Wow, this is one I'll have to think about. I really do think I equate God "as a means of solving world hunger, growing the church, or constructing a sense of self-worth and value" and I'm not sure what I think about that.

I went down the path of being "radical" until I got tired of the guilt of whether I was "radical" enough. It reminded me of the guilt of whether I was "good enough" to get into heaven. Teaching radicalism is just another way of works righteousness.

Great article! We used to be holier-than-thou; now we're all more radical-than-thou--or just busier-than-thou. As evangelicals, we often denigrate those crazy Catholic contemplatives who spend their lives cloistered in the monastery praying all day. (Although those monasteries often have ministries of mercy and hospitality that would put many of our churches to shame.) But I'm not convinced that our restless activism is more holy, or ultimately, more productive for the Kingdom.

My passion for spending time with and taking care of the needy drew from times of reading the Bible with the singular prayer, "God, show me what you love and what you hate." He loves the weak and oppressed, and He hates oppression. This revelation and resulting passion was a positive outcome from spending time with God, but then things got a little tricky. The focus slips too easily from Him to the works, and it was especially hard for me when I realized not everyone shared my passion for these things that God so obviously cares about. I'm thankful my judgmental attitude wasn't worse than it could have been,but in a way I think maybe that's why I wasn't able to do more. Now I'm in a community where evangelism and care for the poor are encouraged, but having an actual conversation with someone is considered radical.

God will lead you to do radical things,no doubt, but not if it takes the place reserved for Him and happens at the expense of love for others around you.

"Are we exchanging one false gospel for another? And might this explain the weariness felt by the suburban mom I encountered?"

Ooo...false gospel.
Mmm...a bit of a serious charge there, Skye.

I suspect, without proof, that this is less of a false gospel, and more of a...spiritual crisis of...hmmm...an awakening of a spiritual self-awareness.

How to explain this...a friend of mine, nice guy, married, two boys, had a similar thing, but he wanted to do something big, something that added meaning to his life, but also some form of satisfaction to his spiritual walk that said to him, "oh hey, I'm on the right tract now!"
And, well, nice as his "desire" was, he was going about it all wrong...why, because, as I found out myself, when a Christian hits this point they start flailing about, looking to do something for G-d.
So, I told him what I did when I went through this as well.
For me, when I realized I was screwing up my walk with G-d, and my relationships, I stopped, took a step back, and did an assessment of what was going through my head, and what the end result was looking like.
And I found...yeah, this ain't working out the way I envisioned.
So I started small.
And by starting small, I started by changing how I looked at the world, which then led to changing how I looked at myself, which, oddly enough, made me begin to be aware of what the difference between need, want, and can't live without was.
Anyway, soon I found myself changing far more than me changing the world around me, and instead of beating people over the head with G-d, I attracted them to talk about G-d, life, and reality.
And so I would say to your suburban mom what I told my friend...start small, and change your choices.
It doesn't matter where you start, but start there and then follow the changes where they take you.
It is an amazing journey...and the whole time...G-d is there with you.

Good reflection, Skye.

In my observation, putting activism ahead of developing a real and deep personal communion (with God), whatever form it takes--mission or evangelism--not only runs the potential of turning God into a means to an end, but also turns the convert or believer into a means to an end. Too often, this has the effect as well of reducing her to a mere "tool" in God's hands, rather than allowing her to recover her full personhood in an ongoing experience of Christ's healing love through a real existential encounter with HIm in His Church.

This post is worthy of thought and interaction.

“But how radical is enough?"
The radical walk is a walk of faith, one step at a time. God only shows us the next step. It is presumption to think we should know the end while just into the beginning. Like Mary she is worried about many things.

Of course Satan will seek to trip us up in our radicalism in many different ways. He would also like us to rationalized it all and seek to justify setting the cross down and sleeping awhile when it's time to serve.

"Might activist Christianity also reduce God to a useful device?" Yes this is possible but it does not mean we should give up seeking to "work out our salvation" and to "throw off the things that hinder... so we can run the race marked out for us..." the above quote could easily be used to justify lukewarmness and casual faith.

Being a radical Christian doesn't mean focusing on what YOU DO or DON'T DO.

Being radical means trusting in what Christ has done, is doing, and will yet do...and NOT trusting AT ALL in what you do.

Every time I see a reference to the sons in Luke 15, without any significant reference to the father, I am stirred to comment

For me, a focus shift has made all the difference. Luke 15 is the story of the prodigal father, a reckless, over the top spendthrift father who runs to the younger and tells the elder that all he has is his. It is easy to focus on the sons and fail to focus on this picture of how Jesus knew his Father to be.

