I had though I knew what Paul meant in his instructions to husbands in Ephesians 5:25 when he tells them to love their wives like Christ loves the church, to lay down their lives. But as I read through The Nature of Love (thank you for that, it came at the perfect time!) I came to realize that I really didn’t know squat about the Ephesians passage, that my understanding was superficial.

It was then that I connected the instruction in Ephesians with Philippians 2:5-8. What a humbling passage this is. The God of the universe, the Creator of all that is, was, and will be gave up His rights as God in the ultimate act of love to come all the way to us. Risky? You bet! If God can humble himself like that and take that kind of risk, who am I not to?

Thomas,

That is a great blog entry. You are right on!! I may use some of your thoughts but if I do I will give you credit. My people would know I’m not that insightful anyway

Good post, Tom. Ever since I read John Sanders’ The God Who Risks I’m quite convinced about the truth of that statement. The interesting part of course is to wonder how far that concept actually goes, and to what extent God is responsible for creating a world with those incredible risks, that, as we have seen, include immense suffering. Apparently, He considered the risks worth taking.

The entire discussion in this area still haunts me.

God is on a mission for sure, but more importantly, God IS mission.

Great post and very helpful! 

I have been doing some work on the Missional Church, especially regarding the Gospel in our Culture Network (GOCN).  Interestingly one of the marks of a Missional church from an early book from GOCN, Treasure in Clay Jars, is one that is “Risk Taking as a Contrast Community” which makes this point exactly.  The reality is that it does take risk to love.  It also often means that many will not understand our decisions, will not agree or even fight against our decisions, but we must continue on this way of love.  It sounds a bit like holiness to me!

Thanks for the blog!

Peace, Brian

Tom,

This post has come at a very interesting time. I spent most of the day rewriting my chapter on “God’s trust.”  Much of what you say here could seamlessly be inserted into that chapter. When you say God is dependent and missional I say God partners and entrusts. Very harmonious notions.

It is really too bad that the term “co-dependent” has such negative connotations. What a powerful idea this is of our relationship with God and God’s with us.

I’d like to say “keep up the good posts” but can you save a few of the intriguing and insightful ideas for me? 

Curtis

I have invited a Mormon to read the Scripture before I preach this next Sunday. I may have taken a bigger risk than I should have based on the anger voiced so far. It seemed like a loving thing to do at the time, but I’m struggling today. The conversations I’ve had with this person has led me to fan the flame of faith rather than require an orthodoxy before inclusion. What do you think?

Bob,

I find myself often surprised by two contrasting experiences: 1) I’m surprised at how much I can agree with Mormon theology and 2) I’m surprised at how profoundly I sometimes disagree with Mormon theology.

I’m not sure I have much advice for your situation. But I do hope it can become a moment to push faithful Christians to reflect more deeply on our similarities and differences with others.  Perhaps such reflection—and engagement—can become a form of transformative love.

At least that’s my prayer.

I think I can speak for others who read this blog when I say we’d like to hear a report sometime on what you did and how things went…

Tom-
  Great topic and timely considering the advent of paradigm shifts in missiology.  I like your categories and find them helpful as they provide tools with which to understand the Divine mission.

The Missio Dei is a necessary topic and I was delighted to find that WTS would be dedicating the conference this coming year to the exposition of this theme across various disciplines.  An aspect of the missio dei that I find is often neglected, I suppose this is in part due to our hyper-evangelicalism as Nazarenes, is that this missio dei has already commenced, as your points above so aptly mention.  You highlight the “risk” of mission, of the mission of God to toward creation.  I fear that too many folks, body of believers, etc, feel that they have to contrive a mission and then get busy about ‘evangelizing’.  This approach misses the very biblical premise that God is already at work in the world.  God is already at mission to save the world and bring it to a place that is Christ shaped.  It is not our task to contrive the mission or to call up the publishing house and find a better way to expound the “Roman Road.”  It is simply our task to see, hear and notice where God is working in the world and join with God there.  God needs (is dependent) our participation, not our invention when it comes to mission. 
    The Book of Acts and the Jerusalem Council narrated therein is ample evidence of this.  The leaders of the Jerusalem Church, such as Peter, did not believe that God could be working among the goyim, the Gentiles.  Paul was there testifying that God was working there, among these people that heretofore we not part of Gods mission, and it was the Church’s task to join God there regardless of prior theological conceptions or limitations.  The council did succumb to Paul’s testimony (albeit with a few orthodox admonitions) and the remainder of the New Testament is a witness to what happens when the Church ceases dictating mission and decides it will join God in the risk God has already chiefly taken.  I find this incredibly liberating and helpful as we begin to renegotiate older paradigms of mission…and work toward more authentic ways to join with God in the freedom of creation as God is always already at work.

