Job and Justice

The book of Job is one of the deeper books of the Bible. It’s profoundly existential, dealing with the lot of the individual human finding himself in life between the twin abysses of preexistence and death and having to deal with the problem of evil.

Like the book of Ecclesiastes, Job offers a counter argument to the theology found in the books of Deuteronomy and Proverbs. The latter two works offer a generalized expression of the truths of life: if you do good and refrain from evil, then you can expect good out of life. And this is a generally true formula; practical, every day experience tells us this is so. This theology is the basis for the covenant God made with Israel: if Israel does X, God will do Y. However, there are particulars in life that can trump this general truth. There are times when bad things happen to you undeservingly. You don’t deserve all the evil that happens to you. This is an important point that Jesus makes a few times in his ministry (Luke 13:1-5; John 9:1-4). It’s also the central point of Jesus’ proclamation on the cross: “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46; cf. Psalm 22).

This is part of Job’s crisis. He understands the theology found in Deuteronomy and Proverbs – it’s his theology! Job’s three friends articulate it in the face of his predicament and his statements about the sovereignty of God and the injustice of life. Job’s friends are trying to defend God’s reputation. Job hears them and agrees but insists that such theology doesn’t fit his situation. Yet, despite Job’s frustration with God and the world, he never loses his faith and loyalty to God. And God hears Job’s frustrations and recognizes his faith. Job’s only error is the position he tries to put God in. In terms of justice and the legal proceedings of the court, Job sees himself as a plaintiff making a complaint against God. Again, God understands Job’s frustrations and faith but corrects him, identifying himself as the judge in this scenario and not on equal standing with Job. He is the creator god who stands before and after existence itself.

It’s his great wisdom (as is evident by his ability to create) that justifies his position as supreme judge - a judge that presides over the generalities and the particulars. It is he who will administer justice in the world, even when it challenges the reasoning and wisdom of man. And God’s faithfulness ensures that justice is ultimately carried out, that history is sorted out, and that the world is put to rights. This finds its ultimate express in the resurrection, both of Christ and everyone else.

Additional: Job is a fascinating book. Four or five different points of view, all well argued, with no strawmen. We know where the author's sympathies lie, but the opposing points of view are believable and convincing. That's important given the book is a confrontation between two biblical theologies. Unbeknownst to Job, he is the one on trial, with the Satan as prosecutor (see Zech 3:1-2). The friends are actually witnesses for the prosecution. This is not unlike John's Gospel which looks like the Jesus's trial on the surface, but actually everyone else is on trial. I'd add that there's much humor in the book, some of it a tad risqué, but obscured in the English. Job is in no mood to mince words and his sarcasm is palpable. My favorite line: "Truly then you are the people, and with you wisdom will die!" (Job 12:2).

Leadership Frustrations in the Church

Because humans are created in the image of God, we’ve also been given the ability to create. The book of Genesis consists of God creating structures on the earth and then filling them. Humans are then created and given the task of filling the earth and subduing it (1:28), of cultivating the earth (2:15). Humans were created to work, accomplish tasks, and pursue artistic means. In this sense, humans are very much homo faber, “working man”. As Umberto Eco argues in “Open Work”, homo faber is a manifestation of man's innate being in nature. The rejection of this innate being represents the alienation from and objectification of nature. However, our ability to work and create is frustrated from a cursed earth producing (in terms of the metaphor) thorns, thistles, and agony (3:17-19; also 3:16). Evil, sin, selfishness – these bring disruption to our working lives, causing frustration.

Part of the work of Jesus is a reversal of this curse on the land and the alleviation of the frustrations, disappointments, and general dissatisfactions. As the body of Christ, the Church and all those believers who follow Jesus are called to be a part of that same work. We are to help people with their frustrations, doing what we can to remove such impediments in order to further the Kingdom of God.

I was reminded a couple of weeks ago that one of the jobs of a minister is to equip volunteers to do the work of the Church by alleviating as much of the frustrations of that work as possible. Much of this can be done through organization, communication, preparatory work, establishing clearly defined goals and expectations, proper training, on-going support, and appreciation. This is all bread and butter in ministry.  Unfortunately though, far from alleviating the aggravations that go on in the work of the church, ministry leaders can be the cause of such frustrations.

