Happiness, Joy, and Truth

I’ve often noted that people confuse the concepts of Joy and Happiness. God, who is the author of all things, created a distinction between Joy and Happiness in humans. Too often, humans will experience Happiness in the wrong things and consider it Joy. People can be Happy that some event has occurred and falsely associate it with the Joy that life can offer.

Christian Joy is not synonymous with any form of Happiness to which most people are accustomed. True Joy – Christian Joy - is Happiness with Truth. With Truth. It is Happiness in the knowledge that one is in sync with the reality of the universe, i.e., God. Indeed, it is often a Happiness that exists even in times of persecution, suffering, and death because it is grounded in the reality of God.

Happiness without Truth is ultimately joyless. It is usually deceitful. It is frequently consummation of all one thinks they want followed by bitter disappointment. It is like finally dating that one person you’ve always wanted to date only to realize that the initial Happiness is followed by pain, disappointment, and sometimes the realization that it was never meant to be. And it was never meant to be because it was never grounded in reality to begin with. One problem is that people associate love with emotion and lust (or sexual attraction) … but not with Truth. Truth is just as an important factor in love as emotion and sexual attraction. The Truth of who we attach ourselves to – whether it conforms to the Truth of reality – is just as important as the emotion and sexual attraction involved. Someone might say, “I love this person.” To that I say, “Good. You are supposed to love that person. You’re supposed to love everyone. But how you are to express that love depends upon the Truth of reality and not solely upon subjective emotions and sexual attraction.”

In the same way, Happiness without the Truth is fleeting because it is without foundation, without Truth. It is a lusting for life but not a connection to the reality that is life’s foundation (apologies to Iggy Pop: good song). It is sucking on the foam but not drinking in the latte … and then being angry and disappointed that the coffee doesn’t taste that good. Unfortunately, most people in such a situation do not respond with self-reflection and repentance but a further, bitter fist-shaking at reality, characterizing it as society being constructed against them.

Thus, Happiness without Truth is joyless and ends in bitter disappointment. Christian Joy is Happiness with Truth that endures even in persecution, suffering, and a society constructed against Truth.

Thinking in Plato

I started re-reading The Chronicles of Narnia last week. I’ve usually read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe about twice a year since I was about seven years – it being one of my top ten favorite books. In recent years, I’ve started reading the other six books in the series at least once in the year. I find that like the Bible, Shakespeare, Dante, and Joyce, the Chronicles has the ability to expand one’s consciousness and imagination and, therefore, deserves repeated readings over a lifetime.

While reading these books I often find it helpful to consult Paul F. Ford’s Companion to Narnia and Michael Ward’s definitive work on the subject, Planet Narnia. Both of these works help the reader dig deeper into the construction and design of the series, as well as the theology and philosophy that undergirds the work.

The night before last I was reading Ford’s companion to the series and saw this entry on the Platonic philosophies inherent in the work:

“Plato saw the Socratic method of questioning as a necessary consciousness-raising antidote to the human tendency to shrink back from the fullness of reality into a superficial existence. In such a reduced state the human spirit will mistake the most immediate appearances for reality itself. Self-deception is a recurring factor in this constriction of consciousness since it is easy enough to hold an opinion but hard work to actually know what one is talking about.”

Options for Bible-Believers with Difficulties in Interpretation of ANE

One of the difficulties of interpreting the Bible in the post-Enlightenment age is comprehending how ancient cultures communicated reality to one another. And the farther back you go the more bizarre the cultural communication can seem to modern minds.

One example of this is how Jewish religious authors from 200 BCE to 100 CE used apocalyptic literature. This ancient genre uses symbolism, poetic language, cataclysmic imagery, fantastical creatures, and both a truncated and an expanded and even an overlapping account of history in order to give a spiritual interpretation of historical events. More often than not modern minds will respond in two ways: 1) they will accept this genre but interpret it too literally or 2) they will reject it because they can’t interpret it literally.

But if we go back even further into ancient near eastern literature things get even more bizarre.

The Egyptians, as well as the other cultures of the Ancient Near East (ANE), often exaggerated, allegorized and symbolized certain aspects of their concrete world in order to make important points. Often these non-literal techniques were applied to religious and historical reality to make important theological, political and ethnic points.

