David said) with
honesty in their heart--no other terms or masquerade accepted (as
Jesus shared). This trust from the heart involves the
relational work of submission of our true self and our whole self.
Intimacy doesn't grow unless we're
sharing more and more of our true self in the relationship.
Such sharing cannot avoid or mask our true humanity: our weaknesses,
inadequacies, mistakes, sins. To keep this from him prevents
the intimate connection of experiencing each other, knowing
him and thus being healed, liberated and changed. Ironically,
submission is characteristic of a servant, but in the process of
discipleship such submission is only partially given if it remains
in the servant stage. The key indicator for this is how
vulnerable we make our self in the relationship.
Extending trust from our heart also
involves submission of our whole self, as opposed to giving
what we do (no matter how dedicated) and/or what we have
(no matter how sincere). Our whole self does not mean parts of
me or things about me but self without reduction. No
amount of quantitative service by a servant will make up this
qualitative difference. The primary significance of friend is
not what we do or have but what we share of each other in
relationship--that what we share of our self we know we can count on as
authentic to intimately experience together.
This trust between friends which
submits our whole self expresses itself in obedience (Jn 15:14),
yet not out of obligation (as biological family relations tend to
become, cf. Prov 18:24b) but from love (Jn 14:21; 15:9,10).
This is what friends do--at least what Jesus did. Submission
was a distinct function Jesus practiced in his relationships. He himself described his submission to his Father as obedience out
of love (Jn 12:49; 14:31; 15:10); Jesus also submitted his self to
others to serve (Mt 20:28). When Paul outlined Christ's
submission throughout the incarnation, he said in relationship with
others "your attitude should be the same" (Phil 2:5-8).
"Attitude" (Gk. phroneo) means to have a mind-set whose
actions include will, affections, conscience. Jesus made
himself vulnerable to us through submission of his true and whole
self; this is how we are to submit ourselves to him and to others as
his friends. A servant may obey and do some really good
things. Serving Christ, however, is not merely doing good in
situations; it is the function of the relationship of following
Jesus and intimately being with him (Jn 12:26). A disciple
stuck in the servant stage does not make one's self vulnerable for
relationship; they are focused primarily on the work of serving.
An authentic friend gives priority to the relationship.
Obedience only serves this relational purpose, obedience in love
functions only for relationship--relationship with God and
relationship with others.
While Jesus was physically with Peter,
Peter had difficulty being with Jesus relationally. He did in
part submit his true self to Jesus in various situations, notably
when he stepped out on the water (Mt 14:28ff). Yet, these
situational submissions did not involve consistent relational
connection with Jesus because for the most part he did not make
himself vulnerable in the relationship by submission of his whole
self--self without reduction.
The importance of submission both of
our true self (in the honesty of our heart) and our whole
self (without reduction) is fundamental to the ongoing relational
work involved in discipleship. Like Peter, we can get by in
part with submitting our true self in situations while serving.
This will focus us on the situation more than the relationship and
essentially preoccupy us with secondary matter. That would
characterize a servant's life with little expectation, if any, of more. Discipleship, however, as
the relationship of
following the person Jesus necessitates submission also of our
whole self in order to be open, to be extended and vulnerable for
intimate relationship. This leads to the experiential reality
of being friends, with the basis to functionally experience more
relationally. Lacking or limited submission prevents this
relational outcome.
First and foremost, such
vulnerableness to intimate relationship makes us vulnerable to love
(agape mainly but also phileo, affection). This
love unfolds in the relational progression of the incarnation.
The experience of this love is limited for a servant, open for
friends and "to the full" in family love together.
Its Witness
Jesus said the most distinguishing
characteristic of his disciples is love for one another (Jn 13:35).
Yet, love is not something we do; love is what we ongoingly share
together in relationship; agape is how we are to be involved
with others. This involvement is not understood merely from
teachings, nor based on following a code of conduct or formula.