I decided to look research websites that talk about such leadership frustrations. Here are the results:

Inability to make timely decisions

Disorganized

Lack of Focus and Direction

Are always right and never wrong

Does not take responsibility

Cannot accept criticism without becoming defensive

Not willing to share the pulpit or spotlight

Feels threatened by other ministers or pastors

Does not allow for pushback or disagreements

Surround themselves with "yes men" rather than edifying leaders.

Does not entrust ministry to other leaders

Undermines programs that they cannot control

Insist that everything in the ministry run through them

Only one who is allowed to think

Seeks a minimalist structure of accountability

Expects behavior of others they don’t expect of themselves

Frequent anger outbursts

Says one thing to some people, but different things to others

Seeks to dismiss or marginalize people before they attempt to develop them

Lacks transparency

Communicates poorly

Self-absorbed

Never accepts criticism and have to be right about everything

Routinely reminds people who is in charge

Has a poor understanding of Scripture

Not willing to pay the price to make the ministry healthy

Uses of Guilt for Obedience

Ignores the Clear Evidence of Problems

Blind to the Issues of His or Her Own Heart
Family members seem to fill key openings

Shows favoritism

A passive or aggressive pressure by the leader not to associate with others who have left the ministry or church

  

Alleviating Problems in Church Leadership

One of the truths of life is that any organization generally reflects the character, mentality, and motivations of its leadership. This is true in governments, businesses, and churches. Why this is the case is uncertain and the subject of debate amongst psychologists, theologians, and those who study organizational leadership, but practical experience nevertheless bears this truth out.

Obviously, there are both positives and negatives in this. If you have a dynamically creative and humble leader with good character, a great mind, and interests in evangelism and studying the Scriptures, then there will be a trickle-down effect and a permeation of this throughout the organization. Obviously, this is a boon. However, if you have a leader with poor character and temperament, a disorganized mind, and who is selfishly motivated, then you can expect a disorganized organization exhibiting poor character, poor choices detrimental to all those who come into its purview. This can create a toxic culture and work environment. And even with the best leaders, the character foibles and practical idiosyncrasies and deficiencies which exist in each of us can manifest themselves in an organization. This is particularly true of churches. And this situation is ultimately unavoidable. There must always be leadership in a church. However, there are ways in which problems can be lessened to the benefit of the church’s mission. Here are a few recommendations:

1)      Make Christ the leader of the church. This is about making a conscious effort to establish Christ as the leader of the church in a very real and practical way. Part of this is about modeling the church’s organization on Christ’s character and practice (Philippians 2:5-11). Most of this is about seeking God’s direction through prayer and pursuing what God wants us to do, not what we want or what someone else is doing. This is vision by mission. This is ministry by need. You pursue ministry by the needs of your community. You create ministries because there is a need; you don’t create a ministry and hope there is a need.

2)      Practice Servant Leadership (Luke 22:25-26; Ephesians 4:11-12; Matthew 20:16; Philippians 2:5-11).

3)      Checks and Balances. Power and authority should be spread amongst a large number of people and not centralized and consolidated with one person or one family. There should be a plurality of Elders or Pastors who all have equal authority to make decisions. Church ministries need to be team-based. Most importantly, senior pastors should not pick those who theoretically oversee them and who supposedly insure accountability.

4)      Allow for Disagreements. Create a ministry culture where people are free to discuss ideas openly and offer concerns and disagreements without fear of retribution. We should not cluster ourselves in self-affirming groups or create echo chambers for our own desires.

5)      Pastoral character. As started above, human leadership is unavoidable, but the inherent problems can be lessened by sound practices. A church needs to insure its pastor has good character, a decent temperament, and integrity. The Pastoral Letters are a good place to start. A church needs to make sure its pastor is above reproach (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6-7), temperate and prudent (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 2:2), gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money (1 Timothy 3:3; 6:10), keeping his children under control (1 Timothy 3:4, 12), not showing partiality (1 Timothy 5:21), has a good reputation outside of the church (1 Timothy 3:7), not double-tongued (1 Timothy 3:8), not self-willed or quick-tempered or pugnacious (Titus 1:6), and sensible and self-controlled (Titus 1:8; 2:5).

Adopting these practices will help alleviate problems in church leadership.