Intriguing post, Tom. There is a resonance between the kind of open theology that you espouse and African theology, of that I’m certain. I’m waiting to get Greg Boyd’s latest book, the one of Satan/demons, but having read his GOD AT WAR, I can see what direction he’s headed. Does open theology necessarily have to end up in that kind of cosmic “free for all”? As my son, John said to me- after taking the SNU class on open theology - he’s “not sure what to do with Boyd on all that.” Thoughts?

Tom, nicely done. As you know, I strongly affirm the missional kenosis you describe above. The increasingly urgent question for me is this: how do we do church differently if we’re convinced that you’re right?

I am working on a post for Patheos.com on the future of the church. It strikes me that the church does not need radically different beliefs—we don’t have to abandon the Trinity, for example, in order to speak to today’s world. But, clearly, we need to reconceive what it means to be church and how we practice differently as a result.

I’d like to see you do a blog series on how exactly kenotic Christians will begin to form new and vibrant kinds of churches.

—Philip

As I introduced the Mormon lady to read Scripture, there was applause from the crowd as well as much visiting with her afterwards. I was proud of the Jesus followers who welcomed someone with significantly different understandings than most of “us”. I’m glad I took the risk, and I hope our future dialog will draw her closer to Jesus

It seems if we take risk seriously we need a theology of failure. I don’t mean apparent failure that is eventually or in some unforeseen way providentially success. Often we don’t know what to say to the pastor of a small church where despite prayers, love, and faithful serice everything sours and goes wrong. Or the parent who loves his kids, does everything right, and yet watches his kids turn hateful, rebellious, and self destructive. Our usual explanations point to lessons learned, character built, the redemptive benefits of suffering, or the mystery of God’s sovereign wisdom. Real love means real risk and therefore real failures. I love singing “Victory in Jesus”, but the Church hasn’t given me the theology to sing sad songs by rivers of Babylon or Myrtle Point.

In being like God it is important to understand the potential to fail. We are not God and are capable of failure and we need to be sure this does not stop of from the pursuit of living up to the standard. We also need to be aware that as you said, God is dependent, we have a responsibility. God can not be in relationship with us if we choose not to be in relationship with him. If we are not in relationship with him, because of our free will, he can not use us. The idea of God being dependent on us in this way I agree with. We are all created for a reason, we all have gifts and abilities God has given us and as a creative God he has allowed us the freedom to use those gift in our own unique ways. I believe part of being in the image of God is taking our gifts and through a relationship with the father allowing him to guide us in ways we can share his love with creation through our own unique and creative ways.

Hamish writes…

The Judeo Christian God is spoken of in a personal awe inspiring way because of his encounters in this world.  This God is spoken of as a provider, sustainer, comforter, and many other characteristics.  The God that is written about in the biblical scriptures is a God who cares for his creation and does not want them to perish but rather accept his love and live. 

This God wants all of creation to be made new and has employed his only begotten son, the Holy Spirit, and the church to make restoration a possibility.  Restoration comes through submitting and allowing God to be a provider, sustainer, … and many other characteristics. The commission for the church is to make the above message “the gospel” known.  The Trinity and the church are missional to achieve the Great Commission. 

I do not understand how this is risky business?  Maybe it was risky for God to give free will with the chance that no one would choose him, but people did choose him and continue to do so.  With God there is nothing left to worry about.  God will provide, sustain, … , so why stress about the risk of rejection.  Believers need to keep living out the gospel through relationships and community planting seeds that have every possibility of germinating.  Believers always need to hold to God and imitatio dei while being the imago dei.

The gospel is life therefore there is no risk of rejection in missions only risk of misunderstandings.

Hamish

Tom- You stated, ‘If God is supremely wise, the kenosis passage suggests risk and wisdom can be joined.  Instead of “foolish risk,” God’s risks are judiciously chosen for the possibility of promoting abundant life.  But they’re still risks’

I’ve never thought about this idea of “calculated risk” or risk joined with wisdom.  You are right- God isn’t foolish, so God must think that risks to redeem humanity are worth the cost.  We all have to take risks in our life, and it is a good reminder that some risks are calculated by wisdom and others are just plain foolish.

Another idea that I had never pondered was the idea of dependence.  I had never believed that God really depends on us to be in relationship with Him.  Without both God and human there can be no mutual loving relationship.  Sure God could love us, or we could love God but this relationship centers around dependence.

