God and Tragedy

I wrote this the week of the earthquake in Haiti, but I think it still applies today.


Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
(Luke 13:1-5)

In this passage the people are asking Jesus why bad things happen. They refer to some disasters that took place in which several people were killed, and they think that these bad things happened to these people because they had done something wrong. But Jesus doesn’t go along with that. He says, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no!” We should not think that every bad thing that happens is a punishment from God, or that people who go through bad things are going through them because they have done something wrong. Bad things happen to everyone, whether or not they’ve done anything wrong.

Jesus then points out to the people that since they have such an interest in death and punishment for sins, they ought to examine their own hearts to see if they are ready for death, and they shouldn’t think poorly of other people who have died or have had bad things happen to them, because the people who had been tragically killed were no worse than anyone else.

Something else of interest in this passage is the use of the number eighteen. There were eighteen people who died when the tower fell on them. A few verses later the gospel writer records that there was a woman whom Jesus healed who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. It is interesting that the number eighteen is used twice so close to each other and yet seemingly having nothing to do with each other. The gospel writer, however, may be trying to make a point with these numbers. Six and six and six add up to eighteen. Therefore, six, six, six is used to describe both the disaster of the tower collapsing as well the woman being crippled by a spirit. The spirit is obviously an evil one, and the fact that the number of years the woman was crippled by the evil spirit is the same as the number of people killed in the disaster may indicate that this disaster was not some sort of divine punishment but rather the working of the devil himself.

The number seven is also used in the story. Jesus heals on the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week. This is fitting since the woman had been “bound by Satan” for six and six and six years. Jesus says that it only makes since that she should be healed on the seventh day.

The point of all of this is that we shouldn’t think that the people who have bad things happen to them or who die in disasters (like the people in Haiti this week) are any worse than anyone else. And we shouldn’t say God is punishing someone, because a disaster may not in fact be an act of God, but of the devil. And we if we really want to know God we shouldn’t be confusing Him with His enemies.

Article Summary on Joshua 1-8 and Parallel Narratives in Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts

The purpose of this article is to present the similarities between the narrative of Joshua chapters one through eight with the Ugaritic text relating the story of King Keret and his journey to the city of Udum. The article cautiously proposes that there may in fact be a connection between the stories of the Exodus and the Conquest with the stories of King Keret. While most scholars are in agreement that the stories found in the Joshua narrative are made up of several different accounts that have been put together and edited by a redactor, the authors of this article seek to show that there is an element of continuity within these stories that may link it to the continuity found in the stories of King Keret. The authors acknowledge the discontinuities of the Joshua narrative, particularly in areas of chronology, but point out that it is the chronological ordering of the stories themselves that may point to the biblical text’s connection to the Ugaritic text.

The article starts out by showing that the beginning of the book of Joshua is a part of a larger history that is sometimes called the Primary History of the Israelites. This Primary History is made up of the books of Genesis through 2nd Kings. The authors state that nowhere in the rest of the Primary History is there seen such a connection to the rest of the history as there is seen in the first few chapters of Joshua. The first few chapters of Joshua point to and reference many other elements and stories portrayed in the rest of the history, especially in connection to the story of Moses and the Exodus. The authors point out the connection of the crossing of the Jordan River to the crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites in the book of Exodus. The idea of the crossing of the Jordan is also seen in the stories of Elijah and Elisha. The crossing of the water is a significant event in all of these stories. The body of water is even portrayed as the same body of water, the Jordan River, in the stories of Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha.

Another connecting factor of the Joshua narrative with the Elijah narrative is the element of a three-day search. In Joshua 2, the spies are sent out to scout the land. When they leave Jericho they hide in the hills for three days as the king’s men search for them but eventually do not find them. This is similar to the Elijah story, where Elijah is taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire and the company of the prophets goes out to look for him and spends three days trying to find him out in the wilderness but is unsuccessful.

A similarity also exists between Joshua and Moses on a number of different levels. One obvious example would be the removal of one’s sandals in the presence of God. Both Joshua and Moses are commanded to remove their sandals. There is also a connection between Joshua’s curse upon the future rebuilder of Jericho and 1st Kings 16:34 as well as a connection between the description of the capture of the city of Ai in Joshua and the capture of Gibeah in Judges 20.

The authors point out that even though all of these similarities exist, scholars are still mostly of the belief that these were separate stories that were combined into a larger narrative. It has been the task of many scholars to attempt to piece together from where these various stories came from before being combined into the final narrative form of Joshua 1-8. The authors of this article point out that one of the difficulties in figuring out the background of these texts lies in the chronology presented within them and the overall storyline of the final narrative. They write, “Apart from the incident of the seven days when the Israelites circled Jericho for six days in silence and saw the fall of the city on the seventh day (Joshua 6), these [chronologies] appear fragmentary and also do not seem to fit easily into a single coherent chronological scheme” (254). These chronologies within the first few chapters of Joshua are even more confusing when compared to the rest of Joshua which mentions little of chronology.

The authors list the chronological issues present in Joshua 1-5. After discussing the chronological issues and similar issues seen in the account of Saul’s death, they discuss the departure of the spies in Joshua. The spies are sent out on the same day that Joshua has told the Israelites to prepare to cross the Jordan within three days. The spies arrive in Jericho that evening. That same evening the king’s men inquire of them at Rahab’s house. That same night, Rahab helps them escape and tells them to hide in the hills for three days, which they do. After this, the spies meet back up with Joshua on the other side of the Jordan, implying that the crossing of the Israelites had not yet taken place. It would appear then that on the day the spies returned the Israelites crossed the Jordan. The text records that the Israelites crossed over on the tenth day of the first month, and that later they celebrated the Passover on the fourteenth day. The authors point out that the Israelites celebrate the Passover on the fourteenth, which is the same day of the original Passover when they left Egypt.

They also show that periods of seven days exist in these stories. The Israelites march around Jericho for seven days, with six of those days in silence. The authors question why it was important to include this chronological structure when so much of the rest of Joshua fails to do so. The authors acknowledge the beliefs of different scholars who argue that Joshua contains the same source material as the Pentateuch and should thus be group with those other books, forming a Hexateuch, while others say that Joshua’s place belongs at the beginning of another narrative known as the Deuteronomic history, which derived separately from the Pentateuch. However, the authors are not too concerned with where exactly Joshua should be categorized and are more concerned with the categorization of the materials within Joshua. They write that the section of the narrative encompassing Joshua 1-8 is held together not only by its use of chronology, but also by its similarity to other ancient Ugaritic texts relaying the story of King Keret. At this point, the article comes to its main point of comparing the texts of Joshua 1-8 with the Ugaritic story of Keret, king of Hubur.

This story is recorded on three clay tablets in the Ugaritic language and is believed to have been written around the thirteenth century BC by a scribe named Illimilku. In this story, Keret is weeping on his bed because he has no hope after having lost his entire family. The god El appears to him in a dream asking him what is wrong and offering him prosperity. Keret refuses, saying he wants descendants. El wishes to give descendants to Keret and tells him to offer a sacrifice and sends him on a mission to go capture the city of Udum, the home of King Pabil. El tells Keret that he will march for seven days, and then besiege the city for another seven days. El also tells him that Pabil will offer him silver and gold, but that he must refuse these offers and instead ask for Pabil’s daughter, Hurriy. Keret follows El’s instructions, sacrificing to receive the strength of Baal and additionally stopping three days into his journey at the temple of Athirat, promising to offer Hurriy’s weight in silver and gold as an offering when he returns. He and his army travel another four days before reaching the city, they then march around the city in complete silence for six days until King Pabil cannot stand it anymore and calls out to Keret, offering him silver and gold. Keret refuses, asking for his daughter. Keret receives his bride and withdraws from the city. They have children together, but Keret does not fulfill his vow to Athirit, so he becomes ill. The rest of the country also falls under a drought and the crops do not grow. El comes to the aid of Keret and creates a healing goddess after none of the other gods want to help him. Keret is healed, but his oldest son thinks he is still about to die and goes ahead and announces he is going to take over as king. The story ends with Keret cursing his son.

There are obviously many similarities between the story of Keret and the story of Joshua. Both of them travel seven days before reaching the cities they are besieging. Both of them carry out cultic rituals on the third or the fourth day of this time period. Keret makes vows to Athirit and Joshua calls the people to sanctify themselves for the crossing of the Jordan as well as sets up memorial stones after the crossing. At the crossing of the Jordan, the covenant is renewed and the men are circumcised. This covenant is then immediately broken by Achan. The difference between Keret’s and Achan’s broken promise, however, is that Keret becomes ill and is healed, whereas Achan and his entire household and possessions are destroyed.