Message and Means

Message and Means. One of the primary thrusts of Jesus’ teachings was that the Kingdom of God could not be brought about by aggressive means. The tactics of the world are antithetical to Gospel. Love, forgiveness, truth, and selflessness could not be advanced by political methodology. The means of the Gospel had to be in line with its message. Thus we get a counterintuitive vision of the world where the first are last and the last are first (Matthew 20:16), where the leaders are servants (Luke 22:25-26), and where the supreme example is that of self-emptying (Philippians 2:5-11). This is how God advances his Kingdom with the preaching of the Gospel. This is the method Jesus taught Christians to follow. How easy it is for believers to be in the world and of the world! How easy it is for us to think that we can further our ministries through politics, force, and aggressive behavior!

The problem is not just the poor witness that is exhibited from such actions. The problem is not just that it is hypocritical. Those are legitimate problems, of course, but the central problem is that one cannot actually advance the mission of the Christian Faith, either personally or through the church, by means that run counter to the message. To do otherwise is like running an engine with the wrong fuel – you can advance only so far before the gears begin to grind and the engine fails. You cannot effectively advance ministry through bullying, lies, and general bad behavior. Whatever real gains that are made already contain the seed of its own destruction. Eventually a ministry or church will grind down. The message will become confused or lost. The inner contradictions will manifest themselves. The people will lose focus. Conflict will disrupt ministry and wound people. Transparency will darken. The truth gets buried. Cover-up for bad behavior will become a focus and create more problems. Appearance will supersede substance. Intimidation and harassment will become staples. People will resent the bully. People will abandon the ministry. In effect, the minister and ministry become a poison to everything it touches.

When faced with such a toxic missiological conflict, the Christian has three options 1) leave the situation for better pastures, 2) stay and attempt to change the ministry and be attacked, 3) stay and ignore the problem and slowly and unknowingly become corrupted yourself. If you choose the second option, then the means of change must align with the message of the Gospel.

The change comes from repentance of the ministry back towards a mentality, position, and process of humbleness. That repentance must start at the recognition of the need to repent. And that recognition comes from truth.

The only way to change a culture of lies and bullying, the only way to change an organization built and run on fear is truth. Speaking truth, exposing lies, and calling out bad behavior for what it is must be the method of change.

“Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” (Ephesians 5:11)

“But everything exposed by the light becomes visible--and everything that is illuminated becomes a light.” (Ephesians 5:13)

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)

“Let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.” (1 John 3:18)

“God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24)

Showing how the ministry does not line up with the message of the Gospel and the teachings of Scripture in order to bring it to repentance is the only means by which people can bring the means of the ministry in line with its message.

Correlations between Genesis 1-2 and John 19-20

Notice these correlations between Genesis 1-2 and John 19-20:

On the sixth day (Friday) God created Man (Adam), male and female (Genesis 1:26-27), and places Man in a garden (Genesis 2:8). On Good Friday, Pilate presents Jesus (the Second Adam [1 Corinthians 15:45]) to the crowd: “Behold, the Man!” (John 19:5).

On the sixth day (Friday) God finished his work of creation (Genesis 2:2). On Good Friday, Jesus completes his work on the cross, saying, “It is finished!” (John 19:30).

On the seventh day (Saturday/Sabbath) God rested from creating (Genesis 2:2-3). During the Sabbath/Saturday, Jesus body is laid to rest in a tomb (John 19:31, 41-42).

On the eight day (Sunday), “the first day of the week” (John 20:1), Jesus rises from the dead, coming out of a tomb which is in a garden (John 19:41; 20:15).

John has written down these correlations between the two stories in order to say something about the Easter event. He is saying here that Jesus’ work on the cross is an act bringing about New Creation (see Galatians 6:15; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Isaiah 65:17; 66:22; Revelation 21:1). Jesus’ resurrection is a new day. He is the New Man, the first fruits of the New Creation (1 Corinthians 15:20, 23). God has officially begun to transform the world, recreate it, reversing the fall of Man, and he is doing so through the person and work of Jesus.

Waiting for God

Holy Saturday (Sabbatum Sanctum), the Saturday of Holy Week, the Great Sabbath, Black Saturday, Easter Eve. The great day of tested faith. The Akedah of Easter. The neo-orthodox holiday. The time when one finds oneself held in the wearied uncertainty and existential tension between the pillars of the Good Friday disaster and the Easter Sunday victory. The wait in the midst seems endless. The apparent absence of God is deafening. It’s limbo. It’s absolute nothingness. It’s open and empty, stripped down and elemental. A day of vanity, of meaninglessness; framed existence lacking intrinsic purpose. Very Kierkegaardian. Very Niebuhrian. The day of the year I set aside for reading Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. One takes a deep breath but never knows when one can finally exhale.

