Piper Takes on Frost and Hirsch

While I have not read The Faith of Leap: Embracing a Theology of Risk, Adventure & Courage and therefore the quote John Piper posted on his blog in context, I do know from the rest of both Frost’s and Hirsch’s body of work they do not deny the sovereignty of God in mission. For they both have been two of the key voices in flipping the script on mission. That is to say that prior to the whole missional conversation to speak of mission would of been to speak of the church’s mission. Whereas now we speak of God’s mission (missio dei) which happens to have a church. In other words, the church is God’s chosen instrument in working His mission out in the world. Or to say it another way. “The church does not have a mission. Rather the mission of God has a church.”

However, with that said, there is a definite tension that exists between the sovereignty of God and human obedience.

Mission is risky as Piper affirms.

The basis of that demand for sacrifice and risk is the absolute, God-given assurance that in the end there is no ultimate risk. We risk life now that we may gain it forever. Risk persecution for Christ’s sake “for your reward is great in heaven” (Matthew 5:12). Risk the loss your goods, “for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:14). Risk being treated unjustly, for “vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord” (Romans 12:19). Risk being counted as sheep for the slaughter for nothing “will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:36, 39).

Yet, when one wonders if God took a risk in trusting His mission to sinful humanity then it becomes “false to the Scriptures; built on a false philosophical presupposition; damaging to the mission of Christ in the world; and belittling to the glory of God.”

This is the quote Piper pulled from Faith of Leap:

It seems correct to say that God took something of a risk in handing over his mission to the all-too-sinful human beings who were his original disciples—and all the sinful disciples beyond them. We wonder what Jesus must have been thinking on the cross, when all but a few powerless women had completely abandoned him. Did he wonder if love alone was enough to draw them back to discipleship? The noncoercive love of the cross necessitated a genuinely human response of willing obedience from his disciples. Given our predispositions to rebellion and idolatry, it is entirely conceivable that history could have gone in a completely different, indeed totally disastrous, direction if the original disciples hadn’t plucked up the internal courage to follow Jesus no matter where.

Yes. God is sovereign. But at some point humanity must respond with obedience. We find this tension woven throughout the Scriptures (think Jonah). Even Piper’s own Desiring God Conference this year is built around the idea of “finishing the mission” and “bringing the Gospel to the unreached and unengaged.”

So if “God is fully in control of his mission on earth” then why the need for the human obedience Piper is calling for?

Could it be that extremes of any sort are contrary to the Scriptures?

Can we be ok with affirming both the sovereignty of God and the risky nature of trusting His mission to sinful human obedience?

I believe so because even though I know that God is in full control, I can be very disobedient.

[You can read Piper's full post here.]

No Responses to “Piper Takes on Frost and Hirsch”