Both Joshua and Keret receive their battle instructions from a diety. In both stories, the armies surround or march around the city for six days in complete silence, and on the seventh day something happens. The armies of Joshua shout, and blow trumpets as the walls collapse; and the animals of the city in Keret’s story become very loud so that the king cannot sleep. Also, “two periods of seven days have brought the Israelites into the Promised Land, the land for their future; two periods of seven days have brought Keret the promised wife and thus the desired family in the future: a national as opposed to a dynastic perspective” (264).

Both stories have women who join the besiegers, Rahab with Joshua and Hurriy with Keret. Both women enter into marital relations with the invaders. However, the two women have opposing social statuses. One is a princess and the other is a harlot. They write, “If the author or authors of Joshua were familiar with the story of Keret or a derivative of it, they have in any case given it a naughty twist: the woman that came out of the besieged town changed from a princess into a harlot” (265). Also, one of the key differences between Joshua and Keret is that Keret is a king seeking his own good, but Joshua is a mediator between God and the people of God. In both stories, though, it is the deity who is truly the star of the show. One final similarity between the two stories is that both involve the withholding of gold and silver or devoted things from a deity and both of these broken vows result in punishment.

The authors are unsure about what to do with the similarities between these two stories. The evidence seems to strongly indicate that one or the other borrowed elements from each other’s stories, or else the two stories were based upon another story, perhaps of prose or of poetry or of an oral tradition. They agree that emulation is indeed a possibility, and point to the example of how the Romans copied the stories of the Greeks. Virgil’s works resembled Homer’s in obvious ways. They point out that emulation is actually a common thing in the Hebrew Bible, with later stories borrowing elements from earlier stories within the Bible as well as from other texts, such as Homer’s Odyssey having apparent connections with Tobit, Genesis, and Job; Ezekiel’s connection to the Akkadian Poem of Erra; the Histories of Herodotus throughout the Primary History and Daniel; and the Gilgamesh Epic and the Genesis stories of Creation and The Flood. The conclusion of the authors of this article is that it is very possible that Joshua 1-8 was influenced by the Ugaritic story of Keret, whether directly or indirectly. However, this was not the only outside source used. Joshua also parallels Moses in many ways, and there are numerous other examples of texts within and without the Bible borrowing from one another. Their conclusion is that there is no need to assume that Joshua 1-8 has a “complex editorial history,” due to its current “extremely well composed” form of a “literary-religious composition.”


__________________________________________________________


Article:


Braber, Marieke den, and J W. Wesselius. "The unity of Joshua 1-8, its relation to the story of King Keret, and the literary background to the exodus and conquest stories." SJOT 22, no. 2 (January 1, 2008): 253-274.

The Dangers of Pastoral Counseling

One of the dangers within pastoral counseling is always the possibility that the pastor may in fact do greater harm than good to the individual receiving the counsel. The pastor must be very careful in what he or she says and must use discernment in the approach he or she uses to every person who comes to them for pastoral counsel. It is important that the pastor be a good listener as well as someone who can speak good words of counsel. The pastor must also remember that the person they are counseling is much more than simply a problem to be solved or something broken that needs to be fixed. The pastor needs to remember that while it may very well be true that this person has many issues that need to be resolved, the pastor may not always be able to lead them to the place that would be the most desirable for them to be. It can be easy for the pastor to become discouraged when he or she sees people making the same mistakes or getting caught in the same sins or problems over and over again. The pastor needs to keep in mind that while this is heartbreaking to see people harming themselves in these ways, the pastor cannot be the savior of everybody. Christ is the savior, not the pastor. The pastor is only Christ’s representative attempting to bring Christ’s healing to His people. Ultimately though, it is Christ who heals. Christ does, however, use His people, including the pastor through counseling, to bring about the healing of people. It can become dangerous when the pastor begins to think that everything relies on him or her. The pastor is responsible for an important part, but not the whole. Christ, but also the person receiving pastoral counseling, is also responsible for much of the progress that is made. Dr. Quanstrom mentioned in class how he had to give up on trying to save the marriage of a particular couple he was counseling because he came to the realization that he cared much more about saving their marriage than they did themselves. The pastor is not responsible for everything.

The pastor must also be careful in counseling because it can be easy for the pastor to become too emotionally involved with the person who is receiving the counsel. If the pastor recognizes that he or she is thinking often about the person he or she is counseling outside of the counseling sessions, then that would be a good indication that these counseling sessions should stop happening. Counseling is not meant to be a long-term process. The goal is that the one receiving counsel will be helped and then be able to move on. When the counseling sessions begin to drag out this can be a sign that this counseling is moving in an unhealthy direction.

Another danger in pastoral counseling is that often people reveal too much information to the pastor about a great many number of things. While it may difficult, the pastor needs to recognize when the person is beginning to speak too much about certain things and he or she must be willing to interrupt and move the conversation in a different direction. Sometimes people reveal things that did not need to be disclosed about other people in the church, but they can also place themselves in a position of extreme vulnerability. It is good for the pastor to recognize that if he or she lets a parishioner become too vulnerable with them then he or she may be jeopardizing their own role as pastor and shepherd in this person’s life. The pastor needs to remember that his or her primary role as pastor is pastoring, not counseling. While counsel may be involved, the pastor must never surrender their role as someone’s pastor in order to be their counselor. Dr. Quanstrom gave an example of this in class, saying that there was a woman in the congregation who had revealed too much about her past to him in counseling, and after that the pastoral relationship was never as it had or could have been because she appeared to feel shame every time they came into contact with each other – almost as though she were thinking every time she saw him “Oh, he knows what I did. He knows how dirty I am.”

Another danger that the pastor may experience in counseling people is that of feeling as though he or she finds meaning or purpose in fixing people’s problems. While it is good to take a certain amount of pride in what you do, the danger comes when your emotional needs are met by counseling other people. You become reliant on the problems of other people in order to make yourself feel good or better about yourself. This is a problem because in doing this one not only takes on a wrong and unhealthy view of the one being counseled and the problems that they face, but one also begins to develop a false perception of his or her self. They begin to rely on the one being counseled and the act of counseling them to define who they are as a person instead of allowing God to have the final word as to their worth. We must rely on God to fulfill us and not on the feeling we get when we “fix” people. Also, with this idea we are recognizing that we are not the ones that do the fixing. God is the one who “fixes” people, and He uses us in this process.

Another important thing to watch out for when counseling people is to make sure that your own family life is healthy. The temptation to do something inappropriate with someone you are counseling to either satisfy emotional needs or sexual desires can become greater when you are not living in right relationship with your spouse. Counseling people of the opposite gender can be dangerous when done on a one-on-one basis. Dr. Quanstrom said that when he counseled people at his church, it was done in a fairly open setting. His office had windows exposed to the front of the Church and his secretary was in the building as well. He also ran to his wife whenever someone of the opposite sex started to make advances on him. It is important to be honest with your wife about things like this. The counseling of this person can no longer be a private matter, because this person obviously had other intentions different from receiving counsel. While it is not necessary or helpful to tell your wife about everybody’s problems in the church, it is necessary to involve your wife in something like this. If you find yourself hiding things like this from your wife, then this is a serious issue.

The Incarnational Essence of the Pastoral Call

The pastor is the presence of God to his or her people in fleshly form. To many of them, when the pastor shows up it means that God is with them. This is not to say that God was not with them before of course, but the pastor serves as a visible reminder of God’s presence among his people. People need physical reminders that God is present. People need relationships with a pastor because to them (and to God) the pastor is one who provides a physical relationship that is representative of the relationship between God and mankind. It is both over and underestimated the role of the pastor as the representative between God and mankind. It is overestimated when we think that God speaks to people by only the means of the pastor. It is underestimated when we think that God mainly speaks to people individually. Such a view is isolating and individualistic – a concept foreign to the community of the saints. People need to “see” God, particularly in times of tragedy, and the pastor is usually the closest that people come to “seeing” God. The pastor represents the hope and love of God just by his or her own presence during times of uncertainty and tragedy. “One’s being there is in a powerful sense the ‘presence’ of the Church, and of Christ. Why is it so urgently, so pathetically, important that the pastor be there? Because he is the palpable sign of the supportive community and the community’s Lord. Of course Christ has preceded the pastor. Of course, of course. But in such times of crisis these commonplaces are frighteningly distant and abstract. It is the personal character of the Presence in the person of the pastor that is believable and consoling” (Neuhaus 43-4).