Such methods of interpreting reality were common in all the cultures of the Ancient Near East. In fact, they appear to be common to most ancient cultures from the Chinese to the Mayans. To this end, we have Egyptian, Mayan, Chinese, Sumerian, and Assyrian kings with exceptionally long reigns.

Here are some examples from the Early Dynastic I period of the Sumerian kings list:

• Alulim of Eridug: (28800 years)
• Alalgar of Eridug: (36000 years)
• En-Men-Lu-Ana of Bad-Tibira: (43200 years)
• En-Men-Gal-Ana of Bad-Tibira: (28800 years)
• Dumuzi of Bad-Tibira, the shepherd: (36000 years)
• En-Sipad-Zid-Ana of Larag: (28800 years)
• En-Men-Dur-Ana of Zimbir: (21000 years)
• Ubara-Tutu of Shuruppag: (18600 years)

Now when we turn to the Bible we read of the exceptionally long lives of people like Adam, Enoch, Noah, and Methuselah. How are we to interpret and/or understand something that seems so foreign to our contemporary understanding or reality? I think believers who hold the Scriptures to be high authority have three options:

1)      They can say, “I don’t know what other ancient cultures were doing, but I believe what the Bible says is true and people used to live hundreds of years.”

2)      They can say, “I understand there is something quite culturally foreign to my understanding going on here. People probably did not live hundreds of years but that’s not the point the Bible is trying to make. I still believe what the Bible says is true, but I’m going to interpret in light of its contemporary culture and not my own.”

3)      They can say, “I have no idea what is going on here. I don’t know what to believe. However, I trust God and believe the Bible. I don’t have to make a definite decision on something like this in order to be a fully formed follower of Christ.”

I’m not advocating any particular option above the others. I think all three of these are perfectly acceptable approaches for the purposes of personal growth and Kingdom expansion. My point was just to point out one of the difficulties of Biblical interpretation and how different Bible-believing Christians can approach this problem.

Modern Church Growth

The modern church growth movement began in the late 1970s and early 1980s when Christian researchers and scholars (prominently with the Fuller Seminary School) began to study the apparent numerical decline in mainline dominations and the beginnings of decline in evangelical churches. The result was a scientific approach to what made some churches grow and other churches decline. The results of numerous studies and subsequent how-to-books led to the explosion of church plants, contemporary churches, and the rise of the megachurch in the late eighties and through the late nineties. The results of this was (in my opinion) a tremendous church revival and refocus on the cultural execution of the church. Hence, we began to see seeker-sensitive services, contemporary worship services, topical preaching, multiple services, the proliferation of ministry programs, emphases on entertainment/recreation, corporate/business models, marketing, and the extreme focus on numerical growth. These techniques were adopted by many Boomer generation and a few Gen X pastors.

The tide began to turn away from such approaches in the late 90s and through today. Many of the megachurches that pioneered these earlier methods began to find that while their attendance grew numerically, the spiritual growth of their members had not grown. Other contemporary pastors also began to react against the focus on numbers, programs, and perceived shallow teaching. We then began to see the growth of the Emergent Church, which is a both an extension of the contemporary church movement and a reaction against it, and the focus on more authentic religious experiences. At the same time, later born Gen Xers and Millennials began to similarly cry not only for a more authentic religious experience but a more outward focus of church purposes (i.e., the Missional Church). It seemed that the work of such missional scholars as Bosch, Nida, and Hesselgrave became extremely relevant to modern church growth. The focus has now become intentional mission work outside the church in the neighborhoods, affecting both the spiritual and physical needs of the community.

Some of the techniques of today’s contemporary church growth include more authentic and integrated forms of worship, narrative preaching, diversified understandings of corporate worship/church attendance, emphasis on missional living, creative spirituality, small groups, and an even greater reliance on technology and social media. Certainly some of these techniques existed in various ways in the past, just as many past techniques continue to work (contemporary worship, multiple services, marketing, etc.).

As America further becomes a post-“Christian” nation and the Biblical worldview becomes even more foreign to the culture, more missional methods of church ministerial work will become necessary. We can no longer regard the church as an institution to which outsiders must come in order to receive a certain product, namely, the gospel and all its associated benefits. Churches can no longer exist for the members and depend on pastors and staff to evangelize the lost. The local church and its members will need to define and organize themselves in terms of mission – each as body and member being sent to take the gospel to and incarnate the gospel with their specific community and culture. Thus, the local church must redefine its nature and create a new paradigm in which it is seen as missional in nature, instead of attractional in nature. Instead of churches attempting to attract people to churches through church programs, churches must instead take the gospel outside of the church and engage society with the gospel, often by being involved not only in missions and evangelism but also in social justice movements. How we do “church” will need to be more embedded in the community.