Here is a good example on how to navigate the news media.

Here is a good example on how to navigate the news media. For Lent I have been reading the book of Matthew with the help of N.T. Wright’s Lent for Everyone: Matthew and A.T. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 1 which contains a word commentary on Matthew. Last night I read the latter’s comments on 27:51 and the earthquake that is recorded at the time of Jesus’ death. Robertson notes that “the Talmud tells of a quaking forty years before the destruction of the temple” (p. 235). Here is an interesting fact! The destruction of the temple was around 70 CE; Jesus was crucified around 30 CE. Is the Jewish Talmud independently referencing the same earthquake that Matthew records?

Now here is a fact that supports my prejudice towards the historicity of the events recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. This fact buttresses my worldview, it confirms my biases. Here is a recorded fact that helps confirm the central belief of my life: the immediate events leading up to the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. I want this to be true. And Robertson is an excellent source. A very learned scholar. Celebrated. An absolute expert in his field. Hardly ever wrong. “I’ve gotta post this on Facebook!”

So this morning I go searching for the evidence: Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud, Midrash Rabbah, Tosefta, Josephus, and other sources. I read a large number of articles on the subject. Do you know what I found about the earthquake? Nothing. No evidence whatsoever. None.

Here is what I did find from the Jerusalem Talmud:

“Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open”

And from the Babylonian Talmud:

“Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot ‘For the Lord’ did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves”

So the Talmud does reference a number of mysterious things happening circa 30 CE but not an earthquake. What I did find were some modern people speculating about whether an earthquake could have caused the events recorded in the Talmud, but that is a very different thing than saying that the Talmud records an earthquake around 30 CE.

Robertson erred.

My point is that one must be highly suspicious of facts that seem to confirm our biases, prejudices, beliefs, desires, and worldview. The news media (either consciously or unconsciously) will always attempt to persuade you to adopt a particular narrative or version of events in order to support a particular worldview. They will use truths, half-truths, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, omissions, distortions, speculations, opinions, feelings, and polls to get you to believe whatever furthers their agenda. More importantly, they want to use your biases, prejudices, jealousies, and fears to their ends. I’ve learned that fear is the most powerful of manipulators.

This is all to say that it is important to research and study what you believe, why you believe it, and to avoid the news cycles that attempt to direct you. By doing so, you will either avoid error and/or strengthen your convictions.

  

Pastoral Vision-Casting and a Correct Interpretation of Proverbs 29:18

From seminary on I have heard and read Christian leaders and teachers state that the pastor is supposed to cast the vision for the church. I’ve never read any biblical justification for this practice and none is ever provided. Mostly this is just assumed to be the case and people proceed with it as God-ordained and a New Testament standard. Of course, just because a particular practice is not known in the New Testament does not mean that the practice is invalid. I will say, however, that the concept of the vision-casting pastor mostly stems from an incorrect view of his or her role. Nevertheless, I would like to tackle one verse that is frequently thrown out there to support the idea that a church needs a vision.

“Where there is no vision the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18).

This is THE verse that people reference when talking about leadership vision-casting. The unspoken addendum to the use of this verse is that it is the pastor/leader that is supposed to provide this vision. But what is this vision that pastors are supposed to provide? Usually this conception of vision is defined in practice as the ability to think about or plan the future with imagination or wisdom, as in “an organization has lost its vision and direction”. This is how church vision-casting is practically understood. But as with many verses for which people search the scriptures in order to artificially support their preconceptions, Proverbs 29:18 does not mean what they want it to mean.

The Hebrew word for “vision” here is chazown and, far from referring to a imaginative plan for the future, means revelation, oracle, or prophecy (2 Chronicles 32:32; Psalm 89:19; Isaiah 1:1; Jeremiah 14:14; Lamentation 2:9; Ezekiel 7:26; Daniel 1:17; Hosea 12:10; Micah 3:6). Furthermore, the word for perish is para` and is best translated “unrestrained”. In this understanding of the verse, if the people do not have a prophetic revelation from God then they are left unrestrained to engage in foolishness and sin. This interpretation is reinforced by the rarely mentioned second half of this verse: “happy is he who keeps the law.” If we put this verse altogether we get “Where there is no prophetic revelation, the people are unrestrained, but happy is he who keeps the law.” This verse is about keeping God’s laws and commandments, not vision-casting. So unless a pastor is spouting out fresh prophetic oracles from God, this verse should be applied not to a pastor’s imaginative wonderings of a future plan for the church, but for his or her biblical role to teach and equip other believers to follow the commands of God.