An Eschatological Community

It is important for the church to recognize itself as an eschatological community because the church has an eschatological hope. The church exists in the future as well as the present. It is the hope of what the church will be that drives the church in its present work and causes the church to realize that what she will be in the future is something that she can take hold of now in the present time. This is called “living up to what one has already attained,” or “taking hold of what one already owns.” This future hope causes the church to act according to that hope. The church becomes in the present what she believes she will be in the future. If the church believes that she will fade and die out in the end then she is in fact fading and dying now. If the church believes that she will shine and be made new in the end then she is in fact shining and being made new in the present. What we believe ourselves to be in the future is what we become today. This is why dwelling upon the sin of the past is unhealthy, because that assumes that what we were yesterday is what we will always be to a certain extent, and if we believe that then we truly will be all that we dwell upon in the past that we allow to captivate us. We must allow the hope of the future glory to shape us now and so cause the future to become the present. “But it is precisely in speaking of the future that we address the here and now; for the needs and hungers of the moment cannot be understood except by reference to that healing and filling which is the promised future.” (Neuhaus 132).

Character Sketch of Paul

Within the undisputed letters of Paul one may see many different character traits of the apostle. He is no doubt passionate, faithful to Christ, and outspoken in his beliefs. Some might say that he even comes across as prideful a number of different times. In order to understand better what Paul’s character traits were, one must study the letters he wrote to his fellow believers as he served them and many others in ministry. Marion L. Soards says in “The Life and Writings of Paul”, “Since the epistles are what remain directly from Paul’s efforts as an apostle, one should examine them in terms of their organization and style to see if they offer further insight into the character of their author” (86). One must examine what Paul wrote and how he wrote it in order to better understand what different kinds of character traits may be correctly attributed to Paul. While there are many different character traits that can be attributed to Paul, four that are of particular interest are Paul’s sense of loyalty, his sense of hopefulness, his affectionate spirit, and his sense of humility.

Paul was loyal to what he knew to be true. He identified himself with Christ, and refused to accept any teaching that appeared to be contrary to what he knew about Christ. This is seen in the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. He writes, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all” (Gal. 1:6-7a, NIV). He says that the Galatians have gone astray by believing in a false gospel, and he rebukes them for this. He continues, “Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Gal. 1:7b-8, NIV). Paul was loyal to his faith in Christ, placing Christ above all else. He even went so far as to say that if he himself were to ever preach something false about Christ, he should be “eternally condemned.” In The Anchor Bible commentary on Galatians, J. Louis Martyn says of Paul, “Contemplating at a considerable remove the possibility that he should lose his bearings and preach a different gospel, he insists that everyone, including himself, is subordinate to the gospel of Christ and subject to God’s judgment” (114). Paul says that even if he preaches a false gospel, they should not listen to him, showing his strong loyalty to the true gospel of Christ. Richard B. Hays says in Volume XI of The New Interpreter’s Bible:

“Paul certainly does not anticipate proclaiming a different gospel, but by including himself hypothetically under the threat of curse, he makes an important point. He is not asking for the Galatians’ personal allegiance to him; rather, what matters is their allegiance to the gospel message. Even if Paul should stray and begin preaching something different, the Galatians should reject him and cling to the gospel” (206).

In saying this, Paul shows his characteristic loyalty to the gospel of Christ. He also refers to the angels in this passage written to the Galatians. He says that if even an angel comes preaching something false about Christ, the church should not listen to him. In this, he is saying that one’s loyalty to Christ must outweigh one’s loyalty to anything or anyone else. He is telling the believers that they must be loyal to Christ before being loyal to any person, even if that person is as well-learned as Paul. He says that they must be loyal to Christ before all, even if someone as spiritual as an angel himself comes to them. Christ must come first, and everything that everyone else says must agree with who Christ is, or else the Galatians should not listen to them.

Paul’s deep sense of loyalty was not limited to only himself. He also held a high standard of loyalty for other believers. His firm belief in loyalty to the risen Savior Christ was something that he felt should be present among all who professed to be Christians. Paul’s deep sense of loyalty is seen in his letter to Philemon. Something of notable interest that comes across well in Paul’s letter to Philemon is the idea that not only should believers be loyal in their commitment to serve Christ but believers ought also to be loyal in their commitment to help Christ’s apostles. For Paul, loyalty to Christ means committing to help those who have been called to preach the message of Christ to the world. For Paul’s dear friend Philemon, this would also include a commitment to help Paul. In the letter to Philemon, Paul asks Philemon to be reconciled to his slave Onesimus, who had apparently fled from his master. Paul asks Philemon to receive Onesimus back as a fellow brother in Christ for both his sake and for Christ’s sake. Paul writes to Philemon, “Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I appeal to you on the basis of love. I then, as Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus—I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains” (Phi.1:8-10, NIV). Paul speaks on behalf of Philemon’s slave Onesimus, asking Philemon to receive him. Paul goes on to remind Philemon of his own position and loyalty to Christ and how he himself owes his very life to Paul because of the fact that Paul preached the gospel to him, thus leading him to find salvation in Christ. Paul says to Philemon, “So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me” (Phi. 1:17, NIV). He appeals to Philemon’s sense of loyalty to him. Paul knows that as a man who has apparently come to know Christ through the influence of Paul, Philemon will also most likely be compelled to comply with Paul’s wishes. Paul expects Philemon to act in the same kind of loyalty in which he has seen Paul act. F. F. Bruce says in The New International Commentary on the New Testament:

“If Paul does not give orders to Philemon, he at least expects ‘obedience’ from him, even if the obedience be acquiescence in a request rather than compliance with a demand. He is sure, he says, that Philemon will not only read what is written in his letter but read between the lines and see what Paul would really like him to – and do it” (222).

Philemon is in a very real sense Paul’s disciple, and Paul’s strong loyalty to Christ and those who preach Christ most likely has had considerable influence on Philemon’s loyalty to Christ and his loyalty to those who preach Christ, including Paul. This being known Paul calls on Philemon to show this loyalty that Paul has shown to him through Christ but accepting his fellow brother in Christ and lawful slave Onesimus. Paul has full confidence that Philemon will be just as loyal to the love of Christ as his teacher Paul has been in his example to him. Paul writes to Philemon, “I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask” (Phi. 1:20-21, NIV). It is interesting to note that while Paul appears to have every confidence in Philemon that he will keep his loyalty as Paul has and do the right thing he still appears to find it necessary to remind Philemon of this loyalty. In addition to all that he has said, Paul also asks Philemon to prepare a room for him so that he may have a place to stay when he visits the church of which Philemon is a part. Paul adds, “And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers” (Phi. 1:22, NIV). In this request, Paul shows that not only is Philemon loyal to him, but he is loyal to Philemon. Paul desires to be reunited with his friend and brother in Christ. Paul’s association and friendship with Philemon’s runaway slave Onesimus has not caused him to forget in friendship with Philemon. In this letter, Paul shows his loyalty to Philemon which is a result of the bond both of them share in Christ.

Paul has a hope that has been planted deep inside of him. He makes clear that this hope that he speaks of and that he has experienced came through Christ. He is hopeful of what he believes Christ will do in the future, and he has hope that eventually everything that has gone away from God will one day in some way or form be redeemed through Christ. This hopefulness is characteristic of Paul and is seen coming through in his letters to the churches. In 1^st Thessalonians, Paul writes to the church and tells them about his hope in the return of Christ that will take place in the future. He also tells the church of his hope in the resurrection of the dead through Christ. He wants the Thessalonians to share in this hope that he has. He tells them, “Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope” (1^st Thess. 4:13, NIV). He tells them this because he wants them to have the same hope that he has. They had been concerned because some of them had been dying and Jesus seemed to be taking a long time in coming back. They wanted to know what would happen to the believers who died before the return of Christ. F. F. Bruce says in The Word Biblical Commentary on 1^st and 2^nd Thessalonians, “[T]he death of their friends filled their hearts with sorrow and they needed a message of reassurance, based on a more precise statement of the Christian hope” (104). Paul recognizes their sense of hopelessness in their questioning and he responds by trying to convince them that there is hope in the resurrection. Bruce continues, “Hope was one of the chief emphases of the gospel; it was a feature of Christian existence. Believers in Christ are contrasted with ‘others who have no hope.’” (104). Paul is saying that they should take hold of this same hope that he has already taken hold of and that he is expressing in his own life and character. He says to them, “Therefore encourage each other with these words” (1^st Thess. 4:18, NIV).