Authenticity will be important. There are millennial aged people who are even embracing more liturgical churches because they have the appearance (justified or not) of being more authentic. Contemporary churches can have the bad reputation of being more flash, fluff, buzz, and pre-manufactured and less substantive. But contemporary, traditional, liturgical, charismatic, and emergent can all be useful models of ministering to whomever God is directing you, provided there is that authenticity (though you might not necessarily receive numerical growth).

Right along with the need for greater authenticity, in a post-“Christian” culture, the need to reeducate people about the Biblical narrative is essential, primarily with children but also with adults. Learning the grand narrative of the Bible is essential to creating a proper worldview. At the same time, grounding a believer in the grand narrative also provides him or her with a mission, THE mission, on which to fully participate as a member of the Church.

Just like in the nineties, contemporary churches are going to have to change and adapt to the culture in order to achieve Kingdom goals. What worked 20 years ago may no longer do so. For such churches to continually rely on nineties methods of church growth is simply to become another traditional church embracing the inevitable decline into religious irrelevance.

Majors and Minors

Christians often distinguish between the Major prophetic books of the Bible (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel) and the Minor prophetic books (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi).

A mentor of mine once said that there is no such distinction between major and minor, greater or lesser. All prophecies (i.e., communication from God to his people) are major. Each prophetic book fits a specific situation that needs to be addressed. Each book is performing a specific function necessary to achieve God’s goals in this world for his Kingdom.

In the same way, there is no major or minor, greater or lesser position in the church – only the position to which God has called you to serve. Each position is equally important because God is using each position to achieve his goals and grow his Kingdom here on earth.

At the same time, while there is no important or unimportant position, there are right and wrong positions. Are you serving in the right position? Are you serving in the wrong position? Are you serving at all?

God expects every Christian to serve in some capacity. Figure out what that position is and know that it is just as important as any other position in the church.

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”

You’ve all heard about one of the Ten Commandments that states: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”

Most people have inherited the traditional assumption that this commandment means to not speak God’s name in specific ways such as “Oh, God!” and “[gosh darn it]”.

The problem with this particular, traditional interpretation is that it doesn’t line up with what the Scripture actually says. If the verse meant that we should not speak God’s name “inappropriate” ways it would say “speak” (דָּבַר) and not “take” (נָשָׂא). The Hebrew word for “take” here is nasa' and in the Qal Imperfect means “to carry”, “to bear”, and “to lift up”.

In actuality, the meaning of this commandment is that no one who is a believer, a follower of God, should take the name of God, should say they are a follower of God, and then behave in a manner which suggests they are not. For us it means, “Don’t say you are a Christian and then behave in an un-Christian-like manner.” Don’t lift up the name of God if you are going to live your life like someone who doesn’t know who God is. Don’t bear the name of God in public if you’re going to act like a pagan in public. As my Old Testament seminary professor said about this the meaning of this verse, “Don’t make God look bad.” To do so is to be a believer in vain (שָׁוְא, shav'), which means in “emptiness” or “futility”. To say you are a believer and to act as an unbeliever is to be a believer in absolute futility. You might as well then be an unbeliever.

The Feeding of the 5000: Jesus and the New Exodus

Jesus frequently referred to himself as a prophet and behaved as one. He frequently prophesized, performed miracles similar to that of Old Testament prophets, gave prophetic parables, and performed actions that can only be described as enacted parables. Actions such as withering a fig tree, raising the dead, and cleansing the Temple were not just acts of power meant to impress the disciples but pointed towards a higher truth of God’s immediate actions in the world right then and there in Jesus’ ministry.

The main thrust of his prophetic mission, as he understood it, was to enact Yahweh coming to Zion, God returning to his people, the Lord bringing his people out of Exile by the forgiveness of sins. At the same time, Jesus giving the prophetic warning that if the people refused to believe in him (i.e., follow his way of being the people of God) then God would allow the Romans to destroy them (see Matthew 24-25; Luke 21:10-38; Revelation 4-19). God was fulfilling his promises in Jesus but the people were missing it.