As I stay focused on my Heavenly Father, and the extraordinary, over the top ways in which he loves you and me, my face stays pressed into the source vine and I bear fruit for his glory. I stay on track, serving and loving in effective ways because I am not looking to either son for an example. I am simply gazing in wonder at this crazy lovestruck Father.

This year I've been reading biographies of Christian missionaries of the past with my kids. (Cameron Townsend, founder of Wycliffe Bible Translators, George Muller, Amy Carmichael, etc.) What I've been struck by is the fact that although in hindsight we may consider their lives to be "radical," what they were largely doing was taking one step of obedience after another. I believe that if we are seeking after God--if we are being WITH God as you so eloquently have spoken about, Skye--we can trust He will guide and lead us to that next step of faith He wants for us to take. As we continue to take those Spirit-led steps, I imagine that our lives will look more and more radical to those who are observing, but for ourselves, it will just feel as though we are naturally continuing on the journey of faith as we stay connected to God and attuned to his leading. The question that your suburban mom might want to ask is not, "How radical do I need to get?" but instead, "What is the one step of obedience God is calling me to today?" If she keeps asking and obeying the answers to those questions, she has no need to worry about the trajectory of her life. She'll go where God has intended for her to go, and yes, I bet it will look radical indeed.

What a wonderful balance is expressed in this essay. Thank you for giving me a new way to see many of the things that perplex me. I sure will ponder this.
I look forward to part 2, Vocation intrigues me also..."Vocation is not necessarily Inclination" as Simone Weil points out.

Great post, I can’t wait to read the rest.

I have been troubled by the rise of this Christian activism in the Church since it started. There was some excitement about what it all could mean, but I see the same thing you comment on in your article. Some of what has troubled me is exactly what you have said, trading consumerism for activism and still missing the point altogether. Becoming more active does not make us right with God, nor does it present the right view of God to the rest of the world. The Activist Gospel says, true believers must be saving whales, saving babies, saving the poor, and saving the ones treated unjustly. Somewhere in the message is something about Jesus attached to these various works (or maybe not), but in the end it is starting to look like the Social Gospel which rose a few decades ago. There are lots of social agendas, lots of good works, but little God in reality.

As with all things consumer, these activist activities are quickly becoming nothing more than another church growth technique. We are ultimately doing these things so that people will be impressed and come join our church. Maybe in your church this is not true, but when I look around it is what I am seeing taking place. And this, well, this does not equate to “making disciples” as we have been told we are to be doing. (Matthew 28:19)

The worship movement thought they could change the world through worship. They have been trying that but it has simply led to a popular genre of music rather than people totally committed to Christ. There are literally thousands of young people worshipping in the concert settings and they are weeping and feeling quite emotional about it all. But ask them some basic questions about God and what it means to be a Christian and you will find they know nothing… in fact; they will often have totally wrong ideas about God. 25% of these students believe Jesus sinned during his earthly life. Nearly half of all students are engaging in sexual activities that claim to be Christian which is a rate almost equal to the “non-Christian” students. (Already Gone by Ken Ham or Josh McDowell's recent writings)

The disciples in the book of Acts are radical because they are following Jesus. They are true disciples; they believe what their master believed, teach what their master taught, and live out what their master lived in everyday life. Because of who they are they are doing what they are doing, they are not who they are because of what they are doing. (see The Body by Chuck Colson) There is no guilt involved because everyone is doing what they are doing as a result of who they are in Christ and not because we have some new social agenda we need to compete with the secular world in so they can see we are more radical than they are. It is not about my being more socially minded than Bono, it is about me being what Christ wants me to be here and now in my life as I follow Him.

Let’s be active, let’s worship, but in the end let’s be disciples and everything else will work itself out the way Christ intended. We are to be people who are filled with the Holy Spirit; empowered to love like no one else can, working among those in need with the whole Gospel, and leaving each city glad and filled with joy. (Acts 8:8)

Thanks for this emphasis, Skye. Why is it we Christians fall into either/or thinking (work FOR God, or be WITH God)? In the Great Commission, Jesus seems to assume both/and:
"As you go, make disciples . . . and I am with you always."

Abide in me, certainly, says Jesus, AND abound in good works.

The real problem with Christianity in America is the preaching of a false gospel and a false assurance of salvation. I recommend listening to Paul Washer's sermon entitled "Ten Indictments, a historical 21st century message", you can listen to it here:

http://youtu.be/X7wzfvYkCW0

Skye,

great thoughts here - I'm looking forward to the second installment. I'm a pastor of a white suburban church (making me, surely, the most uncool pastor in America!) I've read the recent spate of books you reference and I've come away pretty frustrated, because they don't seem to provide contextualization AT ALL.

