On Commitment

The Second Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, who never failest to help and govern them whom thou dost bring up in thy stedfast fear and love: Keep us, we beseech thee, under the protection of thy good providence, and make us to have a perpetual fear and love of thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Language is important. Studies show that language affects how we think. Externally, the words we use reflect what we are thinking. In the context of Christianity, the words we use reflect not simply our thoughts, but also it reflects our theology and the doctrine of our church.

One big change that occurred in the 20th century was a transition from the language of submission to the language of commitment. Christians are now ones who make a commitment to Christ, accepting him in the hearts, while we now commonly view Islam as the religion of submission and indeed sometimes contrast Christianity with Islam in terms of viewing Islam as a religion that requires submission to God, while Christianity is more a religion of friendship and partnership with God.

While there is some truth in the view of Christianity as being more personal compared to Islam, to suggest that it is a partnership implies some form of equality with God, which is utterly false.

By making a commitment to Christ, we are approaching Christianity on our own terms, seeking to negotiate with God. “God, I commit myself to you, so long as it's comfortable.” It’s an attempt to retain control, to avoid submitting oneself completely to God’s authority.

This is not a uniquely modern innovation, as the Bible itself is full of examples of those to whom God had revealed his will, and who remained reluctant to submit themselves to it.

In the Old Testament, the Pentateuch contains a number of examples, including Numbers 16 when the people rose up to challenge Moses and Aaron, and even more directly in Exodus 16 when they grumbled that they had lived better in slavery in Egypt and murmured against God freeing them. Jonah’s story is another extremely well-known and clear example of someone who professes to follow God, but becomes reluctant and unwilling to follow God when God’s will conveyed to him becomes more difficult and goes against his own desires.

This phenomena is found in the New Testament as well. St Paul reminds the Christians in Galatia that he had been forced to rebuke St Peter and others when he found that they were backsliding into Jewish traditions under pressure from Judaisers. His criticism was essentially focused against those who were attempting to hedge their bets on their salvation. It was one thing to listen to one of the apostles coming by saying salvation was found in Christ and not the law, but here they were seeking to accept salvation in Christ while still following the law just in case.

Here, the early Christians were still professing their belief, but it was their actions that revealed that their words did not reflect their inner convictions. They were not willing to release control and submit themselves to God’s promise, instead resting on their own abilities to fulfil the law to secure their own salvation. It is no different when we say we are making a commitment to Christ, and no longer submitting to Christ’s lordship.

We can, in modern times, see this as well with the language of taking communion rather than receiving it. By taking communion, we view communion as something we control, with God as a passive partner. When we receive, it is God acting on us. This even further illustrates the troubling reality of making a commitment to God rather than submitting ourselves to God. When we make a commitment, we are saying, “I will follow you on these terms.” When we submit, we are saying, “I will follow your will always and in all things.” We are in effect replacing God in our lives by ourselves, making ourselves our own god. This is similar to anyone else who rejects God, but perhaps more insidiously, we don’t see it that way.

In a similar way, mission has become a new buzzword among Christians. Being a missional church, a missional community. In the Anglican Church of Canada, we no longer respect the Solemn Declaration and many Anglicans seem to see the Catholic Creeds as antiquated, but the Five Marks of Mission are a sacred charge. If you read statements from the Primate and other national organizations within the Anglican Church of Canada, you would see the Marks of Mission as the engine driving the Church.

The problem remains that mission is often defined on our own. Only two of the five marks, to proclaim the good news of the kingdom and to teach, baptise and nurture new believers, are distinctly Christian. Responding to human need in loving service, to transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation and to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth are three goals which could easily be taken from the mission statements of any secular charity organizations.

There is nothing wrong with these statements, and they are clearly inspired by Christ’s example. The problem comes when they are so easily pursued under our own commitment rather than in submission to Christ. When we are a missional community, we are a community that subscribes to missions, based on these parameters, and that’s it. The actual missions undertaken may or may not be rooted in God’s will, even when they are clearly rooted in God’s examples to us in some way or another.

We are seeking to maintain our own agency. The goal of a missional church is to perform these missions. Its engine, what powers it, is not a desire to submit to Christ or to live a disciple’s life, but rather to accomplish missions.

In his Epistle to the Philippians, St Paul describes Christ’s ultimate submission:

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Phil 2. 6-8)

Verse six might be taken by a supporter of the Missional Movement to justify their position. Christ took the form of a servant. In St Matthew 20. 28, Christ himself says, “Son of Man came not to be served but to serve,” but in both these cases, that is attempting to justify doctrine and theology with Scriptural verses rather than with Scripture. In Philippians, St Paul tells us that Christ’s ultimate purpose was obedience to God, even unto death. In St Matthew’s Gospel, Christ finishes his sentence saying, “and to give his life as a ransom for many.” In St Luke’s Gospel, just prior to his arrest, Christ prays, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done,” (St Lk 22. 42). Christ’s death was in submission to God’s will and serves as example to us.

Discipleship must be the engine of our faith and our lives. Mission will build from it, but when we do not submit and instead pick and choose how we will follow, we are not truly following God at all, but ourselves.