There is an incredible investment in the evangelical community in the word radical. There is nothing inherently sinful about the word, but its common usage has turned into a marketing scheme. For instance, well-known author David Platt in his book Radical observes:
“Radical obedience to Christ is not easy… It’s not comfort, not health, not wealth, and not prosperity in this world. Radical obedience to Christ risks losing all these things. But in the end, such risk finds its reward in Christ. And he is more than enough for us.”
Whether or not we are comfortable with Platt’s conclusion is a different question. But crucial to this discussion is the use of the word as an accentuation of the Christian faith. Ordinary faith+radical faith=authentic faith. But is this how the Bible portrays the Christian life? In other words, why do so many authors and speakers find the need to insert the word radical into the clear commands of the Bible? Is “love your neighbor” not a pure example of a kind of life that is diametrical to the human experience? Is radical faith a kind of secret life that only few can find through a consistent impulse to abandon wealth and prosperity and the American dream? Simply put, are we making Jesus’ yoke hard and his burden heavy? Are we creating a sub-culture of radical Christians who do the risky thing for Jesus while the others are left in this trite category of non-radical?
Part of the genius of the Christian Bible is that the ordinary is radical. Forcing an alliance of radical Christians into the Scriptures makes the ordinary unnecessary. Certainly the impetus of such move is to offer the evangelical world a more robust expression of Christian living. But my assertion is that creating a radical platform to encourage people to do their ordinary work is not an encouragement, but a detriment to pursuing the ordinary work of Christian living. Who, after all, feels radical after a long bout of chemotherapy? You feel ordinary. In fact, you feel incapable of being anything more than ordinary. In fact, your calling at this point is to be as ordinarily Christian as you can as your body decays from within.
Ordinary Christian living is different from radical Christian living. It does not feel shame in the comfort of a hammock at the lake or in the luxury of an afternoon game at the stadium or the perfectly grilled steak. Ordinary Christian living does not negate the good, it gives thanks for the good. It does not negate the routine of a mother’s third diaper change of the day, it exalts the role of motherhood. I do not doubt many in this movement would affirm these assertions, but the reality is that the kinds of disciples these authors and speakers are producing are either misunderstanding the message of Radical proponents or they are using this message as a way of escaping the ordinary.
We live an age where we need less radical things and more ordinary things lived out daily in the Church. We need more bread and wine, more hugs, more encouragement, more connection with one another, more good night kisses and more tickling of babies. We need more ordinary. Jesus accomplished the radical. Let’s live out the radical nature of the ordinary in faithful obedience.
Uri, thanks for this post! This discussion of the radical vs. ordinary has provoked lots of interesting dialogue. I have read Radical by David Platt, and am currently meeting with a group of men who are discussing the book Ordinary by Michael Horton. What I have found to be true in this discussion is something more foundationally wrong about how Christians are looking at the issue. The problem is that the Bible does not give one, over-arching metaphor for the Christian life. The choice really isn’t between radical vs. ordinary in most cases. Consider Platt’s own words when he states, “In our quest for the extraordinary, we often overlook the importance of the ordinary, and I’m proposing that a radical lifestyle actually begins with an extraordinary commitment to ordinary practices that have marked Christians who have affected the world throughout history.” (p.193) I do not know whether you have read the book, but I am unaware of where Platt states or even suggests that the Christian life is: “Ordinary faith+radical faith=authentic faith” I do not think that this was the point of the book at all.
Just so you know, I belong to the same tradition as you. I am a member of a CREC Church. I think the real problem that us traditional, steady-state, confessional, Presbyterian, Sacramental and Intergenerational folks have with the idea of radical is that smells like someone is trying to reinvent the wheel. Our real aversion is that the idea of radical seems faddish and trendy, and reformed folks do not easily welcome that into their theological systems. We have our confessions. We have our perfect liturgy that is better and more biblical than those uninformed Baptists. While you may have found that the ” the kinds of disciples these authors and speakers are producing are either misunderstanding the message of Radical proponents or they are using this message as a way of escaping the ordinary”, I have found that those reformed folks that dislike Radical tend to make excuses and hide behind their reformed theology. It is hard to argue with experience. You have yours, and I have mine. However, I think it is important that my testimony can be set beside yours, because I do not think that us reformed folks have given this issue enough thought.
You posed the question: “why do so many authors and speakers find the need to insert the word radical into the clear commands of the Bible? Is “love your neighbor” not a pure example of a kind of life that is diametrical to the human experience?”
