Recently, a friend of mine shared his question about the statement that the ultimate goal of the church is worship… and that missions exists because worship doesn’t. He expressed reasons for his struggles on the statement. Truthfully, I don’t remember his reasons, but I do remember my response. It was, “Perhaps the reason for your struggle with that statement is because it is not true.”

Of course the statement about missions existing because worship doesn’t is catchy… and we (as the church and as missions communities) love bumper sticker sorts of statements. That does not make them necessarily true— or at least fully true. The statement comes from John Piper, from his book, “Let the Nations Be Glad.” An excerpt of that book was put into Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. I am looking at my old 1999 copy. The first paragraph of “Let the Nations be Glad!” segment states:

Missions is not the ultimate goal of the Church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesn’t. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man. When this age is over, and the countless millions of the redeemed fall on their faces before the throne of God, missions will be no more. It is a temporary necessity. But worship abides for ever. <John Piper, “Let the Nations be Glad!” in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: The Notebook, 1999 edition, page 36>

The paragraph seems to be full of a lot of kind of true statements that don’t really fit together that much. Missions is temporary— absolutely. Worship abides forever— that sounds correct. But what does that imply? Based on Isaiah lions eating hay will abide forever, seemingly. But what does that fact inform us about missions? Not much it seems to me. God is ultimate and man is not— absolutely. But how does that inform us about missions versus worship? Again, not so sure.

Back close to 20 years ago when I first was reading through Perspectives, I put a circle around that paragraph and wrote in the margin— “Love?” I guess even back then I was questioning the suggestion of the paragraph that God is driven by lack of worship, rather than by love. I had also marked a couple of other things on the same page. I had circled the phrase “white hot worship of God” adding a margin note, “How is white hot worship different from obsession and mania?” I was probably being a bit too critical there. In Evangelical churches in the latter part of the 20th century there was a tendency to use strong language that ultimately doesn’t really mean very much. People would talk about “Radical faith,” “Extreme Praise,” “Explosive worship.” What do these mean? Not much. The third note I had was on the passage that says, “The ultimate foundation for our passion to see God glorified is his own passion to be glorified. God is central and supreme in his own affections. There are no rivals for the supremacy of God’s glory in his own heart.” Then he gives a very dubious argument based on the Great Commandment. To this I just put a question mark. I guess I am still at that point. I know that the faith tradition of John Piper is built on “The Glory of God” and so that paragraph makes an awful lot of sense within that tradition. But as one not in that tradition, I am not so sure— I don’t feel competent to say that this sums up God attitude properly. Maybe it does.

Getting back on topic, still I am tempted to agree with the quoted passage in red above… EXCEPT for that key statement— “Missions exists because worship doesn’t.” It just doesn’t seem right to me. Perhaps I am reading too much into it. However, it appears to say something like this:

“God recognized that He did not have enough worshipers. Therefore, He sent Jesus to die for people’s sins, and then called on His followers/worshipers to serve on His assigned mission to increase the number of worshipers. When God is satisfied that He has enough worshipers, God’s mission (and ours) will cease.

1. It does not seem as if God is motivated by lack of worshipers. First, key verses in the Bible seem to suggest that God is driven by love, not deprivation. John 3:16 and Romans 5:8 appears to identify God’s motivation for redeeming His creation is His love for His creation. Further, it seems pretty clear from Scripture that God has no lack of anything… including praise/worship. Reading Matthew 3:9 and Luke 19:40, I don’t think it ridiculous to suggest that God is able to raise up stones to praise and worship if indeed He feels any lack.
2. Much of the dominant themes/metaphors in the New Testament are built more on friend or family relationships rather than ruling God and worshiping mortal. That latter image does certainly exist in the Bible, and I am sure many in the 1st century would resonate with that since it does fit many Jewish, Greek, and Roman understandings of how one must relate to God or gods. I am not trying to gainsay this, but simply note that much of the imagery is more intimate:
   • Jesus relating to His disciples as friends.
   • Recognizing God as Abba (father)
   • Identifying the Church as the bride of Christ
   • Viewing Christians as adopted children of God.
   • Even the Great Commissions often focus on the abiding presence of Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit with Christians as central to the call to mission. In other words, Christian missions is inherently a relational activity not only between brothers and sisters in Christ, but with the Godhead.
3. We need to explore more the key missions verses: Revelation 7:9-17. This is often cited by missiologists and missionaries to demonstrate the end state of people of all nations, tribes, languages, peoples, etc., joined together in worship. It can be seen as the ultimate eternal state— people worshiping God forever and God receiving worship forever. However, one needs to read the full passage to gain a bit of nuance. The passage starts out with people worshiping. However, the latter part of the passage reverses and shows God residing with, shepherding, providing, protecting, and comforting His people. The overall picture is interactive and relational. The snapshot of verses 9-11 shows an aspect of that eternal relationship between man and God, but is far from all-encompassing.

I think it is better to say something like:

Missions exists because God loves us, and seeks to restore the relationship that once existed between Himself and His creation. Missions will cease, when that full relationship is restored, expressed, in part, by our worship of our Creator, Savior, and Holy Father… a relationship that will never end.

It may not be as catchy, but I think it is more accurate. I do think that John 3:16-17 (even if it is over-used) is a good starting place. It does not say, —For God needed more worshipers so He sent His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved.” Worship is clearly a result of being saved and having eternal life… but I don’t believe it was the motivation of it all.