This involvement is first the relational reality experienced from
Jesus in relationship together. Without experiencing his
involvement of agape in ongoing intimate relationship,
disciples can only generate love by what they do, not by relational
involvement based on their own relational experience. That's
why it is important for us to define Christ's love not merely by
what he did on the cross. These are the quantitative
reductions of love which minimize the qualitative difference of God.
Agape is
relational involvement, the outcome of which is a qualitative
relational experience.
Jesus used the metaphor of the vine
and the branches to describe this relational process (Jn 15).
We tend to perceive this as a static structural arrangement that is
necessary for quantitative results ("fruit"). This shifts the
focus from the dynamic process of intimate relationship Jesus is
describing. Three times he mentions the reciprocal effort "to
remain" in each other (15:4,5,7). The word "remain" (Gk.
meno) means to remain, dwell, abide; applied to another person
it denotes relational involvement. This is the same word Jesus
used to describe his authentic (Gk. alethes) disciples
intimately involved ("hold," meno) with his "teachings" (logos,
his essence, his person, Jn 8:31).
When there is this kind of relational
involvement, there are distinct relational outcomes experienced in
this process. One outcome is to know God intimately, as we
noted earlier that only a friend can experience. A further
outcome is the experience of agape involvement, not only from
Jesus but also from the Father (Jn 15:9; 17:26). These
relational outcomes underlie the fruit his disciples bear.
This fruit does not reflect the quantitative results of what we do;
this fruit witnesses to the relational outcome of being intimately
involved with Jesus as his disciple (Jn 15:8). The specific
relational outcome witnessed to is the experience of God's
qualitative difference in his agape involvement. This
fruit of the vine, therefore, must be seen as the agape
involvement with others which Jesus said clearly distinguishes his
disciples (Jn 13:35).
"To remain" is a reciprocal effort
because it is a relationship involving relational work by each one.
Jesus remains in us with his agape involvement, as he
further shared about the progression of the vine (Jn 15:9).
But he also said, "Now remain in my love." God doesn't do all
the relational work, nor do we but we have our part in the
relationship. Our relational work includes obedience--the
relational act of submission (15:10). This may seem like a
contingency to experience his love or to be his friend (15:14). Yet, it is crucial for discipleship to grasp that these really are
not conditional statements but relational statements. What
comes first in these verses is his love, not our obedience (15:9).
Obedience is the relational way we
submit our true and whole self to him for intimate relationship that
has the outcome of further experiencing his love (Jn 14:21,23).
Love is not some substance he gives us and thus we possess it; love
is what we experience from him in how he involves himself with us
and treats us. Love is not a feeling; it is what we
relationally experience of him in our heart that increasingly
transforms it and conducts it. Love is not something we do, or
even he does; it is what we ongoingly share together in intimate
relationship. Through obedience we submit our self to him for
this relationship. As noted earlier, Jesus defines his own
obedience to the Father for the purpose of this relationship and
remaining in his love (15:10b).
Along with our obedience, it's
important to embrace in this relational work the fact that God
delights in those who intimately count on him and always put on him
the expectation to love them without failing and without limits (Ps 147:11). Such relational work engages his intimate
relational nature and his ongoing agape involvement.
Though God doesn't do all the relational work, nevertheless he is
always making his effort in the relationship--never passive nor
detached. Even when we think he is silent or distant, he is
always doing relational work with us. We need to affirm him in
how he is and trust him for the relational outcome.
Agape
is how Jesus, and now also the Father, is involved with us. Agape
is what functionally distinguishes him and his qualitative
difference. When we express agape with others, then we
witness to him who is agape with us. That's why such
loving involvement with others clearly distinguishes us as his
also. This is the substance of being his witnesses to the
world (Acts 1:8). Witness (Gk. martys and its verb, martyreo) denotes one who has knowledge of something and can
confirm it, in this case not as an observer of facts or information
but one who experienced Jesus as a participant. To witness to
Jesus is not merely to share the propositional truths of the gospel.