I think the reason that authors find the need to insert the word radical into the clear commands of the Bible are for the very reason Jesus needed to say radical things so often: to wake Christians up! Don’t forget that Jesus said things like, ” Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:22-23)
Certainly many professing Christians will come to the Lord at the last day thinking that they were “ordinary” just like all their other Christian friends. They enjoyed bread and wine, hugs, good night kisses and tickling their babies, but their lives demonstrated that they loved these things more than Jesus. I think Platt is prodding at a real problem with America’s version of Christianity. The message I took was that most professing American Christians are more American than they are Christian. We live lives that are virtually identical with our unbelieving neighbors. We love the pleasures of this world more than the pleasures at God’s right hand. Platt is reminding the church that we have a mission. The Great Commission. We need to take the gospel to all nations. Platt states, “This is a command, not a calling.” (p.200) If we were honest with ourselves in the reformed community, I think we’d spend more time mobilizing our people to obey Jesus’ command to take the gospel to the nations, not making an apologetic, or an excuse for why we are not doing what He has said.
Please don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying that you or your church is doing this. I can’t say that. However, whenever I ask around in the reformed community: Who would like to go with me to go share the gospel with people in Baltimore or Annapolis? Too often the answer is: “Sorry bro, evangelism is not my spiritual gift.” Or “I’m busy” (probably doing something ordinary) There are more disinterested interactions and excuses with the reformed folks in my experience, than delightful joy that we get to take the gospel to our nations, cities, and communities. We have lots of Psalms sings and teaching regarding our theological distinctives, but what about evangelism training? How are WE doing accomplishing the Great Commission? How many people walk in to our services that weren’t seeking us out already for our theological disctinctives? How many unbelievers are we taking the gospel to? I would venture to say precious little, and in this respect we should be more radical, not “business as usual” ordinary.
Mark, thanks for this. I don’t have the time to interact much, but I am grateful for it and for your love of Jesus and his Church. Just a few comments to clarify, accentuate my original points, while affirming your concerns and context.
Yes, I’ve read Platt’s book. The quote was not something I remembered. So I appreciate the reference (I may add that to be fair in my assessment). However, the quote itself does not undo the body of work that presents a kind of Christianity that seems to be highly antagonistic towards the mundane(See also another baptist Eugene Cho on this topic to get a similar or perhaps more “radical” approach to Platt’s model).
Yes, we live in the ordinary. And I do think the ordinary is far from “business as usual,” but it’s merely synonymous with biblical faithfulness. I get the urge to change the world, but I think too many in the evangelical world are in love with the idea of changing the world rather than living in the ordinary reality of God’s call to daily renewal. The richness of the Reformed tradition stems from the ordinary means of grace. In fact, they are so simple that it is shocking to many in the Church. This became clearer after reading Terry Johnson’s book “Serving with Calvin.” Those are the means of daily, mundane change in the life of the Church. We need to live in that reality for a few centuries before we shame Christians for not living on a certain budget and for not taking short mission trips. And yes I think Platt and many others who are generally baptistic in their theology have sought a form of gnostic expectation of the church/a super spirituality that is highly unreasonable. And I also understand that you and others live in a certain context. I live in a certain context and am seeing this mentality lead to immense shame and unnecessary guilt to mothers and sisters who are doing ordinary things yet feeling the unnecessary pressure to do more. This is my context. So read my notes with that in mind. I want to maintain your concerns in your context while also reacting biblically to the concerns I see in mine and my analysis of the evangelical landscape. Yes, I want more evangelism. I want more of this and that. I want it all. But I want to begin with “reasonable worship” “appropriate worship” “regular worship” “ordinary worship” “priestly worship”(Rom. 12:2) not an untenable standard that adds to the light and unburdensome call of Jesus to find rest in him. I trust this helps. Grace to you, my brother.
Uri, thanks so much for your reply. There are two things that stand out to me in this discussion of radical vs. ordinary. First, is the usage of the words radical and ordinary, and the meaning we pour into them. I think there is an agreement/overlap of us saying some of the same things, only using different words. You hit the nail on the head when you stated, ” the ordinary is far from “business as usual,” but it’s merely synonymous with biblical faithfulness”. Amen! One of the points that I have been trying to get across to both sides (those who prefer radical AND those who prefer ordinary) is that both words are not accurate metaphors that fully represent the complexity of the Christian life. I would prefer instead your synonymous term “biblical faithfulness”. I think true biblical faithfulness involves both ordinary and radical concepts.