Hamish Seegers writes…

The Judeo Christian God is spoken of in a personal awe inspiring way because of his encounters in this world.  This God is spoken of as a provider, sustainer, comforter, and many other characteristics.  The God that is written about in the biblical scriptures is a God who cares for his creation and does not want them to perish but rather accept his love and live. 

This God wants all of creation to be made new and has employed his only begotten son, the Holy Spirit, and the church to make restoration a possibility.  Restoration comes through submitting and allowing God to be a provider, sustainer, … and many other characteristics. The commission for the church is to make the above message “the gospel” known.  The Trinity and the church are missional to achieve the Great Commission. 

I do not understand how this is risky business?  Maybe it was risky for God to give free will with the chance that no one would choose him, but people did choose him and continue to do so.  With God there is nothing left to worry about.  God will provide, sustain, … , so why stress about the risk of rejection.  Believers need to keep living out the gospel through relationships and community planting seeds that have every possibility of germinating.  Believers always need to hold to God and imitatio dei while being the imago dei.

The gospel is life therefore there is no risk of rejection in missions only risk of misunderstandings.

Hamish

Scott,
About your last comment about relationships between God and humanity centers around dependence I have some thoughts.  A relationship with the divine cannot be analyzed in the same way as a relationship between people.  Relationships that humans have between one another can require dependence of one another.  We can petition and grant request from the other within means.  Humanity has no means when dealing with a relationship with the creator of the universe.  Meaning what could humanity provide God with that he needs.  To say it in a biblical paradigm I will use the English transliterated Hebrew word of hesed.   
There are five distinct characteristics that can be derived from biblical stories that aid in identifying an act of hesed.  1) The person asking does not have the means to do it for themselves.  2) Not receiving help will make the situation worse.  3) The superior party is the only means of help.  4) The one asking for help has no say in the decision of the superior party.  5) The superior party must have the opportunity to make the choice to help or not help on his own accord 1. The point of hesed is that one can help another out of love of their neighbor and have no ulterior motives.  The biblical word hesed means that humanity only has a relationship with God because God acts out of free will love and not dependence of the other party.
1.  Sakenfield, Katherine.  Love:  Old Testament:  hesed.  Anchor Bible Dictionary.
Hamish

Thinking about God’s dependence upon creation has major implications for mission. It means that we have a part in carrying out God’s mission. We are not pawns or puppets being moved around by God, but active participants. We have a response to make to God and an invitation to extend to others. God has taken a risk on us because He lets us choose to participate in His mission or not. And if God’s mission is dependent upon us choosing to participate, than He runs the risk of an unfulfilled mission. But the reward outweighs the risk; genuine love.

Thanks for the insight and challenging me to think about mission in a new way.

I have to admit that I am working through your thoughts on the “dependent” God part of your blog.  Your description, however, of your wife and her responsibility to maintain the relationship fits naturally with the way the Bible talks about God working.  There are many times that He talks of His blessings coming our way, if we walk in His way and follow His commands.  To think of His covenant with Abraham, and how he started the process of that covenant, is absolutely amazing.  He wasn’t saying that if He failed He would cease to exist.  He, being the “dependent” God, was saying that He would be faithful to do His part of the relationship as long as we were faithful with our side of things.  It still seems odd to say He is dependent, but the more that you consider relationship, community, and love the more that “dependence” comes across.  Thanks for the insight.

Tom I think that the analogy that you gave of the relationship that exists between you and your wife in relation to our relationship with God is very helpful.  I find it interesting as you pointed out that God is not dependent on us for his existence and yet there is an element that God truly desires a love relationship with us his creation.

God’s love is everlasting unlike the human race, we tend to fall short most of the time. We are love one another and forgive one another, but only with the strength from the Holy Spirit. I sometimes feel that we love each other as husband and wife but sometimes the ‘love’ has to grow more and more. I mean I can say I love you but saying is different than showing it. God showed His love for us by sending His Son to die for all of us. This is a big sacrifice and how many people would do such a thing? We are God’s creation and to be created shows an everlasting love, because He took the time though only a matter of seconds, His love for things made it to where we exist today.

Dr. Oord. 

I have been processing your post, and have been stuck at the beginning:  “Mission requires humility.”  As we step up to take the risks that we are called to, there are many ways in which our attempts require humility.  Although we seek to follow God in the big picture, we often stick our feet in our mouth in the little details.  Just because we see the big picture doesn’t mean that we know all the steps to get there.  Sometimes in our attempts to uncover the truth of His calling, we complicate His plans by opening our mouths. 

You are very right, mission does require humility!