God cannot be put in a quantitative box. To witness to Jesus
is to confirm intimate participation in his life and the experience
of his qualitative difference.
In his closing prayer to the Father
for all his disciples, Jesus shifted from the vine-branches metaphor
to the relational reality the metaphor symbolized: the intimate
relationships uniting them together in family love (Jn. 17:20-23).
The bond of these intimate relationships, which is rooted in the
relational process engaged in agape involvement, witnesses to
the world of the experiential reality in the relational progression
of the incarnation (vv.21,23). Jesus redefines our
quantitative reductions of what witnessing involves; and he
radicalizes our common notions about evangelism by deepening our
focus from merely what he did to the qualitative substance of his
intimate relational presence.
Obviously, to be this level of witness
necessitates remaining in his love. We cannot underestimate
this relational issue in discipleship because a great deal hinges on
it: the experience of complete joy for the individual disciple (Jn 15:11), the integrity of the corporate life of his followers as
the church, what the world can expect from his witnesses.
Despite our struggles with secularism, modernism and postmodernism,
I suggest we give greater focus to this relational issue.
(More on these issues in the next chapter.)
I don't think the church faces more
difficult times today than the early church of the NT, though the
environmental influences certainly are more complex today. In
the apparent struggle with false teachers in the church, Jude urged
them "to contend for the faith" (Jude 3). The term for contend
(Gk. epagonizomai) is an extension of "make every effort" (agonizomai)
that Jesus (Lk 13:24) and Paul (1 Tim 6:12) used earlier for
relational work. Though Jude does focus on the integrity of
objective truths in this situation, his main focus goes deeper than
that. In these difficult times what he prescribes for them to
do is essentially centered on one imperative supported by three
complementary (or modal) participles (Jude 20,21).
Imperative: "Keep yourselves in God's
love." "Keep" (Gk. tereo) means to maintain as opposed
to leaving. This signifies relational work, not what one does
alone or passively as the three complementary participles indicate.
Participles: "Build yourselves
up in your most holy [Gk. hagios, separated from the common]
faith." "Build"
(Gk. epoikodomeo) has the sense of building a structure or
house, thus involves the corporate relational effort to build God's
family, not a church building.
"Pray in the Holy Spirit."
Prayer as relational communication in the presence of the Spirit
(Christ's relational substitute) who helps us intimately connect
with the Father.
"Wait for the mercy
[compassion] of the Lord Jesus Christ. "Wait" (Gk.
prosdechomai) means to receive or take, not a passive mode in
the context of a relationship.
Jude also adds further relational work
for them in relation to others (Jude 22,23). Yet, in these
difficult circumstances their central effort was to keep, remain in
God's love. Such situations, past or present, for the church
are not only about issues of diluting, distorting or denying the
truth and therefore maintaining doctrinal purity. As important
as this is, we lose our primary qualitative focus when we get
preoccupied with doctrinal purity. Despite the church in
Ephesus' rigorous efforts (including maintaining doctrinal purity)
in difficult circumstances, this was the rude awakening for this
church when held accountable by Jesus for relationally distancing
themselves from their first love (Rev 2:1-4). In effect, they
witnessed to being Christians but they did not witness to the person
of Christ and the experience of his qualitative difference in agape involvement. Relationship was missing.
Whatever the situation, our top
priority as Christ's witnesses must (Gk. dei, by its nature)
be about ongoing intimate relationship with God and remaining in his
agape involvement. The outcome of this relational work
needs to be the experience both of each disciple as well as the
corporate gathering of his disciples, otherwise known as the church.
This is Paul's appeal to the Father for the local family of God
(Eph 3:14-19).
The life of a disciple is able to
witness to the life of Jesus Christ because his disciple is not in a
traditional learning relationship in which one only gains knowledge
(albeit truths) about Christ. To be his witness is not
the transmission of such knowledge or propositional truths.
