What does John the Evangelist wish to communicate to his audience what serving Jesus is about?

Michael Gorman sets forth his argument for “missional theosis” in Abide and Go: Missional Theosis in the Gospel of John.

Gorman sets out to establish his primary thesis: John would have those who hear him participate in the life and love of God through mutual indwelling of the Father, Son, Spirit, and Jesus’ disciples so they can become more like God in Christ through the Spirit. He simplifies the idea by means of John 15: to “abide and go,” or to abide as branches in the vine to bear fruit.

The author defined his terms and the value of a missional framework. He then well answered objections against considering the Gospel of John as missional and establishes well how mission is in fact central to John’s Gospel and demonstrates as much through the whole narrative. This is especially highlighted in John 13, 17, and 20-21. The author demonstrates how such empowers the love of enemies as exhibited by Jesus in this Gospel and expected of His followers.

Gorman persuasively argues for perichoresis and mission, although it would not have been difficult to persuade me about the importance of and emphasis on perichoresis and mission, especially from the Gospel of John (confused? See The ONE Story).

So my quibble is not with the Gospel of John as missional, or even as missional in and by perichoresis.

I’ve never been comfortable, though, with theosis. Nor, it seems, are some other commentators on this theme.

It’s not that I am uncomfortable with theosis as Gorman uses the term: to become more like God, while understanding we will never ontologically become God.

I understand there’s a long heritage in the use of the term theosis, but I remain much more comfortable with perichoresis, and believe perichoresis gets to the heart of the matter (mutual interpenetration) without the baggage of theosis (without loss of distinctive identity). I’ve never had anyone wonder if or conclude from my presentation of perichoresis they could actually become God; when you have to take a term like theosis, which means to become divine, and say you don’t really mean that you become God but that you share in the character of the divine, and then some ignorant Americans go out and truly literalize the concept to the hilt (read: Mormonism)…I hope my discomfort with the term is understandable.

So, yes, absolutely: the Gospel of John is all about mission as rooted in perichoretic relational unity among God and His people. We can go on mission when we abide in God and become more like Him. But I’m still not a fan of the “t” word.

A worthwhile read when considering the Gospel of John. ( )