Contentment vs. Complacency

In their newly published book, The Faith of Leap, Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch present an awesome challenge to the church to step up and pursue the adventure to which we have been called. The premise of the book is that if we are going to take on the responsibility of being light in a dark world, we will be required to assume a certain level of risk--one that is not dissimilar to that of first century Christians who realized that claiming "Jesus is Lord" was countercultural and counter-political to the driving and safe worldview of the Roman Empire that readily declared "Caesar is lord."

Before I get to what I believe is right about the opening chapter, I want to to take issue with one paragraph. In order to validate their position, the authors believe that we must impose on God's character the same type of risk that we as humans experience. In doing so they present a theology that closely resembles the theology of "Open Theism." Open theists assume that since our risk stems from a lack of knowledge and control, then our God who takes risks must do so from the same perspective, a lack of knowledge and a lack of control. I agree that God seemingly took risks when he gave Adam a choice, and when He came in the flesh, and when He entrusted His mission to a church. But in God's economy, risk and knowledge and control do not stand in opposition. God is still omniscient and omnipotent. What is risky for us is not so for God. The authors admit that this particular theological debate is beyond the scope of the book, so they correctly keep the ideas of risk and courage centered on the church and it's mission today.

The real motivation for this article is to make sure that we as a church understand the difference between contentment (the topic for many of our Sunday School classes for June 19) and complacency. When we teach about contentment, we are speaking in terms of materialism, calling, and the circumstances of this world or our lot in life. Contentment in this sense battles our natural inclination towards covetousness, envy, and greed. Paul articulates the Christian perspective when he says, "Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me," (Phil 4:1-13, ESV).

However, Paul never allowed his contentment to take on the characteristics of complacency. To do what he did in writing sometimes scathing letters to churches showed that he cared and was passionate about his calling. His unwillingness to allow John Mark on the second missionary journey showed that he was passionate about his convictions. He risked friendships at the expense of truth and conviction. He pursued the adventure of being a Christian in ways that many of us would never consider. Paul wrote, "Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure," (1 Cor 11:24-27, ESV).

Paul was content, but he was never complacent. As believers, contentment with regard to the things of this world should never be misconstrued as complacency with regard to the kingdom. Are we, individually and as a church, willing to let urgency and risk drive our mission and purpose? Here is a question to consider, how often do we operate in the realm of mediocrity (in our individual faith and in the corporate life of the church) because we have mistaken complacency for contentment?