So when we come to Jesus’ Feeding of the 5000 people (Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-14) we can assuredly expect that Jesus is not just feeding people and not simply exhibiting his power to impress the disciples.

For the past few month the Children’s Ministry has been covering many of the miracles of Jesus and explaining to the kids how they show Jesus’ power over creation and how God was supporting Jesus’ ministry. That, of course, is all true and its good milk that tastes like meat for the spiritually young. However, there is, as I’ve suggested, more to Jesus’ action that to build excitement among the faithful.

John, in his Gospel, does the best job of interpreting Jesus’ actions by having him explain in his version that he is “the bread of life” (John 6:35, 48). He further states that “Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which comes down from heaven, and gives life unto the world” (John 6:32-33). John is writing his Gospel long after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE but he still maintains the connection to Moses in the wilderness.

When we turn back to a less “spiritual” account as found in the Synoptic Gospels, we are still drawn to the comparison of Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness. Jesus has been reconstituting Israel around himself by appointing 12 disciples (12 tribes of Israel), giving new commandments ala Moses (the Sermon on the Mount), and eventually holding a new Passover meal (the Last Supper). In feeding the 5000, Jesus assumes another role of Moses: providing the manna from heaven.

For Jesus’ contemporaries, these actions pointed to the idea of Exodus from captivity. The Jews of Jesus’ day still believed that they were in spiritual exile due to their sins and they were waiting for a spiritual exodus when God would return to his people and release them. In enacting these parables, Jesus was associating himself with Moses and declaring that he was the promised deliver, here to bring the people out of captivity.

The prophetic act of feeding 5000 people was not simply an act of wonder performed to amaze the crowds like a magician pulling a rabbit out of his hat. This was a pointed declaration that Jesus was a great prophet, a new Moses, sent by God to deliver his people out of their spiritual captivity.

Christian Leadership vs Secular Leadership

Part of Jesus’ ministry was a reconstituting of the relationships of life, particularly as it applies to the people of God. Much of his teaching is a putting to rights of many of the ways in which think about human relationships between men and women, parent and child, God and Man, Church and State, Jew and Gentile, friend and enemy, pastor and parishioner, and employer and employee. Much of these teachings, radical as they were at the time, have become commonplace in Western thinking; other teachings still seem profoundly contrary to how we think the world generally works (e.g., he first shall be last, the last shall be first; prohibitions against lawsuits; going the extra mile; pacifism; etc.).

Here is what Jesus taught regarding leadership:

“You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be servant of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:42-45)

We often read these verses and appreciate it in theory … but then fail to put it into practice, either out of ignorance or defiance to the truth. As always, we need our thinking transformed by the renewing of our minds through the submission of our thought processes to what God is doing (Romans 12:2).

A good way of distinguishing between the two forms of leadership presented in the Scriptures is as follows:

Secular leadership proceeds from the idea that “You all work for me”.

Christian leadership proceeds from the idea that “I work for all of you”.

Again, this Christian conception of leadership is a radical reversal of how the world thinks and works.

As Paul worked it out in his writings, pastoring/ministering becomes a process of equipping other believers to do the work of the Kingdom of God (Ephesians 4:12-16). It is in no way a position of honor and prestige but of servile grunt work, empowering others to reach their God-given potential. It is not “what can you do for me?” but “what can I do for you?”

Again, this is not how we normally think of leadership. We are far too colored by our inherited worldview with which we unconsciously and unquestionably read the Scriptures and then put unbiblical concepts into practice. We are conformed to the patterns of this world because we do not even think there is another way, and that pattern colors the way we interpret Scripture. Worldviews are like glasses that we wear to see the world around us. The difficulty is that we have to take the glasses off to look at them … but then we can no longer see what we’re looking at.

Unsurprisingly, the Christian view of leadership is a far more effective means of achieving Kingdom goals … because that’s how it was designed to work. All other methods are counterproductive, hindering legitimate Kingdom work. If we are to achieve the radical reformulation of relationships that was inaugurated by Jesus’ ministry we must apply those radical methods. In order to achieve the future, we must live the future in the present. This is part of the meaning of Jesus and his ministry being the first fruits of New Creation (1 Cor 15:20-23).