In Romans, Paul also speaks of this hope that he has experienced and that has become very much a part of his own character. He lets the Roman Christians know that he is not ignorant of suffering and that he understands how hard it is for people when they have gone through suffering having gone through much suffering himself. He lets them know that may have hope in their suffering because of Christ just as he has hope in his suffering through Christ. He says that because of Christ we are able to rejoice in our sufferings. He says, “And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us” (Rom. 5:2b-5, NIV). Paul has hope in his sufferings because he knows that through Christ suffering can lead to other things which are good. He recognizes that suffering is something that changes who a person is on the inside, and he knows that through Christ this change can be a very good thing. He says that a person’s character is changed by suffering and that this very thing leads to hope. He says that hope is something that does not disappoint. In saying this, he shows that not only is he a hopeful man, but he also has hope in hope, itself. He has hope that his hope will not disappoint him. James R. Edwards speaks of this hope that is characteristic of Paul in the New International Biblical Commentary on Paul’s letter to the Romans:

“Especially important is Paul’s statement that hope does not disappoint us (v. 5). The Greek word for disappoint, kataischynein, is a cognate of the same word in 1:16, ‘I am not ashamed (epaischynein) of the gospel.’ It recalls, despite everything to the contrary, that the believer’s trust in the gospel is no empty fantasy. The Jewish Christian concept of hope dwarfs the ancient Greek idea of hope. For the Greek hope was little more than an eventuality, a possible outcome of current circumstances. But for Jews and Christians hope is anchored to the person and promises of God” (137).

Paul’s hope is solid. His hope is not the hope of the Greeks which would say that something may or may not happen. Hope for Paul is tied directly to his faith. He knows that his hope will not disappoint him because he knows that God will not disappoint him, and his faith in God is unwavering.

Paul may also be seen as one who has an affectionate spirit for his brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. His affection for them is seen in the opening of his letter to the Philippians. He says to them, “God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:8, NIV). Paul has such affection for his brothers and sisters in Christ that he claims to be filled with this deep since of longing to be with them. William Barclay says in The New Daily Study Bible of this verse, “The literal translation is: ‘I yearn for you all with the bowels of Jesus Christ.’ […] These, the Greeks believed to be the location of the emotions and affections (21). Paul is letting them know just how deep his affection is for them when he says this. He tells them that this is proper. He says to them, “It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart; for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God's grace with me” (Phil. 1:7, NIV). Paul’s affection for these people is such that he says to them that they are in his heart. He seems to be indicating that his affection for them is caused by a deep connection that they have with each other. This connection is still present and felt even when they are separated and can no longer see one another, which shows just how deep his affection is for them.

Paul’s great affection for his fellow believers also comes through in the letter that is commonly referred to as 2^nd Corinthians. In this letter, as well as in the previous remaining letter to the Corinthians, it is clear that Paul has been disturbed by reports from the church in Corinth. He has come to find out that there are those within the church who have exchanged the truth of the gospel for lies. There are some among them who are still living in deep sin and who have not allowed themselves to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus. They still indulge in the sinful nature and remain slaves to that nature. Paul is distressed by this because of his obvious loyalty to Christ, but he is also distressed by this because he himself has deep concern and affection for the Corinthians. He says to them, “For I wrote you out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to grieve you but to let you know the depth of my love for you” (2^nd Cor. 2:4, NIV). He recognizes that those who have been sinning have done so to their own destruction.  This pains Paul because of his love and affection for these people. Linda L. Belleville says in The IVP New Testament Commentary Series on 2nd Corinthians, “Thlipsis (distress) and synochē (anguish) are virtual synonyms for personal pain brought about by oppressive circumstances” (72). The reason Paul felt this distress and anguish was because of his deep love for the Corinthians. Belleville continues, “Here, they refer to the deep emotional turmoil that Paul experienced as he wrote this letter to the Corinthians, very much like the anxiety a parent feels when faced with the prospect of exercising discipline” (72). He refers to one brother who has sinned grievously and he says that his sin is not just something that affects him, but also those other believers who know this man. Paul writes to them, “If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you, to some extent—not to put it too severely” (2^nd Cor. 2:5, NIV). Paul feels hurt in his heart because he knows that what this man has been doing has caused pain to occur among the other believers. Paul recognizes this and he shows that when the other believers feel pain he also feels pain because of his great affection for them. He cares for them deeply.

Within Paul’s letters one can see that while Paul is passionate and firm in his faith and in the life he now lives in Christ, he also knows humility. He recognized that he does not deserve this calling that he has received from God. He writes of how he used to be an enemy of the church, persecuting it, but that God in His mercy called him out of this life and made him to be an apostle of Christ to the Gentiles. He is humbled by God’s love and grace towards him, and by the great privilege he has to proclaim the good news of Christ to the world. He knows that he is unworthy of all he has received. He says in 1^st Corinthians, “For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect” (1^st Cor.15:9-10a, NIV). He recognizes that it is only by God’s grace that he has become an apostle of Christ. Marion L. Soards says in the New International Biblical Commentary on 1 Corinthians, “Having mentioned the encounter with the risen Jesus that constituted his call, Paul goes on to explain the significance of God’s grace as he knew it from that experience. He understood grace to be unmerited and transforming” (320). Paul saw the calling of Christ upon his life as an act of grace and he goes on to say that he has worked harder than all the other apostles, but rather than being arrogant about this he claims that it was only by the grace of God that this was even possible.

Paul’s humility is also seen in his letter to the Philippians. He describes Christ and how Christ came to earth in humility, even though He was God. Stephen L. Harris says in The New Testament: A Student’s Introduction, “Urging the Philippians to place others’ welfare before their own, Paul cites Jesus’ behavior as the supreme example of humble service to others” (364). Paul says that we all must become like Christ in humility, serving one another. Paul has applied this humility, the humility of Christ the Servant to his own life, and he calls on other believers to do the same. He points to Christ’s example of humility as an example for all believers as he recites a hymn, saying:

“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
      did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
      taking the very nature of a servant,
      being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
      he humbled himself
      and became obedient to death—
         even death on a cross!” (Phil. 2:5-8, NIV).

This idea of humbling oneself as Christ did is what Paul calls on all believers to do. He includes himself in this command. He is not exempt. Just as Christ did not refuse to let go of His authority and position as God, so should all who follow Christ be willing to give up their place in life for the sake of Christ, considering all others to be of greater worth than themselves. One must also be willing to give up his or her life in order to be a servant like Christ was. For Paul, this was likely true in the literal sense as well as spiritually. Paul shows his humility in his desire to be like Christ in Christ’s perfect humility when he became a man. Just as Christ “humbled himself and became obedient to death” so also it is commonly believed that Paul experienced death for the sake of Christ his Lord.

Within the undisputed letters of Paul one may see many different character traits of the apostle. While it is true that much more could be said about the many different character traits of Paul, these four character traits have plenty to say about the man Paul himself. It is clear that he was a man of God and that he eagerly desired to serve Christ who had redeemed him and to proclaim the message of the gospel to all he could. These character traits of loyalty, hope, affection, and humility come across within Paul’s letters to his fellow believers. While there are many different character traits that can be attributed to Paul, four that have been of particular interest are Paul’s sense of loyalty, his hopefulness, his affectionate spirit, and his humility.

_____________________________________________________________

Works Cited

Harris, Stephen L.  The New Testament: A Student’s Introduction.  6th ed.  New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006.

Powell, Mark Allan, ed.  The New Testament Today.  Marion L. Soards. “The Life and Writings of Paul.” Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999.

Metzger, Bruce M., ed. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 45. 1&2 Thessalonians. F. F. Bruce. Colombia: Word, Inc., 1982.

Martyn, J. Louis. The Anchor Bible. Galatians. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 1997.

Barclay, William. The New Daily Study Bible. The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.

Osborne, Grant. R., ed. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. 2 Corinthians. Linda L. Belleville. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1996.

Gasque, W. Ward., ed. New International Biblical Commentary. Romans. James R. Edwards. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Pub., Inc., 1992.

Keck, Leander. E., ed. The New Interpreter’s Bible. Volume IX. Richard B. Hays. “The Letter to the Galatians: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2000.

Gasque, W. Ward., ed. New International Biblical Commentary. 1 Corinthians. Marion L. Soards. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Pub., Inc., 1999.

F.F. Bruce. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984.

Reflections on The Great Emergence

Phyllis Tickle’s book The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why is a relevant book to read because it speaks of an issue that the church is currently facing. This issue is, in part, the idea of a postmodern church. While this issue is relevant, Tickle does a rather poor job executing the conversation. She brings up a lot of good points, but she does not do a good job overall. One obvious example is simply in the conversational way she presents her ideas. While this makes for an easy read, this also allowed for many grammatical errors. A conversational-style approach can be very helpful, but Tickle was not entirely successful in her attempt. Also, she claims to be a scholar, and yet she does not give any real sources in her bibliography. Most of her footnotes are simply extra comments or ideas that she had. There is little evidence of extensive research.