The authentic disciple witnesses to being Jesus' own by sharing the
God person experienced in intimate relationship, the qualitative
substance of which functions with agape involvement.
The witness of his disciple develops from being with Jesus
and is a function only of this relationship.
This is the relational nature of the
God of the incarnation and the Jesus of the gospel. If we
follow this Jesus and involve our self with his person, we
will follow him all the way to the Father. This is the
relational outcome of discipleship rooted in the relational
progression of his incarnation.
Its Responsibility and
Purpose
Unlike disciples of other teachers,
the responsibility of Jesus' disciples did not consist in
maintaining and passing on particular teaching about Christ.
After his ascension, discipleship of Christ did not get reduced to
the traditional character of other prevailing discipleship. A
set of teachings is not the substance of what he left them.
John develops in his Gospel that the disciples' relationship is no
longer limited to Jesus' physical presence (see Jn 13-17).
Through involvement (meno) in the Word (Jn 8:31) and "in the
Spirit" (Jn 14:15-17; 15:26ff), his disciples remain in full
relational connection and intimate involvement with him.
Followers of Jesus still focused primarily on their relationship
with him, not reducing him to teachings. Discipleship further
constituted fulfilling their responsibility to be a witness of his
God person in their entire life.
In this so-called information age the
accumulation of knowledge (through formal or informal education) is
a top priority for "survival." The main forum for the social
transmission of information is relationships. The individual's
pursuit of knowledge refocuses relationships primarily to sharing
information with one another. T his happens when the quantitative
elements of life (bios) become more important than the
qualitative aspects of life (zoe). Teachings, for
example, about the life (bios) of Jesus take priority over
his person and his qualitative difference. This often
inadvertent shift in discipleship changes the function of a disciple
from a witness of Jesus' God person to a conveyor of Christian
information (however true this information may be). This is
not the purpose of truth, which is discussed in the next chapter.
Such reductionism of the whole person
and of the primacy of intimate relationships does not allow us to
fulfill the responsibility and purpose of authentic discipleship.
It doesn't allow it because the transformation necessary to
experience the reality of the relational progression of the
incarnation is lacking. This lack of transformation keeps us
essentially enslaved to specific areas of our life (e.g., defining
ourselves by what we know and do) from which we need to be freed
(redeemed) in order to functionally live in the new creation not as
servant, not only as friend but as his very own family member.
Any discipleship rooted in
reductionism becomes at best the good intentions of a servant and at
least one's self-serving effort. This precludes experiencing
relationship with the Father because such relationship requires
being free to live functionally as son or daughter--not a title
but a relationship. This relational consequence of
reductionism should not be lost on us because a quantitative focus
ultimately involves a self-focus. These constraints on our
person and our relationships make discipleship very tenuous.
If we truly experience God's
qualitative difference, a change takes place in us that involves
going from a quantitative focus on ourselves to the qualitative
focus on others and involvement with them. John describes this
process as the intimate experience of love from the God of love (agape
involvement); the authenticity of that experience (of knowing
God and being changed by him) is validated by extending agape
involvement to others (1 Jn 4:7,8). This reflects a
relational process that makes this change a function of this
intimate relationship.
This change from a self-focus is not
the mere change of outward form and behaviors (as in metaschematizo). This includes deeper involvement with
others, agape involvement as the Father is involved (as
indicated by the word "perfect" in Mt 5:48, and based on our own
experience, 1 Jn 4:19). Furthermore, this deeper priority for
relationship is not made at the expense of one's self. Indeed,
unlike the tendency of many well-intentioned servants of Christ, the
self is not ignored but more deeply seen in its qualitative
needs. John informs us of the relational outcome of this
process: God lives (meno, remains, abides, dwells) in us and
his love is fully realized in us (1 Jn 4:12). Failing to make
the distinction between the qualitative and quantitative tends to
entangle us in pursuing quantitative means which then minimizes the
qualitative fulfillment and satisfaction of our whole self.