What a challenge! Just be willing to imitate God and be a risk taker. These great thoughts brought to mind times of risk taking that were worth it all; love for a second time, moving away from family and friends to go into full-time ministry, leading a group of ladies on a mission’s trip to Panama and driving the car during the Panama mission’s trip! I am grateful that God took a risk to create, love and care for mankind. Because He set the example to take a risk, I will continue to take up the challenge to be a risk taker. Thanks for the thoughts

The idea of God being dependent of us I found surprising.  Yet, as you explained it I began to realize and understand what was being said.  It is an amazing thing to realize that God depends on us to engage with Him in relationship.  God gives us the freedom to choose.  He could have made us with no chose but instead in He gave us the option to engage in relationship or not. Your example of how you depend on your wife is a great example of how God depends on us.  He doesn’t need us in order for Him to exist but rather He has given us certain responsibilities and He depends on us to do our part.  The first would be to love Him make and the second would be to go and love the world.  The third thing is to go into the world and tell them about Jesus and make them disciples.

Tom,

One of the lines that caught my attention was, “More and more Christians are realizing that risking some dependence on others is not only a risk worth taking but essential for what it means to live a healthy life.  Community matters.”  The implications of this statement in our roles as leaders are huge.  To imitate God in our risk taking and being dependant on others can change the way we interact with those we lead.  We see people not as those we have to tell what to do but those we can rely on.  We have to depend on them.  We have to risk letting them work on their own.  We have to be able to risk and show love to people. 

Also, I appreciated the line from The Chronicles of Narnia about Aslan not being safe but good.  To take the risk is Gods way of loving us.  It is God’s way of showing us the good.  As a result of this weeks assignments I am thinking I really need to read Pinnock’s, Most Moved Mover.  It was a good read.

I believe that God has taken extreme risks in revealing His love to us and in allowing us to become ‘children of God’ . This personal risk He is taking is one of vulnerability and probable broken trust. It is a risk of rejection. It is a risk of infinitely messy proportions.
But without such a risk, we must beg the question is love, really love? Is it love that risks nothing? Is it love that reveals nothing? Is it love that once hurt, scoffed or rejected does not still pursue the object of affection?
The risks God takes in revealing Himself and offering us His love, is also the risk He takes in engaging us in His mission. I believe it was Francis Chan’s book Crazy Love that got me thinking about the irony of a “Humanity who doesn’t want God but needs Him, and a God who doesn’t need humanity but wants them”. I would pose however that because of the character and mission of God that He wants us so much that He needs us. He has availed His activity and mission to the beautiful confines and makeup of the body of Christ. Though He doesn’t need us (in order for Him to still be God), because He is who He is then He has created a means of abiding/relating/bringing together/evangelizing, in which He needs us.
What a powerful and loving God we serve!

God is also a fellow suffer who participates in the world’s struggles and pain.  To say that God is independent, would challenge the logic of the divine self-emptying, that was revealed through the life and humiliation of Jesus the Christ.  Is the self-emptying love?
How are we to conduct missions if we are called missionaries?  If could take the divine self-emptying concept to the people maybe we could see transformation in our idea of the “western culture” when doing missionary work.  Who knows maybe that “divine gamble” risk-taking could result in a transformation of the American churches who have forgotten the mission field is just outside their doors.

Tom,

I think that I can hear echoes of Pinnock’s The Most Moved Mover throughout your essay.  If love is forced then it is rape.  So true love must be open, must be risky, must be moving towards the other person, and truly good.  It also takes reciprocation to be complete.  This definition of love (or God) places a higher value on the human experience and gives more approachability to God.  It also exposes sin in a more meaningful way. 

One question or further thought about God and kenosis.  The very act of creating is ‘self emptying.’  It is also very risky.  Perhaps that is why there is additional beauty in that in the beginning there was just God - and God began to empty part of Godself so that we could be.  Sounds like real love to me.

Hi Dr. Oord,

I really appreciated this post.  Thank you for the challenge.

You wrote,

“In our everyday language, ‘risk’ is often preceded by ‘foolish.’  Unfortunately, this combination of words – “foolish risk” – occurs so frequently that we may assume risk-taking and wisdom are antithetical.  If God is supremely wise, the kenosis
passage suggests risk and wisdom can be joined.  Instead of ‘foolish risk,’ God’s risks are judiciously chosen for the possibility of promoting abundant life . . . “

I completely understand where you are coming from with the idea that while God takes risks they are calculated and with purpose.  However, I kind of like the connection that risk has with foolishness when it comes to describing the kenotic love of God.

The phrasing “foolish risk” rather than “calculated risk” I feel better and poetically describes the wonderful paradox of God’s loving nature.  God, the supremely wise or omniscient one, “foolishly” has, is, and continues to self-empty and pour out his love on a people who time and time again, reject the life, love, and freedom that he continuously offers.  So while God is wise, God in some respect is foolish . . . but in a wonderful way!