The emergent and the emerging church are the focus of this book, but Tickle does more than simply speak of the shape the church is taking in the present day. She also speaks of how the church has been formed and shaped since it was conceived. Tickle claims that every five hundred years or so the church has what one might call a rummage sale of sorts where the church takes into consideration where it is heading and what it thinks should be kept as far as beliefs and practices are concerned and what should be thrown out. The author states that there have been four “greats” that have coincided with this rummage sale. The first was Gregory the Great who kept the church from dividing itself completely and led the way for the next five hundred years of church history. While this first example works for Tickle’s five hundred year cycle, it could easily be argued that other events in church history were just as important, or perhaps even more important, than this example. It seems as though she decided to talk about Gregory the Great simply because he fit into her five hundred year pattern. The second period she mentions is The Great Schism in which the church split in a way because of differing theological views. The church split between the East and the West. The third was The Great Reformation in which the Protestant church was formed because of the mishandling of the church by the Catholics, which led in part to the age of enlightenment where science was exalted, but also where the Bible tended to be seen as the sole authority of Christianity. The fourth is what some are now calling The Great Emergence in which the postmodern church has clashed with the modern church. Fundamentalism is on its way out as a postmodern generation takes control of the church. While this book is very fascinating and brings up a number of different relevant issues regarding the church of today as well as the past, its author is not a trained historian and is an independent researcher. This could indicate some lack of credibility to the book. However, Tickle seems to have done at least some research and she does indeed speak words of insight and truth concerning the situation the church is facing today.

Tickle begins her book by discussing the “rummage sale” idea of how the church reconfigures itself every five hundred years or so. This reconfiguration occurs most often because of Christianity becoming established in a certain way that may not necessarily be the best way for Christianity to exist. The church becomes institutional to such an extent that the church does not know why they believe what they believe, or the beliefs of the church have come to include various ideas that are not central to the church. These beliefs can creep towards the center of the church’s core-beliefs without even being necessary to the faith at all. A number of people within the church begin to recognize that the church has come to believe in things that are not necessary to the faith, and yet many believe that these things are necessary to the faith. Those who recognize that the church has taken a hold of many unnecessary and even wrong beliefs begin to take a stand, saying what they believe to be the true and pure purpose of the church. This can cause conflicts within the church, because those who hold onto these unnecessary and even wrong beliefs truly think that these things are central to what being a Christian is all about. So the church begins to split over these certain issues.

Tickle gives examples from the past two thousand years of the different rummage sales that have taken place within the church. She shows how the most significant ones occur approximately every five hundred years and she gives the examples of Gregory the Great, The Great Schism, The Great Reformation, and then concludes that we are due for another rummage sale in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. She refers to this present rummage sale as The Great Emergence. It is interesting to note, however, that the idea of the church realigning itself every five hundred years actually goes further back than the existence of the church. Christianity emerged out of Judaism and within Judaism there is also seen this idea. The most obvious example of this would be five hundred years before Gregory the Great in the occurrence of the founding of Christianity. In this event, the Jews became split between those who were Christ-followers and those who did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah. This event concurred with the destruction of the second Jerusalem temple by the Romans. Five hundred years before these events occurred is seen the destruction of the first temple by the Babylonians which led to a new way of thinking within Judaism as portrayed in the Babylonian exile and the Second Temple period. Five hundred years before the re-alignment of thought caused by the Babylonian exile is seen the establishment of the monarchy in Israel in which Jewish theology changed in the transition from the rule of the judges to the rule of the kings. So Tickle concludes that this concept of a religious “rummage sale” is not limited to Christianity. She also points out that it was during these times before the rise of Christianity in which human thought in general began to change among other groups of people, not just those of the Judeo-Christian traditions. She uses Plato and other Greek philosophers as examples of how people across the world tend to go through five hundred year cycles where they sort through the things they believe in order to see what should be kept and what should be discarded. This transitional time period in the centuries before Christ is referred to as “The Great Transformation.” [1] Tickle’s conclusion is that all of humanity tends to readjust the way they perceive the world about every five hundred years. They examine what they believe to be true about the world, embracing that which rings true to them and throwing out whatever no longer fits. This interpretation of history, however, appears to be rather subjective in that Tickle appears to be reading her own ideas into history. Even her own theory of five hundred year cycles falls apart when she tries to apply it to humanity as a whole because when she speaks of the Greeks she acknowledges that these patterns did not follow five hundred year cycles among them.

Tickle goes on to ask the question of how The Great Emergence came into existence and concludes that the best way to go about studying The Great Emergence and how it is coming into being is by studying the last great rummage sale of the church, The Great Reformation, and how it came into existence. She then proceeds to describe how The Great Reformation came to be. She points out how during the time leading up to The Great Reformation there was a great deal of conflict already within the church. Papal authority had been split between two separate Popes – one, French and one Italian. Eventually, a third pope was added to the mix, all three warring against each other. This event and other disheartening events are what led to the reformation of the church which is most often associated with Martin Luther and his nailing of his Theses to the door of Wittenberg’s church. At this time, people were beginning to recognize that these three Popes and the church leadership as a whole were not true to the spirit of the church itself, or at least the spirit they felt the church was supposed to have. A number of people, including Martin Luther, tried to reform the church in order to bring it back to the way it was supposed to be. Enough people jumped on with this thought of reforming the church that Rome panicked and fought against them. This event is what led to the dividing split of the church between the Protestants and the Catholics. Tickle points out that something similar to this is occurring and will continue to occur within The Great Emergence of today. There are enough people today who recognize how the church is not always as it should be, and they are seeking to reform the church into the way they believe it ought to be, or the way they believe the Holy Spirit intended it to be. However, like the Catholic church of the Reformation, there are many within the church of today who believe that the church ought to continue in the way that it has the past two hundred years. These people will continue to fight and will continue to break themselves off from those others in the church who do not agree with their way of “doing church.”

One of the key battles between the Protestants and the Catholics of The Great Reformation was over authority. The Popes claimed to have ultimate authority over church beliefs and doctrine, while the Protestants established the idea of the priesthood of all believers, claiming that Scripture alone was the sole authority of the church and that all individual believers had the right to interpret Scripture personally by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Protestants also believed that the Pope was indeed capable of making errors. Not only were the Popes capable of this, but they had done so.

Social reformation also took place during the time of the Protestant Reformation. City-states began to emerge and feudalism began to be done away with. Tickle refers to these important changes, saying, “The processes which began and solidified in the decades surrounding the Great Reformation became our new common illusion, our new shared imagination as Westerners about how the world works and how the elements of human life are to be ordered.” [2] The way people looked at and perceived the world around them was changing during this time period, and this change is seen in the way people understood the function of the church. The Great Reformation and the changes it brought about are deeply connected with the other changes seen during this time. Tickle continues, “There is […] a very good reason why most general lectures about the Great Reformation today commence with the […] observation that as a hinge time, it was characterized by the rise of capitalism, of the middle class, of the nation-state, and finally of Protestantism.” 2 This list of ideals have come to be associated with the Christian way of life over the past couple of hundred years, as though these things that are a part of Western life are also foundationally Christian. It is against this way of thinking that the Emerging Church has come to speak. While the Catholics of the Reformation believed that the Pope had ultimate authority of the church and was infallible in what he spoke regarding Scripture, doctrine, and the church, the church of today has embraced such Western thoughts of capitalism, the middle-class, and the nation-state as though these were all Christian and necessary beliefs of the church. The Great Emergence is then a questioning of this positioning of these Western ideals as also Christian ideals. The Emerging Church is not necessarily opposed to these “ideals” at all times, but it is opposed to these “ideals” if they are imposed upon the greater Christian population. The church must not be associated with certain Western opinions which are not center to the Christian faith. Capitalism, the middle-class, the nation-state, and even Protestantism itself may not in fact be central to Christianity as it was intended to be lived. The Sola Scriptura concept of the Reformation may in fact be a limited perspective because authority may be found in other places as well.

With The Great Reformation, power also came to be associated more so with wealth and money. Those who were rich had the power. The balance of power has shifted again during this time of The Great Emergence. Money has become less of a factor as far as power is concerned. The new power of today’s world is that of information. Those who have knowledge, have power. Also, just as The Great Reformation was influenced by the technology of the time, so also The Great Emergence has been influenced by the technology of this time. The Great Reformation was able to come into being because of such inventions as Gutenberg’s movable-type printing press. The Great Emergence has been able to come into existence because of the invention of the internet and the World Wide Web. Both the printing press and the internet served as a means of drawing people together through the bond of shared knowledge. The difference is that in Gutenberg’s time, it was those who had money who could be heard by the masses. In this time of the internet, virtually everyone who wishes to be heard may be heard regardless of their economic status.