There are many ordinary things in our family life that don’t live up to the expectations of some who might think there is some gnostic form of super spirituality that is only faithful in giving up all of your possessions and going into full-time missionary service. I am NOT in this category. After my wife and I read “Don’t Waste Your Life” by John Piper, we both came away feeling less than Christian because we were very ordinary. My wife stays at home, we homeschool our 7 children, I work full-time, etc. Lots of ordinary things that don’t seem too radical. However, I truly do not believe that this is the message people like Platt and Piper are trying to communicate. Otherwise they would be disqualified as well. Neither have given up everything to go into full-time missions. Who has? Perhaps John G. Paton or Jim Elliot or the Apostle Paul or Jesus, but none of us has done that. We are very ordinary. I don’t see anything wrong with this, or a strong commitment to God’s ordinary means of grace and faithful church attendance. I am all for that, and I think it is not only important, but foundational. Many of these ordinary commitments need faithful adherence over multiple generations before we can expect anything to change in the church or the world.
However, and there is a big however for me. I am convinced that what we see as “reformed” in our churches today, is far, far from our roots. It was the reformed that spawned the modern missionary movement. It was the reformed that brought the gospel to our land. It was the reformed that used to take care of most of our society’s social needs. It was the church, most of which, during the initial settlement of our country were reformed in some fashion. These Puritans and Pilgrims didn’t need trendy books on being missional or radical. They didn’t need guilt trips that made them feel bad about earthly enjoyment in moderation. I am not saying they were perfect, our standard to follow, or some golden age, but I think we are far from the ideal. Perhaps books like Piper’s and Platt’s make us feel guilty, because we ARE guilty of not doing many of the things that we should be doing. I think that history does repeat itself and many movements are reactionary. Platt’s “Radical”, the Emergent Church (which is dead I think), Federal Vision, etc. etc. etc., are all reactions to REAL needs and problems in the church. I do not agree with the Social Gospel, but I do believe that the gospel has social implications. I think that the gospel should affect everything. So maybe the real question that us reformed (old timers, not Young Restless Reformed Baptists) believers need to ask ourselves is: Are we taking the gospel to our neighborhoods, cities, co-workers and the world? I do not think that we are doing much of this. What I see is that is always someone else’s job, and the ones (Baptists, Charismatics, etc.) that are doing it, aren’t doing it right anyway, so we criticize. I don’t believe this to be an overstatement. If we surveyed our congregations and asked who is sharing the gospel on regular basis, I am sure we’d come up with some embarrassing numbers. It is much easier to gather around and learn how to sing in four part harmony and talk about our perfect theology, than it is to love our neighbors enough to share the gospel. If we treasured the gospel rightly, we’d share it more often, not keep it to ourselves.
I was thinking the other day about how I could possibly ever share the gospel with my homosexual co-workers, and I realized that they probably already know the gospel, but I need to share it anyway. I also will need to “give up” a lot of earthly comforts and invest time in loving them more than their homosexual community does. I don’t know about you, but I do not do this. I feel that we are more interested in cultural wars over who goes into what bathroom, than loving people and sharing the gospel with them.
My final big “however” is the paralysis I observe in the reformed community regarding our over-emphasis on God’s work over our role. Too often I see all of the onus placed upon God, rather than us seeing that God accomplishes things, but He does it through us acting. This could use a lot of unpacking, but I think the revealing statement that communicates this tendency was revealed when you stated, ” We need more ordinary. Jesus accomplished the radical. Let’s live out the radical nature of the ordinary in faithful obedience.” I think this statement is spot on. Where I see the problem being, is that many reformed folks park at “Jesus accomplished the radical”, so we’ll sit around and smoke pipes and drink scotch whiskey and talk about it all day, rather than take the gospel to those not like us. We build Christian fortresses and cloister together too much, and focus too much on academic things that relate to the mind. We are very skeptical of experience-especially experiences that don’t fall within our reformed tradition. We should bring mind and heart together, not be afraid of being practical, and be intentional about how we plan on “living out the radical nature of the ordinary in faithful obedience”.
Bottom line: I think we probably agree a lot more than disagree, if we even disagree at all! If I am ever in Pensacola, then I’d love to enjoy a “Christian pipe” with you and converse amid a fine-smelling holy incense cloud! By the way, I am a student at RTS in DC. My pastor and I just attended the talk on the Lord’s Supper by Scott Swain and Howard Griffith. It was awesome!
Excellent, Mark! Thanks for this interaction.
Yes, I am working on my D.Min from RTS. I will be in Charlotte in a few months. Please look us up if you are in town and beer is on me.
A friend sent me this from G.K. Chesterton: “Ordinary things are more valuable than extraordinary things; nay, they are more extraordinary.”