If a pastor is going to vision-cast, she needs to do so by studying Scripture to understand the mission of the Church and by seeking God’s explicit instruction through prayer. Vision-casting for the church should not be the result of a pastor’s musings, imagination, and personal wants of what she would like to see happen. Otherwise, if we are going to apply “vision” in the way too many Christians do, “They speak a vision of their own imagination, not from the mouth of the LORD” (Jeremiah 23:16).

The Messianic Secret and the Enthronement of Christ

I was reading the autobiography of Albert Schweitzer last week, Out of My Life and Thought. In it Schweitzer talks about the historical issue known as the “Messianic Secret”. This refers to the motif in the synoptic Gospels, particular the Gospel of Mark, in which Jesus is portrayed as commanding his disciples to keep silent about his identity as the Messiah, or Christ. The theory originally posited by William Wrede in 1901 was that this theme was an invention of Gospel writers to cover up for the fact that Jesus really never claimed to be the Christ. Wrede’s theory was roundly criticized early on by a variety of scholars (both liberal and conservative) but picked up some popularity in the middle of the 20^th century. Eventually the idea that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah/Christ fell out of favor. There were some scholarly, historical, and logical reasons why this theory does not hold water, and Schweitzer was one of the early critics.

Yet, the synoptic Gospels do have several episodes in which Jesus tells individuals to keep his Messianic identity secret (Matthew 16:20; 12:16; Mark 1:24-25, 34; 3:12; 8:30; Luke 4:41; 9:21). Indeed, Jesus doesn’t openly refer to himself as the Christ, preferring to use the terms prophet (Matthew 13:57; Mark 6:4) and Son of Man (Matthew 8:20; 9:6; 11:19; Mark 2:10; 8:31; 9:9; Luke 9:44; 11:30; 12:40 13:33).

The most common explanation for the “Messianic Secret” is that Jesus wanted to avoid the contemporary misconception that the Messiah would be a strictly political figure that would fully institute Torah as popularly understood and defeat Israel’s enemies, namely the Romans. In this view, Jesus could establish his own ethic and correct theology without the political baggage that the title brought. I definitely think there is some truth to this. I also think that Jesus feared that any announcement by him of his Messianic identity might invite the people to make him king by a means other than by God’s plan (John 6:15). Again, I think these are both good secondary reasons, but I believe there was a primary reason.

Schweitzer argued that Jesus refrained from publicly identifying himself as the Messiah was because Jesus didn’t officially become King (the Messiah or Christ) until he sat on his throne which was the cross. I had never heard this theory before, but I do think that it is correct based on several other passages within the Gospels. In one story, the mother of James and John requests that her sons sit on either side of Jesus (presumably as he is enthroned) when his kingdom is inaugurated.

“And He said to her, ‘What do you wish?’ She said to Him, ‘Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit one on Your right and one on Your left.’ But Jesus answered, ‘You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?’”  (Matthew 20:21-22; cf. Mark 10:33-38)

The cup refers to his crucifixion (Matthew 26:42; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42). Jesus warns that the means of him coming into his kingdom is through the death of the crucifixion. For them to be on his left and right as he sits on his throne would be to suffer the same death (just like the two thieves).

In the most obvious story, Jesus is “coronated” by the Romans.

“Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole Roman cohort around Him. They stripped Him and put a scarlet robe on Him. And after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand; and they knelt down before Him and mocked Him, saying, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ They spat on Him, and took the reed and began to beat Him on the head. After they had mocked Him, they took the scarlet robe off Him and put His own garments back on Him, and led Him away to crucify Him” (Matthew 27:27-31; cf. Mark 15:16-20; John 19:1-5).

Intended by the Romans to be a macabre, mocking parody of the charge against Jesus, the soldiers dress him up as a king with robe, staff, and crown. They then put him on the cross and hang a sign above his head, “This is the king of the Jews” (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19). In the most startling, scandalous, ironic event in human history, Jesus becomes King of the Jews and king of the world by being humiliated and executed on a Roman cross. This is his coronation and enthronement. This is how his kingdom arrives.

Yet, if Jesus did not officially become the Messiah/Christ/King until his crucifixion on the cross, why does he seem to already acknowledge his Messiahship but only ask that it be kept silent? I think the answer comes in another story.