The time since The Great Reformation has been very modern in its approach to the way it perceives the world. Within The Great Emergence is the idea that modernism is not a necessary part of Christianity. Those who are in support of The Great Emergence or at least in the re-shaping of the way the church thinks about certain things tend to be more postmodern in their understanding of the way the world works. Some of the influences upon the way this generation views the world are in fact rooted in some of the ideas formed during the time of The Great Reformation. One of these contributing factors has been the founding of scientific thought and reasoning. It is ironic then that the advance of science was one of the main contributors to the re-thinking of Sola Scriptura. Charles Darwin’s writings on biological evolution and Sigmund Freud’s understandings of dreams and psychology helped to pave the way for new ways of understanding the world, the way the world works, and the ways in which people interact with the world in which they live. Tickle also says that one of the most important breakthroughs in scientific history which altered the course of church history came with Einstein and his “special theory of relativity.” It came to be recognized by the scientific community and eventually the general public that there were certain things about the universe and the way it worked that simply did not make sense or that went against the way people from a modernist perspective had tended to view the universe. Along with Einstein’s theory came Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle which stated that one may study the speed and position of something, but it becomes very difficult for one to study both the speed and the position of something at the same time. [3] The idea given was that the act of observing actually changes the thing being observed. When applied to everyday life and Christianity specifically, this idea sounds very postmodern. This is because it indicates that the truth of something depends upon the one observing, which would mean that truth could vary from person to person. With this specific application to Einstein’s special theory of relativity began to emerge the idea of relative truth and the uncertainty of everything. Many truths could in theory be possible.

Also through science came the uncovering of such documents as the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Through the studies of ancient documents, the church found itself wanting to know from where its faith had come. Also, Pentecostalism came into being and influenced the church in another way. One of the ways it influenced the church was in its emphasis upon the Holy Spirit. It was believed by the Pentecostals that whatever the Holy Spirit personally said to an individual outweighed whatever Scripture said. Also, spirituality came to be emphasized in culture more than Christian spirituality in particular. Tickle points to Alcoholics Anonymous as an example of this, where recovery comes through the help of a “higher power,” and not necessarily the Christian God. Another key influencer which led culture to emerge from modernism into postmodernism was the “drug age” of the 1960 and 1970s. People who experimented with drugs were opening themselves up to new ways of viewing and experiencing the world. People began to believe in other or alternate realities.

Towards the end of her book, Tickle brings out a number of diagrams in order to show which groups of which the church of today is made up, and to show where these different groups within the church are heading and how they interact with each other. She uses research which supports the idea of the church as a whole being divided into four separate groups in a quadrilateral of sorts. These four separate groups are referred to as Liturgicals, Social Justice Christians, Renewalists, and Conservatives. [4] The Social Justice Christians were originally called “Mainline” Christians, and the Conservatives were originally known as “Fundamentalists,” but it was thought that these names were no longer reflective of the groups. [5] These different groups originally had distinct denominations contained within them. The liturgicals, for example, were mainly Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and a number of Lutherans. However, it has come to pass that these different categories are no longer limited to certain denominations. It is coming to be seen more and more that certain denominations are no longer limited to certain kinds of people. Liturgicals, Social Justice Christians, Renewalists, and Conservatives can be found in nearly every denomination. Many groups within the church have begun to join together even as many have split apart. The distinctions between many denominations have begun to blur because this generation is discovering that Christians as a whole have more similarities with each other than they do differences.

Near the close of her book, Tickle describes Emergents as people who are not afraid of paradox. [6]They are postmodern, and are opened to truths which appear to be outside of the realm of possibility. They are distrustful of meta-narratives because they are based upon “humanity’s human thinking and explaining.” 6 They believe in narrative though, because narrative is a reflection of the heart of humanity. She says that the future church as shaped by the Emergents will be one that has sought to go back to the way the church was intended to be. The church will be “de- Hellenized” and will most likely appear be something very Jewish in its origins since the original church was Jewish. She says, “[The Great Emergence] will rewrite Christian theology – and thereby North American culture – into something far more Jewish, more paradoxical, more narrative, and more mystical than anything the Church has had for the last seventeen or eighteen hundred years.” [7] Many of the beliefs that the church has had since the Reformation and even since the time of The Great Schism may be subject to change. This will all be done, however, in order to make the church purer than it is now. This will be done in order to bring the church back to the way it was originally intended to be, without the contamination of Western systems of belief.

---

[1] p. 31.

[2] p. 51.

[3] p. 79.

[4] p. 126.

[5] pp. 126-7.

[6] pp. 160.

[7] pp. 162.

Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament

In Christopher Wright’s book Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament he presents the concept of Jesus as Messiah. The two main issues he addresses are that of the Old Testament passages that refer to the Messiah and how the New Testament writers saw Jesus in the Scriptures, as well as the issue of Jesus’ own views on the role of the Messiah and how he fit in this role. The idea of Jesus as Messiah or Christ is not uncommon among Christians, but Wright shows how the concept of Jesus as Messiah actually has a much deeper meaning than what we generally think of today. Wright shows that the Gospels are filled with language indicating the nature of Jesus as that of Messiah. The Gospels and the other writings of the New Testament constantly refer back to Old Testament passages in their attempt to show that Jesus truly was the Messiah of Israel. Matthew’s gospel begins with the genealogy of Jesus. While this at first may seem like a boring passage simply showing that Jesus had a long human ancestry, this text goes deeper than that. It is a summary of the people of Israel and their history, saying that the history of Israel may be summed up completely in Jesus himself (34).

This genealogy begins with the person of Abraham and lists off fourteen generations until the time of King David, followed by fourteen more generations to the period of the exile, and finally fourteen more generations until we get to the birth of Jesus. Here, the genealogy ends. It begins with Abraham because of the Abrahamic Covenant (3). In the book of Genesis, God made a covenant with Abraham saying that he would have a son, and that the descendants of this son would be great and numerous. God also promised that through Abraham’s seed all nations would be blessed. This was the role of Israel as Abraham’s descendants (4). They were to be a blessing and light to all the nations of the world, showing them the way back to God. However, Israel failed in its mission repeatedly. The second major stop in this history of Israel is with King David. God made a covenant to David as well, promising him that he would never fail to have an heir or a descendant of his sitting on the throne, fulfilling the role of king (5). This promise remained true until Israel reached the next major event, the exile to Babylon. Here, it looked as though God’s promise had failed and that he had given up all hope for Israel and its redemptive role in the world. However, the people of Judah returned from exile. The genealogy lists another fourteen generations from this time until the time of Jesus’ birth. The expectation at the time of the restoration of Judah is that the King of Judah, the one of David’s line would be restored to the throne. The history of Israel is then summed up with Jesus because Jesus is not only the one who will restore the Davidic dynasty in himself as the eternal king, but he will also fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant by becoming a blessing to all nations of the earth as Abraham’s seed. The Davidic Covenant became linked with the Abrahamic Covenant at some point after the time of David (5). This can be seen in the language of Psalm 72 where the understanding has become that the ruler who sits on David’s throne will fulfill a particular kind of role, one in which all nations on earth would be blessed through him (6).

In Matthew’s gospel there is an emphasis upon the fact that the fulfillment of Jesus as Messiah is not just something that is only for the Jews, but for Gentiles as well. (5)  This is seen in the list of women who are briefly mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy. All of these were foreign women, most of whom bore children by questionable means. Yet, these are the people Matthew chose to include in his genealogy – Tamar, who bore twins by her father-in-law; Ruth, a Moabitess supposedly descended from an incestuous relationship; Rahab, a foreigner and a prostitute; Bath-Sheba, a foreigner who committed adultery with King David (4-5). Matthew did this on purpose. He wanted to show that even Jesus, the ultimate Jew, had Gentile blood in his veins, just as King David. The Davidic King must represent all nations so that all will be blessed. Also, Matthew gives very specific groups of fourteen in his genealogy, even leaving certain generations out, and altogether ignoring the generations before the time of Abraham (6). He did this because of the numerical significance with the groups of numbers being divisible by seven, an important number, and with Jesus being placed at the conclusion of all these sevens, showing that he is the ultimate completion of Israel and Israel’s purpose (7).

Another one of Wright’s main points is that of Jesus’ own perception of himself and his purpose. The writers of the New Testament go out of their way to show that Jesus is indeed the Messiah or the anointed one and that he is the true and final fulfillment of Israel, summing up the Law and the Prophets, and that Jesus is Israel’s true Davidic king. The Gospel writers use various passages from the Old Testament to show that the Old Testament predicted his coming and what he would do. Modern exegetes may find some of these uses of Old Testament passages by the Gospel writers to be taken out of context. An example would be the passage in Isaiah 7 where King Ahaz is told by the prophet that a “virgin” (LXX) with give birth to a son and he will be called Emmanuel, God with us. Matthew uses this passage, along with others, for his own purposes. This passage may not have been talking about Jesus, but about the circumstances of King Ahaz’s time. However, what Matthew did was not necessarily wrong. Yes, he takes these verses out of context and applies them to his own story of Jesus’ birth, but in Matthew’s understanding he was recognizing the similarities between what God had done in the past and what he had done most recently in Jesus. Matthew believed that what took place in the past had significance not only for the past, but for what had happened in Jesus in his own time (58).