First, my friends who pastor global churches (many of whom are indigenous to their culture) would laugh at the idea that somehow poverty and persection makes their folks more holy and more committed.

Second, of course western churches struggle with apathy and laziness - its the natural result of a culture that gives you everything you could ever want.

Meanwhile, what does discipleship look like in both contexts? I wish these authors would attempt to define it, but they prefer ambiguity and guilt. I'm starting to wonder if "discipleship as a dangling undefined carrot" is the method of choice for Christian book sales today.

I'd love to write more, but I need to send an email to close friends who flew to Ethiopia to pick up their adopted child. Its been a process that has pushed their faith to the limits, cost 5 figures of money, and been nothing but blood, sweat and tears. Don't tell them about being radical, they're too busy living it

Steve Cuss
http://multihatpastor.com

Here is a new word, chuck out radical, chuck out missions, missional, what the Father wants is an intimate relationship with his children. If you are reading books and expecting intimacy with the Father, what were you thinking or what Gospel are you following. Jesus wants us to be as intimate with His Father as he was. As Bill Johnson said, I didn't get marrid so I would have a theology of marriage, I got married to experience love and life with my wife and I don't follow Jesus to have a theology of Jesus, I want to experience his love and live in him!

Skye,

Related to the "I never knew you" passage in Matthew is Jesus's parable of the sheep and the goats. Who does he send into the outer darkness? Those who did not feed, shelter, clothe, visit, etc. those who are in need, those who are their neighbors. Jesus made sure that his hearers "got it" by repeating what he expected and did or did not get three times. If we, then, take this as a command to do these things, and act on it, are we "radical"? As his followers aren't we supposed to be learning "to do all that [Jesus] commanded"? Isn't doing them the very obedience that Jesus hoped for, but did not see, when he asked, "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I say?"

I'm surprised that you would also call out evangelicals' evangelism as a form of radical missionalism. "Make disciples!" Jesus said; we call it the Great Commission. In other words, Evangelize! Disciple!

To be charitable, it is true that the Enemy attempts to discourage us from taking any action towards obedience to Christ by suggesting that anything we might do wouldn't be enough. But it must also be said that to dismiss as "radical" those who are obedient, to fault them for "making us" feel uncomfortable about how we are living our lives, to throw up our hands in "exhaustion" at merely thinking about and questioning how we are using our time, talents, and treasure, and to fail to consider that our discomfort may be the effect of the Spirit's convicting us of how we are living now -- all of these are methods that we (and I do include me in the we!) use to ignore the Great Commission, The Great Commandment, and the Love Commands regarding one's neighbor and fellow Christians.

Jesus called his disciples to radical obedience and radical commitment in order to fulfill a radical mission: The reconciliation of all of creation to God through the proclamation of the Gospel by individuals as they went about their business, belief in God's Son, instruction on and apprenticeship in doing what he commanded, and obedience to -- i.e., doing -- all that he commanded. As his disciples, he demands no less of us.

There is a lot of talk in the comments, and the books mentioned, about Jesus calling us to be "radical." Really? What is the Greek word used for radical in the NT? I know that may sound sarcastic, but I mean it sincerely. Radical is an, at best, ill-defined Christianese word like "sold out" or "on fire." And just like those worn out phrases, it becomes a measuring stick we use to (falsely) judge how we and others are "succeeding" as followers of Jesus.

I commiserate with the suburban mom, Skye! After almost 40 years of trying to be radical--and failing miserably even when I was doing decently (which wasn't often) and feeling guilty about it in no helpful or convicting way, I was ready to give up. Just recently Jesus has been able to slowly start to pare away things that need to go and instill the things that need to be there. During that process, I am (with baby steps) finding ways to step out and do things differently. To most calling for me to be "radical," my baby steps would seem inadequate or non-existent, but I can feel the changes in me and they are immense. . . to me.

I know that Jesus loves me and that he has good works planned for me. I am hoping that in changing my focus from "doing" to seeking Him first, that I will become more like Him in ways I never knew possible. I am finally to a place where I a more often excited by my faith journey rather than beat up, used up, and judged.