In our Christian practice it is
important to distinguish, for example, between discipline and agape. Whether it is in practicing the discipline of
obedience or the discipline to love--even spiritual disciplines
with God--discipline tends to give too much focus to what we
do, whereas agape focuses on others. When we try
to love on the basis of what we do, then by definition the focus is
on the act because the doing is necessary to accomplish one's
objective. This is Jesus' point in the Sermon on the Mount about
being unaware ("don't let your left hand know what your right hand
is doing") of our acts of helping others (Mt 6:3).
Agape
focuses on the other person and the relationship, thus how to be
involved with them. Agape is how Jesus loves us and
involves himself in our relationship--likewise how the Father is.
Jesus' life reflects the relational work of submitting his true and
whole self to others. This is the relational significance of
agape--the submitting of self. Agape is
pure relational work, not a deed to perform. Yet, we can't
really submit our self without subordinating our
self-concerns, without letting go of our self-interests and being
vulnerable with the honest reality of our heart. Agape
does this and involves self with the other person.
Anything less is a reduction and becomes a substitute in
relationships.
Because of its nature, agape is
also not an act we can merely exercise our will to produce. We
cannot love with agape without first experiencing agape
involvement; God doesn't expect us to, nor wants us to. How we
do relationships reflects significantly what we experience in our
relationships, past and present, especially with God. At the
same time, we need to grasp the nature of relational work with God. It is never unilateral; the relational process with God is always
reciprocal. No dimension of our relationship experiences the
reality of reciprocity more than the process of love. The
awesome relational outcome of this process is the further intimate
experience of both the Father's love and Jesus' love (Jn 14:21),
plus their ongoing intimate presence ("make their home,"
mone from meno, 14:23), indicated for us not only in the future
but now.
Experiencing relationship with the
Father, as noted earlier, presupposes functioning freely as his
child. This relational progression presupposes ongoing
transformation from those controlling quantitative elements of being
a servant. Yet, the dominant focus of individualism practiced
in the Christian life today is an issue of freedom. Individualism
and freedom are interrelated; when they become norms of practice it
also opens the door to include relativism in practice (though not
necessarily in theological beliefs). This obviously affects
submission and obedience in how we fall into relational distance and
serving, for example, on our own terms. But it also leads to
our enslavement to secondary matter in how we define ourselves, do
relationships and church.
Here we encounter an important paradox
in discipleship. We can use our freedom in Christ to pursue
independence with the relational consequence of essentially becoming
enslaved to some element of quantitative reductionism; like the
West's intoxication with freedom, this is the enslavement of
freedom. Or we can use our freedom to submit our self
with the relational outcome of fundamentally becoming
interdependently bonded in intimate relationships unique to the
qualitative difference of God.
In this sense, discipleship cannot be
about what we are in Christ without being how we are with
him--in relational practice. As Jesus incarnated, this
involves following him in relational submission to the Father.
Nothing else is to define the responsibility nor substitute for the
purpose of his disciples.
Submission in the process of this relational
progression concludes with the Father, with being one of his very
own, permanently belonging in his family. This was the
relational purpose of John 3:16 and the relational responsibility
Jesus engaged by extending the Father's love to restore us to his
family. This then becomes his
disciples' relational responsibility to extend his family love to
others for the relational purpose of building his family.
In authentic discipleship Jesus not only calls us to be disciples
but also to make more disciples--that is, those who follow him in
the relational progression to the Father. This is our
commission (Mt 28:19).
Life
Decisions
The conflict between submission and
relational distance, between being the Father's child and serving on
our terms is a critical juncture for discipleship. What
direction our discipleship undertakes depends on distinguishing
these two; yet, there can appear to be a very fine line between
them. In qualitative function they are clearly distinct in their
relational significance. Essentially, one cultivates and
builds intimate relationships while the other minimizes them, though
often inadvertently.