The gospel writers use much language to describe Jesus as the fulfillment of the Davidic King of the Old Testament promises.  However, Jesus does not really use this kind of language when he is referring to himself throughout the gospels. Wright says that Jesus more thoroughly identifies himself with the Son of Man as referenced in the book of the prophet Daniel, especially in chapter 7, as well as the Suffering Servant as portrayed in the book of Isaiah, especially in chapter 53 (148-58). However, the Son of Man in Daniel does not seem to very well portray the picture of Christ in the gospels even though Jesus referred to himself as “son of man” (153). He identifies the most with the Suffering Servant (154). In Jesus’ time, the passages in Daniel and Isaiah and some elsewhere had come to be seen for the most part as referring to the coming of the Messiah in Israel’s history. Jesus seemed to agree with this conclusion and, seeing himself fulfilling these roles. However, Jesus’ view of himself also differed considerably from others in that many believed that when the Messiah would come, he would overthrow the Romans and Jesus did not intend to do this (138). He identified much more with the Suffering Servant who would carry the sins of his people upon himself. With this understanding, Jesus would go to the cross and die, dashing the hopes of many of his followers who did not understand the nature of the Suffering Servant and how to reconcile this picture with that of the all-powerful Son of Man. While this may have dashed the hopes of many, Jesus truly does fulfill the expectations of both the Suffering Servant and the Son of Man in both his death and his resurrection.

At the time I was reading this book, I was also reading Scot McKnight’s King Jesus Gospel for Prof. Robertson’s evangelism class. These two books had some very similar things to say about the role of Jesus as Messiah, so I kept getting the two books mixed up. However, having looked back upon this book, I believe that it is superior to McKnight’s book. McKnight got caught up on his own pet peeves about the church and this served as the basis of his look at Jesus as Messiah. Wright looks at Jesus as Messiah on a much more academic level. Wright is also does a much more thorough job when looking at the history of Israel He goes into the details of the texts, and this is something that I appreciate. I think that often when people try to take a serious look at these texts they wind up talking too much about what they personally have gotten out of the texts. While this is certainly a valid thing to do, it becomes tiresome after the third or fourth rant. Wright, however, does an excellent job in presenting the facts and details of the passages he uses without getting caught up too much in his own opinions. While his opinions are obviously present, he gives fair treatment of various perspectives and possibilities without being too quick to jump to conclusions.

Something I enjoyed about Wright’s book was that he provided a fairly thorough look at the various scriptures of the Old Testament that refer to the concept of the Messiah as well as looking at the various kinds of covenants and their contexts within the Old Testament (77-101). Wright’s book was a helpful resource for my paper on Psalm 72 because of his conversation on these covenants. I was previously aware of the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants coming into play with Psalm 72, but after looking at surrounding psalms I saw how these two covenants are not the only ones to which the psalmist refers back. The psalms speak of Mosaic and Noahic covenants as well. I enjoyed examining Psalm 72 further, using Wright as a reference and guide, to see if this particular psalm contained hints at other covenants besides those of David and Abraham.

Another thing I appreciated with Wright’s book was the issue of Jesus’ human identity in his recognition of his role as Messiah. I find it fascinating to think about how Jesus first learned that he was the Messiah. I think we often do not think about this because we assume that because Jesus was God he of course knew it all along. Yet, I appreciate learning more about how the Jews had come to view the Messiah during Jesus’ lifetime and how they thought that the one who would be Messiah would not necessarily know until God revealed it to them at some point in their life. Wright made me wonder when Jesus might have realized this for himself as well as getting me to think about many other thought-provoking issues and concepts.

My Ministry Manifesto

Introduction

The way we perceive the Kingdom of Heaven informs how we practice ministry. Not only must we have sound theology when we participate in the ministry of the Kingdom, but we also must put this theology into practice. Any ministry must be lived out through the life lived by the Spirit, which means that we must maintain a right relationship with God and with those around us. If we wish to be satisfied in ministry, we must first begin with the upkeep of our own spiritual lives, both on a personal level as well as on a corporate level. Ministry should never be done alone. In one way or another, ministry is something that is shared by the community in which the same Spirit – the Spirit of Christ – dwells.

My Theological Understanding of the Life of the Kingdom

In the Via Salutis, or the Way of Salvation, we see Christ’s redemption of fallen humanity at work within us. Before we are saved, we have no desire to serve God. God speaks to us through His Holy Spirit before we are saved in an act that a number of people call prevenient grace, or grace that goes before. This means that before we were seeking God, God was seeking us. Before we were calling to Him, He was calling to us. Without this act of prevenient grace in our lives, we would not seek God. We would be left in our natural state imparted to us by our first parents, doomed to sin and death, without even understanding our need of salvation. But through His prevenient grace God calls out to us, though we may not recognize Him at first.

Salvation is a process. Many people have a difficult time knowing at what exact point they were saved. This is especially true of individuals who have grown up in Christian families and in the church. These people can often identify key points where they made significant progress in their salvation journey. It is good, especially in cases where the individual cannot remember a time in their lives when they did not believe in God or even when they weren’t a Christian, to think of salvation as something that is continuous. Salvation is not limited to one moment in time. It is a progression of one coming closer to God. In this way, salvation includes the time before the person prayed “the sinner’s prayer” when they were willingly moving towards God as well as the time afterwards when they continue to make choices that reflect their devotion to God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their lives.

Part of a person’s salvation process is the coming to a realization that they need to be saved. They recognize the great peril they are in and are distressed by it. Through prevenient grace, the Holy Spirit causes the individual to recognize that they need to make a choice about whether or not they are going to follow God.

We eventually come to an understanding of our need of a Savior, and we surrender our lives to Jesus in repentance so that we may be saved. God is faithful, and He saves us. This can be called the act of justification, meaning that we are no longer condemned for our sins because we have surrendered them to God through Christ and have been forgiven.

We experience justification through faith. It is not by works that we are pardoned and saved, but by faith. God makes us spotless in His sight through faith which comes by His grace working within us. We are made righteous through faith. We believe God and have faith in Him whom we cannot see directly, and God declares us to be righteous. The Bible says the same thing of Abraham. It says that “Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3).

We are made new in Christ so that we no longer live for ourselves and for the sinful nature. We continue to die daily to the self and the sinful nature by the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit through the salvation we have found in Christ. We experience regeneration.

We are made new day after day as we grow in our relationship with God. As we continue on in our now redeemed lives, we have many opportunities to turn back to the old way of living in sin. The Holy Spirit works within us letting us know what is pleasing to Him. As we go on living, the Holy Spirit reveals to us even more areas of our lives we were not aware of that we need to surrender over to Him. If we continue to surrender these areas of our lives over to God as He reveals them to us, we eventually come to the point where we decide by God’s grace that we will always surrender everything over to God – both the known as well as the unknown. We choose that we will always say “yes” to God no matter what. This point of experience is referred to by a number of people as “entire sanctification.” Sanctification is a process that continues for the rest of our lives, and even in the afterlife, where our salvation will be made complete. The apostle Paul wrote of the future day of salvation as well as the present day. In the future day of salvation, we will be made like Christ in His glory. Our selves having been restored to the people Christ created us to be. In the meantime, we must remember that Christ’s salvation is also at work in us today. Our life does not begin when we die and go to Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven breaking into the kingdom of this world is an important element of our present faith in Christ as well as our eschatology. The way we perceive the Kingdom of Heaven informs the way we practice our ministry. Our ministries should not have the sole-goal of getting people to say the sinner’s prayer so that they can go to Heaven. There is more to Christianity than this. The mentality of getting people to "accept Jesus" so that they can go to heaven is actually off-center of what we are called to be as Christians. That view is one that is escapist. It is almost as though we were all just waiting to get into heaven because that is when life really begins. But this is not true. Life is also now, and we must live for more than an escapist feeling that all we need to do is pray so we can go to heaven. We cannot minister to people in this way. The Kingdom of Heaven is now, not just in the eschaton. We need to remember this when we evangelize people. We are not just getting them ready for Heaven. We are equipping them for life in this world as well, recognizing that Heaven starts now, not when we die.

