Learning to send or Being sent to learn?

Our typical pattern in churches for years has been:

1. Come together to learn about Jesus
2. Go into the field to share about Jesus with others

Gather, then scatter. Learn, then share. Repeat. 

The "go" could be around the world or across the street, into the inner city or at the kids' soccer game. That's what being "sent" means - learn then go. There's usually an iterative process here of learning and going, but the general flow puts the learning here and the going there (and, by the way, you'll do some learning there, too).

This is not a bad pattern at all - I'm not going to criticize it, and in fact it is very appropriate in many contexts. Jesus certainly employed this with His disciples.

But I was struck with a different model, recently. Instead of going into in order to share what I've learned about Jesus, what if I went into in order to learn as much about Jesus as I can in that place? For example, rather than going into my neighborhood to tell my neighbors all the cool stuff I've learned about Jesus, instead I go into my neighborhood with the intent of learning about Jesus while dwelling there among my neighbors.

The premise: Jesus is already at work in my neighborhood (or whichever place we want to talk about). He's already there, He already reigns over all things, and He's already involved in the lives of my neighbors, whether they acknowledge Him or not. Rather than the arrogance of already knowing that they need to know about Jesus and being so gracious as to let them know some of it, this is a posture of humility - I have much to learn about Jesus, and in particular, I have a lot to learn about Him from and through my neighbors. There are ways of knowing Jesus that I can only learn in my neighborhood. So, I can endeavor to learn about Jesus by doing life with my neighbors (or coworkers or fellow soccer parents), to get to know Jesus in far more intimate ways by trusting Him and expecting to discover Him in my neighborhood. Jesus is already there and there's much to learn about Him there. I just need to really be there in order to discover it. "Here I am - send me ... in order to find out even more about Jesus."

The theory: By doing the things we consider to be "missional" (building authentic, unconditional relationships, praying consistently for our neighbors, sharing meals with them, serving them, sharing with them), we are doing the very things that will end up revealing great things about Jesus. And not just to me ... to my neighbors, too. I can study in a classroom about trusting Jesus and learn a lot, or I can dare to trust Jesus in my neighborhood and really learn about trusting Him. I can study about prayer and then go practice it, or I can commit to practice it on behalf of my neighbors and then learn about it by how our relationships change and by how opportunities open up. I can read biographies about people who walked by faith and endeavor to emulate them, or I can walk by faith in my neighborhood and discover Jesus that way. I can get to know Jesus better by discovering how He's already at work in others.

There's a treasure of knowing Jesus in my neighborhood and in my workplace and in the stands at the soccer field! Am I willing to explore in order to find it?

Then I become far more eager to "do that missional stuff." If I try by my determination to be missional because I should, I won't last long. If I realize that living missionally is how I will most learn about Jesus, then I become eager to dwell in my neighborhood with my neighbors. I don't have to remind myself to pray for them - I become eager to pray for them because I'm going to learn about Jesus this way.

Learning-to-send is not a bad model, and we should continue to employ this idea. But I think we should do a whole lot more of the Being-sent-to-learn model. We are sent (John 20:21). We are told to "Go!" (Matt 28:19). If it is in being sent that I will learn most about Jesus, I'm eager to go.

Am I Sent?

On Sunday, I told the graduating high school seniors that (if they are believers) they are being sent to their college campuses. In the past several months, I have said the same thing to you about your neighborhoods and workplaces. The implications, of course, are life-altering. If I am sent to my workplace, my neighborhood, my school, even my grocery store, then I can never just go to my workplace, neighborhood, school, or even grocery store. But is it true? Am I really sent?

We've been in these places for years, time and time again - perhaps without any sense of being sent. No determination on my part to live as one sent, and no voice from heaven exclaiming "I sendeth thee!" I've being living quite unsent for a very long time, and the universe still seems to spin and the paycheck keeps showing up twice a month. How can I be sent if I've successfully gone so many years as if unsent? Besides, I chose that job, that neighborhood, that school, and that store without praying or asking God where He'd like to send me - my choice means I couldn't have been sent.

Rather, isn't this religiospeak to make my daily grind sound way more important than it really is? Isn't this just a clever way for the pastor to trick me into integrating my faith better into my "regular" life?

This is no mere manipulation or motivation-by-guilt. It's absolutely, fundamentally, necessarily true. Consider:

God is continuously purposeful. It is God's unchanging nature to have a purpose for every action. He never lacks a fully developed purpose for anything He does. Where you live and work and shop and play are in fact choices you make. Furthermore, you can make some choices that are decidedly contrary to God's purpose and will. However, you cannot do anything, not even choose something against His will, that works outside of His purpose. He will use all of your decisions - those submitted to His will, those ignorant of His will, and those contrary to His will - to accomplish His purpose. "And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose" (Rom 8:28). You are not where you are outside of God's purpose.