Wow, this is a fantastic post - so timely for me and so on-target. It's really helped to crack something I've been struggling with. I can't wait to read the next post, put it up! :D :D

Here is the challenge as I have observed it from the vantage point of an adult convert to the faith. Many Christians I encounter spend more time trying to "figure out" how to be a Christian in American culture than they do pursuing God and learning to discern the voice of the Holy Spirit and obey. As a result, many are following the latest fad rather than walking forward in the assurance that they are walking in daily obedience no matter what they do. For some it will involve selling things. For others it will not. For some if will involve going overseas. For others it will not. I think people are way too worried about doing it "right" and not very familiar with or focused on what it means to do it "faithfully"...

Skye, I wish American evangelicalism would show more historical awareness. Many liberal churches have gone through this Missional "crisis" a generation ago or more, having labored over the battles of their era (civil rights, gender and sexual equality, anti-poverty work).

Yes, it can be exhausting. No, that does not mean there is a theological deficiency in fighting the battle. Just because something is exhausting--as grappling with deeply embedded social sins inevitably is--does not mean it's not deeply faithful.

Also, calling the older son "an activist" either is a misreading or reflects badly on the activism you've witnessed

Basically, I think you're letting yourself and lots of other folks off the hook with this line of thinking. Care for the poor around us is often tiring, unrewarded work, but it is always faithful.

David,

I get what you are saying, but I think you are partly misunderstanding what Skye is getting at. I wouldn't argue that doing right, especially on issues where it is a constant, long-term thing, can definitely be tiring. But I think his point about the suburban mom was not that she was tired of actually serving, but rather tired of trying to be "radical" enough. . . probably tired of even trying to figure out what that means.

I do disagree with your last sentence, however. Caring for the poor is not "always" faithful. Neither is any other "good" work. Is the Bible not full of examples of people doing "good" with the wrong heart and spirit? No good work is spiritually beneficial in and of itself. They CAN be, but they are not automatically so.

I think the point here was not against doing "radical" things for God, but rather that those things need to flow out of our encounters with the living God. . . and perhaps that in the midst of our culture's consumer mentality, we have put the cart before the horse.

@Mark E.--very good points. I agree.

@Robin Swieringa--you also I think make some very good points.

But there is a real "elephant" in the room here of this discussion. One thing that I now realize was missing in my Evangelical experience was an awareness of all the implications of the fact that the Great Commission was given in the context of the whole nascent assembled Church community *as they were being catechized and instructed* by Christ Himself. That is, it was not aimed at individual Christians or local groups cut off from this one community and its Head, and certainly the message and meaning of what constituted the gospel had not been left to the individual believer's judgment and imagination. It had not been fractured into so many competing theologies and "Christianities" that the disciples would have had any doubt as to what obedience to that Commission would really entail.

Subsequently, all mission in those initial centuries of the Church's existence was spread by believers who had a clear, organic and concrete identity within local Christian communities that were themselves dogmatically and sacramentally unified with other such local churches in their bishops, along with a consequent consistency and relative uniformity of spiritual formation/discipleship in their own lives. Beginning in the period of the early martyrs, the development of the cult of the Saints, provided believers down through the centuries with clear models of the many and varied forms that such fulfilled ("radical" if you will) discipleship and obedience to Christ could take, as well as providing a certain unambiguous and concrete sense of what such fulfilled discipleship also had in common). There was nowhere near the confusion we have today of exactly what constituted genuinely "Orthodox" Christian life and liturgy, and, consequently, I think the spiritual formation of believers that informed and empowered their obedience was much more even, reliable, and consistent. Converts also were immediately brought into the life and catechism of this worshipping community (and often it was just observing the manner of life and worship of this very community in stark contrast to the surrounding culture that prompted such conversions). The worship and lifestyle of these communities took a particular liturgical shape and form from the very outset, and this structure and genuinely Orthodox worship and way of life was in large part what informed and instructed and empowered the Christian life of its members.

Within Evangelicalism, groups of Christians, ironically united only by the idea that we should be spreading "the gospel" (what that really means is variously defined depending on which group you belong to), try to live and proclaim "the faith." There is no one body of authority representing all the local parts of the Church who work together and with the help of the Holy Spirit establish normative parameters of faith and practice. The result is that individual believers have to pick and choose and figure that out on their own (arguably, in itself a prescription for burn out for the more scrupulous and devout believers among us!). It's little wonder individual believers and local pastors get overwhelmed, burnt out and confused about how to fulfill the gospel in their own lives and effectively in the surrounding culture. They are being asked to do as individuals, what in the earliest millennium of the Church had always been done for them by a united representative leadership.