Part of the sanctifying process is that we become the disciples of Jesus. Becoming a disciple of Jesus means more than simply being taught to do good things, though that certainly is a part of it. Discipleship involves taking on the same spirit as that of the teacher – becoming like the teacher, and exercising the same kind of authority as that of the teacher. Jesus told his disciples that they would do even greater miracles than what they had seen Him do. Christ gave the believers His own authority when He breathed on them and they received the Holy Spirit (John 20:21-2). He placed all authority that has been given to Him into the hands of his disciples (Matt. 28:18-20), and we are His disciples. We live by the same Spirit, the Holy Spirit of God Who proceeds from both the Father and the Son and who dwells within us. The filling of the Spirit and the sanctification process are parts of being a disciple.

God’s prevenient grace works in our lives before we are saved, and His sanctifying grace works in our lives once we are saved. It continues to work in us throughout our lives. When we do something that goes against God’s will, the Holy Spirit lets us know, and gives us the opportunity to surrender this part of our lives back to God. God’s saving grace is present in the act of salvation. However, God’s saving grace is also present both before and after salvation. It is what makes both prevenient and sanctifying grace possible.

My Understanding of Core Values for Ministry

Our central goal in ministry is to always place God first in our lives. This is the most important thing we can do. Before we can minister to others, we must love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). In order to be successful ministers we must maintain a daily devotional life and be consistent in prayer. As a couple engaged in ministry together we must also continue to set aside regular times to pray together, for each other and our ministry.

Another goal in our ministry is to love people and to minister to them. The second most important part of ministry is to love our neighbor (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 19:19; 22:39; Mark. 12:31; Luke 10:27; Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14). We must reach out to those in need around us regardless of their ethnic background, lifestyle, or religious beliefs. We must learn to see people as Jesus would and to treat everyone we meet with the love of Jesus. We must be imitators of God in our life and conduct, remembering that it was God’s kindness that led us to repentance (Rom. 2:4). We must serve both the physical as well as the spiritual needs of the people we encounter. Jesus came not only to redeem the spiritual aspect of mankind, but the physical aspect as well. The physical and the spiritual are deeply connected. When we minister to someone, we minister to the whole person.

In ministry, we must be ready to develop disciples. We must realize that any ministry we are a part of does not depend on us, it is God’s work; therefore, any ministry we start or obtain should not end when we move on to a different assignment. We must train up other people to minister as we have done and to minister in whatever way they feel God is calling them to serve. We are not to make carbon copies of ourselves. We must invest in the gifts and strengths of others and let them use them to the best of their abilities without forcing our own particular interests upon them. We must also be willing to work as a team and in community, both with each other as well as with other ministers of Christ. We must also allow other people to minister to our needs and not allow ourselves to think that we can do it all on our own. We must be willing to accept gifts and generosity from others. In a very real way, refusing to accept gifts from others as a way of showing your unworthiness is actually an arrogant response. It sends a message that you do not need or want anyone but yourself.

My Succinct Summary of the Gospel

As a result of the original sin of Adam and Eve, all of mankind is fallen. Not only do we carry the burden of Adam and Eve’s original sin, but we also carry the weight of our own personal sins. Adam and Eve also serve as types of who we are as people – people who have been separated from God through rebellion. By our fallen nature, we are prone to depravity, meaning that all who have been given the opportunity to choose between what is right and what is wrong have chosen the wrong over the right. Our sin means that we are no longer in a right relationship with God. We are separated from Him (before salvation) and stand condemned to die in our sins and then be separated from God for eternity in hell. In order to restore a right relationship with us, God sent His only Son into the world to die for us and pay the penalty that our sins deserved. Because of Christ’s sacrifice, we can now enter into a right relationship with God. Our burden of guilt is removed. We can be set free from the works of the devil in our lives. God assumed human form, taking on the role of servant. What He assumed, He redeemed. He became mortal so that we might become immortal. He died so that those of us who die will be saved. He lowered Himself to the lowest reaches of human experience so that the lowest reaches of human experience might be redeemed. We are called to be imitators of Christ, filled with His Spirit.

Ministry Vision

We must keep in mind our mission statement – to love God, to love people, to make disciples – essentially, to bring Heaven to earth. We must maintain a daily devotional life and be consistent in prayer. We must take part in the fellowship of believers, ministering and being ministered to. We must find the correct spiritual disciplines for us to practice on a personal level in order to draw closer to God and to hear His voice more clearly. The spiritual disciplines are not to be seen as something to be feared or as a way of earning favor with God. They are to be seen as one of the ways we are able to better connect with God and be in tune with His Spirit. [1]

We must not be distracted by abstract scenarios based on how we think our lives ought to be lived in a sort of Jesus-mindset. We must instead learn what Jesus actually did in his own life-situation. When we do so, we learn that Jesus was a rabbi. He knew the entire Hebrew Scriptures by heart, and he had learned this through intense studying and memorizing since he was a child. One of the first things we must do if we truly wish to be like Jesus is to study the Scriptures and to know them and the message of God within them in our hearts.

Jesus fasted, and through the act of fasting one can see how Jesus was strengthened by this. Instead of relying on food to feed ones appetite, when fasting one is forced into recognizing a hunger within them of a different sort – a spiritual hunger. When this spiritual hunger is recognized and fed, then one has the ability to endure temptation and be victorious. Worship is both personal and corporate. Jesus also practiced the discipline of solitude. This was not just during his forty day fast in the wilderness where he was tempted by the devil. Jesus is also seen practicing solitude with prayer during His actual ministry. Jesus is recorded as having gone off into the hills by Himself away from all of the crowds and commotion in order to pray and to be alone with God. This was beneficial to Him and may be beneficial to the Christian in their walk. This is especially true for those involved in ministry. While we need to spend alone time worshiping God, we also need to take part in worship services with others, with those to whom we will minister and with those who will minister to us.

We must learn to see people as Jesus would and to treat everyone we meet with the love of Jesus. We must reach out to those in need around us regardless of their ethnic background, lifestyle, or religious beliefs. We must serve both the physical as well as the spiritual needs of the people we encounter. We must be able to preach and teach the word of God in a way that people can understand. We must be able to relate to those to whom we minister on a personal level and not be disconnected from them. We must speak truth into their lives, and we can do this best by knowing them on a personal level. We must be friends with those we minister to, not only speaking the truth of God to them with our words, but demonstrating the attitude of Christ in our life and actions. We must minister to all people: the poor, the rich; the well, the sick; the mentally challenged, the intellectually brilliant; the beautiful, the ugly; the evil, the righteous.

As we lead people into right relationship with Christ, we must keep in mind that conversion is a process that last a person’s entire life. We tend to think of conversion as being at a specific point in time, and while it is helpful to look back and take notice of pivotal points in one’s own salvation journey, we must also keep in mind that our faith is something that grows and develops as we grow closer to God. It should never be stagnant. In ministry, we must remember that getting people to pray the sinner’s prayer is not adequate. While it is good and is an important part of the conversion experience, it is not all there is. Conversion should not be viewed through a linear perspective where at one point one becomes converted. The conversion process is one in which an individual makes many steps in coming closer to Christ.[2] A conversion is not complete after “the second blessing” either. It is moving toward completeness. We must train up people in the faith and the knowledge of God, teaching them what God expects and showing them by example the life lived by the power of the Spirit. We must train up other people to minister as we have done and to minister in whatever way they feel God is calling them to serve. We must also be willing to work as a team and in community, both with each other as well as with other ministers of Christ. We must teach them salvation through Christ as revealed in the Bible, and the life of the Spirit.

Conclusion

Within our ministry, we must always seek to maintain the mind of Christ within us. Just as Christ made time to study the Scriptures thoroughly, we must also take the Scriptures to heart and know them. Just as Christ did not discriminate in those to whom He ministered, reaching out to both the rich and the poor, we must also do the same, recognizing that it is not those who are well who have need of a doctor (Matt. 9:12; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:31). God reaches out to all people. Also, just as Christ took time to practice the spiritual disciplines, we must also do the same, being renewed in mind and spirit through prayer, self-examination, meditation, fasting, silence, and solitude, among others. We must recognize that while we are Christ’s ambassadors, we are not superheroes. We can do nothing without Christ, and we will not truly display the life of the Kingdom if we do not share the responsibilities of our ministries with those in the community of believers who are equipped to partake in the ministry we share. God has not called us to be isolated in life or in ministry. The life of the Kingdom and in ministry is one lived in community.

---

[1] Willard, Dallas. The Spirit of the Disciplines: Understanding How God Changes Lives. Harper Collins Publishers: New York. 1988. 265 pages.

[2] Smith, Gordon T. Beginning Well: Christian Conversion and Authentic Transformation. InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 2001. 233 pages.