A letter and a response: A letter and a response:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":197,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1736,425],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2754","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-emerging-movement","category-missional"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nScott,
\nI didn\u2019t want to hijack one of your missional Jesus blogs so I thought I would email this to you separately and if you had time to answer that\u2019d be great \u2013 if you don\u2019t \u2013 I understand!!!
\nDoes being missional replace the \u201cchief end of man\u201d? In other words, does seeing the mission of God as being the basic principle behind God\u2019s activities in history and the physical world and our participation in the mission of God as the guiding principle of our life and faith mean that to \u201cglorify God and enjoy him forever\u201d is not the best way to express our chief end?
\nHonestly, though I\u2019ve read Piper and have a fair grasp of the meaning behind the glory of God I have to say I don\u2019t really connect with the phrase and I even cringe when I hear people in our church expressing some hope that some particular activity or new ministry will glorify God \u2013 not that I don\u2019t want that to happen of course, but it seems to put the cart before the horse.
\nPerhaps the chief end remains as expressed in the catechism, but our language should focus on what we do, the mission of God which in the end will glorify Him, and not on the glorifying.
\nany thoughts on the topic?
\nThanks!
\nMatt Simpson<\/em>
\nDear Matt \u2014 notice I got your double \u201ctt\u201d just right 8),
\nThat famous line \u2014 the chief end of man [i.e., humans] is to glorify God and enjoy him forever \u2014 was handed on to most of us through the Westminster tradition, though I suspect it came to them from another tradition. (Someone might know.)
\nWhen it comes to overall synopses of what life is all about it\u2019s a good one. But it isn\u2019t inspired and it isn\u2019t found in the Bible. John Piper, you know, tinkered with it and created the evocative \u201cChristian hedonism\u201d by reframing it as \u201cto glorify God by<\/em> enjoying him forever.\u201d
\nAnd you ask if the word \u201cmissional\u201d replaces this famous \u201cchief end\u201d line. I don\u2019t know if the missional folks would say so or not, since I\u2019ve not heard them. I know there are plenty of Westminster folks who embrace a missional perspective, so I suppose for them it doesn\u2019t replace it. But, let me suggest that \u201cmissional\u201d can replace it and I\u2019ll suggest it by asking you to consider the following:
\n1. I\u2019m not sure \u201cglorifying\u201d God is the end of all ends \u2014 it\u2019s there and it\u2019s close, but I think the final end is absorption and utter delight in God by loving God purely. Loving God perfectly glorifies God, but it is the love that is the end of all ends. (I personally think \u201cglorify\u201d would gladly hand over its ulimate aim to \u201cloving God.\u201d)
\n2. Put differently, if the perichoresis is the \u201ceternal\u201d state of God, then that perichoresis is the eternal state for us as well. If perichoresis is the mutual indwelling and absolute interpenetration of Father, Son, and Spirit, then our participation in and our gazing at that perichoresis is our final end.
\n3. Now let me back up. For Jesus the end of all ends is loving God and loving others \u2014 which means for Jesus we should look to love being the end.
\n4. Now you ask, \u201cAre you going to answer my question?\u201d Here goes: I think the word missional is at the heart of the perichoresis. The Father and the Son and the Spirit are \u201cmissional\u201d with respect to One Another and, correspondingly, they are each hospitable to the Other. Which means that \u201cmissional\u201d is another way of speaking of the perichoresis. Which means that missional is really about both acting in love and receiving in love.
\nSo, do I think \u201cmissional\u201d replaces? If understood properly, I think it would be good theology.
\nWhat do you think?
\nBlessings,
\nScot<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"