In my experience, it's enough of a challenge to have to try to faithfully work out one's own salvation and fulfill Christ's commands where the path of faith itself is quite clear (as in those centuries). It's exponentially more difficult to do so in the presence of a cacophony of so many competing voices ostensibly from "within the fold" about what this should really look like. It's little wonder our modern churches look so very much like the surrounding consumerist culture in their communication methods and, unfortunately, also in the lifestyles of their members.

Karen,

I get some of what you are after, but I am not sure I agree that things were so clear, even back then. I think it has ALWAYS been a struggle for believers to discern the will of God and the "correct" gospel. Even BEFORE Jesus left them, the disciples were often at odds about what Jesus meant when he spoke and how to go about obeying Him.

And not long after he left there was already debate about circumcision, what foods were appropriate to eat, how to deal with false teaching and sin in the church, etc. I think we tend to idealize the early church in ways that can be both dangerous and destructive to our own walk. The Acts 2 church gives us some general principles and ideas about how to do the Christian life together, but they were as human and broken as we are today.

Mark, I have purposely downplayed that aspect, but I don't mean to deny it. I don't mean to imply there was ever a period in Church history that there weren't challenges and problems. There were periods while theological disputes were going on and before divergent viewpoints were officially declared heresy that not all was immediately clear and indeed, at certain points, much of the Church's leadership was on the wrong side of a theological question (e.g., Arianism). Here's the difference--and actually, your example of the circumcision question in the NT proves my point--Acts 15 shows how this was worked out. There was a council of the ONE Church's recognized leadership to hash out the issues vis-a-vis the revelation given in Christ and then when a decision was made with the help of the Holy Spirit, the rest of the believers either abided by the decision or were eventually excommunicated (becoming schismatic or heretical groups and no longer viewed as part of the one, Orthodox and Catholic Church. Even the Apostle Peter was called out on it when he failed to act consistent with what he knew to be true and what was the ruling of the Church, see Galatians 2:11-16). Despite problems and controversies, for the first millennium of Church history, there was a kind of organic unity of dogma and practice in the Church (including the process by which problems were worked out following the model in Acts 15). The Church that emerged after each of the "ecumenical" councils does not exist in the same way among Evangelicals today.

Karen,

I guess we'll have to partly agree and partly agree to disagree.=)

I don't see the church through history as being united as you see it. And, in fact, as it grew, it was almost impossible for it to be so. How could a church of potentially a billion people work in an Acts 15 sense? I agree that at the local level, the denominational level, and sometimes even the "movement" level, we need use Acts 15 as a model. I do remember a time in the 90's when I saw this happen with some important Evangelical leaders.

I would agree that there are things most Christians around the world can agree are heresy or false teaching and that they should be labeled as so and that those propounding them should be addressed.

Anyway, thanks for the civil discussion!

I am about half way through the book and loving it. I keep hearing accusations of works righteousness and focusing on activism rather a close relationship with God. I think David Platt (at least so far) hasn't said a single thing to lead anyone down that road.

So far David has highlighted a big issue. We love Jesus the Savior but not Jesus the Lord. That after salvation he has work and expectations for us and expects us to obey, NOT out of fear of retaliation or hell, but because we have been transformed and now get to follow the law of love.

He points to good works, going out in the world, trying to good but correct me if I'm wrong he never says you will fix poverty or feed all the hungry. His point is through these acts of love opportunities will come to actual share the gospel.

I struggle all the time with the concept of whether or not I am acting in a way that Jesus would approve of. It is so hard to compare our lives today with the lives of those who came before us. Am I giving enough or too much? I spend a lot of time feeling guilty, as others have said, and I feel this article doesn't necessarily explain anything, only add more questions.

Radical is an powerful word and its been used very often today, specially in television and other media. I think that people should be careful to use these kind of words.

Yeah it can be an big discussion around this topic but i dont talk about it.

Thanks Skye!

You bring some needed balance to the conversation. Our hearts are truly idol factories. Unless we fill our hearts with God, we will make even our service to God an idol.

Perhaps, most disturbing about the new radical movement is the tendency of the 'radical' ones to use their newly discovered path as a way to judge who is a 'true' Christian. Also, as a younger evangelical, I am a bit uneasy whenever the leaders we are looking to are all the same age as I am or younger.

Spiritual immaturity seems to struggle with entering into the needed time of discipleship and training necessary to form a sense of calling or vocation. In our haste to "do something" we skip the journey inward, ignore the journey upward and jump to the journey outward. This may explain why such 'movements' are often no more than flash-in-the-pan, sizzle and fizzle 'moments' that leave those caught up in their momentum burned-out.

Looking forward to part 2!