Two parables that come to mind that I feel perfectly describes this “foolish love” are the parable of “the Laborers in the Vineyard” (Matt. 20:1-16) and the parable of “the Prodigal.”  In both, the characters that are widely considered to be illustrations of God are in sorts wasteful (the literal definition of prodigal) and foolish in their gifts of love, gift, inheritance and compassion.

Perhaps we too have been called to imitate God and foolishly and kenoticly love those who little deserve it.

—Jerad

Dr. Oord,

I am really intrigued by this concept of a risk taking God.  I am also amazed at God’s timing, considering the fact that two months ago I planned out a sermon series that included a message on the importance of taking risks and it just so happens that the message on risk was scheduled for this Sunday!

One of the things that really struck me was your statement, “God’s risks are judiciously chosen for the possibility of promoting abundant life.”  What a great point!  God even knew that sending Jesus as our Savior was a risk.  There was the possibility that humanity would reject Him and even despise him.  And many have.  Yet God saw the risk worth taking.  What a powerful message.

If Griffin is right (and I think he is) and we are driven to imitate deity, then why do we as Christians so often play it safe?  We must move past the fear and selfishness related to sin and risk it all for the mission of God.

Hey Jerad and Dr. Oord,

You both bring a lot of food for great thought. I have a hard time thinking that anything that God does is not calculated. In my view, I think there is a huge difference between risk-taking and gambling. Gambling seems to be throwing chance to the wind without much thought. Risk-taking seems to be a measured and almost required next step to accomplish the goal. God with His goal in mind was willing, motivated, and possibly required to take that next step into the unknown.

Jerad. While I might disagree with your view of risk-taking, I think “foolish” can still be included in that equation. Could you accept a “foolish calculated risk?”

Scott Ketchum writes…

I appreciate your insights on risk-taking and imitating God.  Fear and failure seem to what keep most from risking anything in life, but in considering God’s mission, I don’t see failure as an option.  We risk setbacks maybe, discouragement, refining, reforming, but not failure.  Failure is quite final.  God’s mission may allow for a variety of means to the end goal, say with us or without us, but it is not set for failure. 

Is there real risk when engaging in God’s mission?  Knowing that His kingdom is coming – what do we have to lose in not engaging?  Maybe we’d miss out on a deeper drink of His blessing, a furthering of faith-formation, or perhaps a more humble experience of Jesus’ love.  If we’re not engaging in God’s mission, I think we risk missing the movement of God.

Hamish responds to Scott Carver:

About your last comment about relationships between God and humanity centers around dependence I have some thoughts.  A relationship with the divine cannot be analyzed in the same way as a relationship between people.  Relationships that humans have between one another can require dependence of one another.  Humans can petition and grant request from the other within means.  Humanity has no means when dealing with a relationship with the creator of the universe.  Meaning what could humanity provide God with that he needs.  To say it in a biblical paradigm I will use the English transliterated Hebrew word of hesed.   

There are five distinct characteristics that can be derived from biblical stories that aid in identifying an act of hesed.  1) The person asking does not have the means to do it for themselves.  2) Not receiving help will make the situation worse.  3) The superior party is the only means of help.  4) The one asking for help has no say in the decision of the superior party.  5) The superior party must have the opportunity to make the choice to help or not help on his own accord 1. The point of hesed is that one can help another out of love of their neighbor and have no ulterior motives.  The biblical word hesed means that humanity only has a relationship with God because God acts out of free will love and not dependence of the other party.

1.    Sakenfield, Katherine.  Love:  Old Testament:  hesed.  Anchor Bible Dictionary.

Hamish

I really appreciate this blog and its content. The part on self emptying really grabbed my attention. It really reveals sacrifice all the way.

I like to use the language of risk but if I am honest I do not like to take risks. There is something exhilarating about the idea of doing something different or risky. Of course, the life of Jesus and the self-emptying “kenosis” is something that is attractive. But when it comes down to it I wonder how much willingness I (and others) really have. There are many things about genuinely reflecting Jesus that frighten me. The last time I read the gospels, the risk of kenosis landed Jesus on the cross. I fear what taking risks might cost me. Security? Family (that has already happened to some extent)? Health?
I understand that I do not necessarily need to be foolish or without purpose but even when considering a calculated approach to being like Jesus… the outcome seems… too risky.
Just struggling out loud.
Peace,
Travis

This is the 2nd instance I have encountered your site in the last few weeks. Seems like I ought to take note of it.