“At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, ‘Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.’ But He said to them, ‘Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, “I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,” you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath’” (Matthew 12:1-8; cf. Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5).

This episode is followed by another warning by Jesus not to make known who he is (Matthew 12:16; Mark 3:12).

This particular story has been popularly interpreted as Jesus’ denunciation of tradition in the face of human need or even a renunciation of the Law in favor of grace. While there may be some surface truth to the former in terms of some indirect application, as with many of Jesus’ teachings and parables there is a deeper level of meaning that was Jesus’ essential point upon which all principled application must be based.

The story that Jesus cites here about David eating the consecrated bread is from 1 Samuel 21:1-15. This is one of the stories about how God was working through history to bring his anointed one, David, to the throne. David here is on the run from King Saul. He has already been appointed by God and anointed king over Israel (1 Samuel 18:1-14), but, since Saul is still king, it would be a while before he actually became the official king after the death of Saul (2 Samuel 2:1-7). In the meantime, David is the true king, but a king in exile, on the run from a jealous Saul, and he won’t ascend the throne and be officially recognized for a time.

In the same way, at this point in the story, Jesus has already been ordained by God (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22) and is the true King of Israel, yet he has yet to be recognized as such and ascend the throne. The currently recognized king is a Herod who seeks to kill Jesus (Matthew 2:16; Luke 13:31). When Jesus was pointing to the example of David in his explanation of why he could break the Sabbath rules he was not simply citing precedent but pointing to his identity: an anointed king waiting to be coronated. It his identity as Messiah which makes him Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5).

Therefore, I think all these passages and stories confirm Schweitzer’s theory that the reason for the Messianic Secret was that Jesus’ Messiaship did not officially begin until he was crucified. But as stated above, this is the shocking and completely unexpected means by which Jesus becomes king. This method is counter-intuitive and counter-cultural. Instead of seizing power and bullying his way to the top, Jesus becomes a servant in order to be exalted (Philippians 2:5-11).This is why we read the first shall be last and the last shall be first (Matthew 20:16). This is why Christian leadership is about servant leadership (Luke 22:25-26). This is why being a pastor is about equipping other believers (Ephesians 4:11-12). While the world may be run by the aggressive use of force and governments have a monopoly on violence (see Romans 13:1-3), the Christian (both laity and minister) must pursue the Kingdom of God through humbleness, selflessness, submission, and sacrifice (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23).

The Fundamental Theology of Creativity in Ministry

I wanted to write an article about how going deeper into theology enables one to go higher into ministry. This is the result.

In 1962, Italian director Federico Fellini decided to make a film about the inability of a filmmaker to make a film. The film that both Fellini and his semi-fictional filmmaker were un/able to make was the film both were working on: 8 ½. Fellini’s course in making this film was to convey the three levels on which the human minds live: the past, the present, and the conditional - the realm of the imagination. He proceeded on the theory that if we live in our conscious, the more we can go down into our unconscious, the more we can go up in our over-conscious. Thus, in the film, the deeper both Fellini and the filmmaker go into their memory, the higher they go into their imagination. It is the process of going deeper into the memory/unconscious that enables them to realize the potential to achieve high imaginative art. And part of this process is the submission of the self to that deeper reality, the coming to terms with those past events that have such a profound effect upon personal life.

I was reminded of this film when I began thinking about creativity in ministry. Because humans are created in the image of God, we’ve also been given the ability to create. It is interesting that the creation story in Genesis 1 consists of God creating structures on the earth and then filling them. Humans are then created and given the task of filling the earth and subduing it (1:28), of cultivating the earth (2:15). God gives a sense of his own creativity to humans. The problem comes, of course, when humans sin and fall from their proper position by attempting to go beyond their limits. Their ability to create is frustrated from a cursed earth producing thorns and thistles (3:17-19; also 3:16).