Jesus said so. Jesus sends His disciples, pure and simple. He had the habit of doing so during His ministry, and in the instructions He gave them, they still had freedoms to make choices on how to carry out that sending. More importantly, near the end of His ministry, He effectively sent all who would follow Him. "Just as the Father has sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21). He did, in fact, say, "I sendeth thee!"

Let no man separate what God has joined. We tend to separate our jobs and the marketplace from our "religious" sphere. It's a false secular-sacred dualism. We can be sent to the people in our church or sent to a pre-designated "mission field" across town or across an ocean. I'll even take a week off from work to go (be sent) to one of these specially-designated mission fields - I leave the work sphere to enter the mission sphere. That's a false dualism. Our mission field is this world. All of it. "All" would include "secular" places like work, home, school, and market. On God's map, there are no lines to separate mission fields from "normal" fields. He just drew a big, red circle around the whole planet and said, "Go ye therefore there" (cf. Matt 28:18-20).

It is impossible for a follower of Christ to be unsent. In order to prove the positive, let's look at the negative - you cannot be an unsent follower of Christ. Impossible. A follower of Christ follows Christ. (It's tautological, but profound.) To follow Christ is go where He goes, do what He does, think how He thinks. Jesus is by His very nature missional (i.e., sent). In order to follow a missional (i.e., sent) Christ by definition means being missional (i.e., sent). I.e., sent! It is impossible for a follower of Christ to be unsent.

If you are a follower of Christ, you are sent on behalf of the Kingdom of God into your neighborhood, workplace, school, and even shopping mall. (Oh, God, please don't send me to the shopping mall!!!  -- 1 Kinseronians 4:12) You may have "chosen" these places without regard to God's mission. You may have chosen them out of godless, selfish, or rebellious intentions. And yet you are sent nonetheless. How much better, then, to be sent to these places by choice?

So be sent. You can never just go to your workplace, neighborhood, school, or even grocery store.

For God so loved the world...

I don't like to talk too much about the original languages of the Bible when I teach. I'll bring it up when I think it's helpful, but it's usually not all that helpful, really. It sounds impressive, it feels like we're learning something, it's interesting to a number of people, but let's be honest: sometimes an aorist is just an aorist - you know what I mean? (If not, then I've made my point.)

I do, however, try to study aspects of the original languages when I prepare a teaching. I try to do good homework, and make sure that what I teach is as accurate as possible. I need to do the work (and I should do more of it than I do!), but that doesn't mean that the details need to fill time in a sermon. More often than not, it improves preaching without becoming the content of preaching.

Then there are those times when it is necessary to spend a little, or a lot, of time describing the original languages. It's a tough call to know when it's helpful, and when it just strokes my own ego. ("Hey, look, I can't remember Hebrew grammar very well, but I can still pronounce it! Impressed?")

One of those cases where it is actually helpful is in perhaps the most recognizable verse in all the Bible - John 3:16. Most translations read something like, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son..." This is an accurate English translation of the original language. But there's a distinction that Greek makes that English can mask.

"God so loved the world." If you're like me, for a long time I took this to mean that God loved the world so much that look! He gave us something! His only Son! Wow! He sure loves us a lot.

The translation is accurate. The word translated "so" can mean "so much," but it can also mean "thusly." One is magnitude, the other is manner. It's the difference between "she is so smart" and "she carefully arranged the flowers just so."

If it's the second definition that applies, then the verse says, "For God thusly loved the world that He gave His only Son..." (the NET has "For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son...").

That's different. Not monumentally. Nothing in our theology is shaken because of this. But it's different.

Does this say that God loved us that much (so D.A. Carson), or does it say God loved us in that manner (so R.H. Gundry)? The second choice is the most common use of that word, but there are cases when it means the first choice. Some even argue for both meanings, since John is no stranger to intentionally picking a word to mean two things. Certainly, both statements are true. But what is this verse saying?

The Gospel of John uses that same Greek word 13 other times, and in every one of those cases, it means thusly. Therefore, I believe that it means thusly in 3:16. In what manner did God love us? By sacrificially sending His one and only Son to die on a cross so that we can have eternal life by faith. That's the manner in which He loved us.

Yes, He loved us that much, but He loved us in that manner - which is what I believe John 3:16 is telling us.

(By the way, the word "loved" is in the aorist tense - just in case you were wondering.)