Submission and serving are not
synonymous in today's practice, though for Jesus they are
inseparable. To submit to others (including God) is the
relational process of extending our true and whole person to another's person, in deference to the priority of their
welfare and for the sake of their well-being. In relation to
God, of course, submission further includes the relational response
to the natural inequality between us. As the outcome of
submission, the relational connection is intimate (if honest) and
loving (if genuine). And this relational process always
includes service: to submit is to serve, to serve is to submit.
This is how agape involvement works.
The alternative to submission is
relational distance. This is a frequent alternative because of
misperceptions about submission being the sacrifice of self, or the
expression of weakness (an object, passive, wishy-washy) or an
indicator of being less (a subordinate, inferior).
Serving from a relational position of strength becomes the
substitute, in what turns out to be paternalistic love and spiritual
one-upmanship--not the vulnerability of agape involvement
and the humility of a child of grace.
A position of strength is not how the
God person came to serve. Yet, Jesus extended to us the favor
of our only Superior in what remains a paradox of relationship.
His grace can only be received in the context of this natural
inequality. This requires affirming God in his true self and
being nothing other than our true self. In other words, grace
doesn't allow us to be anything but what we truly are with no
reductions and no false elevations. Grace demands me--nothing less and nothing more. The relational experience of
his favor necessitates the submission of me. What makes
this experience possible as a relational reality is Jesus'
submission of his Me. Furthermore, without his ongoing
submission of Me, the relational progression of the
incarnation stops at servant.
Jesus redefined strength in
relationships from power (influence) and power relations to
vulnerability (submitting me) and intimate relationships.
Being vulnerable is the inner strength and quality of a person who
is loved (1 Jn 4:18); this strength and quality of one's true and
whole person is extended vulnerably to others in agape
involvement.
The submission of the person who is
loved is a contradiction for Christian practices maintaining
comfortable or safe relational distance. The latter is
characteristic of independence (not interdependence) which indicates
the presence of relational fear or comparative pride.
Submission is also a contradiction for those self-focused Christians
whose service becomes essentially self-serving because they are not
vulnerable to others. The person who is loved also becomes,
like Jesus, a paradox of relationship. They are truly loved by
the Father only as a free child of God in the relational progression
(1 Jn 4:9; 3:1); yet, they submit vulnerably to others in agape
involvement (1 Jn 4:16,18).
This is what distinguishes the
authentic life of his disciple. In discipleship it's
not how hard we work but how deep we work. The
fundamental relational work of discipleship necessitates such
vulnerability to intimate relationship, which makes us vulnerable to
love. Remaining in his love is a critical practice for
discipleship as this love unfolds in the relational progression.
Submission in the relational work of agape involvement
underlies everything we do. This is what distinguishes Jesus
Christ and the Father, and why it distinguishes his disciples.
As John said, this is how we know we are of him ("the Truth") and
that our hearts are further convicted of the Father's continued
intimate presence (1 Jn 3:19).
This life of his disciples is
lived only on his terms. It cannot function in a quantitative
box, approach or focus, and it must (dei, by its nature) be
operationalized in the relational context of the Uncommon and the
Big Picture of the Eternal, not the common and the temporal.
This is the very life of the Father and his qualitative difference
made functional in the incarnation of the Word, as well as
operationalized for us in his relational progression by the intimate
relational experience of God's grace and agape involvement.
The sum of this is the relational outcome of his family love--the
relational responsibility engaged by Jesus and undertaken by his
followers to build his family.
Consider
Zoe
and bios define two distinguishing operations of daily
practice. How do they affect our perceptions of discipleship?
Freedom (and related issues of
independence & individualism) is a crucial issue for us to address.
What is the significance of freedom in our relationships (both with
God and others), and how does submission constitute Christian
freedom rather than constrain it?
Outline the relational progression and
discuss the implications of its various aspects for our practice.
©2004 T. Dave Matsuo
Home
top of page
|