In his book, The Nature and Destiny of Man, theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, wrestled with the subject of anxiety and how it creates the occasion of sin, basing much of his work on Soren Kierkegaard’s Concept of Anxiety. He describes how humans are created beings and thus are limited, finite, and incapable of knowing everything and of doing everything (knowledge and creativity). Yet because humans are created in the image of God, they are capable of envisioning the possibility of knowing and doing everything, of imagining what they might be but are not. A human has a mind that can transcend itself (since he can make his own thoughts the object of contemplation) and thus he has tremendous creative and imaginative powers to create by thinking beyond the limits of his own finitude. Yet this freedom to think beyond the limits of one’s finitude can produce dread or anxiety within the human consciousness. We realize we are free but bound. We imagine life beyond the contours of our finitude and that thought produces the temptation to exercise our freedom in an attempt to go beyond that limit. Anxiety then is the state of any human standing in the situation of freedom and finitude. This anxiety is not sin itself, but it can be the occasion of sin. There is always that chance that one will freely choose not to attempt to go beyond the limit. But people attempt to relieve the anxiety either by faith or sin. (Let me be clear: I’m using anxiety in the theological/philosophical sense, not in the medical.)

When one chooses to relieve the anxiety by acting beyond his limit that is the sin of pride, and from pride flows every other sin. But this manifestation of pride in the attempt to overcome the tension between freedom and finitude takes two forms. The first is to deny one’s finitude by seeking domination, either over others or one’s environment. This is the temptation to seek power and control in order to relieve anxiety and fear. The second is the attempt to relieve the tension between freedom and finitude by denying one’s freedom. This involves losing oneself in the gratification of base self in some aspect of the world’s vitalities: food, money, sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. Here the sin is sensuality, living merely in terms of some particular impulses of one’s own nature. This is the temptation to seek pleasure and sensuality in order to relieve anxiety and fear. In both forms, pride is the governing factor: the selfish pride to dominate and the selfish pride to seek base gratification. Ironically, these methods create further anxiety and fear due to their being inauthentic measures. Thus, we have in the Bible numerous warnings about anxiety and worry (Psalm 55:22; Matthew 6:25-34; 13:18-22; Mark 4:14-20; Luke 8:11-15; 10:38-42; 12:11-26; 21:34; 2 Corinthians 11:28; 1 Peter 5:7). Thus, we have the numerous warnings and condemnations concerning pride (Lev. 26:9; Job 33:7; Psalm 10:2; 36:11; 59:12; 75:5; Proverbs 8:13; 11:2; 16:18; 21:24; 29:23; Isaiah 2:17; 23:9; Mark 7:2; 2 Corinthians 5:12; 1 John 2:16). Thus, we have this pattern in the story of Adam and Eve. They were created in the image of God but were confronted with the concept of going beyond their limits to become more like God (Genesis 3).

When one choose to relieve the anxiety by submitting to God and to the limits he has placed upon creation, that is faith, specifically faithful, trustful obedience. Thus we have the example of Jesus:

“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11)

Jesus modeled the proper role that humans are to take within their limits: humbleness, obedience, selflessness, submission. But what is the result of such selflessness? Exaltation. This is one of the supreme ironies about life. When individuals attempt to exalt themselves, they fall. When they humble themselves, God exalts them. It is a part of God’s and Jesus’ counterintuitive approach to reality that the meek and humble, those that put God and others before self that are ultimately exalted. This is why we read the first shall be last and the last shall be first (Matthew 20:16). This is why Christian leadership is about servant leadership (Luke 22:25-26). This is why being a pastor is about equipping other believers (Ephesians 4:11-12). Ministry is about equipping others, not using others to equip ourselves.

This submission extends into the realm of learning and knowledge. Socrates once stated that wisdom and knowledge consist in knowing that you know nothing. Nicholas of Cusa wrote in his De docta ignorantia that learning itself (but specifically knowledge about God) begins when we one learns he is ultimately ignorant. It is through the humbling submission and realization that God is infinite and we are finite that real learning begins. The Bible puts it this way: The beginning of wisdom is fear (submitting reverence) to the Lord (Proverbs 9:10). Pride is the greatest impediment to acquisition of knowledge. Indeed, it brings both ignorance and a stubborn refusal to accept truth.

We must recognize, accept, and remain within our God-ordained limits as finite creatures. Whatever fear and anxiety we face in life with our ability to freely choose, we can relieve that fear and anxiety by faithful obedience to God. This will help us both avoid and remove the primary sin of pride from which comes the temptations to dominate others and/or lead lives of reckless abandon. The process of selfless submission to God involves going deeper into our finite selves (both conscious and unconscious) by recognizing sin, repenting, recognizing and removing biases, and understanding who we are both in relation to ourselves and to God and others. It also involves submitting ourselves to the recognition of our own finite knowledge. Knowing that one knows nothing allows one to really learn and then go deeper into knowledge by removing the self-imposed limitations we put on our thinking (again, both conscious and unconscious). The irony is that the attempt to go beyond our God-ordained limitations succeeds only in self-imposing limitations that bring us lower than what God has ordained. This process of submission to God, of going deeper into his knowledge, of removing the self-imposed limitations of our lives, yet staying within the faithful limitations that define us as creatures created in the image of God, enables us to unleash the God-given creativity that we were designed to produce.

