Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert argue for a narrowly focused vision of the church in their book, What Is the Mission of the Church? They claim that the people of God are called to gather for worship and disciple-making. The church is not an agency of doing good in the world. Such activity is commendable and ought to be done by individual Christians on their own time. But such pursuits are distractions from the church’s central task.
At the heart of DeYoung’s and Gilbert’s book is a narrowly conceived conception of God. I can’t say whether their portrayal of God drives their vision of the church or whether the dynamic works in the other direction. It seems certain, however, that their vision of God is closely bound to how they envision the role God’s people in the world.
They speak of God largely in legal and moral terms, leaving aside many of the images and metaphors given in the opening chapters and books of Scripture. Throughout their work, God’s posture toward the world is antagonistic. They repeat three times in their survey of the biblical narrative that one question “stands at the very heart of the Bible’s story: How can hopelessly rebellious, sinful people live in the presence of a perfectly just and righteous God (p. 69, italics in original)?”
It seems that this conception of God is necessary to make their case. If God’s posture toward the world outside the church is antagonistic, then it makes sense for the church to focus on activity within the church and to see doing good to outsiders as merely optional.
Again, to be fair, DeYoung and Gilbert conclude their survey of Scripture by noting that they haven’t drawn out every possible biblical theme (p. 89). But their singular emphasis on God’s posture of antagonism toward humanity and the world to the exclusion of other depictions of God characterizes their overall presentation. They consistently isolate certain biblical notes and themes and stress them in a way that marginalizes other biblical themes—even ones that are more prominent or arguably nearer to the central thrust of Scripture.
Here are just a few Scriptural passages that present a different conception of God’s posture toward humanity and his creation.
In God’s climactic revelation of his character to Moses, God stresses his mercy first:
Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation” (Exodus 34:5-7).
God will indeed judge the guilty, but the stress is on God’s overpowering goodness and love, not his posture of antagonism.
Second, DeYoung and Gilbert run the risk of too strong a distinction between God himself and the revelation of God in Jesus. They leave the impression that God and Jesus play “bad cop” and “good cop” with humanity—God, the angry, authoritarian cop; Jesus, the friendly cop who’s really on our side.
John’s Gospel moves in the opposite direction, noting that Jesus truly reveals the very heart of God. John says in 1:18 that “no one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” John puts this revelation of God in striking terms here. “Made known” is the verb for “exegete.” Jesus “exegetes” God, drawing out and performing for the world in a 33-year long life what God is really like.
Philip, perhaps trying to sound pious, says to Jesus, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us” (John 14:8).
Jesus does not respond by pointing to his teaching, as if he has been talking about the Father all along. He directs their attention to his pattern of life: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (v. 9).
So, when Jesus goes around healing the sick, restoring sight, casting out demons—restoring shalom and flourishing to a wounded and enslaved creation—he is revealing God’s heart for his world and his passion to restore his creation. When we see Jesus touching the unclean, going to the outcasts, prostitutes, tax-collectors, sinners, and outsiders, we see anything but God’s antagonistic posture toward humanity.
Speaking about Jesus’ life and ministry is not to diminish the cross—Jesus’ death and resurrection. It’s just to say that Jesus truly and most fully reveals God. If we see Jesus calling humanity back to God, then we should assume that’s what God wants. If we see Jesus seeking to do good in the world, then we should assume that’s on God’s heart. If we see Jesus seeking to restore humanity’s and creation’s flourishing, then we should assume that this is the heart of God for his creation—human and otherwise.
If that means that God’s ultimate aims involve more than what we previously thought, then let’s adjust our agendas to match God’s. It just might be that the gospel is bigger than we’ve imagined and that there’s more on God’s heart than is on ours.
8 thoughts on “The Mission of the Church, Pt. 6”
“They leave the impression that God and Jesus play “bad cop” and “good cop” with humanity—God, the angry, authoritarian cop; Jesus, the friendly cop who’s really on our side.”
I’ll give you another one demonstrating how Jesus fully represents God, although not as overt as the examples you have laid out:
In Luke 5:12-14 Jesus heals a man with leprosy and tells the man to go to the priests “for a proof to them”. Now, one might think that the “proof” was proof that the man fulfilled the requirements in Leviticus 14 on how lepers can be cleansed. After all, prior to the “proof” statement is one where Jesus tells him to “make an offering for your cleansing.”, but that chapter in Leviticus actually has nothing to do with “proof”- just ritual.
Rather, I think this is an illusion to Exodus 4:1-7 in which Moses is telling God that the Israelites will not believe that he represents God. So God tells him to put his hand in his cloak (vs.6) and when he pulls it out it is leprous. And when he repeats the feat, it is healed. This was all done in the name of showing “proof” to God’s people that Moses represented Him and had God’s power working through him. He was a mediator between God and Man, just as Jesus was in 1 Timothy 2:5.
The point I’m trying to make is…just as Moses represented God in the OT, Jesus represented God in the NT. In both cases, God is being represented…so to use the good cop/bad cop paradigm is to distort the claims of the text. If you want to draw some distinction at all, it’s that Jesus fully represented God in a way that Moses really couldn’t.
Interesting, Greek, I’ve not read it that way before — I’ll have to look into it!
Well, if I’m right, let me know and I’ll take the credit. If I’m wrong, I’ll blame my dad who pointed it out to me. ;o)
If you’re right, I’m stealing it and publishing it as my idea. If you’re wrong, I’ll blame it on you and your dad!
fair enough. He gave me a whole slew of other references making the same point. You want me to accidentally mention those as well?
I think it would be more helpful to critique the book on what the authors actually say rather than the impression that it leaves on you. That seems subjective and potentially unfair.
I haven’t received my copy of the book yet, but from your post I have no way to tell if you are dealing with the text justly. You quote them as mentioning a “hopelessly rebellious, sinful people live in the presence of a perfectly just and righteous God” and then charge them with presenting an antagonistic picture of God. That charge does not follow from that quote. That quote presents humans as the ones who are antagonistic, not God. Is it not our rebellion against God that has disrupted shalom?
Hey Nate, this is indeed subjective — this blog is where I think out loud about stuff. That’s sort of how these things work. But since I’m a follower of Jesus, I do aim to treat DeYoung & Gilbert fairly, so if I’m not, please let me know. No one has to buy what I’m saying; I’m just thinking it up and tossing it out there.
It’s not so much who caused the breach, but that stating it this way situates the two parties (God and creation) as sort of with their backs to each other, facing in opposite directions. They’re at odds. There’s a standoff.
This just isn’t how Scripture portrays things. God is in pursuit of sinners, rebels, and his broken creation, with the passion of a wounded but committed lover who loves with an unfathomable, overpowering love. Yes, God does deal with sin and maintains his righteous character, but his posture is not one of moral repugnance. He remains passionate about his creation and seeks with all his might to pursue and save.