THIS is when creative ministry really begins to happen. THIS is why pastors need to preach on repentance and deeper theology and not simply on fluffy bunnies that makes us feel good. THIS is why churches need small groups that delve deep into the Scripture, hold individuals morally accountable, and encourage individuals to use their talents, gifts, and creativity for God. THIS is why ministers need to acknowledge their limited knowledge and both delve deeper into Scripture and into ministry praxis in order to advance the Kingdom of God. THIS is why I’ve always attempted to go deeper into theology in order to better advance the ministries of which I have stewarded.

When we do submit ourselves to God, going deeper into repentance and knowledge, we relieve anxiety, break self-imposed limitations, and are enabled to attain our God-given creativity for greater ministry success. But if we instead attempt to go beyond our limits in the selfish pride of dominating others and of acquiring vitalities (money, favor, etc.), we create greater anxiety, bind ourselves with limitations, and severely restrict our knowledge and ability to do ministry. In this case, our ministry dries up.

The Authorship of 2 Thessalonians

Oddly enough, 2 Thessalonians 3:10 was in the news today. I saw one journalist who frequently claims to have significant Bible knowledge (but keeps getting some of the basics wrong) state that this epistle was a forgery and not actually written by Paul. I thought I would respond.

The idea that Paul is not the author of 2 Thessalonians is largely a holdover from the 19^th century when the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation was in its infancy and the authorship of all of the books of the Bible was up for grabs. Greater understanding of the texts, their theology, and a more thorough understanding of the use of the historical-critical method has substantiated most of the traditional claims of Pauline authorship. 2 Thessalonians is still debated. While earlier generations focused on the eschatological differences between it and 1 Thessalonians, a greater realization that such differences were not in conflict has led to a more recent focus on the stylistic differences between it and 1 Thessalonians as the reason to doubt Pauline authorship. I’ve not found the arguments against Pauline authorship convincing, and I would like to give the reasons why.

-          Doubts about authorship are only based on the differences of style between it and 1 Thessalonians. If all we had was the second letter no one would doubt its authorship. Yet, no one doubts the Pauline authorship of 1 Thessalonians even though it is stylistically different from Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians, letters which no one doubts are Pauline, too.

-          The Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians is well attested in the early Church. No one doubted its authenticity until recently.

-          The letter claims to be from Paul (1:1; 3:1).

-          Those who reject Pauline authorship state that 2 Thessalonians was written just after Paul’s death. 1 Thessalonians is widely regarded as being the first Pauline letter. This would mean that 2 Thessalonians was written about 25 years after 1 Thessalonians. Yet, if the second letter is a forgery, the author apparently was attempting to create a letter for the era 1 Thessalonians (1:1) a quarter of a century later. This in of itself is odd. Why not just create a brand new letter? Why introduce a letter that the Thessalonians are supposed to believe was lost for 25 years? And then why make references to personal encounters/information concerning the readers (2:5, 15; 3:1, 6-10) and respond to the specific situation of his readers (1:4; 2:2, 3:11) when the persons and situation would have undoubtedly changed.

-          While there were definitely forged documents circulating within the early church (particularly in later centuries) there distinguishing characteristic was that they were attempting to introduce heresies into the Church. There is nothing like that in 2 Thessalonians. Indeed, the author is encouraging his readers to continue to follow established Pauline teaching (3:1, 6).

-          While there are differences in style between it and 1 Thessalonians, they are far more alike than they are different. Indeed, those who doubt Pauline authorship state that the forger was imitating Paul’s style.

-          There are several stylistic and theological similarities between 2 Thessalonians and other Pauline letters. Here are a just a few: 2:10-12 (Romans 1:26-28), 3:8 (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:15-18), 3:9 (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:1), 3:14 (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:11), 3:17 (cf. Colossians 3:18; 1 Corinthians 16:21), and 3:18 (cf. Philippians 4:23; Galatians 6:18; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Romans 16:20).

It’s generally guarded that those who favor the non-Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians have the larger burden to bear to make their case. The above reasons are why I favor Pauline authorship.